Appendix A. Acronyms and Abbreviations

Appendix A. Acronyms and Abbreviations

ºC degrees centigrade

ºF Fahrenheit

µg/m3 micrograms per meter cubed

AADT annual average daily traffic AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act a.m. ante merideum

APE area of potential effect B/TDB Alternative B with temporary detour bridge

BA Biological Assessment

BDS City of Portland Bureau of Development Services BES Portland Bureau of Environmental Services

BMP best management practice BO Biological Opinion

BRT bus rapid transit

Btu British thermal units CD compact disk

Census 2000 United States Census CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CETAS Collaborative Environmental and Transportation Agreement for Streamlining

CFR Code of Federal Regulations CO carbon monoxide (CO)

Comprehensive Plan City of Portland Comprehensive Plan (City of Portland, 2006) Comprehensive Plan Map City of Portland Comprehensive Plan Map (City of Portland, 2007b)

CRD Columbia River Datum

CSO Combined Sewer Overlay

Sellwood Bridge Project F i n a l Environmental Impact Statement A-1 Appendix A: Acronyms and Abbreviations

CTF Community Task Force

CWA federal Clean Water Act dBA decibels on an A-weighted scale

DEIS Sellwood Bridge Draft Environmental Impact Statement (FHWA et al., 2008)

DEQ Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

DOE Determination of Eligibility

EIS environmental impact statement

EO Executive Order

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ESA Endangered Species Act

ESCP erosion and sediment control plan

FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FOE Finding of Effect

FWS fall, winter, and spring

HABS/HAER Historic American Building Survey/Historic American Engineering Record

HGM Hydrogeomorphic

HRI Historic Resource Inventory

I-5 Interstate 5

I-205 Interstate 205

IAMP Interchange Area Management Plan

ID No. identification number

ITS Intelligent Transportation System

JLA Jeanne Lawson Associates

JPACT Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation

Leq equivalent sound level

Leq(h) hourly equivalent sound level lf lineal feet

A-2 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix A: Acronyms and Abbreviations

LOS level of service

LRT light rail transit LWCF Land and Water Conservation Fund

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act Metro Portland area metropolitan planning organization

MOA Memorandum of Agreement mph miles per hour MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System

MSATs Mobile Source Air Toxics MUTCD Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (FHWA, 2009)

NA not applicable

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAC Noise Abatement Criteria

National Register National Register of Historic Places NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NMFS U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service

NO2 nitrogen dioxide NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NRHP National Register of Historic Places NWI National Wetlands Inventory

O3 ozone OAR Oregon Administrative Rule ODA Oregon Department of Agriculture

ODFW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife ODOT Oregon Department of Transportation

OHSU Oregon Health & Science University

OHWE ordinary high water elevation ONHIC Oregon Natural Heritage Information Center

Sellwood Bridge Project F i n a l Environmental Impact Statement A-3 Appendix A: Acronyms and Abbreviations

OPB Oregon Public Broadcasting

OR 43 Oregon 43, also known as SW Macadam Avenue in the City of Portland OR 99E Oregon 99E, also known as SE McLoughlin Boulevard

OR 99W Oregon 99W, also known as SW Barbur Boulevard OTIA Oregon Transportation Investment Act

PAG Policy Advisory Group

PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (by-product of incomplete combustion) Pb lead

PBOT City of Portland Bureau of Transportation PGE Portland General Electric p.m. post meridiem

PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers in aerodynamic diameter

PM10 particulate matter less than 10 micrometers in aerodynamic diameter PMSA Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area PMT Project Management Team

PP&R Portland Parks & Recreation ppm parts per million (by volume) RTP Regional Transportation Plan (Metro, 2004)

SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users SAS Senior Agency Staff

Section 4(f) Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (49 U.S.C. 303[c]) Section 6(f) Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Act of 1965

Section 106 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act

SFHA Special Flood Hazard Area SHPO State Historic Preservation Office

SIP State Implementation Plan SMILE Sellwood Moreland Improvement League

SO2 sulfur dioxide

A-4 Sellwood Bridge Project F i n a l Environmental Impact Statement Appendix A: Acronyms and Abbreviations

SOI Secretary of the Department of the Interior

SOL statute of limitations SP&S Spokane, Portland and Seattle

SPIS Safety Priority Index System STIP Statewide Transportation Improvement Program

STORET U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Storage and Retrieval database

TCM transportation control measure THPO Tribal Historic Preservation Officer

TIP Transportation Improvement Program TNM Traffic Noise Model developed by Federal Highway Administration

TPH total petroleum hydrocarbon (such as gasoline, diesel, heating oil, motor oil)

TSS total suspended solids Uniform Act Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S.C. United States Code

U.S. Census Bureau U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census

USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS U.S. Geological Survey VMT vehicle miles traveled

VOC volatile organic compound (such as cleaning solvents, degreasers, paint thinners)

WQS water quality standards WSE water surface elevation yd3 cubic yards zoning code Title 33 of Portland’s Code and Charter

Sellwood Bridge Project F i n a l Environmental Impact Statement A-5

Appendix B. References

Appendix B. References

Altman, B., C.M. Henson, and I.R. Waite. 1997. A Review of Aquatic Biological and Habitat Information in the Willamette Basin, Oregon, through 1995. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 97–4023. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AAHSTO). 2004. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. 5th Edition. Bosker, Gideon, and Lena Lencek. 1985. Frozen Music, a History of Portland Architecture. Western Imprints, the Press of the Oregon Historical Society, Portland, OR. CH2M HILL. 2007a. Sellwood Bridge Project Evaluation Framework Technical Memorandum. January 2007. http://www.sellwoodbridge.org/ProjectLibrary/EvaluationFrameworkMemo_adopted_01.29. 07.pdf. CH2M HILL. 2007b. Sellwood Bridge Project Range of Alternatives Technical Memorandum. May 2007. http://www.sellwoodbridge.org/MeetingMaterials/PAG_RangeAlternatives_Memo_05.21.07. pdf. CH2M HILL. 2007c. Sellwood Bridge Project Final Alternatives Evaluation Findings Technical Memorandum. September 2007. http://www.sellwoodbridge.org/MeetingMaterials/Alternatives_Evaluation_Findings_FINAL_0 92407.pdf.

CH2M HILL. 2007d. Sellwood Bridge Project Alternatives Adopted by the Policy Advisory Group for Analysis in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Technical Memorandum. October 2007. http://www.sellwoodbridge.org/ProjectLibrary/DEIS_Alternatives_10.2007.pdf.

CH2M HILL. 2007e. Sellwood Bridge Planning Project Phase I Revenue Analysis. August 2007.

CH2M HILL. 2008a. Sellwood Bridge Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Multnomah County, Oregon, Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation Technical Report. Prepared for Multnomah County, Oregon. Prepared by Michael Hoffmann. October 2008.

CH2M HILL. 2008b. Sellwood Bridge Project Air Quality Technical Report. Prepared for Multnomah County, Oregon. Prepared by Natalie Liljenwall. October 2008; updated April 2010.

CH2M HILL. 2008c. Sellwood Bridge Project Biological Resources Technical Report. Prepared for Multnomah County, Oregon. Prepared by Peggy O'Neill, Katina Kapantais, and Greg White. October 2008; updated April 2010.

CH2M HILL. 2008d. Sellwood Bridge Project Construction Activities and Impacts Technical Memorandum. Prepared by Jason Moller. October 2008; updated April 2010.

CH2M HILL. 2008e. Sellwood Bridge Project Cultural Resources Technical Report. Prepared for Multnomah County, Oregon. Prepared by Jessica Feldman. October 2008; updated April 2010.

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement B-1 Appendix B: References

CH2M HILL. 2008f. Sellwood Bridge Project Energy Technical Report. Prepared for Multnomah County, Oregon. Prepared by Josh Cooper. October 2008; updated April 2010. CH2M HILL. 2008g. Sellwood Bridge Project Environmental Justice Technical Report. Prepared for Multnomah County, Oregon. Prepared by Theresa Carr. October 2008; updated April 2010. CH2M HILL. 2008h. Sellwood Bridge Project Geological Resources Technical Report. Prepared for Multnomah County, Oregon. Prepared by Dave Dailer, Ben Hoffman, and Greg Warren. October 2008; updated April 2010. CH2M HILL. 2008i. Sellwood Bridge Project Hazardous Materials Technical Report. Prepared for Multnomah County, Oregon. Prepared by Patrick Heins. October 2008; updated April 2010. CH2M HILL. 2008j. Sellwood Bridge Project Hydraulics Technical Report. Prepared for Multnomah County, Oregon. Prepared by Mark Anderson. October 2008; updated April 2010. CH2M HILL. 2008k. Sellwood Bridge Project Land Use Technical Report. Prepared for Multnomah County, Oregon. Prepared by Michael Hoffmann. October 2008; updated April 2010. CH2M HILL. 2008l. Sellwood Bridge Project Noise Technical Report. Prepared for Multnomah County, Oregon. Prepared by Natalie Liljenwall. October 2008; updated April 2010. CH2M HILL. 2008m. Sellwood Bridge Project Social Technical Report. Prepared for Multnomah County, Oregon. Prepared by Sumi Malik. October 2008; updated April 2010. CH2M HILL. 2008n. Sellwood Bridge Project Utility Conflict Analysis Technical Memorandum. Prepared for Multnomah County, Oregon. Prepared by Jason Moller. October 2008; updated April 2010. CH2M HILL. 2008o. Sellwood Bridge Project Visual Resources Technical Report. Prepared for Multnomah County, Oregon. Prepared by Larry Weymouth. October 2008; updated April 2010.

CH2M HILL. 2008p. Sellwood Bridge Project Water Resources Technical Report. Prepared for Multnomah County, Oregon. Prepared by Rick Attanasio. October 2008; updated April 2010.

CH2M HILL. 2009a. Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Public, Agency, and Organization Comment Summary Technical Memorandum. January 2009.

CH2M HILL. 2009b. Sellwood Bridge Project Identification and Refinement of the Preferred Alternative Technical Memorandum. September 2009.

CH2M HILL, Parisi Associates, and Alta Planning + Design. 2008. Sellwood Bridge Project Transportation Technical Report. Prepared for Multnomah County, Oregon. Prepared by Sumi Malik (CH2M HILL), David Parisi (Parisi Associates), and Rory Renfro (Alta Planning + Design). October 2008; updated April 2010.

City of Milwaukie. Planning Department. 2007. Transportation System Plan. http://www.cityofmilwaukie.org/milwaukie/projects/tspupdate/documents/04CompleteTSP/C omplete%20TSP%202007.pdf.

City of Portland. 1991. Scenic Resources Protection Plan.

City of Portland. 1998a. Bicycle Master Plan. http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=40414 .

B-2 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix B: References

City of Portland. 1998b. Portland Pedestrian Design Guide. http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=84048. City of Portland. 2004, updated in 2007. Transportation System Plan. http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?c=diidi.

City of Portland. 2006. City of Portland Comprehensive Plan.

City of Portland. 2006. Freight Master Plan.

City of Portland. 2007. City of Portland Comprehensive Plan Map.

City of Portland, 2008. Portland Stormwater Management Manual Draft.

City of Portland. 2009. Portland Streetcar System Concept Plan. Draft. City of Portland. Bureau of Environmental Services. Stephens Creek Wetlands Delineation Map. Prepared with Oregon Department of State Lands concurrence. City of Portland. Bureau of Planning. 1987. Willamette Greenway Plan. http://www.metro- region.org/library_docs/trans/willamette_greenway_plan_w.pdf.

City of Portland. Planning Department. 1998. Sellwood-Moreland Neighborhood Plan.

City of Portland. Bureau of Transportation. 2009. Draft Portland Streetcar System Concept Plan.

City of Portland. Portland Office of Transportation. 2001. Tacoma Main Street Plan. Clinton, William J., President of the United States. February 11, 1994. Executive Order 12898. Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations. Federal Register, Vol. 59, No. 32, Wednesday, February 16, 1994, 7629-7633. Washington, D.C.

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1988. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Office of Biological Services, Washington, D.C.

Csuti, B., A.J. Kimerling, T.A. O’Neil, M.M. Shaughnessy, E.P. Gaines, and M.M.P. Huso. 1997. Distribution, Habitat, and Natural History: Atlas of Oregon Wildlife. Oregon State University Press.

ECONorthwest. 2008. Sellwood Bridge Project Economic Technical Report. Prepared for Multnomah County, Oregon, and CH2M HILL. Prepared by Johanna Young and Terry Moore. October 2008; updated April 2010.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2004. Flood Insurance Study City of Portland, Oregon, Multnomah, Clackamas, and Washington Counties.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2004. Flood Maps.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 1987. Guidance for Preparing and Processing Environmental and Section 4(f) Documents. Technical Advisory T6640.8a.

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement B-3 Appendix B: References

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 1990. Pollutant Loadings and Impacts from Highway Stormwater Runoff. FHWA-RD-88-006. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 1998. Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations. FHWA Order 6640.23. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 1999. Guidebook to Estimating Bicycle and Pedestrian Demand. FHWA-RD-98-165. July 1999.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2005. Section 4(f) Policy Paper. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2006. Interim Guidance on Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents. U.S. Department of Transportation. February 2006.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2009. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), and Multnomah County. 2008. Sellwood Bridge SE Tacoma Street and Oregon State Highway 43 Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation. Prepared by CH2M HILL. November 2008. Jeanne Lawson Associates (JLA). 2008. Sellwood Bridge Project Decision Process and Public Involvement Summary Report. Prepared for Multnomah County, Oregon, and CH2M HILL. Prepared by Alex Cousins. October 2008. Johnson, D.H., and T.A. O’Neil. 2001. Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis.

Metro. 1992. Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan.

Metro. 1999. South Willamette River Crossing Study. May 1999. http://www.sellwoodbridge.org/ProjectLibrary/SouthWillametteRiverCrossingStudy- May1999.pdf.

Metro. 2004. Regional Transportation Plan. http://www.metro-region.org/article.cfm?ArticleID=137.

Metro. 2004. Trolley Trail Master Plan.

Metro. 2005. Regional Framework Plan.

Metro. 2007. Lake Oswego-to-Portland Transit and Trail Analysis.

National Park Service. 1995. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.

Natural Heritage Advisory Council to the State Land Board. 2003. 2003 Oregon Natural Heritage Plan.

Northwest Power and Conservation Council. 2004. Draft Willamette Subbasin Plan.

Oregon Department of Energy. 2007. Oregon Electricity Net Resource Mix, 2007 Provisional Analysis, Prepared by Kip Pheil.

B-4 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix B: References

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). 2004. State of Oregon Clean Air Act Implementation Plan. ORS 468.020. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). 2007. 2006 Oregon Air Quality Data Summaries. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). 2007. Factsheet: Protecting and Restoring the Willamette River. http://www.deq.state.or.us//wq//pubs//factsheets//willamette//protectwillriver.pdf. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). 2008. Oregon Water Quality Index Report for lower Willamette, Sandy and lower Columbia Basins. http://www.deq.state.or.us/lab/wqm/wqindex/lowillsandy.htm. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2005. Biology, Behavior, and Resources of Resident and Anadromous Fish in the Lower Willamette River. Final Report of Research, 2000-2004. Edited by Thomas A. Friesen. March 2005.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2006. Unpublished Bald Eagle Nest Sites.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2007. Unpublished data.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2007. Willamette Falls fish counts.

Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). 1999. Oregon Highway Plan. http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TP/orhwyplan.shtml.

Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). 2008. Hydraulics Manual. Chapter 14 – Water Quality.

Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). 2008. Oregon Standard Specifications for Construction. Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). 2010. OR 43: Sellwood Bridge Interchange Area Management Plan, Portland, Oregon. Oregon Natural Heritage Information Center (ONHIC). 2008. Records of species observations within 2 miles of the proposed project area. March 2008. Oregon Natural Heritage Information Center (ONHIC) and StreamNet. 2007. Database search for rare, threatened, and endangered plant and animal species within the Sellwood Bridge vicinity.

Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board. 1998. The Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds. Salem, Oregon.

Pheil, Kip, Oregon Department of Energy. 2009. Personal communication with Donna Kilber- Kennedy, CH2M HILL. November 16, 2009.

Pisarski, Alan. 2006. Commuting in America III. NCHRP 550/TCRP 110.

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement B-5 Appendix B: References

Real Property Consultants. 2008. Sellwood Bridge Project Right-of-Way Technical Report. Prepared for Multnomah County, Oregon, and CH2M HILL. Prepared by George Donnerberg. October 2008; updated April 2010.

Standard and Poor. 2008. Case-Schiller Home Price Indices Report. January 2008. Titus, J.H., J.A. Christy, D. Vanderschaaf, J.S. Kagan, and E.R. Alverson. 1996. Native Wetland, Riparian, and Upland Plant Communities and Their Biota in the Willamette Valley, Oregon. Phase I Project: Inventory and Assessment Report to Environmental Protection Agency, Region X, Seattle, Washington Willamette Basin Geographic Initiative Program. November 1996. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1983. Soil Survey of Multnomah County Area, Oregon. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census (U.S. Census Bureau). 2000. United States Census 2000. Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census (U.S. Census Bureau). 2006. American Community Survey. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1981. National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map, Lake Oswego, Oregon, 7.5-minute quadrangle map.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007. Species List for Multnomah County. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008. List of Threatened, Endangered and Candidate Species for Multnomah County. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1961; photo revised 1984. Topographic map, Lake Oswego, Oregon, 7.5-minute quadrangle.

Willamette Restoration Initiative. 2004. Draft Willamette SubbasinPlan. Prepared for The Northwest Power and Conservation Council.

Wortman, Sharon Wood, with Ed Wortman. 2006. The Portland Bridge Book. Urban Adventure Press, Portland, OR.

B-6 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix C. List of Preparers

Appendix C. List of Preparers

TABLE C-1 List of Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Preparers Area of EIS Years of Name Affiliation Responsibility Education Experience Management Team Michael Eaton Multnomah Project Manager B.S. Civil Engineering and 25 County Biology Marcy Schwartz CH2M HILL Consultant Project M.A. Urban Planning, B.A. 39 Manager English Jeff Buckland ODOT ODOT Environmental M.R.P. Regional Planning, 22 Lead (for the FEIS) B.A. Geography ODOT ODOT Environmental 9 Emily Moshofsky B.A. Geography Lead (for the DEIS) Donna Kilber-Kennedy CH2M HILL Consultant M.B.A. Business 35 Environmental Lead Administration, B.S. General Social Science Technical Team Leads Darren Muldoon CH2M HILL Lead Author M.U.R.P. Urban and 7 Regional Planning, B.S. Environmental Science Steve Katko CH2M HILL Lead Engineer B.S. Civil Engineering 13 Kath Althen CH2M HILL Lead Technical Editor M.A. Economics, B.A. 29 Economics Aimee Hobson CH2M HILL Lead Graphics B.A. English and Fine 13 Designer (for the Appplied Arts FEIS) Kathryn Westcott CH2M HILL Lead Graphics B.A. Journalism/Public 4 Designer Relations Technical Team Mark Anderson CH2M HILL Hydraulics M.S. Civil Engineering, B.S. 11 Civil Engineering Rick Attanasio CH2M HILL Water Resources M.S. Environmental 28 Engineering, B.S. Civil Engineering Theresa Carr CH2M HILL Environmental Justice M.U.R.P. Urban and 11 Regional Planning, B.S. Economics Josh Cooper CH2M HILL Energy B.A. Economics 4 Dave Dailer CH2M HILL Geological Resources M.S. Geotechnical 28 Engineering, B.S. Civil Engineering Jessica Feldman CH2M HILL Archaeological and M.A. Historic Preservation 12 Historic Resources Planning, B.S. History Patrick Heins CH2M HILL Hazardous Materials B.A. Biology, B.S. 11 Environmental Management Ben Hoffman CH2M HILL Geological Resources M.S. Civil Engineering, B.S. 7 Civil Engineering

Sellwood Bridge Project F i n a l Environmental Impact Statement C-1 Appendix C: List of Preparers

TABLE C-1 List of Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Preparers Area of EIS Years of Name Affiliation Responsibility Education Experience Michael Hoffmann CH2M HILL Land Use, Section 4(f) M.U.R.P. Urban and 8 Evaluation Regional Planning, B.S. English Lwin Hwee CH2M HILL Structural Design, M.B.A. Business 23 Construction Impacts Administration, B.S. Civil Engineering Katina Kapantais CH2M HILL Wildlife Certificate, Wetland 15 Science and Management, M.S. Environmental Studies, B.A. Environmental Science Steve Katko CH2M HILL Roadway Design Lead, B.S. Civil Engineering 14 Construction Impacts Michelle Koubek CH2M HILL GIS Analyst B.S. Geography 8 Aaron Leritz CH2M HILL Hazardous Materials B.S. Environmental Health 15 Natalie Liljenwall CH2M HILL Air Quality, Noise M.S. Environmental 12 Engineering, B.S. Environmental Engineering Terra Lingley CH2M HILL Environmental Justice M.U.R.P. Urban and 2 Regional Planning, B.S. Anthropology Sumi Malik CH2M HILL Social Elements, M.U.R.P. Urban and 4 Transportation Regional Planning, B.S. Biology Robin McClintock CH2M HILL Archaeological and B.S. Anthropology 21 Historic Resources Jason Moller CH2M HILL Roadway Design, B.S. Civil Engineering 7 Construction Impacts, Utilities Peggy O'Neill CH2M HILL Biological Resources M.S. Environmental 12 Sciences and Resources, B.A. Earth Sciences Beth Roussel CH2M HILL Technical Editing M.A. Writing, B.A. Writing 11 and English Literature Chris Stebbins CH2M HILL GIS Analyst B.A. Geography 15 Brandy Steffen CH2M HILL Public Involvement B.S. Geography 4 Greg Warren CH2M HILL Geological Resources M.S. Geology, B.S. Geology 17 Larry Weymouth CH2M HILL Visual Resources B.S. Political Science 33 Greg White CH2M HILL Biological Resources M.S. Biological 24 Oceanography, B.S. Fisheries Science Mia Birk Alta Planning + Bicyclists and M.A. International Relations 17 Design Pedestrians and Economics, B.A. Government and French Alex Cousins JLA Public Involvement M.P.A. Public Affairs, B.A. 18 Political Science George Donnerberg Real Property Right-of-Way B.S. Geography 37 Consultants David Parisi Parisi and Transportation B.S. Civil Engineering 24 Associates

C-2 Sellwood Bridge Project F i n a l Environmental Impact Statement Appendix C: List of Preparers

TABLE C-1 List of Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Preparers Area of EIS Years of Name Affiliation Responsibility Education Experience Rory Renfro Alta Planning + Bicyclists and M.U.R.P Urban and 8 Design Pedestrians Regional Planning, B.S. Urban and Regional Planning Johanna Young EcoNorthwest Economics M.U.R.P. Urban and 5 Regional Planning, M.S.M.E. Mechanical Engineering, B.S. Mechanical Engineering

Sellwood Bridge Project F i n a l Environmental Impact Statement C-3

Appendix D. List of Supporting Technical Documentation

Appendix D. List of Supporting Technical Documentation

Sellwood Bridge Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Multnomah County, Oregon, Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation Technical Report (CH2M HILL, 2008a; available upon request) Sellwood Bridge Project Air Quality Technical Report (CH2M HILL, 2008b, updated in 2010; available upon request)

Sellwood Bridge Project Alternatives Adopted by the Policy Advisory Group for Analysis in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Technical Memorandum (CH2M HILL, 2007d; located on the project Web site at http://www.sellwoodbridge.org/ProjectLibrary.aspx)

Sellwood Bridge Project Biological Resources Technical Report (CH2M HILL, 2008c, updated in 2010; available upon request) Sellwood Bridge Project Construction Activities and Impacts Technical Memorandum (CH2M HILL, 2008d, updated in 2010; available upon request) Sellwood Bridge Project Cultural Resources Technical Report (CH2M HILL, 2008e, updated in 2010; available upon request) Sellwood Bridge Project Decision Process and Public Involvement Summary Report (Jeanne Lawson Associates [JLA], 2008; available upon request) Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Public, Agency, and Organization Comment Summary Technical Memorandum (CH2M HILL, 2009a; located on the project Web site at http:www.sellwoodbridge.org/ProjectLibrary.aspx) Sellwood Bridge Project Economic Technical Report (ECONorthwest, 2008, updated in 2010; available upon request) Sellwood Bridge Project Energy Technical Report (CH2M HILL, 2008f, updated in 2010; available upon request)

Sellwood Bridge Project Environmental Justice Technical Report (CH2M HILL, 2008g, updated in 2010; available upon request)

Sellwood Bridge Project Evaluation Framework Technical Memorandum (CH2M HILL ,2007a; located on the project Web site at http://www.sellwoodbridge.org/ProjectLibrary.aspx)

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Alternatives Evaluation Findings Technical Memorandum (CH2M HILL, 2007c; located on the project Web site at http://www.sellwoodbridge.org/ProjectLibrary.aspx)

Sellwood Bridge Project Geological Resources Technical Report (CH2M HILL, 2008h, updated in 2010; available upon request)

Sellwood Bridge Project Hazardous Materials Technical Report (CH2M HILL, 2008i, updated in 2010; available upon request)

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement D-1 Appendix D: List of Supporting Technical Documentation

Sellwood Bridge Project Hydraulics Technical Report (CH2M HILL, 2008j, updated in 2010; available upon request)

Sellwood Bridge Project Identification and Refinement of the Preferred Alternative Technical Memorandum (CH2M HILL, 2009b; located on the project Web site at http://www.sellwoodbridge.org/ProjectLibrary.aspx) Sellwood Bridge Project Land Use Technical Report (CH2M HILL, 2008k, updated in 2010; available upon request)

Sellwood Bridge Project Noise Technical Report (CH2M HILL, 2008l, updated in 2010; available upon request) Sellwood Bridge Project Range of Alternatives Technical Memorandum (CH2M HILL, 2007b; located on the project Web site at http://www.sellwoodbridge.org/ProjectLibrary.aspx)

Sellwood Bridge Project Right-of-Way Technical Report (Real Property Consultants, 2008, updated in 2010; available upon request) Sellwood Bridge Project Social Technical Report (CH2M HILL, 2008m, updated in 2010; available upon request)

Sellwood Bridge Project Transportation Technical Report (CH2M HILL et al., 2008, updated in 2010; available upon request) Sellwood Bridge Project Utility Conflict Analysis Technical Memorandum (CH2M HILL, 2008n, updated in 2010; available upon request)

Sellwood Bridge Project Visual Resources Technical Report (CH2M HILL, 2008o, updated in 2010; available upon request)

Sellwood Bridge Project Water Resources Technical Report (CH2M HILL, 2008p, updated in 2010; available upon request)

South Willamette River Crossing Study Findings and Recommendations Report (Metro, 1999; located on the project Web site at http://www.sellwoodbridge.org/ProjectLibrary.aspx)

Technical documentation listed as available upon request can be obtained by sending a request to:

Mike Pullen Sellwood Bridge Project 2020 SW 4th Avenue, Suite 300 Portland, OR 97201

Or by email at: [email protected]

D-2 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix E. Distribution and Notice of Availability Lists

Appendix E. Distribution and Notice of Availability Lists

1.1 Distribution List Various federal, state, and local agencies, tribes, organizations, and groups representing project stakeholders were provided with copies of this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS).

1.1.1 Federal Agencies  Federal Emergency Management Agency  National Marine Fisheries Service  National Park Service  U.S. Army Corps of Engineers  U.S. Coast Guard  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

1.1.2 State Agencies  Oregon Department of Environmental Quality  Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife  Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development  Oregon Department of Parks and Recreation  Oregon Department of State Lands  Oregon Department of Water Resources  Oregon State Historic Preservation Office  Oregon State Marine Board

1.1.3 Tribes  Confederated Tribes of Siletz

1.1.4 Local Agencies  City of Milwaukie  City of Portland  Clackamas County  Metro  TriMet

1.1.5 Organizations  American Automobile Association of Oregon  Association of Portland Neighborhood Business Associations  Bicycle Transportation Alliance  Clackamas County Economic Development Commission  Oregon Trucking Association  Portland Business Alliance  Sellwood Moreland Improvement League (SMILE)

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement E-1 Appendix E: Distribution and Notice of Availability Lists

 South Portland Neighborhood Association  Westmoreland Business Alliance

1.1.6 Local Libraries  Clackamas County  Multnomah County

1.2 Notice of Availability Recipients The following federal, state, and local agencies, tribes, organizations, and individuals have been notified that this FEIS is available and provided instructions related to accessing the document.

1.2.1 Elected Officials  Ron Wyden, U.S. Senator, Oregon  Jeff Merkley, U.S. Senator, Oregon  Earl Blumenauer, U.S. Representative, Oregon  Carolyn Tomei, Oregon State Representative  Diane Rosenbaum, Oregon State Senator

1.2.2 Organizations and Businesses  Brinsfield Boat Basin  Macadam Bay Club  Oaks Amusement Park  Portland Kayak and Canoe Team  Portland Streetcar  River Park Homeowners Association  River View Cemetery  Riverside Corral  Sellwood Harbor Homeowners Association  Southeast Uplift  Union Pacific Railroad (Oregon Pacific Railroad)  Willamette Pedestrian Coalition  Willamette Shoreline Trolley  All 9 businesses in the Sellwood Building  All 37 businesses in the River Park Center  All businesses on the project’s mailing list  Other businesses within several miles of the bridge

1.2.3 Educational Organizations  Oregon Health & Science University  Portland Public Schools  Portland State University

1.2.4 Media  KATU  KGW  KOIN  KPTV

E-2 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix E: Distribution and Notice of Availability Lists

 Oregon Public Broadcasting (OPB)  Portland Tribune  Sellwood Bee  The Oregonian  Willamette Week

1.2.5 Citizens An email was sent to the project mailing list announcing the availability of this FEIS and providing instructions related to accessing and reviewing the document on the project Web site. This list was comprised of over 5,000 individuals who took one of the five online surveys, attended an open house, or commented during the previous project phases, including during the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) comment period.

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement E-3

Appendix F. Summary of Permits and Clearances Needed

Appendix F. Summary of Permits and Clearances Needed

TABLE F-1 Summary of Permits and Clearances Needed Agency Regulation or Approval 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 Clean Water Act, Section 404 Department of State Lands U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/Oregon Oregon's Removal-Fill Law Department of State Lands U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/Oregon Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act Department of State Lands U.S. Coast Guard Section 9 of the Rivers and Harbors Act National Marine Fisheries Service Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act Consultation; Biological Opinion U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service /National Marine Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Fisheries Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service /National Marine Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Fisheries Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service /National Marine Migratory Bird Treaty Act Fisheries Service Oregon Department of Agriculture Oregon Endangered Species Act (Plants) Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Clean Water Act Section 401: Water Quality Certification Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Clean Water Act Section 402: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Clean Water Act Section 402: NPDES Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Program Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Conformance with Oregon Department of Environmental Quality’s National Ambient Air Quality Standards Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Oregon Endangered Species Act (Wildlife) Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Fish Passage Plan Approval (Oregon Administrative Rule [OAR] 635-012)

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement F-1 Appendix F: Summary of Permits and Clearances Needed

TABLE F-1 Summary of Permits and Clearances Needed Agency Regulation or Approval 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 City of Portland Floodplain Development Permit City of Portland Type II Greenway Permit City of Portland Type II Environmental Permit City of Portland Type II Historic Design Review City of Portland Conditional Use Permit City of Portland Non Park Use Permit City of Portland Noise Ordinance Variance City of Portland Harbor Master Permit

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), in cooperation with the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) 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). 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.

F-2 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix G. Summary of Mitigation and Environmental Commitments

Appendix G. Summary of Mitigation Measures and Environmental Commitments

Appendix G consists of two sections:

 Summary of Mitigation Measures and Environmental Commitments – Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E (listed in Table G-1).

 Summary of Mitigation Measures and Environmental Commitments – Preferred Alternative (listed in Table G-2). Because the lead agencies have identified a preferred alternative (Alternative D Refined), that alternative was developed to a higher level of detail than the other alternatives evaluated in this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). Identifying a preferred alternative was necessary to facilitate the development of mitigation measures and environmental commitments. Summary of Mitigation Measures and Environmental Commitments – Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E Table G-1 summarizes proposed mitigation measures and environmental commitments for Alternatives A, B, C, D and E.

TABLE G-1 Summary of Proposed Mitigation Measures and Environmental Commitments for Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E Alternative(s) Locale Proposed Mitigation Measure(s) and Environmental Commitment(s) Transportation A, B, C, D, E Coordinate with the Oregon Pacific Railroad during construction to ensure efficient maintenance of their operation through the project area. Develop new easement and operations and maintenance agreements. A, B, C, D, E Have the City of Portland monitor the performance of the SE Tacoma Street/SE 13th Avenue intersection. Consider part-time or full-time removal of on-street parking on the west side of the northern (southbound) leg of the intersection. A, B, C, D, E Replace the Willamette Shoreline Trolley tracks and sufficient right-of-way for the proposed transit project. (The Sellwood Bridge project has assumed the cost for replacing one track; fill or structure associated with one track; and retaining walls for the future plan.) A, B, C, D, E Establish a safe work zone to safely accommodate the Willamette Shoreline Trolley through the construction area during some points of construction. A, B, C, D, E Make changes at the Willamette Moorage Park and Macadam Bay Club driveway access if safety problems arise in the future. A, B, C Divert traffic north to the Ross Island Bridge and south to the I-205 Abernathy Bridge and the Oregon City Bridge.

Sellwood Bridge Project F i n a l Environmental Impact Statement G-1 Appendix G: Summary of Mitigation and Environmental Commitments

TABLE G-1 Summary of Proposed Mitigation Measures and Environmental Commitments for Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E Alternative(s) Locale Proposed Mitigation Measure(s) and Environmental Commitment(s) A, B Consider metering lights to control traffic flow into the roundabout from Oregon (OR) 43's off-ramps because 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 backups. In addition, consider 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. C Because direct access from OR 43 to River View Cemetery would be removed, provide improved access at the cemetery’s main entrance on SW Taylors Ferry Road by providing pavement marking, a left-turn lane at the access, and signage on OR 43 guiding motorists to SW Taylors Ferry Road to access River View Cemetery. C Monitor traffic volumes along neighborhood roadways, including SE Spokane Street, SE Nehalem Street, and SE 7th Avenue. Consider implementation of additional traffic calming measures, if appropriate. Do this because, even though the SE Grand Avenue extension would provide improved accessibility between the Sellwood Bridge and areas north of SE Tacoma Street and west of SE 13th Avenue, moderate levels of increased traffic volumes could result. C With the SE Grand Avenue extension, consider providing 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. Consider these measures during final design if this alternative or this option were selected. D, E To obtain acceptable level of service (LOS) conditions with a traffic signal, either (1) remove left-turn lanes in addition to on-street parking and pedestrian refuge islands on SE Tacoma Street or (2) widen 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. Do this because 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 backups, as well as substantial increases in neighborhood cut-through traffic levels. Consider these measures if one of the alternatives with this option were selected. Bicyclists and Pedestrians A, B, C, D, E Because access would be closed temporarily for construction equipment staging and construction activities in the west-side interchange area between River View Cemetery and the Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank), redirect bicyclists and pedestrians to detour routes, such as SW Taylors Ferry Road. Routes might be circuitous roadways with high traffic volumes, high vehicle speeds, and few or no bicyclist and pedestrian facilities. Provide signage to alert motorists to the presence of bicyclists. A, B, C, D, E Because the Springwater Corridor Trail would be temporarily closed near the existing Sellwood Bridge for construction equipment staging and construction activities, redirect bicyclists and pedestrians to detour routes, depending on the location of the trail closure, the topography, and the street system connectivity. Provide signage to direct bicyclists. A, C On the separate bicycle/pedestrian bridge (Alternative A) or separate bridge deck (Alternative C), provide signage, striping, and pavement markings; install lighting, emergency call boxes, and security cameras; and conduct routine police patrols. A, B Install marked crosswalks, warning signage, pedestrian refuge islands, and/or pedestrian signals at the SE Tacoma Street/SE 6th Avenue intersection.

G-2 Sellwood Bridge Project F i n a l Environmental Impact Statement Appendix G: Summary of Mitigation and Environmental Commitments

TABLE G-1 Summary of Proposed Mitigation Measures and Environmental Commitments for Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E Alternative(s) Locale Proposed Mitigation Measure(s) and Environmental Commitment(s) B Provide bicyclist and pedestrian crossings on roundabout’s north leg to alleviate circuitous routing between the bridge’s north side and the south-side bus stop. A, B Because the west-side interchange would be a challenging crossing environment for visually impaired pedestrians on the roundabout’s west leg, install a bicyclist/pedestrian-activated signal (including audible signal) or flashing warning lights, marked crosswalk, warning signage, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)-compliant curb ramps, and/or detectable warning strips. D, E Install high-visibility crosswalks, audible pedestrian signals, pedestrian countdown signals, and/or leading pedestrian interval at west-side interchange signal. Right-of-Way and Relocation A, B, C, D, E Implement the provisions as required under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (Uniform Act), as amended, for all businesses and residential displacements, and for real property acquisitions. Compensate all property owners at fair market value, and provide relocation assistance in accordance with the Uniform Act. A, B, D, E River View After construction, restore on site the 8 out of 12 parking places displaced, to the Cemetery extent possible. A, B, C, D River Park Because some condominium units would be removed, reconstruct the remaining Sellwood adjacent condominium units and common areas. Harbor A, B, C, D River Park After construction, restore the 14 displaced parking spaces under the existing bridge through an easement from Multnomah County, to the extent possible. (Although these 14 parking spaces would be displaced during construction, there is adequate parking in the area to accommodate the displacement of these parking spaces during construction.) A, B, D, E, Staff Jennings, Modify access from OR 43. A roadway would diverge from the new River View River View Cemetery access and would pass under OR 43 south of the interchange to provide Cemetery, access to Staff Jennings and Powers Marine Park. Powers Marine Park Utilities A, B, C, D, E Replace, reconstruct, or realign impacted utilities. Determine the extent of the impacts when more detailed design is available. Land Use A, B, C, D, E City of Obtain Greenway, Environmental, and Floodplain Permits, and any other land use Portland approvals, as required Economic B, D, E Minimize economic impacts by maintaining traffic across the river during construction. A, B, C, D, E Maintain access to local businesses in the project area and along detour routes and provide signage to direct traffic to businesses with modified access. Social Elements A, B, C, D, E Communicate closures and temporary closures of the bridge or OR 43, or blockage of the navigation channel, to the following potential emergency services personnel— Portland Police and Fire, Multnomah County River Patrol, Oregon Health & Science University, and Providence Milwaukie, and to ambulance dispatching services such as American Medical Response and Metro West. Notify the public with reader boards and distribution to various public media sources.

Sellwood Bridge Project F i n a l Environmental Impact Statement G-3 Appendix G: Summary of Mitigation and Environmental Commitments

TABLE G-1 Summary of Proposed Mitigation Measures and Environmental Commitments for Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E Alternative(s) Locale Proposed Mitigation Measure(s) and Environmental Commitment(s) Parks and Recreation A, B, C, D, E Powers When converting existing park property to transportation use, directly compensate Marine Park Portland Parks & Recreation (PP&R) and use other mitigation measures. Coordinate with real estate specialists to determine property needs and just compensation based on the fair market value. C Install signage directing motorists to parking areas at Willamette Moorage Park for access to Powers Marine Park and to Willamette Park for boat launch ramp facilities. A, B, C Provide detour signage for bicyclists indicating the closest Willamette River crossing with bicycle accommodations. A Oaks Pioneer Plant trees and vegetation around bridge structure and elsewhere in the park. Park A, B, C, D, E Powers Remove invasive plant species and replace with native plant species within the Marine Park construction disturbed areas. Willamette Moorage Park C Powers Assist with the construction of a non-motorized boat launch in the vicinity of Sellwood Marine Park Riverfront Park. A, E Sellwood Assist with re-vegetating the riparian zone with cottonwood trees. Riverfront Park A Sellwood Plant trees in parking lot. Riverfront Park A, B, C, D, E Springwater Provide a temporary detour for the trails, which would include the following elements, Corridor as necessary—surfacing, signage, and pavement markings. Trail Willamette Greenway Trail —East and West banks E Oaks Pioneer Consider installation of noise abatement devices on bridge deck. Park A Sellwood Replace parking spaces on land adjacent to the park. Riverfront Park A, B, C, D, E Willamette Enhance wetlands in place or replace wetlands at another nearby location determined Moorage with PP&R and Portland Bureau of Environmental Services. Park Archaeological and Historic Resources A, B, C, D, E Follow 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. A, B, C, D, E Salvage materials from the Sellwood Bridge and preserve dedication plaques for reinstallation at a later time.

G-4 Sellwood Bridge Project F i n a l Environmental Impact Statement Appendix G: Summary of Mitigation and Environmental Commitments

TABLE G-1 Summary of Proposed Mitigation Measures and Environmental Commitments for Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E Alternative(s) Locale Proposed Mitigation Measure(s) and Environmental Commitment(s) A, B, D, E River View Prepare a National Register of Historic Places (National Register) nomination for the Cemetery River View Cemetery, if River View Cemetery requests it. and Superintende nt's House A, B, D, E River View Create a landscaping plan in coordination with River View Cemetery staff, qualified Cemetery cultural resource specialists, and registered landscape architects with experience in and historic landscapes to minimize the effect of the loss of land along OR 43 (which is Superintende anticipated in all Build alternatives). This would include replanting of appropriate trees, nt's House 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 House. Additionally, replace in kind any foliage removed for the realignment of the access road to the Superintendent’s House. A, B, D, E River View Install new signage to direct the visitors to the Superintendent’s House and to explain Cemetery the significance of the historic property. and Superintende nt's House A, B, D, E River View Document the cemetery gates before removal and relocation, according to Cemetery HABS/HAER Level III standards. It is assumed that the gates would be moved to a new and entrance. Have documentation and relocation meet all possible planning requirements Superintende to minimize harm to the gates. Determine and complete appropriate-level nt's House HABS/HAER recordation for the Superintendent’s House and River View Cemetery prior to construction and prepare documentation. A, B Apply the federal government’s standards for bridge rehabilitation and seek approval from the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). If not approved, bridge may no longer be eligible for the National Register. C, D, E Multnomah Provide support for a new Web site that would provide information about the historic County bridges in the area. Make the Web site available to both the City of Portland and the Bridges Multnomah County Web sites that link to the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) Web site. C, D, E Sellwood Assess existing bridge materials to determine what materials, if any, are salvageable Bridge and would be available to interested parties. Prepare a list of potential interested parties in advance of any proposed salvage or advertisement thereof. C, D, E Sellwood Offer the truss spans for reuse at an alternate location(s). Place advertisements in Bridge appropriate media outlets such as newspapers, trade magazines, and on the Internet. Run the offer for 3 months. C, D, E Sellwood Create interpretive panels to explain the history of river crossings in the immediate Bridge area, as well as to discuss the history of the Sellwood neighborhood. Place these on or near the bridge. C, D, E Sellwood Remove the existing dedication plaques prior to demolition. Before the plaques are Bridge stored, clean and treat them. Then store them in an appropriate manner (that is, in a secure location) until the completion of the new bridge. It is recommended that the original dedication plaques be placed on panels on or near the sidewalk entrance, on the east side of the new bridge, with signage explaining the demolition of the original structure.

Sellwood Bridge Project F i n a l Environmental Impact Statement G-5 Appendix G: Summary of Mitigation and Environmental Commitments

TABLE G-1 Summary of Proposed Mitigation Measures and Environmental Commitments for Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E Alternative(s) Locale Proposed Mitigation Measure(s) and Environmental Commitment(s) C, D, E Willamette Before the demolition of the existing bridge, review the existing Willamette River River Bridges Bridges Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) (OR-55) to determine whether Level I documentation was prepared, specific to the Sellwood Bridge. If not, accomplish this prior to the demolition of the bridge. Disseminate copies of the report to the Central and Sellwood-Moreland branches of the Multnomah County Library system, as well as to the City of Portland, ODOT, and SHPO. C, D, E Willamette Contribute to a National Register Multiple Property nomination for the Willamette River Bridges River Bridges (between and including St. Johns Bridge and the Oregon City Bridge), if undertaken by others. C River View Permanently remove the cemetery gates from their location at the cemetery entrance Cemetery on OR 43 to another cemetery entrance, with an interpretive panel explaining the and relocation. Images on the panel would show their original setting and location. Superintende nt's House C River View Design any proposed retaining walls associated with the bicycle/pedestrian underpass Cemetery and the removal of the entrance road to assimilate with the surrounding landscape. Do and not construct these walls to a height that would obscure the viewshed to and from the Superintende Superintendent’s House towards the river. nt's House A, B, C, D, E In the unlikely event that human remains were discovered during project completion, implement the proper protocol for such a discovery.  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. A, B, C, D, E If future archaeological investigations detected archaeological deposits in right-of-way expansion areas (such as the River View Cemetery, Sellwood Harbor Condominium grounds, or Sellwood Building grounds), follow any required mitigation measures. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts to archaeological sites would include, but not be limited to, data recovery excavations to recover archaeological materials and data that could contribute to our understanding of local and regional history and/or prehistory. A, B, C, D, E If cultural materials were discovered during construction, avoid all earth-moving activity within and around the immediate discovery area and protect the area until a qualified archaeologist could assess the nature and significance of the find. Visual Resources A, B, C, D, E Determine new plant locations, species, and sizes during final design as part of landscape mitigation at the time of construction. Using mitigation measures recommended for consideration during final design, attempt to restore the natural environment along OR 43. Screening of the retaining walls by existing vegetation or replanted vegetation, such as large trees and climbing vegetation over the vertical faces, could reduce the visual impact after approximately 10 years. A, B, C, D, E During final design, consider reducing form, texture, or color contrasts in structures and cut-and-fill slopes.

G-6 Sellwood Bridge Project F i n a l Environmental Impact Statement Appendix G: Summary of Mitigation and Environmental Commitments

TABLE G-1 Summary of Proposed Mitigation Measures and Environmental Commitments for Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E Alternative(s) Locale Proposed Mitigation Measure(s) and Environmental Commitment(s) A, B, C, D, E During final design, consider refining the alignment of the interchange and ramps to lessen the hillside cuts. A, B, C, D, E During final design, consider 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. Geology A, B, C, D, E Sellwood Construct new piers and abutments in stable ground below the slide and use drilled Slide shafts and driven piling to provide structural mitigation. This technique involves 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. A, B, C, D, E Include basic rockfall mitigation techniques, such as installing rockfall nets or catch fences to cover slopes and constructing a rock catchment ditch) with a barrier between the ditch and OR 43. Stabilize high rockfall hazard areas using bolts and mesh to cover these areas of weathered zones of rock. The use of rock anchors would increase the stability of the slope. If highly weathered rock or soil-like zones were exposed in rock cuts, employ stabilization techniques (such as mesh or soil nails) to mitigate slope hazards. A, B, C, D, E Apply standard erosion control techniques including Stormwater and Erosion Best Management Practices (BMPs) in construction zones to minimize erosion. For the long-term, control erosion by hydroseeding and establishing vegetation as soon as possible. Also, consider other measures such as diverting stormwater runoff away from cuts and fills and constructing erosion retention basins. A, B, C, D, E During design, evaluate the level of loading to be expected. As mitigation for seismic hazards to bridges, structures, and retaining walls, perform structural design to withstand the anticipated loads. In foundation design, consider liquefaction and found the structure on rock or more stable ground (such as the Troutdale formation), if encountered at depth. Use slope stabilization measures (such as installing drilled shafts or micropiles and increasing soil strength) to provide mitigation for seismic hazards. Water Resources and Water Quality A, B, C, D, E Obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 1200-C permit. 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. Address major areas during construction, such as erosion prevention, sediment control, and in-water work. The project will follow ODOT BMPs. A, B, C, D, E Incorporate water-quality mitigation with the proposed Build alternatives to reduce pollutant loading to the river, with the exception of pollutants that were entirely dissolved. A, B, C, D, E Obtain permits from the City of Portland for stormwater runoff from new impervious areas. A, B, C, D, E Treat the west side of the project area 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).

Sellwood Bridge Project F i n a l Environmental Impact Statement G-7 Appendix G: Summary of Mitigation and Environmental Commitments

TABLE G-1 Summary of Proposed Mitigation Measures and Environmental Commitments for Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E Alternative(s) Locale Proposed Mitigation Measure(s) and Environmental Commitment(s) A, B, C, D, E Consider water quality swales on the east side. Runoff from the east end of the bridge could be treated partially or fully using one 6-foot-by-12-foot manufactured underground filter vault within the project right-of-way that would discharge to the Willamette River. Hydraulics A, B, C, D, E During final design, explore the opportunity to reduce hydraulic impacts by reducing the base flood elevation change. This could be accomplished by minimizing the number of in-water piers and shaping piers in a streamlined manner. A, B, C, D,E Develop many of the mitigation measures after hydraulic designs for the bridge have been completed. The following are potential mitigation measures:  Design the bridge to span the width of the natural channel. Set the abutments back onto the overbank areas so construction would not encroach into the channel  Size bridge openings to pass the 100-year peak flood discharge with little or no increase to the water surface elevation  Minimize interior piers A, B, C, D, E Request review and approval from Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) of fish passage mitigation measures resulting from the proposed bridge. A, B, C, D, E 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. A, B, C, D, E Prohibit equipment washing in the watercourses. A, B, C, D, E Prohibit equipment from crossing the watercourses, except at temporary crossings, unless impractical. A temporary crossing plan would be prepared in coordination with the 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. A, B, C, D, E Perform a “no rise” analysis and obtain a City of Portland Floodplain Development Permit prior to construction. Any substantial impacts to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Special Flood Hazard Area 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 A, B, C, D, E Size bridge openings to pass the 100-year peak flood discharge with little or no increase to the water surface elevation. A, B, C, D, E Obtain federal and state removal/fill permits prior to construction. A, B, C, D, E Prepare a detailed erosion control plan during the final design. The plan would meet or exceed requirements of the NPDES 1200-C permit. B Determine that a permit could be obtained for the temporary detour bridge prior to commitment because the 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), and velocities could increase to nearly 8.33 feet per second (an increase of 1 foot per second over the current velocity).

G-8 Sellwood Bridge Project F i n a l Environmental Impact Statement Appendix G: Summary of Mitigation and Environmental Commitments

TABLE G-1 Summary of Proposed Mitigation Measures and Environmental Commitments for Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E Alternative(s) Locale Proposed Mitigation Measure(s) and Environmental Commitment(s) B Minimize temporary impacts during construction (such as streambank erosion and temporary changes in water surface elevations resulting from other temporary structures) by implementing appropriate construction techniques (such as the careful design of temporary structures) and erosion control BMPs. Aquatic Resources A, B, C, D, E Implement ODOT BMPs to minimize or alleviate temporary impacts, see ODOT Hydraulic Manual, Chapter 14 – Water Quality (2008). A, B, C, D, E Restore topographic contours. A, B, C, D, E Stabilize and revegetate disturbed surfaces with native plant species. A, B, C, D, E Treat stormwater according to National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) guidance and City of Portland requirements to reduce the pollutant loads that would result from construction of the Build alternatives. A, B, C, D, E Implement appropriate BMPs to minimize or alleviate hydroacoustic impacts. A, B, C, D, E 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) with a fish-and-wildlife- friendly passage. A, B, C, D, E Within Powers Marine Park, design and implement stream restoration along two streams to provide an off-river habitat for juvenile salmonids. Vegetation A, B, C, D, E Incorporate BMPs and environmental criteria into pre-construction planning and design, and by good construction and maintenance practices. A, B, C, D, E Replant disturbed riparian areas with native vegetation to reduce the pollutant loads that would result from construction of the Build alternatives. A, B, C, D, E 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. A, B, C, D, E Within Powers Marine Park, design and implement stream restoration along two streams to provide an off-river habitat for juvenile salmonids. Wetlands A, B, C, D, E Implement erosion control measures to ensure there is no impact to wetlands functions. A, B, C, D, E Because adverse unavoidable impacts associated with this project are primarily related to construction impacts (mainly the construction of a new access point and driveway to the Macadam Bay Yacht Club and Willamette Moorage Park from OR 43), implement conservation and mitigation measures for impacts such as 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 or by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation  Rectify the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment A, B, C, D, E Compensate for the impact to wetlands by restoring, creating, or enhancing wetlands at another location within the Lower Willamette River Watershed. Construction area is too small for mitigation on site. Select a site with input from PP&R and Portland Bureau of Environmental Services.

Sellwood Bridge Project F i n a l Environmental Impact Statement G-9 Appendix G: Summary of Mitigation and Environmental Commitments

TABLE G-1 Summary of Proposed Mitigation Measures and Environmental Commitments for Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E Alternative(s) Locale Proposed Mitigation Measure(s) and Environmental Commitment(s) A, B, C, D, E Meet with PP&R and Portland Bureau of Environmental Services to identify appropriate mitigation sites that would be established either at the project site or nearby. A, B, C, D, E 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. A, B, C, D, E Employ sediment-containment methods during construction of the new bridge piers to minimize impacts to the waterway. Restrict in-water work to the ODFW- recommended work period to reduce potential impacts to fisheries. Wildlife A, B, C, D, E Within the disturbed construction areas, plant native species to help restore riparian functions and improve the health of the existing riparian habitats. A, B, C, D, E Implement appropriate BMPs to minimize or alleviate noise impacts on wildlife. A, B, C, D, E 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 access driveway) with a fish-and- wildlife-friendly passage. A, B, C, D, E 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. A, B, C, D, E Within Powers Marine Park, design and implement stream restoration along two streams to provide an off-river habitat for juvenile salmonids. Noise A, B, C, D, E Make a final decision on installation of any mitigation or potential noise abatement measures upon completion of the project design and the public involvement process. All noise mitigation measures will be disclosed in the Record of Decision. A, B, C, D, E Consider placing an 8-foot-wide noise barrier in the right-of-way between property boundaries and sidewalks south of SE Tacoma Street at 8105 SE 7th Avenue to 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 reasonable cost and feasibility will be made during final design of the project. Other noise-abatement measures were considered for the potential impacts associated with the Build alternatives, including noise walls. However, no mitigation measures that were both reasonable in cost and feasible were possible for receivers that would be impacted by the 2035 Build alternatives. A, B, C, D, E Do not perform any 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. A, B, C, D, E Provide sound-control devices no less effective than those provided on the original equipment on all equipment used. No equipment shall have unmuffled exhaust. A, B, C, D, E Comply with all pertinent equipment noise standards of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. A, B, C, D, E Do not perform any 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, without the approval of the Multnomah County Managing Construction Engineer. A, B, C, D, E Strategically place material stockpiles between the operation and the affected dwelling or by other means approved by the Multnomah County Managing Construction Engineer.

G-10 Sellwood Bridge Project F i n a l Environmental Impact Statement Appendix G: Summary of Mitigation and Environmental Commitments

TABLE G-1 Summary of Proposed Mitigation Measures and Environmental Commitments for Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E Alternative(s) Locale Proposed Mitigation Measure(s) and Environmental Commitment(s) A, B, C, D, E Should a specific noise-impact complaint occur during the construction of the project, potentially implement one or more of the following noise mitigation measures: A, B, C, D, E  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 A, B, C, D, E Conduct construction activities in a manner that would comply with all applicable local noise ordinances, including Title 18 of the City of Portland’s Noise Control code (Section 18.10.060), unless a variance was granted. A, B, C, D, E River View To mitigate possible noise impacts to River View Cemetery during construction, Cemetery where possible, restrict the hours of noisier operation. Energy A, B, C, D, E Attempt to minimize roadway congestion and adhere to practices that encourage efficient energy use, such as limiting idling equipment, locating construction staging areas near work sites, and encouraging carpooling. Air Quality A, B, C, D, E Use, where possible, water or other suitable materials to control dust. A, B, C, D, E Apply asphalt, oil, water, or other suitable materials on unpaved roads, material stockpiles, and other surfaces that can create airborne dust. A, B, C, D, E 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. A, B, C, D, E Use wind fencing to reduce soil disturbances. A, B, C, D, E Locate construction equipment and the truck staging area as far away from sensitive receptors as practical and in consideration of potential effects on other resources. A, B, C, D, E Schedule work tasks to minimize disruption of the existing vehicle traffic on streets. A, B, C, D, E Cover, at all times when in motion, open-bodied trucks that are transporting materials likely to become airborne. A, B, C, D, E 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. A, B, C, D, E Promptly remove from paved streets any earth or other material that may become airborne. A, B, C, D, E Look for opportunities to employ other environmentally friendly techniques to control emissions from vehicles and machines used in construction. Such practices might include but are not limited to the following:  Use low-sulfur diesel fuel on all diesel equipment  Use construction equipment with new generation diesel engines when available or equipment with tailpipe diesel particulate removal when available  Use environmentally friendly lubricants, solvents, and chemicals to the greatest extent practicable.

Sellwood Bridge Project F i n a l Environmental Impact Statement G-11 Appendix G: Summary of Mitigation and Environmental Commitments

TABLE G-1 Summary of Proposed Mitigation Measures and Environmental Commitments for Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E Alternative(s) Locale Proposed Mitigation Measure(s) and Environmental Commitment(s) A, B, C, D, E Require that Contractors comply with Section 290 of ODOT’s Standard Specifications for Construction Manual (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 is required to submit prior to the pre-construction conference. Hazardous Materials A, B, C, D, E Conduct a lead and asbestos survey of the existing bridge prior to construction or demolition. This work should include an analysis of existing paint layers for total and toxicity characteristic leaching procedures for heavy metals, such as cadmium, chromium, zinc, and lead. A, B, C, D, E 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. A, B, C, D, E Implement construction-phase monitoring to identify and manage unknown or unanticipated media. A, B, C, D, E Characterize waste generated during construction (such as excavated soil, wastewater, and construction debris) and assign each waste stream to appropriate waste-disposal facilities. A, B, C, D, E Avoid cross-contamination or carryover of contaminated material to clean areas. A, B, C, D, E Control stormwater runoff from the construction site. A, B, C, D, E Identify appropriate waste disposal for all waste streams. A, B, C, D, E Limit access to contaminated areas.

G-12 Sellwood Bridge Project F i n a l Environmental Impact Statement Appendix G: Summary of Mitigation and Environmental Commitments

Summary of Mitigation Measures and Environmental Commitments – Preferred Alternative Because the lead agencies have identified a preferred alternative (Alternative D Refined), that alternative was developed to a higher level of detail than the other alternatives evaluated in this FEIS. Identifying a preferred alternative was necessary to facilitate the development of mitigation measures and environmental commitments. Table G-2 summarizes proposed and committed mitigation measures and environmental commitments for Alternative D Refined, the preferred alternative. These measures include proposed avoidance, minimization, and conservation measures (the last section of this table) from the project’s Biological Assessment. Avoidance, minimization, and conservation measures are proposed until the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) issues a Biological Opinion. That Biological Opinion might require modification of some of these measures before they become environmental commitments.

TABLEG-2 Summary of Mitigation Measures and Environmental Commitments for the Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) Proposed or Locale Mitigation Measure(s) and Environmental Commitment(s) Committed Transportation Committed Coordinate with the Oregon Pacific Railroad during construction to ensure efficient maintenance of their operation through the project area. Develop new easement and operations and maintenance agreements. Committed Have the City of Portland monitor performance of the SE Tacoma Street/SE 13th Avenue intersection. Consider part-time or full-time removal of on-street parking on the west side of the northern (southbound) leg of the intersection. Committed Replace the Willamette Shoreline Trolley tracks and sufficient right-of-way for the proposed transit project. (The Sellwood Bridge project has assumed the cost for replacing one track; fill or structure associated with one track; and retaining walls for the future plan.) Committed Establish a safe work zone to safely accommodate the Willamette Shoreline Trolley through the construction area during some points of construction. Committed Make changes at the Willamette Moorage Park and Macadam Bay Club driveway access if safety problems arise in the future. Committed At the SE Tacoma Street and SE 6th Avenue intersection, have the City of Portland monitor the effects on traffic operations and 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. Bicyclists and Pedestrians Committed Because access would be closed temporarily for construction equipment staging and construction activities in the west-side interchange area between River View Cemetery and the Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank), redirect bicyclists and pedestrians to detour routes, such as SW Taylors Ferry Road. Routes might be circuitous roadways with high traffic volumes, high vehicle speeds, and few or no bicyclist and pedestrian facilities. Provide signage to alert motorists to the presence of bicyclists.

Sellwood Bridge Project F i n a l Environmental Impact Statement G-13 Appendix G: Summary of Mitigation and Environmental Commitments

TABLEG-2 Summary of Mitigation Measures and Environmental Commitments for the Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) Proposed or Locale Mitigation Measure(s) and Environmental Commitment(s) Committed Committed Because the Springwater Corridor Trail would be temporarily closed near the existing Sellwood Bridge for construction equipment staging and construction activities, redirect bicyclists and pedestrians to detour routes, depending on the location of the trail closure, the topography, and the street system connectivity. Provide signage to direct bicyclists. Committed Install high-visibility crosswalks, audible pedestrian signals, pedestrian countdown signals, and/or leading pedestrian interval at west-side interchange signal. Right-of-Way and Relocation Committed Implement the provisions as required under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (Uniform Act), as amended, for all businesses and residential displacements, and for real property acquisitions. Compensate all property owners at fair market value, and provide relocation assistance in accordance with the Uniform Act. Committed River View After construction, restore on site the 8 out of 12 parking places displaced, to the Cemetery extent possible. Committed River Park Because some condominium units would be removed, reconstruct the remaining Sellwood adjacent condominium units and common areas. Harbor Committed River Park After construction, restore the 14 displaced parking spaces under the existing bridge through an easement from Multnomah County, to the extent possible. (Although these 14 parking spaces would be displaced during construction, there is adequate parking in the area to accommodate the displacement of these parking spaces during construction.) Committed Staff Modify access from Oregon (OR) 43. A roadway would diverge from the new River Jennings View Cemetery access and would pass under OR 43 south of the interchange to River View provide access to Staff Jennings and Powers Marine Park. Cemetery Powers Marine Park Utilities Committed Replace, reconstruct, or realign impacted utilities. Determine the extent of the impacts when more detailed design is available. Land Use Committed City of Obtain Greenway, Environmental, and Floodplain Permits, and any other land use Portland approvals, as required Economic Committed Minimize economic impacts by maintaining traffic across the river during construction. Committed Maintain access to local businesses in the project area and along detour routes and provide signage to direct traffic to businesses with modified access. Social Elements Committed Communicate closures and temporary closures of the bridge or OR 43, or blockage of the navigation channel, to the following potential emergency services personnel— Portland Police and Fire, Multnomah County River Patrol, Oregon Health & Science University, and Providence Milwaukie, and to ambulance dispatching services such as American Medical Response and Metro West. Notify the public with reader boards and distribution to various public media sources.

G-14 Sellwood Bridge Project F i n a l Environmental Impact Statement Appendix G: Summary of Mitigation and Environmental Commitments

TABLEG-2 Summary of Mitigation Measures and Environmental Commitments for the Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) Proposed or Locale Mitigation Measure(s) and Environmental Commitment(s) Committed Parks and Recreation Committed Powers Compensate Portland Parks & Recreation (PP&R) at fair market value for the land Marine Park within Powers Marine Park incorporated into a transportation use.

Committed Powers Remove invasive plant species and replace with native plant species within the Marine Park construction disturbed areas. Willamette Moorage Park Committed Springwater Provide a temporary detour for the trails, which would include the following elements, Corridor as necessary—surfacing, signage, and pavement markings. Trail Willamette Greenway Trail —East and West banks Committed Willamette Construct an approximately 0.30-mile-long, 18-foot-wide trail from Macadam Bay Club Moorage north to SW Miles Street. The trail would contain a 14-foot-wide surface with 2-foot- park 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. Upon completion of trail construction, the City of Portland would assume ownership of the trail and would be responsible for all trail maintenance. Committed Willamette Within Willamette Moorage Park, replace the existing Stephens Creek culvert (under Moorage the Willamette Shoreline Trolley and the new multi-use trail and Macadam Bay Club Park access driveway) with a fish-and-wildlife-friendly passage that would be constructed according to Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife standards. Committed Willamette Within Willamette Moorage Park, provide sloped, stepped, vegetated walls along the Moorage multi-use trail extending from the Sellwood Bridge to Macadam Bay Club to minimize Park visual and aesthetic impacts to Willamette Moorage Park and to provide structural support and wildlife habitat, where feasible. Committed Powers Within Powers Marine Park, design and implement stream restoration in the area Marine Park 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. Committed Powers Reach an agreement on the shared use of the PP&R parking lot adjacent to Willamette Marine Park Moorage Park by having Multnomah County work with Freeman Motors, and have Multnomah County work with PP&R to renegotiate the lease. Committed Powers Design and implement a parking and pedestrian access plan for Powers Marine Park Marine Park that would include the provision of a minimum of seven vehicle parking spaces. Committed Powers Provide seven parking spaces for Powers Marine Park along the roadway to Staff Marine Park Jennings.

Sellwood Bridge Project F i n a l Environmental Impact Statement G-15 Appendix G: Summary of Mitigation and Environmental Commitments

TABLEG-2 Summary of Mitigation Measures and Environmental Commitments for the Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) Proposed or Locale Mitigation Measure(s) and Environmental Commitment(s) Committed Archaeological and Historic Resources Committed In the unlikely event that human remains were discovered during project completion, implement the proper protocol for such a discovery.  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. Committed 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 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. Committed 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. The following items summarize the stipulations outlined in an Agreement between FHWA, ODOT, Multnomah County, and SHPO: − 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 an 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. Committed Sellwood Prepare a supplemental recordation of the Sellwood Bridge in accordance with the Bridge standards set forth by the Historic American Engineering Record (HAER). The supplemental HAER documentation of the Sellwood Bridge would document the changes to the Sellwood Bridge since it was recorded as part of the Willamette River Bridges Project in 1999. Committed 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.

G-16 Sellwood Bridge Project F i n a l Environmental Impact Statement Appendix G: Summary of Mitigation and Environmental Commitments

TABLEG-2 Summary of Mitigation Measures and Environmental Commitments for the Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) Proposed or Locale Mitigation Measure(s) and Environmental Commitment(s) Committed Committed Install interpretive panels at various Multnomah County-owned downtown Portland bridges, which would provide information regarding the history of the river crossings. Committed Clean, treat, and store the existing (original) dedication plaques until completion of the new bridge, then reinstall the plaques at a location near the east end of the bridge. Committed Provide for the creation and upkeep of a Web site that would provide information regarding the historic Willamette River bridges in and around downtown Portland. Committed Assess existing bridge materials to determine what materials, if any, would be salvageable and could be made available to interested parties. Committed Prepare a list of potential interested parties in advance of any proposed salvage or advertisement. Committed Prepare an advertisement announcing the availability of salvageable materials from the Sellwood Bridge. Committed Identify what materials, if any, could be incorporated into the new bridge and/or into the interpretive panels. Committed Research, photograph, and record the history of the River View Cemetery Superintendent’s House in accordance with the standards set forth by the Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS). Committed Prepare a short history of the River View Cemetery. Show the locations of roads and trails, structures, and important graves. In addition, provide photographs of important structures, general vistas of the cemetery grounds, and the cemetery gates. Committed River View Move the cemetery gates to a new location within the cemetery property. Cemetery Committed River View Place interpretive signage at the Superintendent’s House. This would provide Cemetery information and images discussing the Superintendent’s House and a general history of the River View Cemetery. Committed Superintend Design retaining walls around the Superintendent’s House that would assimilate with ent’s House the surrounding landscape. Use vegetation screening to obscure the new structures. Visual Resources Committed Determine new plant locations, species, and sizes during final design as part of landscape mitigation at the time of construction. Using mitigation measures recommended for consideration during final design, attempt to restore the natural environment along OR 43. Screening of the retaining walls by existing vegetation or replanted vegetation, such as large trees and climbing vegetation over the vertical faces, could reduce the visual impact after approximately 10 years. Committed During final design, consider reducing form, texture, or color contrasts in structures and cut-and-fill slopes. Committed During final design, consider refining the alignment of the interchange and ramps to lessen the hillside cuts. Committed During final design, consider 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. Geology Committed Sellwood Construct new piers and abutments in stable ground below the slide and use drilled Slide shafts and driven piling to provide structural mitigation. This technique involves 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 Bridge Project F i n a l Environmental Impact Statement G-17 Appendix G: Summary of Mitigation and Environmental Commitments

TABLEG-2 Summary of Mitigation Measures and Environmental Commitments for the Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) Proposed or Locale Mitigation Measure(s) and Environmental Commitment(s) Committed Committed Include basic rockfall mitigation techniques, such as installing rockfall nets or catch fences to cover slopes and constructing a rock catchment ditch) with a barrier between the ditch and OR 43. Stabilize high rockfall hazard areas using bolts and mesh to cover these areas of weathered zones of rock. The use of rock anchors would increase the stability of the slope. If highly weathered rock or soil-like zones were exposed in rock cuts, employ stabilization techniques (such as mesh or soil nails) to mitigate slope hazards. Committed Apply standard erosion control techniques including Stormwater and Erosion Best Management Practices (BMPs) in construction zones to minimize erosion. For the long-term, control erosion by hydroseeding and establishing vegetation as soon as possible. Also, consider other measures such as diverting stormwater runoff away from cuts and fills and constructing erosion retention basins. Committed During design, evaluate the level of loading to be expected. Perform structural design to withstand the anticipated loads as mitigation for seismic hazards to bridges, structures, and retaining walls. In foundation design, consider liquefaction and found the structure on rock or more stable ground (such as the Troutdale formation), if encountered at depth. Use slope stabilization measures (such as installing drilled shafts or micropiles and increasing soil strength) to provide mitigation for seismic hazards. Committed 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. Committed Construct a secant-pile wall along the roadway to Powers Marine Park and Staff Jennings to stabilize the cuts into the landslide mass. Committed Construct a structure on the roadway to Powers Marine Park and Staff Jennings 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. Committed Use 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. Committed Construct the streetcar alignment on the slide approximately at grade, which would eliminate the need for cuts or fills. Committed Stabilize the weathered rock at the southbound OR 43 off-ramp using tiebacks (upper portion of this rock cut). Committed Found bridge piers on materials with suitable strength. Use the latest probabilistic seismic hazard analyses to design the piers to withstand damage from seismic shaking and liquefaction based on fully characterized subsurface conditions and seismic potential. Committed 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). Proposed For additional measures, see the Avoidance, Minimization, and Conservation Measures section in this table.

G-18 Sellwood Bridge Project F i n a l Environmental Impact Statement Appendix G: Summary of Mitigation and Environmental Commitments

TABLEG-2 Summary of Mitigation Measures and Environmental Commitments for the Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) Proposed or Locale Mitigation Measure(s) and Environmental Commitment(s) Committed Water Resources and Water Quality Committed Obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 1200-C permit. 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. Address major areas during construction, such as erosion prevention, sediment control, and in-water work. The project will follow ODOT BMPs. Committed Incorporate water-quality mitigation to reduce pollutant loading to the river, with the exception of pollutants that were entirely dissolved. Committed Obtain permits from the City of Portland for stormwater runoff from new impervious areas. Committed Treat the west side of the project area 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). Committed Consider water quality swales on the east side. Runoff from the east end of the bridge could be treated partially or fully using one 6-foot-by-12-foot manufactured underground filter vault within the project right-of-way that would discharge to the Willamette River. Proposed For additional measures, see the Avoidance, Minimization, and Conservation Measures section in this table. Hydraulics Committed During final design, explore the opportunity to reduce hydraulic impacts by reducing the base flood elevation change. This could be accomplished by minimizing the number of in-water piers and shaping piers in a streamlined manner. Committed Develop many of the mitigation measures after hydraulic designs for the bridge have been completed. The following are potential mitigation measures:  Design the bridge to span the width of the natural channel. Set the abutments back onto the overbank areas so construction would not encroach into the channel  Size bridge openings to pass the 100-year peak flood discharge with little or no increase to the water surface elevation  Minimize interior piers Committed Request review and approval from Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) of fish passage mitigation measures resulting from the proposed bridge. Committed 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. Committed Prohibit equipment washing in the watercourses. Committed Prohibit equipment from crossing the watercourses, except at temporary crossings, unless impractical. A temporary crossing plan would be prepared in coordination with the 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.

Sellwood Bridge Project F i n a l Environmental Impact Statement G-19 Appendix G: Summary of Mitigation and Environmental Commitments

TABLEG-2 Summary of Mitigation Measures and Environmental Commitments for the Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) Proposed or Locale Mitigation Measure(s) and Environmental Commitment(s) Committed Committed Perform a “no rise” analysis and obtain a City of Portland Floodplain Development Permit prior to construction. Any substantial impacts to the FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area 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 Committed Size bridge openings to pass the 100-year peak flood discharge with little or no increase to the water surface elevation. Committed Obtain federal and state removal/fill permits prior to construction. Committed Prepare a detailed erosion control plan during the final design. The plan would meet or exceed requirements of the NPDES 1200-C permit. Proposed For additional measures, see the Avoidance, Minimization, and Conservation Measures section in this table. Aquatic Resources Committed Implement ODOT BMPs to minimize or alleviate temporary impacts, see ODOT Hydraulic Manual, Chapter 14 – Water Quality (2008). Committed Restore topographic contours. Committed Stabilize and revegetate disturbed surfaces with native plant species. Committed Treat stormwater according to National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) guidance and City of Portland requirements to reduce the pollutant loads that would result from construction of the Build alternatives. Committed Implement appropriate BMPs to minimize or alleviate hydroacoustic impacts. Committed Willamette Within Willamette Moorage Park, replace the existing Stephens Creek culvert (which Moorage is beneath the Willamette Shoreline Trolley, the new multi-use trail, and the Park Willamette Moorage Park and Macadam Bay Club driveway) with a fish-and-wildlife- friendly passage. Committed Powers Within Powers Marine Park, design and implement stream restoration along two Marine Park streams to provide an off-river habitat for juvenile salmonids. Proposed For additional measures, see the Avoidance, Minimization, and Conservation Measures section in this table. Vegetation Committed Incorporate BMPs and environmental criteria into pre-construction planning and design, and by good construction and maintenance practices. Committed Riparian Replant disturbed riparian areas with native vegetation to reduce the pollutant loads area that would result from construction of the Build alternatives. Committed Willamette Within Willamette Moorage Park, construct sloped, stepped, vegetated walls along a Moorage new multi-use trail, where feasible, to minimize visual and aesthetic impacts to the Park park, and to provide for wildlife use and passage. Committed Powers Within Powers Marine Park, design and implement stream restoration along two Marine Park streams to provide an off-river habitat for juvenile salmonids. Proposed For additional measures, see the Avoidance, Minimization, and Conservation Measures section in this table. Wetlands Committed Implement erosion control measures to ensure there is no impact to wetlands functions. Committed 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.

G-20 Sellwood Bridge Project F i n a l Environmental Impact Statement Appendix G: Summary of Mitigation and Environmental Commitments

TABLEG-2 Summary of Mitigation Measures and Environmental Commitments for the Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) Proposed or Locale Mitigation Measure(s) and Environmental Commitment(s) Committed Committed Employ sediment-containment methods during construction of the new bridge piers to minimize impacts to the waterway. Restrict in-water work to the ODFW- recommended work period to reduce potential impacts to fisheries. Proposed For additional measures, see the Avoidance, Minimization, and Conservation Measures section in this table. Wildlife Committed Within the disturbed construction areas, plant native species to help restore riparian functions and improve the health of the existing riparian habitats. Committed Implement appropriate BMPs to minimize or alleviate noise impacts on wildlife. Committed Willamette Within Willamette Moorage Park, replace the existing Stephens Creek culvert (which Moorage is beneath the Willamette Shoreline Trolley, the new multi-use trail, and the Park Willamette Moorage Park and Macadam Bay Club access driveway) with a fish-and- wildlife-friendly passage. Committed Willamette Within Willamette Moorage Park, construct sloped, stepped, vegetated walls along a Moorage new multi-use trail, where feasible, to minimize visual and aesthetic impacts to the Park park, and to provide for wildlife use and passage. Committed Powers Within Powers Marine Park, design and implement stream restoration along two Marine Park streams to provide an off-river habitat for juvenile salmonids. Proposed For additional measures, see the Avoidance, Minimization, and Conservation Measures section in this table. Noise Committed Make a final decision on installation of any mitigation or potential noise abatement measures upon completion of the project design and the public involvement process. All noise mitigation measures will be disclosed in the Record of Decision. Committed Consider placing an 8-foot-wide noise barrier in the right-of-way between property boundaries and sidewalks south of SE Tacoma Street at 8105 SE 7th Avenue to provide sufficient noise reduction for outdoor seating at the restaurant. However, because this location is a commercial property, the final determination of reasonable cost and feasibility will be made during final design of the project. Other noise- abatement measures were considered, including noise walls. However, no mitigation measures were both reasonable in cost and feasible. Committed Do not perform any 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. Committed Provide sound-control devices no less effective than those provided on the original equipment on all equipment used. No equipment shall have unmuffled exhaust. Committed Comply with all pertinent equipment noise standards of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Committed Do not perform any 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, without the approval of the Multnomah County Managing Construction Engineer. Committed Strategically place material stockpiles between the operation and the affected dwelling or by other means approved by the Multnomah County Managing Construction Engineer. Committed Should a specific noise-impact complaint occur during the construction of the project, potentially implement one or more of the following noise mitigation measures: Committed  Locate stationary construction equipment as far from nearby noise-sensitive properties as possible

Sellwood Bridge Project F i n a l Environmental Impact Statement G-21 Appendix G: Summary of Mitigation and Environmental Commitments

TABLEG-2 Summary of Mitigation Measures and Environmental Commitments for the Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) Proposed or Locale Mitigation Measure(s) and Environmental Commitment(s) Committed Committed  Shut off idling equipment Committed  Reschedule construction operations to avoid periods of noise annoyance identified in the complaint Committed  Notify nearby residences whenever extremely noisy work will be occurring Committed  Install temporary or portable acoustic barriers around stationary construction noise sources Committed  Operate electric-powered equipment using line voltage power Committed Conduct construction activities in a manner that would comply with all applicable local noise ordinances, including Title 18 of the City of Portland’s Noise Control code (Section 18.10.060), unless a variance was granted. Committed River View To mitigate possible noise impacts to River View Cemetery during construction, Cemetery where possible, restrict the hours of noisier operation. Proposed For additional measures, see the Avoidance, Minimization, and Conservation Measures section in this table. Energy Committed Attempt to minimize roadway congestion and adhere to practices that encourage efficient energy use, such as limiting idling equipment, locating construction staging areas near work sites, and encouraging carpooling. Air Quality Committed Use, where possible, water or other suitable materials to control dust. Committed Apply asphalt, oil, water, or other suitable materials on unpaved roads, material stockpiles, and other surfaces that can create airborne dust. Committed 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. Committed Use wind fencing to reduce soil disturbances. Committed Locate construction equipment and the truck staging area as far away from sensitive receptors as practical and in consideration of potential effects on other resources. Committed Schedule work tasks to minimize disruption of the existing vehicle traffic on streets. Committed Cover, at all times when in motion, open-bodied trucks that are transporting materials likely to become airborne. Committed 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. Committed Promptly remove from paved streets any earth or other material that may become airborne. Committed Look for opportunities to employ other environmentally friendly techniques to control emissions from vehicles and machines used in construction. Such practices might include but are not limited to the following:  Use low-sulfur diesel fuel on all diesel equipment  Use construction equipment with new generation diesel engines when available or equipment with tailpipe diesel particulate removal when available  Use environmentally friendly lubricants, solvents, and chemicals to the greatest extent practicable.

G-22 Sellwood Bridge Project F i n a l Environmental Impact Statement Appendix G: Summary of Mitigation and Environmental Commitments

TABLEG-2 Summary of Mitigation Measures and Environmental Commitments for the Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) Proposed or Locale Mitigation Measure(s) and Environmental Commitment(s) Committed Committed Require that Contractors comply with Section 290 of ODOT’s Standard Specifications for Construction Manual (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 is required to submit prior to the pre-construction conference. Proposed For additional measures, see the Avoidance, Minimization, and Conservation Measures section in this table. Hazardous Materials Committed Conduct a lead and asbestos survey of the existing bridge prior to construction or demolition. This work should include an analysis of existing paint layers for total and toxicity characteristic leaching procedures for heavy metals, such as cadmium, chromium, zinc, and lead. Committed 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. Committed Implement construction-phase monitoring to identify and manage unknown or unanticipated media. Committed Characterize waste generated during construction (such as excavated soil, wastewater, and construction debris) and assign each waste stream to appropriate waste-disposal facilities. Committed Avoid cross-contamination or carryover of contaminated material to clean areas. Committed Control stormwater runoff from the construction site. Committed Identify appropriate waste disposal for all waste streams. Committed Limit access to contaminated areas. Proposed For additional measures, see the Avoidance, Minimization, and Conservation Measures section in this table. Avoidance, Minimization, and Conservation Measures Proposed Riparian Revegetation: Include native trees, shrubs and herbaceous vegetation selected from the Portland Plant List in the new (mitigation) plantings of riparian vegetation along the river bank. The dominant vegetation community near the Sellwood Bridge is riparian forest. Small open areas of predominantly weedy shrub and herbaceous vegetation are also present and consist of Himalayan blackberry and Japanese knotweed. Compensation for the removal of mature trees in designated Environmental-Zone (E-Zone) areas would follow guidance of the City of Portland’s Title 33.430.140 Zoning Code (City of Portland, 1991). These regulations define the number and size of trees (Option A) or the combination of trees and shrubs (Option B) that are needed to replace each cut tree.

Sellwood Bridge Project F i n a l Environmental Impact Statement G-23 Appendix G: Summary of Mitigation and Environmental Commitments

TABLEG-2 Summary of Mitigation Measures and Environmental Commitments for the Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) Proposed or Locale Mitigation Measure(s) and Environmental Commitment(s) Committed Proposed Structure Removal: 1. Require that plans submitted by the Contractor be prepared, signed, and bear the stamp of a Registered Oregon Professional Engineer. The Contractor would submit a complete detailed plan for removal of existing structures for review and approval by the Engineer 60 days prior to structure removal activities. The plans should describe the following:  Use of shoring, bracing, barricades, fencing, and other devices that might be required.  Protection of pedestrian, vehicular, and navigation traffic, as necessary.  Plans to minimize effects to the river, including a debris-catchment structure and cofferdam. 2. Contain rubble from demolition of existing structures (such as timbers, dust, concrete debris, welding slag, and grindings) do not allow the rubble to enter the river below the 2-year flood elevation. 3. If debris inadvertently entered the stream, remove the materials in a manner that would have a minimum impact on water quality and fish. 4. Remove existing footings to within 1 foot of the mud line. Proposed General Stormwater Management Planning:  Produce no net degradation and improve, as feasible, short- and long-term water quality conditions associated with stormwater runoff and related pollutant loads from the roadway, bridges, and related project elements and areas, over the full project area.  Prepare and implement an erosion and sediment control plan (ESCP); implement the ESCP, which would contain the elements outlined in Sections 280.00 and 290.30 of Oregon Standard Specifications for Construction (ODOT, 2008), and would meet the requirements of all applicable laws and regulations.  Pretreat the water quality event stormwater runoff from impervious roadway surfaces to minimize any pollutant loading likely to be present before discharge into waters of the state (pretreatment must be designed for the water quality event). . Pretreatment might include, but would not be limited to, biofiltration (filtration, adsorption, and biological decomposition in soils or vegetation that have sufficient organic content and sorption capacity to remove pollutants), filtration (engineered filtration systems), or settling/sediment ponds (engineered stormwater facilities). . For purposes of this project, “pollutant loading” would include, but would not be limited to, debris, sediment, nutrients, petroleum hydrocarbons, and metals.  Collect and route stormwater runoff from bridge decks through an appropriately sized water quality treatment facility prior to discharge to the river.  Inspect and clean water quality facilities as necessary to ensure that the design capacity was not exceeded and to determine whether improvements in operations and maintenance were needed; make improvements as needed.  Prepare and implement a stormwater management plan for the proposed project.  Include logic and science (for example, engineering equations, modeling and modeling results, and references) supporting the selected stormwater

G-24 Sellwood Bridge Project F i n a l Environmental Impact Statement Appendix G: Summary of Mitigation and Environmental Commitments

TABLEG-2 Summary of Mitigation Measures and Environmental Commitments for the Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) Proposed or Locale Mitigation Measure(s) and Environmental Commitment(s) Committed management option(s) and BMPs.  To maintain integrity of the chemical signatures of waters that serve as biological markers, infiltrate, route, or discharge waters as close to the natural receiving area or discharge point as possible.  Avoid sensitive natural resource areas (including existing riparian areas, wetlands, unstable slopes, and critical habitat) for placement of stormwater facilities, unless facilities could be incorporated in a manner that enhanced natural resource value. Proposed Surface Water Modeling:  Perform hydrologic analyses required to determine pre- and post-project stormwater runoff characteristics, including peak flow magnitude, peak flow timing, event runoff volume, and runoff duration.  While continuous simulation modeling is preferable for surface water hydrologic analyses, insufficient data are available to support such detailed modeling. In the absence of sufficient data to perform continuous simulation modeling, use discrete, event-based hydrologic modeling techniques.  Use the Hydraulics Manual (ODOT, 2008), stormwater performance specifications, and other appropriate guidance, as necessary or as specified in the project performance specifications, as a reference for methodologies for conducting surface water analyses.  Use the Portland Stormwater Management Manual Draft (City of Portland, 2008) for water quality treatment flow and volume modeling.  Perform hydraulic analyses to determine relevant hydraulic parameters. Use standard methods and tools. Proposed Hydrology:  Employ stormwater management measures to maintain pre-project hydrograph characteristics to the maximum extent practicable. The post-project peak discharge should match the pre-project discharge for the range of storm events from half of the 2-year storm events up to and including the 50-year return interval event. Employ stormwater management practices to maintain storm-event and inter-event base flows relative to pre-project conditions, as follows:  Minimize, disperse, and infiltrate stormwater runoff on-site using sheet flow across permeable vegetated areas to the maximum extent possible without causing flooding, erosion effects, or long-term adverse effects to groundwater.  Employ measures to prevent erosion from project areas resulting from direct stormwater runoff or from the conveyance and discharge of stormwater runoff, as follows:  Maintain natural drainage patterns and, whenever possible, ensure that discharges from the project area occurred at the natural location.  Stabilize any erodible elements of the conveyance system, as necessary, to prevent erosion.  Do not divert surface water from, or increase discharge to, an existing wetland if that would cause a significant adverse effect to wetland hydrology, soils, or vegetation.

Sellwood Bridge Project F i n a l Environmental Impact Statement G-25 Appendix G: Summary of Mitigation and Environmental Commitments

TABLEG-2 Summary of Mitigation Measures and Environmental Commitments for the Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) Proposed or Locale Mitigation Measure(s) and Environmental Commitment(s) Committed Proposed Contractor Responsibilities – Environmental Provisions: Have Contractors abide by the listed contractor responsibilities during construction. Note that, for purposes of this section, the term “waters of the state” refers to any natural waterway—including the Willamette River, Stephens Creek, intermittent streams, constantly flowing streams, wetlands, and other bodies of water—if any part is located within the project area  Minimize alteration or disturbance of streambanks and existing riparian vegetation.  Flag the Permitted Work Area (also referred to as the in-water work area, ordinary high water elevation [OHWE], and jurisdictional waters) on-site under and adjacent to the bridge.  Obtain approval from the engineer to extend the in-water work period—the NMFS in-water work period extends from July 1 to October 31.  Do not allow access to the Permitted Work Area or to any wetlands until Multnomah County has surveyed and cleared these areas for listed species.  Locate areas at least 150 feet away from the Permitted Work Area for storage of equipment and vehicles, other than track-mounted vehicles, outside of work hours unless developed areas near the river are available for staging and appropriate containment measures are in place to ensure containment and isolation of equipment and vehicles from the river.  Locate areas for storing fuels and other potentially hazardous materials and areas for refueling and servicing construction equipment and vehicles at least 300 feet away from the Permitted Work Area unless developed areas near the river are available for staging and appropriate containment measures are in place to ensure containment and isolation of potentially hazardous materials, equipment, and vehicles from the river.  For track-mounted equipment, large cranes, and other equipment whose limited mobility makes it impractical to move it for refueling:  Take all feasible precautions to prevent and minimize the risk of fuel reaching the Permitted Work Area.  Implement appropriate spill prevention measures and provide fuel containment systems designed to completely contain a potential material spill, as well as other pollution control devices and measures adequate to provide complete containment of hazardous material.  Perform refueling operations to minimize the amount of fuel remaining in vehicles stored during nonwork times.  Do not allow refueling of equipment or vehicles used on the project after 1:00 PM without the engineer’s written approval.  Maintain hazardous material containment booms and spill containment booms on- site to facilitate the cleanup of hazardous material spills; install hazardous material containment booms in instances where there is a potential for release of petroleum or other toxicants.  Prohibit underwater blasting.  Use bridge-removal techniques conforming to the previously stated requirements.  Implement containment measures adequate to prevent pollutants or construction and demolition materials (such as waste spoils, petroleum products, concrete cured less than 24 hours, concrete cure water, silt, welding slag and grindings, concrete saw cutting by-products, and sandblasting abrasives) from entering the Permitted Work Area or any regulated waters.

G-26 Sellwood Bridge Project F i n a l Environmental Impact Statement Appendix G: Summary of Mitigation and Environmental Commitments

TABLEG-2 Summary of Mitigation Measures and Environmental Commitments for the Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) Proposed or Locale Mitigation Measure(s) and Environmental Commitment(s) Committed  If flooding of the work area is expected to occur within 24 hours, evacuate areas used for staging, access roads, or storage, and remove all materials, equipment, and fuel.  Do not permit equipment in or on the wetted channel or any wetland, unless the work to be performed using the equipment is isolated from the wetted channel or wetland; installation and removal of piles and falsework is allowed without isolation.  Provide five copies of a Wetted Channel Isolation Plan, if required, to the Multnomah County Engineer at least 10 days prior to performing work or moving equipment onto a wetted channel or any wetland.  Do not allow ground access through the wetted channel, or ground access through wetlands, to bridge piers; access to bridge piers within the Permitted Work Area via a work bridge or a scaffold suspended from the bridge superstructure would be allowed, if approved by the engineer prior to construction of such work bridge or scaffold.  Do not allow pollutants of any kind (for example, petroleum products, uncured concrete, silt) to come in contact with the Permitted Work Area or any regulated waters.  Restrict installation and removal of cofferdams, or other isolation methods of equivalent effectiveness (if required for removal of the existing bents from the wetted channel) to the in-water work period. Work contained within a cofferdam may be performed outside of the in-water work period.  Do not discharge contaminated or sediment-laden water from the project and water contained within a cofferdam directly into any waters of the state until satisfactorily treated (for example, by bioswale, filter, settlement pond, pumping to vegetated upland location, bio-bag, or dirt-bag), as appropriate.  Do not use treated timbers within the Permitted Work Area for any purpose.  Prior to operating within 150 feet of the Permitted Work Area:  Inspect and clean all construction equipment.  Check all construction equipment for fluid leaks.  Remove external oil, grease, dirt and caked mud.  Do not discharge untreated wash and rinse water into the Permitted Work Area.  Establish temporary impoundments to catch water from equipment cleansing, which may only be performed at least 150 feet from the Permitted Work Area and in a location that does not contribute untreated wastewater to any waters of the state unless otherwise noted.  Place waste materials and spoils above bank lines and away from any wetlands.  If necessary, temporarily locate waste materials and spoils above bank lines and away from any wetlands prior to their removal from the project site and disposal.  Do not dispose of rubble from demolition of the existing bridge(s) on the bed or banks of any waters of the state or in any wetlands.

Sellwood Bridge Project F i n a l Environmental Impact Statement G-27 Appendix G: Summary of Mitigation and Environmental Commitments

TABLEG-2 Summary of Mitigation Measures and Environmental Commitments for the Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) Proposed or Locale Mitigation Measure(s) and Environmental Commitment(s) Committed Proposed Construction Responsibilities:  Have the Contractor meet or exceed the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) requirements for the NPDES 1200-CA permit.  Limit entry into the 2-year floodplain to the extent feasible.  Commence work within the restricted work area (work area below the ordinary high water elevation) only during the NMFS-defined in-water work period, and after river flows subside to such a level that flooding is not judged likely for the duration of the action.  Limit turbidity increases to 10 percent above the background reading as measured 100 feet below the project (except temporary exceedances during in-water work).  During over-water work, implement containment measures adequate to prevent construction materials from entering the waterway. The engineer will review and monitor the measures. Have work platforms function as containment structures for materials and equipment that might inadvertently be dropped by Contractor’s personnel.  Minimize operation of equipment in or on the water to the extent feasible.  Do not allow pollutants of any kind to come in contact with the river or any actively flowing stream.  Have an oil-absorbing, floating boom available on-site.  Examine vehicles daily for fluid leaks during periods operated within 150 feet of the 2-year floodplain.  At the end of each work shift, store vehicles greater than 150 feet (horizontal distance) from the 2-year flood elevation, or in an area approved by the engineer (such as a developed area near the river with appropriate containment measures in place).  Prior to operating within the 2-year floodplain, clean all equipment of external oil, grease, dirt, or caked mud. Conduct any washing of equipment greater than 150 feet from the 2-year flood elevation and in a location that would not contribute untreated wastewater to any flowing stream.  “Diaper” vehicles to catch any toxicants (for example, oils, greases, and brake fluid) when the vehicles have any potential to contribute toxic materials into aquatic systems.  Do not allow any “green” concrete or water having had contact with newly poured concrete (24 hours from pour) to come in contact with flowing water. Use moist burlap or an approved equal to cure the concrete. Cure concrete poured over water with soaked burlap to avoid contributing “green” concrete- contaminated water to the river.  If flooding of the area is imminent, evacuate any areas used by the Contractor for staging or access roads and remove all equipment, tools, and materials (including access road materials and excluding falsework).  Remove items such as materials, equipment, and waste products from any area used for vehicle maintenance, fuel storage, or refueling of vehicles or equipment before the water level rises to within 6 vertical feet of the area.

G-28 Sellwood Bridge Project F i n a l Environmental Impact Statement Appendix G: Summary of Mitigation and Environmental Commitments

TABLEG-2 Summary of Mitigation Measures and Environmental Commitments for the Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) Proposed or Locale Mitigation Measure(s) and Environmental Commitment(s) Committed  Place waste materials and spoils above the bank line and away from any wetlands.  Do not dispose of rubble from demolition of the existing bridge on the bed or banks of any waters or in any wetlands of the state without prior approval of the Oregon Department of State Lands.

Sellwood Bridge Project F i n a l Environmental Impact Statement G-29

Appendix H. SHPO Findings of Effect (FOE) Concurrence Letter

Appendix I. Responses to DEIS Comments

Appendix I. Responses to DEIS Comments

Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) were collected between November 7 and December 22, 2008. Individuals and agencies submitted comments online using the project Web site’s comment form, in mailed letters, and in email correspondence with the project team. Because many commenters expressed the same ideas, comments with similar themes were grouped together to create a single consolidated comment that was matched with a single response. Table I-1 (pages I-1 through I-80) includes a response for each consolidated comment. Table I-2 is a companion to Table I-1, listing the names of the commenters in Commenter ID order (pages 1-81 and 1-82).

If you are looking for the response to your comment, review Table I-3 (pages I-83 through I-86) to find your name (organized alphabetically by last name) and the consolidated comment number that includes a response to your comment. If your comment contained thoughts on more than one topic, a response to each topic is provided under a separate consolidated comment number. A copy of your original comment is provided in Appendix J, which is available at http://www.sellwoodbridge.org/FinalEIS.aspx or on a CD.

TABLE I-1 Responses to DEIS Comments ID Category Comment / Response Commenter IDs 1 Preference I prefer Alternative A as presented, if a temporary bridge can be combined 80, 157, 216 with this alternative. Alternative A could have been constructed using a temporary detour bridge. However, this would have created three bridges during construction, with greater impacts to both residential properties and aquatic species. Local elected/appointed officials determined that a temporary detour bridge would not be as cost-effective as using the existing bridge while the new bridge was under construction. Only Alternatives D and E would allow for this approach. 2 Preference I object to Alternative A because of the separate bike/ped bridge. 166 Local elected/appointed officials rejected the separate bicycle/pedestrian bridge concept for the following reasons: • The additional cost. • Safety/security concerns because motorists would not have been able to observe bicyclists and pedestrians who were not traveling directly adjacent to them. Bicyclists and pedestrians feel safer with this passive observation. • The increased impact to the natural and social environment because two bridges (and their piers) would have existed instead of just one. • Concerns from the bicyclist community that, if funding were limited, the construction of the bicycle bridge would have been delayed.

Sellwood Bridge Project F i n a l Environmental Impact Statement I-1 Appendix I: Responses to DEIS Comments TABLE I-1 Responses to DEIS Comments ID Category Comment / Response Commenter IDs 4 Preference I prefer Alternative B because it provides for bikes and peds, while 121, 134, 186 minimizing the public impacts. Most bicyclists, pedestrians, and the project’s local elected/appointed officials agree that a cross-section with bike/pedestrian facilities next to the roadway feels safer, because of passive observation of motorists. However, local elected/appointed officials also determined that Alternative B would be less cost- effective than the bridge-replacement alternatives and, therefore, identified and recommended Alternative D Refined as the preferred alternative. Alternative D Refined also provides for bicyclists and pedestrians at the roadway level. 5 Preference I object to Alternative B because of the cost of the detour bridge unless you 80 can show a $30 million benefit from its use. Would it have a higher weight limitation than the existing bridge? By law, the temporary detour bridge would be required to accommodate trucks and buses. Local elected/appointed officials determined that using a temporary detour bridge would be less cost-effective than those alternatives that would keep the bridge crossing open during construction without a temporary detour bridge. 6 Preference I prefer Alternative C because: 48, 54, 59, 80, 90, • It handles the traffic smoothly. It best maintains a continuous flow of 110, 112, 113, 187, traffic. 189, 205 • It best balances the needs of the region. • It separates bikes from traffic. A double deck design would lessen the impact that bridge width has on the adjacent bridges and residences. • The interchange at the west end is too complicated. I prefer the interchange on Alternative D. • Should be modified by the elimination of the 2nd traffic lane in the west bound direction in the middle of the bridge. • Do not even think about closing the cemetery access. Alternative C offers smooth movement through the interchange. However, during rush hours, this interchange type would move the congestion point to the next intersection. That is, Alternative C would not provide any significant travel- time savings. • The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) analysis shows no difference in regional impacts among the alternatives. • While some commenters think the double-deck design has some positive attributes, other bicyclists judge the underdeck location of the bicycle and pedestrian facilities as feeling less safe because it does not have the passive observation of passing motorists. In addition, it is not aesthetically pleasing because of the noise and confined feeling created by the upper auto deck and hazard from birds roosting in the frame of the upper deck. • The interchange type from Alternative D is included in the preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined. • If Alternative C had been identified and recommended as the preferred alternative, the interchange and traffic lanes might have been modified to eliminate the second traffic lane in the westbound direction in the middle of the bridge. However, local elected/appointed officials did not identify and recommend Alternative C as the preferred alternative because it requires complete closure of the crossing for almost 4 years. They considered the economic impacts to the neighborhood unacceptable. • The trumpet configuration of the interchange in Alternative C cannot accommodate an access to River View Cemetery from Oregon (OR) 43 (SW Macadam Avenue).The preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined, provides for access to the River View Cemetery Superintendent’s House (funeral home).

I-2 Sellwood Bridge Project F i n a l Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I: Responses to DEIS Comments TABLE I-1 Responses to DEIS Comments ID Category Comment / Response Commenter IDs 7 Preference I object to Alternative C because: 154, 166, 191, 204 • It creates security issues for bikes and peds. • I don't like the three lane design of this alternative. The biking and pedestrian communities expressed security concerns about the double-deck design because passing drivers would not be able to observe them. In addition, many residents are concerned about having several lanes because they think it could potentially lead to four lanes on SE Tacoma Street. Both of these factors affected the local elected/appointed officials’ determination to reject this alternative. 8 Preference I prefer Alternative D because I like the sleek look of the delta frame design 137, 143 and less cost. A refined version of Alternative D has been identified and recommended as the preferred alternative. There will be a process for selecting the bridge design that involves a citizens advisory committee and opportunities for general public comment. The design selection process will begin after the Federal Highway Administration issues a Record of Decision. 9 Preference I prefer Alternative D because it has the least closure time. Closure time 52, 101, 103, 104, would seriously affect my business. It will keep business open and provide 120, 137, 166, 180, access from Lake Oswego to the East side. 225 The preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined, can be constructed without closing the bridge to traffic and without the cost of a temporary detour bridge. Local elected/appointed officials considered the potential economic impact to the business community and to the commuting public a significant factor when they identified and recommended this alternative as the preferred alternative. 10 Preference I prefer Alternative D because: 61, 122, 204 • It has space for each function, autos, bikes and pedestrians. Therefore, it provides the best bike and pedestrian facility. • It would encourage more pedestrian and bike use of the bridge and therefore reduce carbon dioxide producing traffic. Bicyclists and pedestrians strongly support this comment. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) found that all Build alternatives supported greatly increased bicycle and pedestrian use in the corridor. All of the Build alternatives improve connectivity to both the Willamette Greenway Trail and the Springwater Corridor Trail, and they provide a significantly safer bridge crossing. • Encouragement of bicycle and pedestrian travel modes would improve the carbon footprint of the project.

Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement I-3 Appendix I: Responses to DEIS Comments TABLE I-1 Responses to DEIS Comments ID Category Comment / Response Commenter IDs 11 Preference I prefer Alternative D because: 51, 52, 61, 123, • It best maintains the livability issues of closure periods, impact on 124, 137, 143, 154, recreation or parks, and preparation for the future. It is appropriately 166, 181, 191, 204 scaled to the site. • Safety consideration for bikes, peds, and cars are dealt with. Not as many businesses, residents will be removed. • It destroys the least of the alternatives. Important factors to me are: avoid destroying homes, avoid destroying businesses, keep it simple— two lanes, sidewalks and bike lanes on both sides, avoid enlarging the bridge. • It would be my second choice if E is not selected. • We feel Alternative D is in a reasonable cost range, seems to have the least overall negative impact for residents, businesses, and bridge users, and seems to provide the most “bang for the buck”. We are willing to endure a longer construction time for what we feel is the best outcome. • Will allow for future adaptation. Local elected/appointed officials identified and recommended Alternative D Refined as the preferred alternative because it can be constructed without long- term closure to traffic, because it can be constructed in phases, if necessary, and for the additional reasons stated within this comment. 12 Preference I prefer Alternative D with a trumpet interchange design because I like the 217 balance of the positives of Alternative D, with the operations of the trumpet intersection. Is this a possible combination? Maybe the signal would work well, I am not able to tell. Local elected/appointed officials identified and recommended Alternative D Refined (with the signalized interchange) as the preferred alternative. A primary concern with the trumpet interchange is that it eliminates access to the River View Cemetery from Oregon (OR) 43 (SW Macadam Avenue). This eliminates the viability of the funeral home business in the Superintendent’s House served by that access. The signal would allow bicyclists, pedestrians, bus riders, and streetcar users to safely move through the interchange and transfer from one mode to another at that location. 13 Preference I object to Alternative D because: 67, 75, 80, 99, 117, • Of the number of families displaced. 130, 165, 179, 183, 215 • The threat of Alt D will hold residents in River Park and Sellwood Harbor hostage for a number of years. We are not able to sell and move. Several of us are seniors and have health needs that require that we move but we are not able to sell. Acquisition will reduce operating revenue for the homeowners associations. Construction will be a major annoyance. We have personally been victims of not being able to sell, though we need to move to assisted living. • I am in my seventies, and my home would be taken for this project. It would affect me tremendously, but also our entire community of seniors: financially, emotionally and aesthetically. I don't want to move at this point in life, but can't anyway, because of the onus on the property. The property value would not matter if we didn't actually have to move and it was only a paper loss. Alternative D does not consider the lives of good citizens. • I do not trust the projection that only 5 condos would be taken. Contrary to projections, all owners in River Park and Sellwood Harbor condominiums would be hurt by this alternative. When will we get accurate ROW cost projections for D? • The alternative will land on unstable ground.

I-4 Sellwood Bridge Project F i n a l Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I: Responses to DEIS Comments TABLE I-1 Responses to DEIS Comments ID Category Comment / Response Commenter IDs All alternatives would displace some residences; Alternative E would displace the largest number of residential units. • Those residents who must live next to a construction zone would undoubtedly experience adverse impacts. These impacts would impact some people regardless of which alternative is chosen. However, several access, noise, air quality, and water quality requirements would restrict actions of the contractor during construction to help minimize these impacts. Unfortunately, the federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, does not allow for compensation to owners who would be indirectly impacted during construction, but whose property would not be required for the project. After construction begins, these residents would sustain temporary impacts (primarily daytime noise and inconvenience) during the construction period. Local noise ordinances would limit noise emissions to primarily daytime hours, except for very limited time spans for activities such as rock blasting in the west-side interchange area. Blasting would be limited to evening hours (for driver safety reasons) for a short duration during the project. • Although Alternative D would cause relocation of some residents, other alternatives would also cause residential and business displacements, as well as impacts to public facilities. • The project team has made commitments regarding the extent of the impacts to the condominiums. Property owners who the project would displace would be able to approach Multnomah County regarding acquisition after the Federal Highway Administration issues a Record of Decision. Right-of-way acquisition would normally begin about one-third of the way into the final design phase, and would likely continue until just before construction contract bid letting, a period of about 2 years. Property would be purchased at fair market value as determined by an appraisal and in accordance with the ODOT right of way procedures. • All alternatives would be located on unstable ground to some degree. Geotechnical experts have advised that the slide can be stabilized through a collection of techniques that would lighten the load on the toe of the slide, anchor the slope into the underlying bedrock, and drain excess water that aggravates the slide. 14 Preference I prefer Alternative E because: 66, 77, 86, 97, 98, • There would be no need to close the bridge during construction. There 102, 160, 164, 180, would be no phasing so construction would not carry out for years. It 194, 207, 214 would save the cost of a temporary bridge. • It can be built faster than Alt D depending on bridge type. Alternative E could be constructed without a temporary detour bridge or closure to traffic. A key disadvantage of Alternative E is that it would have to be built as a whole—that is, both the bridge and the west-side interchange would have to be built at one time. Because funding has not yet been identified for the whole project, selecting this alternative would pose too large a risk that the project might not be able to go forward at all. The duration of construction of Alternative E might be faster than with Alternative D, but Alternative E would have significantly larger business and residential impacts. In addition, it would impact more park and recreational facilities. Also, the curved alignment of Alternative E is considered less desirable from an engineering perspective.

Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement I-5 Appendix I: Responses to DEIS Comments TABLE I-1 Responses to DEIS Comments ID Category Comment / Response Commenter IDs 15 Preference I prefer Alternative E because it would affect less parkland. Additional land 63, 73, 77, 97, 207, could be used for a public purpose. 214 Alternative E would impact seven park and recreational facilities, whereas the preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined, would impact only five. The total impacts of Alternative E on parkland would be only a tenth acre less than those for Alternative D. After local elected/appointed officials identified and recommended Alternative D as the preferred alternative, the design of the bike/pedestrian ramps on the west end was altered to reduce the impacts on parkland, making Alternative D Refined the alternative that would have the least impact (that is, half an acre less than Alternative E). 16 Preference I prefer Alternative E because if you use the box girder design, it would cost 86, 96, 97, 207 less than a, B, or D and the same as C. Your observation may be true, but identification of a preferred alternative did not include bridge type. Local elected/appointed officials will identify the bridge type after the Federal Highway Administration issues a Record of Decision. While cost is a factor, other factors (such as aesthetics, constructability, and aquatic impacts) must be considered when selecting the bridge type. The public will have opportunities for input on the bridge type decision. 17 Preference I prefer Alternative E because: 63, 75, 77, 96, 97, • The impacts of Alternative E are characterized as adverse, however I do 106, 164, 183, 207, not believe the impacts are significant. E will have only minimal impact 214, 215, 217 on the nearby city park. Will not result in destruction of Oaks Pioneer Church. It will cause only 2 decibels of noise increase which is considered a "no adverse effect" to this historic property. The number of acres impacted by E is less. • Jobs will not be lost, they will have to relocate. There is nearly 2 million square feet of vacant office space in southeast and southwest Portland. • The Sellwood Water Front Park will not be harmed. There will be useable land from the ROW purchases to expand the park with this Alt. • The noise would not disturb anyone. It would release the Sellwood Harbor tenants from "hostage" status. There would be no property tax lost from Sellwood Harbor. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) describe impacts in terms of comparative quantities. It is likely that individuals who might experience the impacts personally would ascribe different values to the impacts than the values ascribed by those people who would not be directly impacted. Both approaches to evaluating the impacts come into play during the selection process. Local elected/appointed officials considered all of the points listed in this comment before making their decision. A significant difference between Alternatives D and E (because both could be constructed while maintaining a river crossing during construction) is that Alternative D Refined could be built in phases if funding becomes available only in installments. Alternative E would require full funding for the whole project from the beginning. During this period across the United States, transportation projects are significantly underfunded. Given the condition of the existing bridge and the necessity for action, local elected/appointed officials identified and recommended an alternative that could be accomplished as funding becomes available, rather than Alternative E, which would have required an all-or-nothing approach. Other reasons local elected/appointed officials preferred Alternative D over Alternative E are discussed in responses to Comments #14 and #15.

I-6 Sellwood Bridge Project F i n a l Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I: Responses to DEIS Comments TABLE I-1 Responses to DEIS Comments ID Category Comment / Response Commenter IDs 18 Preference I prefer Alternative E because: 65, 73, 77, 86, 133, • I prefer the dedicated transit lanes which should be designed to allow for 164, 207, 215, 225 streetcar to Sellwood that could also connect to future Milwaukie light rail. Provides the least disruptive alignment relating to transit. Can be modified later to accommodate future transportation needs. • I think track should be built into the transit lane decks for future streetcar routed on Tacoma St. Various extension scenarios were offered. • It is the only alternative that supports transit. All Build alternatives would support public transit. The wide cross-section of Alternative E would have dedicated transit lanes. However, taken as a whole, local elected/appointed officials determined that a short distance of a transit lane on the bridge without separate transit lanes on SE Tacoma Street would not significantly improve transit operations through the corridor. In addition, the community felt that four lanes on the bridge would create a temptation to convert the transit lanes to general traffic lanes in the future, which would conflict with the City of Portland’s 2001 Tacoma Main Street Plan. Since its identification and recommendation as the preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined has been modified to accommodate both a streetcar proposed in the Portland to Lake Oswego Streetcar Project and a potential streetcar line that might cross the Sellwood Bridge in the future. 19 Preference I prefer Alternative E because: 65, 95, 97 • Could it be designed to go over or around River Park offices? Could the church be moved? The project team evaluated and rejected both of these ideas. The new bridge cannot be built over an inhabited building. If the River Park Offices were avoided, either Sellwood Riverfront Park or River Park Condominiums would have been impacted. Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966 provides Sellwood Riverfront Park and Oaks Pioneer Church special protection. Because prudent and feasible alternatives to impacting these properties are available, this approach was not feasible under the law. 20 Preference I prefer Alternative E, and I am strongly opposed to Alternative C. 85, 92, 93, 100, • Alternative E provides the best access to the River View Cemetery. It also 118, 123, 125, 128, preserves the best relationship of the road to the Superintendent's 160, 191, 192, 196, House. It is important to me and my family that we can continue to 197, 198, 199, 200, access the cemetery from OR 43. Many use the lower entrance to access 202, 203, 206 the cemetery, and would find it a hardship if it were removed. Could the historic lower entrance be preserved? • Many bicyclists use the cemetery and would be dismayed to have Alternative C. Many commenters opposed eliminating access to the River View Cemetery from Oregon (OR) 43 (SW Macadam Avenue). Alternative C also would eliminate access to Powers Marine Park and the Staff Jennings property. Local elected/appointed officials felt that these aspects of the trumpet interchange were key reasons for rejecting Alternative C. • Local elected/appointed officials rejected Alternative E primarily because it could not be constructed in phases; would displace the most residences and businesses; and would have greater park and recreational facilities impacts than the other Build alternatives. In addition, the curved alignment of Alternative E was considered less desirable from an engineering perspective. • The preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined, would provide full access to the River View Cemetery, Powers Marine Park, and the Staff Jennings property.

Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement I-7 Appendix I: Responses to DEIS Comments TABLE I-1 Responses to DEIS Comments ID Category Comment / Response Commenter IDs 21 Preference I prefer Alternative E, and I am strongly opposed to Alternative A, B, C or D 96, 97, 99, 106, because: 130, 151, 168, 207, • Of the impacts to River Park and Sellwood Harbor Community. Our 214, 215, 215, 220, house values will be impacted from now through construction if one of A 222 through D were selected. We would also be impacted significantly during construction by construction activities. The noise and dust could prove to be a health hazard. The inclusion of a temporary bridge would place us between two construction areas. If E is selected, we are confident that our house value will be restored. • We do not believe that the condos that are displaced by Alternative A through D, could be removed without damaging the remaining units. While Alternative E might lessen the construction-period impacts, it is doubtful that it would eliminate impacts to the River Park and Sellwood Harbor residential complexes. Alternative E would deconstruct the existing bridge, so even Alternative E would cause impacts in the immediate vicinity of the two housing complexes. The construction impacts of Alternative E would continue to influence buyer behavior in the immediate area. The preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined, would eliminate the need for a temporary detour bridge, reducing the impact area to one bridge instead of two. The architectural and engineering evaluations of the structures that Alternative D Refined would modify indicate that the condominiums could be successfully removed without damaging the remaining units. The project team is committed to the partial removal of the multiple-unit buildings impacted. The remainder would be made functionally whole. 22 Preference I prefer Alternative E, and I am strongly opposed to Alternative A, B, C or D 75, 77, 96, 97, 164, because it is very poor judgment to select an alternative that is grounded in 165, 214 soils which are unstable. Can be built more rapidly than D. Can be the least expensive if 64 feet wide. E is the only alternative that lands on stable ground. None of the alternatives, including Alternative E, would be located on completely stable ground. All the Build alternatives would require mitigation to stabilize the landslide because all of them pass over parts of the slide. Geotechnical specialists are confident that all the alternatives, other than the No Build Alternative, could be successfully and similarly stabilized. Alternative E also would have significantly larger business and residential impacts, and would impact more park and recreational facilities. In addition, the curved alignment of Alternative E is considered less desirable from an engineering perspective.

I-8 Sellwood Bridge Project F i n a l Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I: Responses to DEIS Comments TABLE I-1 Responses to DEIS Comments ID Category Comment / Response Commenter IDs 23 Preference I prefer Alternative E, and I am strongly opposed to Alternative A, B, C or D 50, 65, 66, 73, 75, because: 77, 96, 97, 99, 106, • It does not displace condos in the Sellwood Harbor or River Park 111, 114, 165, 193, developments. Displacement of homes should not be considered when 207, 208, 214 there is an alternative that only relocates businesses. • Relocating a business is not the same as losing a job. The River Park Center is willing to be condemned and is having trouble getting tenants due to uncertainty. • The loss of condo units places a hardship on those that are left. The units that are left will have a reduced market value. • The neighborhood of residents and business owners worked together to create Alt E, but the inclusion of 4 lanes threatens to be changed in the future to create a 4 lane thoroughfare on Tacoma St and disembowel the Tacoma Street Plan we fought for. • Alt E has less aquatic impacts than D. Alt E creates less impervious surface than D. • E is the only viable option, period. It has no closure, The River Park office building can find other office space. #1 priority is livability, period. This is not a regional fix for Clackamas County. Don't destroy our neighborhood and homes. • Please do not displace homeowners in order to build a new bridge when option E is available. Residences and families should take precedence over businesses, the church can be moved away from the new bridge just as it was moved before. • Do the right thing and move it to the north. And away from our homes. These condos were not built to withstand the high level of sound that comes with high numbers of trucks and cars that will come that close to our home. People can already see that I'm having dinner, I just don't want them to see what I'm having for dinner. Alternative E would displace more residential units than the preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined, and many more business units. • It is acknowledged that, during construction, owners might experience difficulties selling residential units that the construction activities would not displace. However, upon completion of the new facility supporting multi- modal transportation, the expectation is that construction would no longer be a factor in the market value. Property values are dependent on many factors. The introduction of multimodal facilities usually has a positive effect on property values. • During the identification of a preferred alternative process following the December 10, 2008, public hearing, local elected/appointed officials evaluated Alternative E with a smaller cross-section. Even with a smaller deck size, this alternative could not be built in phases, which was a primary reason they rejected it. • Modifications to Alternative D resulting in Alternative D Refined include reducing the west-end width by one lane, replacing the spiral bike/pedestrian ramps with ramps that follow the curve of the roadway, and refining the pier location and size. With these changes, the Alternative D Refined concepts for either a deck-arch or a delta-frame bridge type now rank first and third in aquatic sensitivity when compared with all the Build alternative concepts considered in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), including Alternative E. • As the design phase progresses, the project would be continuously improved to further reduce adverse impacts.

Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement I-9 Appendix I: Responses to DEIS Comments TABLE I-1 Responses to DEIS Comments ID Category Comment / Response Commenter IDs 24 Preference I prefer Alternative E, and I am strongly opposed to Alternative A, B, C or D 65, 73, 97, 130 because: • The argument that Alternative D is less expensive than Alternative E does not hold water • Alternative E provides the most cost effective transportation corridor. • If a hybrid and narrower cross section is used, E will be that much less expensive than D. During the identification of a preferred alternative process, local elected/appointed officials evaluated Alternative E with other, narrower cross- sections. A key reason why they ultimately rejected Alternative E was that it could not be constructed in phases. They did not consider the cost factor to be as important as the requirement that the whole Alternative E project be fully funded from the beginning. Alternative E also would have significantly larger business and residential impacts, and would impact more park and recreational facilities. In addition, the curved alignment is considered less desirable from an engineering perspective. 25 Preference I prefer Alternative E, and I am strongly opposed to Alternative A, B, C or D 66, 97, 201, 207 because: • A, B, C, or D could be widened later and take more houses out. • This is the only alternative that has flexibility to meet future needs. All alternatives meet the Purpose and Need of the project, and any of the crossings could be altered in the years beyond the 20-year timeframe of this project. Clearly, however, Alternative E would be the easiest of the alternatives to change, requiring only a redesignation of the transit lanes. The Sellwood community and the City of Portland remain committed to the transportation plan expressed in the Tacoma Main Street Plan. All alternatives are consistent with this plan. Long term goals of the City of Portland are for a higher percentage of future trips to be taken by alternative modes, including bicycle, pedestrian, and public transit. All Build alternatives strongly support that goal. If this strategy is successful, there would be less pressure to consider adding lanes to this bridge in the years beyond the 20-year timeframe of the project. 26 Preference I prefer Alternative E, and I am strongly opposed to Alternative A, B, C or D 114, 165, 207 because: • Considering environmental and future logistical scenarios for transit, E is the better choice. All Build alternatives would support future transit. Local elected/appointed officials did not feel that the benefit to transit from Alternative E’s cross-section would be sufficient to support the added cost and impacts of selecting it. 27 Preference I prefer Alternative E with a 64 foot cross section It could be built narrower 73, 77, 130, 136, to save costs, and widened if needed in the future. 194, 201, 214, 225 • The wider E could be made four lanes, and could violate the Tacoma Main Street Plan in the future. Local elected/appointed officials evaluated Alternative E with a 64-foot-wide cross-section because of these and similar comments. Despite a narrower cross- section, this alternative still could not overcome the disadvantage of not being constructible in phases. Alternative E also would have larger business and residential impacts, and would impact more park and recreational facilities. In addition, the curved alignment is considered less desirable from an engineering perspective.

I-10 Sellwood Bridge Project F i n a l Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I: Responses to DEIS Comments TABLE I-1 Responses to DEIS Comments ID Category Comment / Response Commenter IDs 28 Preference I object to Alternative E because: 80, 90, 101, 121, • It is the most destructive of the choices and the configuration of the 137, 143, 154, 209, west end seems to offer more problems than it solves. 217 • It is too big, and will lead to pressure to widen Tacoma. • Alt. E would cause relocation of our firm that employs over 50 professionals. In 2008, 12.5% of trips made by our employees were by bicycle. We located here in 2007. • It would cause relocation of my job. • It will negatively impact our family and our neighborhood and is not as cost-effective. It also has a long closure time. The Community Task Force (CTF) and the Policy Advisory Group (PAG) took these issues and others into consideration, and decided not to advance Alternative E, primarily because it cannot be constructed in phases. They decided to forward Alternative D Refined (that is, Alternative D with some modifications) as the preferred alternative. 29 Preference I object to Alternative E because: 115, 146, 186, 204 • The impact on the Oaks Pioneer Church and on local streets would be far reaching. The loss of revenue to the Church would be permanent. • Because of its impact on Riverfront Park. Local elected/appointed officials considered these reasons when rejecting Alternative E as the preferred alternative. 30 Preference I object to Alternative E because I object to a north side alternative because 153 we paid much more for our condo so that we did not face a bridge. This would unfairly devalue our condo. Thank you for your comment. Alternative D Refined was identified and recommended as the preferred alternative. 31 Preference I prefer the No Build because: 55, 61, 67, 83, 89, • First, short term, replace the failed west approach with a steel structure. 161, 195, 209, 210 • Repair and maintain the existing bridge. • Drop a “skinny' bridge over current bridge. • Does not disrupt residents and businesses. Park areas are left intact. Cheaper. Do we really want to encourage heavier traffic? In addition to the No Build, would it work to build the Alternative A bike/ped bridge alongside the No Build plan? • It does not impact the cemetery access. • Due to the economy, we cannot afford to construct a new bridge at this time. The No-Build should still be on the books • With the economy in turmoil, it makes no sense to build a 300 million dollar bridge. Rebuild the existing one. There are likely to be lawsuits. That would delay the process further. A new bridge needs to be at a new location. • Leave it the way it is. You don't and won't have the money. • Moving traffic through our neighborhood seems to be the issue, not the effect on the neighborhood. Close the bridge to vehicles and truck traffic and use it for pedestrians and bicycles only. • My concern is the impact that the new bridge and construction process would have on my residence at SE 7th and Spokane St. Noise, litter, traffic, parking, paving and ramping over park space, and the livability of the remaining residential neighborhood.

Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement I-11 Appendix I: Responses to DEIS Comments TABLE I-1 Responses to DEIS Comments ID Category Comment / Response Commenter IDs The No Build Alternative would cost approximately $54 million for repairs just to keep it open for another 20 years. At that point, additional repair projects would likely be necessary. The existing bridge could not be repaired to the point where bike and pedestrian facilities could be added. In short, maintenance alone could not provide a modern transportation solution responsive to the need and the bridge would continue to need intensive maintenance. • The bridge closure for the repairs (approximately 8 months) would negatively impact the community and commuting public. Closing the bridge completely would have a very negative effect on the ability of Sellwood to sustain the neighborhood business community. Although business cycles sometimes briefly impact transportation investments, such investments need to be evaluated for the long term. The Build alternatives would provide a bridge with at least a 75-year lifespan. • While residents whose homes a Build alternative would displace would experience direct impacts, no substantial impacts to the neighborhood at large are anticipated from any of the Build alternatives. It is not expected that any of the Build alternatives would stimulate vehicle traffic growth or that the No Build Alternative would reduce traffic growth. The Build alternatives are expected to stimulate bicycle and pedestrian use. 32 Preference I object to the No Build because: 82, 131 • I do not want to see the bridge given a band-aid just to put off construction for another day. • No Build is not acceptable. This would spend public money with no tangible gain in the long run The Policy Advisory Group (PAG) agreed with this point of view. The preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined, would construct a new bridge and interchange. 33 Preference I prefer any of the Build Alternatives that stay on the existing alignment as 88, 137, 172, 175 long as no detour bridge is built on SE Spokane St. The preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined, would be on the existing alignment and would not require a temporary detour bridge. Local elected/appointed officials considered these as important factors when selecting the preferred alternative. 34 Preference We want the selection of alternative to be based on the following: 80, 121, 139, 163, • Supportive of an alternative and design option that creates the least 166, 185, 188 amount of negative impacts to fish and wildlife populations. • Does not create pressure to add lanes on Tacoma Street. • Does not increase cut-through traffic. • Preserves economic vitality. • Preserves the ambience and prestige of the Oaks Pioneer Church. • Least disruption of parkland, residential units, and businesses, in that order. • Don't build a bridge larger than the neighborhood can handle. This is the only bridge that feeds directly into a neighborhood. • Replacement bridge should have the same alignment as the existing bridge.

I-12 Sellwood Bridge Project F i n a l Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I: Responses to DEIS Comments TABLE I-1 Responses to DEIS Comments ID Category Comment / Response Commenter IDs Local elected/appointed officials initially identified and recommended Alternative D as the preferred alternative because it met all of these criteria except the first one regarding impacts to fish and wildlife. They subsequently revised the bridge concept and the west-side interchange to reduce impacts to fish and wildlife resources. In addition, they developed mitigation measures that would reduce impacts that would still occur. This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) documents the impacts of the preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined. 35 Preference I prefer a rehabilitation alternative: 98, 167, 208, 223 • Fix the old bridge until it is more clear what the future will require. • I prefer a conservative approach—either no build or the least disruptive rehabilitation option, recognizing that the west approach requires relatively immediate attention regardless of the choice. We can buy more time at a reasonable annual cost in order to re-evaluate needs in 10 to 20 years when transportation modalities and usage will most certainly have changed in ways that we may not foresee. Local elected/appointed officials are confident that, in the future, the existing bridge would need to be replaced or rehabilitated at a cost higher than the cost of constructing a new bridge. The No Build Alternative, which would cost $54 million for temporary bridge repairs, would provide only a short-term (20-year) solution, without offering any ability to accommodate transit, bicycles, or emergency breakdowns. 36 Preference I prefer a rehabilitation alternative: 105, 110 • With improvements, and better bike/ped lanes, change the lighting. • With and added lower ped/bike path, Or build a new car bridge and convert the entire old one to bike/ped use. Changing the lighting would offer only a 6-inch widening of the bike/pedestrian facility on the bridge. Any continued use of the existing bridge would require expensive repairs. Having two bridges next to each other would increase the impacts on the neighborhood without any significant savings. The preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined, would combine all uses on one structure. 37 Preference I object to Alternatives A, B, C, and D because: 102, 160 • River park will lose 14 parking spaces. This is not adequate street parking during the day. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) reported displacement of these parking spaces because they would be in the direct impact area for construction of the bridge. Parking provisions during the construction period will be part of the construction plan that will be developed during final design of the project. Post-construction use of this space, which has not yet been determined, is likely to be the subject of right-of-way negotiations. 38 Preference I prefer Alternatives A, B, C, and D because: 49, 185 • Because it maintains the existing alignment. • I strongly favor the Alternatives that keep the bridge on its current alignment, whether rehabilitation or replacement. The alternatives to the north interfere too much with one of the jewels of the area— Sellwood Park along the river. Local elected/appointed officials identified and recommended Alternative D Refined as the preferred alternative. It would be on the existing alignment, with widening to the south.

Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement I-13 Appendix I: Responses to DEIS Comments TABLE I-1 Responses to DEIS Comments ID Category Comment / Response Commenter IDs 39 Preference I prefer a new bridge, for improved safety. 58, 143, 148, 166 The preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined, would construct a new bridge. 40 Preference I do not support this project because it does not relieve congestion and it is 79, 166 not going to provide a freight route to move commerce. The alternatives really seem strange. Ped goes from 20' to 37' and vehicle travel goes from 22' to 48'. The West side interchange should be interchangeable with the bridge design. The project, as intended, would replace a failing link in a transportation network that serves primarily local commerce and commuting traffic. Because the project would restore truck traffic, where such traffic currently is prohibited, it would support freight movement. Congestion on adjacent streets and highways is to be expected because all pass through highly urbanized commercial and residential areas characterized by signal-controlled intersections and limited lane capacity. Even a four-lane bridge and a free-flow interchange would not significantly reduce congestion within this corridor. 41 Preference I prefer no bridge: 60 • Take the bridge out. The economic impacts of eliminating the bridge would be significant to both the neighborhood and the entire transportation network. Several businesses within Sellwood would not be able to survive without the bridge in place. Without the bridge, commuter costs would increase significantly across the region. Traffic would shift to the Ross Island Bridge, which would significantly disrupt that part of the transportation network. Local elected/appointed officials did not consider removing the bridge a viable solution. 42 Preference I prefer to keep the current bridge and change its use to a bicycle and 189 pedestrian bridge. Under any continued-use scenario, the existing bridge would require $54 million in repair within the next 20 years. Eliminating automobile, truck, and transit use permanently would have significant negative economic and transportation impacts, as explained in the response to Comment #41. 43 Preference I prefer a new bridge that: 86, 154, 185, 195, • Has a good appearance. A cable stay would look dramatic and cost less. 204 The tower and abutments could be built around the existing bridge to lessen closure time. • That takes the Tacoma Main Street plan into account. • Is “right sized” for the future. Need to keep the scale of the neighborhood in mind. Regional needs must be addressed by more than a single bridge. • Avoids impacts to Riverfront Park. • That is chosen quickly to have the least impact on the neighborhood.

I-14 Sellwood Bridge Project F i n a l Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I: Responses to DEIS Comments TABLE I-1 Responses to DEIS Comments ID Category Comment / Response Commenter IDs Local elected/appointed officials identified and recommended Alternative D Refined as the preferred alternative. Alternative D was revised somewhat to meet most of the expectations in this comment. • Local elected/appointed officials have not selected the bridge type because the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) process leads to this decision being made after FHWA issues a Record of Decision. Factors in the selection of the bridge type include cost, aesthetics, aquatic impacts, floodplain impacts, and constructability. A cable-stayed bridge is no longer under consideration because it could not be built without closing the crossing to traffic for an extended period of time. Alternative D (and Alternative D Refined) could be built one-half at a time, keeping the existing crossing open to traffic during construction.  The bridge design selection process will include involvement of a citizens advisory committee, and opportunities for public comment. • The cross-section of the west end of the bridge was reduced by one lane.The two through lanes to SE Tacoma Street would be in conformance with the City of Portland’s 2001 Tacoma Main Street Plan. • Alternative D Refined would not impact the Sellwood Riverfront Park. • The project is moving forward as quickly as the complexity of regulatory requirements allows. The resulting revised alternative is as responsive as possible to the many competing user groups and impacted communities. 44 Preference The bridge design should be simple, allowing traffic to once again cross the 66, 88, 96, 187 river unrestricted by weight. It should be a basic box design, which requires minimal maintenance over the decades. Choose the box girder for cost reasons. • Save the “design statement” for the new Tri-Met and Bike/Ped bridge Local elected/appointed officials are still considering the box-girder, delta-frame, and deck-arch bridge types. Interest remains high in having a bridge that would be aesthetically pleasing. There is also a great deal of interest in keeping the cost low. The bridge type will be selected l after the Federal Highway Administration issues a Record of Decision. The bridge design process will include a citizens advisory committee, and opportunities for public comment. 45 Preference A single eastside pylon, cable-stay bridge would address the problematic 68, 80, 113 geology of the west side terminus and provide a visual counterpoint to the high topography Westside bank, resulting in an aesthetically exciting bridge. • It should be built to at least a 200 year standard. • It should be beautiful and individually expressive. Let's spend a little extra to build a bridge we can be proud of. Your comments are noted. Local elected/appointed officials will use several criteria for selecting the bridge type and design. First, and foremost, the bridge must be constructed in halves to maintain a river crossing throughout construction. The existing bridge would remain in place while the first half of the new bridge was constructed. Then traffic would be moved to the new structure while the existing bridge was removed and replaced with the second half of the new structure. This construction approach would eliminate several bridge types. Cost is also an important factor because transportation funding is extremely limited. The federal bridge guidelines direct that new bridges be designed for 75- year life spans. The project team hopes the new bridge would last 200 years, if well cared for. However, it is impossible to determine functional requirements for a bridge that far into the future.

Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement I-15 Appendix I: Responses to DEIS Comments TABLE I-1 Responses to DEIS Comments ID Category Comment / Response Commenter IDs 46 Preference I prefer a through-arch bridge. 82, 178, 205 • Would do justice to the wonderful Sellwood community. In addition, I would suggest lighting the bridge daily at dusk to enhance its beauty Please see the response to Comment #45. The construction method would not allow for a through-arch design. Your lighting suggestions will be considered during the design phase of the project. The project team will provide opportunities for public input on the bridge design. 47 Preference A through-arch bridge design selected for Alt C (my preference) is 86, 166, 189 expensive, not pretty, and will interfere with other views. Local elected/appointed officials have identified and recommended Alternative D Refined as the preferred alternative. The construction approach that this alternative would require could not accommodate the through-arch design. Please see the response to Comment #45. 48 Preference I prefer the roundabout interchange. 82, 101, 109, 175, • It operates better than the signal. 208 • Roundabouts are a safer and more effective alternative to signalized intersections. • They seem to work everywhere I have experienced them. • The cheapest solution is usually the best solution. This intersection type is favored in the rest of the world. Suggest modifying this option with the addition of a bike/pedestrian activated signal. Your comments are noted. After considerable discussion, local elected/appointed officials identified and recommended the signalized intersection as an element of the preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined. The roundabout works well for vehicles, except during peak-hour traffic, when it has a tendency to create gridlock in all flow directions. To remedy this, ramp meters were added to the design, modifying it from a true, free-flow roundabout. The most significant issue is that pedestrians and bicyclists would have more difficulty navigating a roundabout. Bicyclist/pedestrian-activated signals were added to the design to address this situation. However, this defeats the purpose of a roundabout. In addition, it would be less safe for pedestrians and bicyclists because vehicle drivers in the roundabout would not expect intermittent signal use. In addition, the roundabout poses problems for providing bus stop opportunities for bus- riders trying to transfer from one bus to another or from a bus to a streetcar. 49 Preference I object to the Roundabout interchange because: 48, 80, 86, 88, 110, • Roundabouts are dangerous to bicyclists and pedestrians. 125, 187, 205 • Much as I love roundabouts in general, the bridge end is not the place for one. • They do not promote efficient traffic flow. New Jersey and Massachusetts are taking them out. • It would bring traffic to a stop. • They are confusing to motorists, especially the elderly. • It could cause major congestion at peak hours. • I fear the effect on the active landslide of the wider round-about interchange, and the increased right of way costs. • It appears to infringe on the cemetery property and access to the cemetery. Local elected/appointed officials agreed for most of the same reasons and have identified and recommended the signalized intersection interchange as an element of the preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined. Please see the response to Comment #48.

I-16 Sellwood Bridge Project F i n a l Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I: Responses to DEIS Comments TABLE I-1 Responses to DEIS Comments ID Category Comment / Response Commenter IDs 50 Preference I prefer the signalized interchange. 129, 187 Local elected/appointed officials have identified and recommended the signalized interchange as an element of the preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined. 51 Preference I prefer not to have a signalized interchange: 48, 205 • They have safety issues, and they waste gasoline. • Because signals impede traffic. • It will congest traffic, if signalized at either end of the bridge. Local elected/appointed officials have identified and recommended the signalized interchange as an element of the preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined. While the issues you raise are of concern, signalized intersections on SE Tacoma Street and Oregon (OR) 43 (SW Macadam Avenue) control the overall corridor. Signalized intersections are designed to be set to a progression to handle traffic smoothly. Still, at times, the volume of traffic would exceed the capacity of the system and congestion would occur. This project does not add significant capacity to the system. 52 Preference I prefer the trumpet interchange because: 90, 109, 143, 187, • The trumpet operates better than the signal. 204, 205, 217 • It creates a free flow design. Although the trumpet interchange would operate well, it would eliminate access to the River View Cemetery, the Staff Jennings property, and Powers Marine Park. The trumpet interchange is a free-flow design, but the streets and intersections in all directions from the interchange are signal-controlled. In other words, the congestion would simply move to a nearby intersection. 53 Preference Don't replace the west interchange 110, 195, 209 • If neither Macadam or Tacoma is being widened, why do we need an expensive new interchange? Cut it out to save cost. • Just fix the west end, and don't rebuild. • What's wrong with the simple bridge approaches currently? They work. The preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined, would allow for retaining the existing interchange for a period of time if funding were not available for the whole project at one time. Ultimately, the new interchange would allow for free flow on Oregon (OR) 43 (SW Macadam Avenue) through this section and would eliminate one intersection. The access to River View Cemetery, now provided directly from OR 43, would operate through the upper level of the interchange in the preferred alternative so that it would not impede OR 43 traffic (as it does today). The existing bridge and approaches are under-designed for heavy loads and are functionally obsolete. The space for pedestrians, bicyclists, and shoulders (for emergency breakdowns) is inadequate. 54 Preference I oppose a signal at 6th and Tacoma. 204, 205 • Free flow of traffic will discourage cut-through traffic. • A light would cause unnecessary congestion. The preferred alternative, Alterative D Refined, would include a bicyclist/pedestrian-activated signal at the east intersection. This would allow pedestrians and bicyclists intermittent crossing opportunities, but would not increase cut-through traffic because, most of the time, this intersection would be free flow. 55 Preference I prefer the Grand Avenue Loop at 6th Avenue 90, 187, 204 Local elected/appointed officials rejected this solution from consideration because it would cause too many direct impacts and it could increase cut-through traffic in the neighborhood.

Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement I-17 Appendix I: Responses to DEIS Comments TABLE I-1 Responses to DEIS Comments ID Category Comment / Response Commenter IDs 56 Preference I prefer to have a left turn lane to the north at 6th Avenue. 187 A left-turn lane would be included at this intersection, and most left turns would be made as breaks occurred in westbound traffic. Bicyclist/pedestrian-activated signalization would be provided, and this could also provide left-turn openings. 57 Preference I oppose the Grand Avenue Loop at 6th Avenue. It will create an additional 189, 208 place for transients to collect. It will set-up Spokane Street as a couplet to Tacoma. This must be avoided at all costs. Local elected/appointed officials recommended that this solution be eliminated from consideration. 58 Preference I prefer the Grand Avenue Loop at 6th Avenue 80, 171, 205 • The loop should be considered regardless of alternative. • Traffic bound for Oaks Park should not have to negotiate a left-turn during peak hours. • Would allow motorists to get from the north side of Tacoma Street to the south side without having to proceed to 13th Ave. Although local elected/appointed officials evaluated the Grand Avenue Loop with Alternative C, they understood that it could apply to any alternative except Alternative E. Local elected/appointed officials determined that the potential impacts of this solution outweighed its benefits. With the preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined, this intersection would operate as it does today for vehicle traffic. However, a bicyclist/pedestrian-activated signal would allow bicyclists and pedestrians to more easily cross SE Tacoma Street. 59 Preference Has anyone considered moving the bridge on ramp back to 7th or 8th 54 Avenue in order to allow the bridge height to soar over the businesses and residences in order to allow them to remain? It is the policy of the Federal Highway Administration and Multnomah County that no occupied buildings be located under new bridges. In addition, it is dangerous to have occupied buildings under bridges that are undergoing construction. Elevating the ramp, as suggested, would have displaced additional businesses that have at-grade access east of the SE 6th Avenue intersection. This suggestion would not have resulted in fewer displacements than the number identified in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). With the preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined, the right-of-way acquisition would be confined to those buildings directly under the existing bridge, plus a very small margin of additional land for maintenance. 60 Preference I prefer the bridge have no more than 2 to 3 lanes because: 88, 124, 139, 143 • Neighborhood streets and Tacoma cannot accommodate more lanes without deteriorating the neighborhood. • I would not like to see more than three lanes. Use the middle lane as a flex lane, for buses and emergency vehicles, switching at rush hour. • Have two oversize lanes for the traffic to cross the bridge safely. The oversize lanes will allow emergency vehicles to get up on the bridge once the traffic moves off to the sides. • No to 4 lanes or any widening that would ever make 4 lanes possible. The basic cross-section of the new bridge would be two through lanes with bike lanes/shoulders. Auxiliary lanes would be located at each end of the bridge to accommodate left and right turns, and to store traffic waiting to make these turns. The travel lane width plus the bike lanes/shoulders would provide sufficient width to accommodate emergency vehicles, as required.

I-18 Sellwood Bridge Project F i n a l Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I: Responses to DEIS Comments TABLE I-1 Responses to DEIS Comments ID Category Comment / Response Commenter IDs 61 Preference I prefer the cross-section of Alt. B. It has enough space for peds, bikers, and 187 vehicles, with the possibility for an extra lane. The preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined, would have a two through-lane configuration similar to that of Alternative B, but each part would be slightly wider. For instance, Alternative B would have 11-foot-wide travel lanes, and Alternative D Refined would have the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) standard 12-foot-wide travel lanes. The shoulders would be 6.5 feet wide in Alternative D Refined (which would allow them to be used safely as bicycle lanes in addition to serving as shoulders), rather than 5 feet wide (as in Alternative B). Compared with the 10-foot-wide path in Alternative B, the City of Portland standard 12-foot-wide shared-use trail in Alternative D Refined would be a connection between the regional trails on either bank of the Willamette River. This width would add comfort and safety for pedestrians and bicyclists who would be sharing the trail but traveling at different speeds. 62 Preference Match the lanes on the bridge to the lanes on Tacoma Street. 52, 80, 113, 131, • If the bridge is 4 lanes, make Tacoma 4 lanes. If the bridge is 2 lanes, 150, 204 leave Tacoma Street as 2 lanes. • Tacoma Street must stay 2 lanes • Macadam-Hwy 43 and 99E are both 4 lane roads. The bridge and Tacoma should be 4 lanes (or 2/1 that switches) to prevent bottlenecks. If lights were timed at 23 mph, traffic would be calmed. • The congestion problem would not be solved in any way by adding more lanes, as the bottle neck would simply be moved to either end of the bridge. • A two lane replacement bridge seems short-sighted for a projected 75- year lifespan, but it seems driven by the neighborhood plan to promote livability. I have no problem with this priority. • Can not be more than 2 to 3 lanes. A larger bridge could not be accommodated by neighborhood roads without severe detriment to the community. This comment reflects the preponderance of opinion on the topic of appropriate width and number of lanes on the bridge. The preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined, would have a basic two through-lane cross-section, with auxiliary lanes at the intersections on either end of the bridge to efficiently clear congestion at these locations. 63 Preference If the bridge needs to have 3-foot shoulders, why not make them functional 52, 205 for bikes by making them 6 to 6.5 feet? Three-foot-wide shoulders are not adequate for two-lane bridges. With these shoulders, cars cannot pull over so that emergency vehicles can pass. The preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined, would have 6.5-foot-wide bike lanes that could be used both as bike lanes and, in an emergency, as shoulders. 64 Preference I hate biking on the existing bridge, though I love cycling. Any build 58, 109, 129, 204, alternative would improve biking facilities. 205 The preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined, would provide excellent bike and pedestrian facilities, as well as connectivity to major paths in the region. Transit transfer points would also be accommodated.

Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement I-19 Appendix I: Responses to DEIS Comments TABLE I-1 Responses to DEIS Comments ID Category Comment / Response Commenter IDs 65 Preference I prefer a separate bike bridge: 129, 157, 208 • We should find a way to make it cheaper. • If Alternative A is selected, I prefer that the bike/ped bridge be constructed first so that at least this traffic could be accommodated during construction. Local elected/appointed officials rejected the separate bike/pedestrian bridge concept for the following reasons: • The additional cost. • Safety/security concerns because motorists would not have been able to observe bicyclists and pedestrians who were not traveling directly adjacent to them. Bicyclists and pedestrians feel safer with this passive observation. • The increased impact to the natural and social environment because two bridges (and their piers) would have existed instead of just one. • Concerns from the bicyclist community that, if funding were limited, the construction of the bicycle bridge would have been delayed. 66 Preference I oppose a separate bike bridge: 88, 90, 105, 177, • I think having a totally separate bike/ped bridge is a danger. 186, 204 • Providing safe paths on the bridge is very important to me. • A separate Bike bridge is not cost effective. • Bikes could use the new Tri-Met bridge by OMSI rather than the Sellwood Bridge. Local elected/appointed officials addressed several of these concerns when they identified and recommend Alternative D as the preferred alternative. Please see the response to Comment #65. The new TriMet Bridge is planned to serve bicycles. However, because of its location, it would not serve the same bicyclist and pedestrian demands as those for the Sellwood Bridge. While one might argue that the new TriMet Bridge would be within range for most bicyclists, the same could not be said for most pedestrians. It is also likely that the new TriMet Bridge would take a significant part of the bicycle traffic out of direction (that is, for those whose destinations were not north of the existing Sellwood Bridge crossing). 67 Preference Separation of Bike/Ped and auto functions. 103, 112, 129, 138, • I prefer that bikes, pedestrians, and autos each have their own distinct 139, 147, 170 lanes. • I was disappointed to see such an emphasis on auto lanes. • Bikes should completely be off the bridge, on their own bridge, or under the bridge. • Getting bicyclists and pedestrians away from traffic is absolutely essential. • Give bikes as much consideration as cars. Give bikes a healthy space with which to cross, unlike Ross Island Bridge The preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined, would give separate space to automobiles and to bicyclists who would prefer to ride in an on-street environment. The 12-foot-wide shared-use trail would mix recreational bicycle riders and pedestrians. If desired, the trail could be divided into separate lanes for bike and pedestrian users, though this is not part of the present proposal.

I-20 Sellwood Bridge Project F i n a l Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I: Responses to DEIS Comments TABLE I-1 Responses to DEIS Comments ID Category Comment / Response Commenter IDs 68 Preference I prefer bike lanes in addition to shared sidewalks because: 109, 204 • Fast moving commuters don't mix well with pedestrians. • Apply signage to keep bikes and peds apart. Bicycle commuters would have an on-street lane with the preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined. At this time, the preferred alternative would incorporate a shared-use path for recreational bicyclists and pedestrians, but the design would not preclude dividing this space further. 69 Preference I prefer the double decked bridge if: 103, 110, 122, 175, • Bike lanes and pedestrian lanes are marked to avoid conflicts arising 186 because of different speeds. • I would also support a separate bike deck, The biking and pedestrian communities rejected the double-deck bridge for safety and aesthetic reasons. The issue of dividing the shared-use path into separate bike and pedestrian lanes has not been addressed, but the design would not preclude it. 70 Preference I really dislike the underdeck pedestrian/bike section of Alternative C. 109, 154 • The ones proposed on a lower deck are disgusting, because in addition to the safety problem, users would be deprived of the aesthetic rewards of crossing the bridge on foot or bike—enjoying the view and sky above. The majority of bicyclists in the community share this point of view. The bicyclists and pedestrians would be accommodated on the top deck in the preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined. 71 Preference I would like to see a design that allows cleaning of the bike, ped, and auto 121 lanes to remove dangerous debris such as glass, screws, and liquids. The cross-section of the preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined, would support maintenance operations because maintenance activities could be performed without closing travel lanes on the bridge. 72 Preference I prefer the straight bike/ped ramp on Alternative C to the spiral ramps. 109 In the preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined, the shared-use path ramps have been revised to follow the curve of the roadway and join with the Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank) on the west end. This design would address the issue for bicyclists and pedestrians, and would reduce adverse habitat impacts. 73 Preference Please pay attention to trail on the west side. It is out of view, and not safe 121 at this time. The preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined, would include a 14-foot-wide paved multi-use trail that would extend north from the interchange. It would be a significant improvement over the existing situation. 74 Preference The double deck bike/ped path is clever But it poses danger because it is 65, 154 out of sight. The preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined, would locate the bike/pedestrian facilities on the same deck as the vehicles and next to the roadway to address this issue.

Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement I-21 Appendix I: Responses to DEIS Comments TABLE I-1 Responses to DEIS Comments ID Category Comment / Response Commenter IDs 75 Preference Make sure that it's designed for first-class bike/ped/transit access—that's 109, 138, 174, 177 the only way we can accommodate future growth in the region. The preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined, would address many travel modes—bicycles, pedestrians, motor vehicles, trucks, buses, and streetcars. It also would accommodate river traffic, a rail line, and potential future streetcar lines between Portland and Lake Oswego and on the Sellwood Bridge. The project would be truly multimodal. 76 Preference I think the following bike/ped facility would work. 52, 82, 138 • I prefer a Hawthorne-bridge Style sidewalk with enough room for cyclists and pedestrians. • Only need one wider lane for bicycles and peds. Don't need lanes on both sides of the bridge. The two 12-foot-wide shared-use paths, plus on-street bike lanes/shoulders, would provide sufficient space for both bicyclists and pedestrians to use the facility effectively. It is always preferable for bicyclists and pedestrians to travel in only one direction on a path of this width. It is hoped that bicyclists and pedestrians would use the shared-use paths in the same direction as the traffic lane nearest them. This would improve the safety and capacity of the facilities for all users. 77 Preference Restoring direct TriMet bus service from Tacoma St. across the Sellwood 167, 177, 204 Bridge is my top priority • Bikes and pedestrians are a priority, as well as public safety and TriMet buses—heavy trucks are not. The preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined, and all Build alternatives would safely accommodate TriMet service, trucks, emergency vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists. 78 Preference Some reference to trolley tracks (on Tacoma St.) would be far sighted. 170 In the preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined, the bridge would be designed to accommodate a future streetcar in the automobile travel lanes. In addition, the access road to River View Cemetery, Powers Marine Park, and the Staff Jennings property was modified to accommodate a streetcar line. Although a streetcar is not part of the project proposal, since the bridge is a new and major part of the transportation network, local elected/appointed officials decided that the project should be designed to accommodate other transportation modes in the future. 79 Preference I support a temporary bridge: 195, 218 • See if the military could build a temporary bridge. Local elected/appointed officials rejected the concept of using a temporary detour bridge. Please see the responses to Comments #80, #81, and #82. 80 Preference I support a temporary bridge: 205 • Residents could survive without a temporary bridge, but I don't think businesses can. Local elected/appointed officials determined that long-term closure of the crossing during construction would have very significant impacts on local businesses and residents. The preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined, could be constructed without long-term bridge closure and without a temporary detour bridge. For navigation, a temporary detour bridge near the existing bridge would have to be at least 65 feet over low-water. A temporary detour bridge would increase the impacts to the residences and businesses on both riverbanks.

I-22 Sellwood Bridge Project F i n a l Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I: Responses to DEIS Comments TABLE I-1 Responses to DEIS Comments ID Category Comment / Response Commenter IDs 81 Preference I object to a temporary bridge because: 69, 84, 89, 100, • My home would be between the temporary bridge and the bridge under 108, 111, 121, 137, construction during the period of construction. My home would be 160, 168, 193, 207, noisy, dusty, and difficult to access. The property value would be 208, 220, 222 depressed during the whole period of construction. These impacts have not been thoroughly addressed. Fourteen parking spaces at Sellwood Harbor would be displaced as would on street parking. It would be difficult to gain access to our homes. • A temporary bridge would be a major problem for anyone between the two construction sites for a number of years, making for negative livability and difficult parking and accessibility. • A temp bridge is an insane idea, and 100% unacceptable. Would need to condemn our property with this. • Please, do not build the temporary detour bridge on Spokane St. This would create an unlivable situation for the residents of this area. Riverpark condos would be placed in a virtual “construction sandwich”… • The temporary bridge would totally destroy any chance of our being able to sell our homes at Riverpark. • In building a temporary bridge, utility relocations and disruptions will add additional project costs, considerable noise and environmental dangers, and long-term negative impact to adjacent residences and businesses. The preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined, would allow traffic to remain on the existing bridge while the first half of the structure was constructed. Then traffic would be moved to the new half bridge while the old bridge was removed and the second half of the new bridge replaced it. This would allow construction of a new bridge without the use of a temporary detour bridge and would not confine residents between two construction zones. Local elected/appointed officials felt that this was a key factor when they selected Alternative D Refined as the preferred alternative. 82 Preference I object to a temporary bridge because: 121, 143, 164, 166, • It would cost too much and the cost would be wasted. 208 • The irreparable impact that it would have seems much bigger than the benefit. Local elected/appointed officials agreed that the cost and impacts of a temporary detour bridge were not warranted given that the crossing could remain open during construction without the use of a temporary detour bridge. 83 Preference Minimize or avoid closure of the bridge during construction. To avoid 58, 116, 121, 185, impact to neighborhood businesses. Keep the bridge open to foot traffic 204, 205, 225 during construction. I walk to work! Concern for impacts to the cemetery during construction and temporary bridge closure. During construction, the crossing would remain open for automobile, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic. Trucks, buses, and heavy emergency vehicles would be allowed to cross the river either during the second half of construction or following completion of the bridge.

Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement I-23 Appendix I: Responses to DEIS Comments TABLE I-1 Responses to DEIS Comments ID Category Comment / Response Commenter IDs 84 Preference I am strongly against closure of the bridge during construction 87, 91, 100, 114, • A bridge closure could be the end for quite a few small businesses. 116, 135, 142, 152, During the Bybee closure, though short, we lost business. We would 157, 180, 181 expect a longer closure to have significant impacts on businesses. Our customer base is within a 5 mile radius of our business. That includes customers on the other side of the bridge with is one mile from my business. Customers are not loyal if there are huge barriers to getting to the business. • I need to be able to get to Beaverton for my job. • The Sellwood Bridge must stay open during construction. At least 50% of my customers live on the West side and will not make the extra effort to go way around to other bridges when other businesses are closer to them. I and my retail neighbors will not survive if the bridge is closed. This would adversely affect the whole community. • I travel the bridge twice a day, both for work and to access service providers on the immediate west side of the bridge. There simply is no good alternative route for those of us in Sellwood seeking to travel in that area—forcing people to take the Ross Island Bridge would be incredibly wasteful of resources and time, not to mention extremely disruptive. • The additional bridge will attract transients during construction. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) analysis identified significant impacts from long-term bridge closure on both the business community and commuters. In addition, several businesses testified at the December 10, 2008, public hearing about the adverse impacts of the SE Bybee Street closure, and did not want a repeat of the experience. The preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined, would not require long-term bridge closure during construction. 85 Preference I favor temporary closure. 208 • Close the bridge for the time it takes to fix the west end. There are other ways to the other side. It is estimated that repair of the west end (the No Build Alternative) would require closure of the bridge for about 8 months. The economic impact of a closure this long could cause some businesses to fail. 86 Preference There should be an additional bridge at another location to provide access 52, 55, 111, 124, from Clackamas county to the west side of the Willamette River and points 167, 195, 209 to the west because: • It would take commuter traffic out of the Sellwood community. Sellwood, Eastmoreland, and Westmoreland do not want to become a throughway that will destroy our existing scale of living. Advocate for future train/streetcar service on Milwaukie/Lake Oswego/Beaverton line. • Choose the No-build for now, address only the west side approach, re- address the issue in 10 to 20 years when the transportation picture is clearer. Then, maybe the region will recognize the need for another South Willamette River crossing or at least share the financial costs. Metro's 1999 South Willamette River Crossing Study evaluated a variety of bridge locations between southeast Portland and Oregon City. The study recommended preservation of the existing Sellwood Bridge or replacement of the bridge in the existing corridor. The No Build Alternative could buy some time, but local elected/appointed officials did not consider it a cost-effective solution.

I-24 Sellwood Bridge Project F i n a l Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I: Responses to DEIS Comments TABLE I-1 Responses to DEIS Comments ID Category Comment / Response Commenter IDs 87 Preference Planners should be thinking 25-35 years out and providing a real solution to 74 getting eastside commuters to their jobs via four lane roads. A new bridge should start at the foot of Taylor's Ferry and Macadam on the Westside and connect to McLoughlin Ave near Milwaukie Ave overpass on the east. Keep the present Sellwood Bridge, but limit it to pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Transportation planning in Portland has moved away from planning large, high- volume roadways designed to accommodate automobiles towards dispersing automobiles on a lower-volume network of roads and placing greater reliance on other modes of travel (including light rail, streetcar, bus, bicycle, and foot). This approach is coupled with a focus on land-use planning that supports these modes of travel. The project would not increase capacity for automobiles, but it would add bus, streetcar, bicycle, and pedestrian capacity. It is anticipated that up to 10,000 trips a day would be added to this corridor from these travel modes, while the automobile capacity would be the same as with the No Build Alternative. 88 Preference If the selected alternative closes the bridge, the Tacoma St. Ferry should be 57, 177 reinstated for pedestrians and cyclists. The preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined, would avoid long-term closure of the bridge. 89 Preference Instead of storing traffic on extra lanes on the bridge crossing, could extra 154 traffic be stored in extra lanes on OR 43? In the westbound direction, the bridge is the only location for vehicle storage. Vehicles would back-up on the bridge east of the signalized intersection at the west-side interchange. In the eastbound direction, the bridge receives traffic from two southbound lanes from the OR 43 off-ramp. This ramp would store vehicles until they were able to cycle through the signalized intersection at the west-side interchange. The northbound OR 43 off-ramps to the bridge also contribute to this stream flow. In summary, in the westbound direction, there is no way to avoid storage of cars on OR 43. In the eastbound direction, vehicles would be stored on the OR 43 ramps. 90 Preference Build E without bike facilities. Use the old bridge for bikes and peds. 127 This approach would create two bridges in place of one, and would have significantly more environmental impacts than the preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined. The bicycle and pedestrian communities have also spoken out against separate bridges for motorists. They prefer to have motorists nearby to provide passive surveillance. 91 Preference To prepare for earth quakes, the foundation of the new bridge should have 127 a ferry dock to provide emergency transportation in the event of a major earthquake. The new bridge would be built for a 1,000-year-return-period earthquake, which is the contemporary standard for modern bridge design. This is more stringent than the prior 500-year-return-period earthquake that was the basis for earlier design codes. The 1,000-year event is based on having only a 5 percent chance of occurring in the next 50 years. Emergency transportation in the event of failure of a new bridge is outside the scope of this project, and addressed by local and state emergency management agencies.

Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement I-25 Appendix I: Responses to DEIS Comments TABLE I-1 Responses to DEIS Comments ID Category Comment / Response Commenter IDs 92 Preference I suggest a bridge alignment to the south that would use the old railroad 80 right-of-way in the vicinity of Ochoco Street to connect to 17th and create a traffic corridor to Highway 224. Metro’s 1999 South Willamette River Crossing Study reviewed this location and concluded that the existing crossing location should be maintained. The existing railroad has a pre-existing right to operate in the SE Ochoco Street corridor. 93 Preference Why not make Alt. C a double-deck continuous truss bridge? This would 80 maintain the narrow footprint and provide visual continuity. Consider a design with a two –lane bridge deck on both levels. One for bikes/peds and perhaps transit, or even future completion. Bicyclists and pedestrians did not approve of the aesthetic and safety aspects of a double-deck bridge. Local elected/appointed officials rejected this concept in favor of having all travel modes on one deck. In addition, having all travel modes on the same level would facilitate changing between modes (for instance, pedestrian to bus or streetcar, or bicycle to transit of some type). 94 Cost Cost to build or maintain: 79, 86, 166, 177, /Funding • It is also important to know the cost of each interchange and how each 184, 187, 195 effects traffic flow. • Make the bridge efficient to maintain • The cost should be lower because the economy is bad and the construction industry needs business. Local elected/appointed officials thoroughly considered the cost and effectiveness of the interchange options before identifying and recommending the preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined. The ease and efficiency of bridge maintenance will be a significant consideration during final design of the bridge. When developing a project of this magnitude or when public safety is involved, it is very difficult to plan the project to hit the business cycle at a time that would be most cost advantageous. 95 Cost Is it possible that the bridge would qualify for one of the infrastructure 164, 205 /Funding projects that is getting attention? • With a reduced carbon footprint because of streetcar possibility, the bridge could attract federal funds Both of these concepts would help the project to compete for funding through the state legislature and Congress. Some legislative funding has been secured. Staff members have been investigating all funding sources, including the federal stimulus package and transit funding. 96 Cost The bridge has regional significance. It should be regionally funded. 82, 113, 116, 166 /Funding • The City of Portland and Clackamas County should contribute to this project since so many residents are using this bridge on a daily basis. • Based on current economic conditions, the funding availability is not clear. Federal money was desired for the project, but it does not seem like it would be available in this economic climate. Multnomah County, Clackamas County, the City of Portland, and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), as well as legislative and congressional delegations, have been discussing the funding for the bridge. Multnomah County has enacted a vehicle registration fee with revenue dedicated to support the Sellwood Bridge project. The State Legislature has allocated funding for a portion of the interchange. Other sources are expected to include the City of Portland, Clackamas County, and federal transportation construction funds. A complete funding plan must be provided to the Federal Highway Administration prior to the start of construction

I-26 Sellwood Bridge Project F i n a l Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I: Responses to DEIS Comments TABLE I-1 Responses to DEIS Comments ID Category Comment / Response Commenter IDs 97 Cost Set up a toll to pay for the bridge. 71, 143 /Funding Tolls have been discussed to fund construction. However, the analysis showed that tolling only one bridge when there are other alternative routes without tolls would be an ineffective approach because many potential toll-bridge users would divert to other bridges. This would reduce the revenue and create congestion on the other routes. 98 Cost Tax the bike users. They need to pay their share 209 /Funding Users of all modes of travel are likely to contribute to the funding, either directly or indirectly. Most alternative-travel-mode users are automobile users some of the time, and they pay vehicle registration fees. Local elected/appointed officials have identified vehicle registration fees as a key source of funding for the project. 99 Cost I do not see any information on how you are going to fund the bridge. That 60, 63, 214 /Funding information would affect my choice. Local elected/appointed officials are still working out funding scenarios. The identification and recommendation of the preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined, would leave some flexibility in funding the project because this alternative could be constructed in phases, if necessary. Responses to Comments #96 and #100 detail the current expected funding sources. 100 Cost There is no funding plan. Failure to develop a funding plan illustrates a lack 167, 214 /Funding of commitment by the agencies to this project. • If the project cannot be funded, then choose the No-Build so we are not held hostage to uncertainty. Multnomah County, Clackamas County, the City of Portland, and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), as well as legislative and congressional delegations, are discussing the funding for the bridge. Multnomah County has enacted a vehicle registration fee with revenue dedicated to support the Sellwood Bridge project. The State Legislature has allocated funding for a portion of the interchange. Other sources are expected to include the City of Portland, Clackamas County, and federal transportation construction funds. A complete funding plan must be provided to the Federal Highway Administration prior to the start of construction. 101 Cost The one pound weight of license plate holders is wearing roads and should 70 /Funding be taxed. Or, take it off and recycle it. Your comment is noted. The fiscal and organizational contributions of the license plate and the holder that displays it exceed the cost of their contributions to the wear on pavements.

Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement I-27 Appendix I: Responses to DEIS Comments TABLE I-1 Responses to DEIS Comments ID Category Comment / Response Commenter IDs 102 Process How the alternatives were presented made it difficult for us to 167, 194 communicate the combination we wanted. • The selection of Alt. E was combined with a 74 foot deck. This seemed like an unfair combination. We want to be able to select Alt E with a 64- foot option. • This handicapped selection of this alternative since many do not want a four-lane project. • A 75 foot would be a four lane monstrosity going through the neighborhood. Local elected/appointed officials understood that each alternative had location, cross-section, and interchange options that could be exchanged or hybridized. Following the December 10, 2008, public hearing and the 45-day Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) comment period, local elected/appointed officials evaluated Alternative E with a narrower, two-lane cross-section. This combination was discussed with senior staff, the Community Task Force (CTF), and the Policy Advisory Group (PAG). Local elected/appointed officials did not identify or recommend Alternative E for advancement, even with a narrower cross-section, because it could not be constructed in phases (that is, the bridge and interchange separately), while other alternatives could be. Given the uncertainty associated with acquiring funding, local elected/appointed officials felt it was most prudent to identify and recommend an alternative that could be constructed in phases. 103 Process There was a strong bias toward Alternative D on the part of decision 96, 99, 194, 223 makers. The material is biased to Alternative D. • The survey will support D because there was no opportunity to combine Alternative E with 64 foot span. • Alt E will not get the votes it deserves because of the 75 foot span. Decisions about the preferred alternative were not made based on a vote. The purpose of the public survey on the project Web site was to gather public opinion and to raise issues that the project team might have missed. In this case, based on various comments, local elected/appointed officials evaluated Alternative E with a smaller deck configuration, as discussed in the responses to Comments #102 and #106. All the alternatives were evaluated factually and equally. The preponderance of information led local elected/appointed officials to identify and recommend Alternative D Refined as the preferred alternative because it could be constructed in phases without closing the crossing to traffic. 104 Process The DEIS is flawed because it did not address the hybrid alternatives. It did 62, 194, 214 not provide cost information for the hybrid situation It is true that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) did not provide cost analyses for every potential hybrid solution. However, during the decision- making process following the December 10, 2008, public hearing, a cost analysis was provided for those potential hybrid solutions that emerged as desirable combinations. Most of the potential hybrid solutions fell within the cost range discussed in the DEIS. However, while cost was a factor, it was not the definitive decision parameter when local elected/appointed officials identified and recommended the preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined. 105 Process The snow has limited my ability to do a real analysis. You should extend the 169 comment period until after the snow thaws. Your comment is noted.

I-28 Sellwood Bridge Project F i n a l Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I: Responses to DEIS Comments TABLE I-1 Responses to DEIS Comments ID Category Comment / Response Commenter IDs 106 Process The DEIS is not adequate for the following reasons: 156, 163 • The scope of the EIS failed to consider a Hwy 224/43 crossing by narrowing the project scope so as to focus the outcome to get the answer the county wants. One which forces the Sellwood bridge to become the South Willamette Crossing. By piling multiple conflicting objectives into this one project, the Sellwood bridge becomes a regional bridge, when a regional bridge should undergo a separate EIS. • The DEIS failed to address the values of the Tacoma Main street plan. The effects of all alternatives on the Tacoma Main Street plan should be fully evaluated. • The DEIS failed to fully analyze effects to the neighborhood traffic patterns and pedestrian and bike safety. Each bridge alternative will result in significantly different traffic volumes and cut through traffic in the neighborhood east of the bridge. These effects should be fully evaluated. • Alternative E in the Draft EIS is completely beyond the scope of this analysis. It constructs Trojan horse transit lanes where no transit corridor has been identified. Alternative E deserves no further analysis Metro’s 1999 South Willamette River Crossing Study addressed the issue of a regional crossing. This study recommended that the Sellwood Bridge be preserved or replaced in its existing corridor as a two-lane bridge with better service for bicyclists and pedestrians. A draft environmental impact statement may rely on earlier planning decisions when evaluating projects. • The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) evaluated the alternatives with respect to compatibility with the City of Portland’s 2001 Tacoma Main Street Plan. All alternatives would have only two through lanes on SE Tacoma Street, which would comply with that plan. The additional lanes proposed at each end of the crossing are auxiliary lanes needed to make the intersections at either end of the bridge operate effectively. • The total volume of future traffic crossing the bridge would not vary with bridge type or between the Build alternatives and the No Build Alternative. Only the treatment of the SE 6th Avenue and SE Tacoma Street intersection would affect whether traffic would increase within the neighborhoods, and that intersection would have only a minimal effect. With the preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined, the SE 6th Avenue intersection would remain the same as it is today with regard to automobile traffic. However, it would incorporate a bicyclist/pedestrian-activated signal to allow pedestrians and bicyclists to intermittently and safely cross SE Tacoma Street during heavy traffic periods. • The largest influence on traffic congestion (and, therefore, the tendency to tempt traffic to use side streets to avoid congestion) would be operation of the signalized intersections at SE Tacoma Street and SE 13th and SE 17th avenues. These are the intersections where major north-south traffic movements conflict with east-west movements on SE Tacoma Street. • Alternative E addresses a constituency that prefers an alternative that emphasizes public transit. The transit lanes were attached to Alternative E because it is the only location where additional width would not have severe additional impacts on the neighborhood. Ultimately, local elected/appointed officials rejected this concept as not effective in promoting transit usage. They evaluated this alignment with a narrower cross-section following the December 10, 2008, public hearing, but ultimately rejected Alternative E.

Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement I-29 Appendix I: Responses to DEIS Comments TABLE I-1 Responses to DEIS Comments ID Category Comment / Response Commenter IDs 107 Process The DEIS is not adequate for the following reasons: 163, 189 • Inadequate noise, air quality, wildlife, construction activities. Inadequate analysis of the effect of increased truck traffic on all of the above. Remedy these in the FEIS The Federal Highway Administration and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency judged the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) adequate. The effect of increased truck traffic was incorporated directly into the air quality and noise analyses (data included peak truck hour and percent trucks). The wildlife and construction activities were analyzed with the understanding that there would be increased truck traffic. This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) has been updated regarding the impacts of the preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined, because it is a somewhat hybridized solution that includes modifications of accesses and bike/pedestrian ramps on the west end. This alternative was analyzed separately and the results are reported in this FEIS. 108 Process The process of selecting the bridge is taking too long. We are homeowners 86, 89, 156 that will be displaced by Alternatives A thru D. Please hurry and make a decision. Our lives are in limbo, and we can't move because we cannot sell our property. • We were told the decision would be made in December 2007. During that time, our home values have declined, and we are in “freeze” mode. I would like to see an intelligent decision made very quickly based on economic conditions and impacts on livability, with a guarantee that the funds have been awarded for this project. • The timeline for the DEIS is one year behind schedule. This seriously undermines the public involvement process by dragging the process out for such a long time. The project team is sympathetic to the desire to move as quickly as possible through the process of proposing, evaluating, selecting, and constructing a solution. This process represents a large body of work by engineers, public involvement specialists, agency regulators, environmental specialists, stakeholders, and local elected/appointed officials. Also at play are many regulations, each with its own process requirements and timelines. While it may seem very slow to those the project would directly impact, the project is making very steady progress. 109 Process The process of selecting the bridge is taking too long. This project has 58, 66, 81, 111 needed to be done for some time. Stop worrying about offending someone. Current homeowners should have reasonably expected something would be done. Make a decision. • Hurry up and get this done. Everybody has known that this bridge has needed to be updated or replaced for 30 years. My daughter drives over the bridge to Lake Oswego daily. When the bridge is closed, it will be 15 miles longer. My neighbor rides her bike over the bridge to Lewis and Clark daily. We are ready for this nightmare to end. • We have been unable to sell for 2 years and our taxes are the same. We need resolution from Multnomah County. Please see the response to Comment #108. Questions of property value and taxation should be directed to Multnomah County directly. If your residence would need to be acquired for the project, the value of the dwelling would be determined based on fair market value, without the influence of impending construction. Unfortunately, if the project would not need to acquire your dwelling, the project would not compensate you for any temporary loss of value. The expectation is that property values would return to normal or that they might increase once the new facility supporting multi-modal transportation was completed.

I-30 Sellwood Bridge Project F i n a l Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I: Responses to DEIS Comments TABLE I-1 Responses to DEIS Comments ID Category Comment / Response Commenter IDs 110 Process Two day notice of the meeting shows your effort to limit the input from the 83 general public. The project team provided many opportunities for input from the public on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). These opportunities included public briefings, a December 10, 2008, public hearing, a 45-day public comment period, a project Web site with a public survey, and e-mail messages. Community Task Force (CTF) meetings and Policy Advisory Group (PAG) meetings were open to public audiences, with opportunities for public input provided. Notifications were provided 2 weeks in advance of meetings, although one newspaper notice was published only 6 days in advance of one event. Individual post offices make carrier route deliveries at their discretion, so it is possible that notices were delivered in some locations closer to the event date than the project team had planned. The project team did not receive any complaints about late notices during the project. 111 Process The project has provided conflicting information over time about the 61 number of Sellwood Harbor homes likely to be condemned in this project. • We are skeptical regarding how many homes would ultimately be taken out. As the project developed, small changes were made to the alternatives as more information was gathered regarding the project area and stakeholder preferences. During preparation of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), the alternatives were "frozen" for the evaluation. After local elected/appointed officials identified and recommended Alternative D, the project team incorporated minor changes in response to DEIS comments and regulatory requirements, resulting in Alternative D Refined. Compared to the Alternative D presented in the DEIS, the preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined, included minor changes at the west end and the interchange area. The results of these modifications would primarily reduce impacts to properties. This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) reports these changes. After publication of this FEIS and issuance of the Record of Decision, the project will proceed to final design and right-of-way acquisition. While it is possible that minor changes could occur that would affect right-of-way impacts during this next stage of development, the project team has taken care to describe what is believed to be the greatest impacts that would likely occur. The basic focus during final design will be to try to reduce the impacts, not increase them. 112 Process The survey process did not seem fair because it did not allow for a hybrid 62, 136, 156 choice. • Alternative E which was the choice of several, was saddled with a wider deck. We couldn't choose E with a 64-foot deck. • The survey was superficial and did not address any real issues about the bridge, the public involvement process or the range of alternatives put forth in the DEIS. The survey asked for a preferred alternative, but allowed responders to identify elements of the alternative they would like to have changed. People who preferred Alternative E were able to note the desire for a change in the cross- section. In any case, the survey was not a "vote," and was only one of a number of ways individuals could express an opinion. The project team provided the survey as an option for expressing support for an alternative, especially for those who did not want to take the time to write a more detailed comment.

Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement I-31 Appendix I: Responses to DEIS Comments TABLE I-1 Responses to DEIS Comments ID Category Comment / Response Commenter IDs 113 Process It would have been useful on the survey to ask where we were commuting 78 to, not just where from. You could determine if there is no other option to using the Sellwood Bridge. The survey data information was for the purpose of understanding the audience responding to the survey, and was not statistically valid for doing traffic analysis. The origin and destination information used in the traffic analysis was from the information in Metro’s and City of Portland’s regional traffic model. This information is based on origin and destination studies done at various crossing points that used methods that were statistically valid. 114 Process Why did we not have a public vote? 201 • We should have been able to vote on Alternative E with a narrower 64ft. width. Project alternatives are not subject to a public vote. Representatives from Multnomah County, Clackamas County, City of Portland, City of Milwaukie, Metro, Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), and TriMet participated in the Policy Advisory Group (PAG). The Multnomah County Commission, Portland City Council, and Metro Council then approved the recommendation of the PAG. The Federal Highway Administration will be the final decision-maker. 115 Process How to select between alternatives. 184 • Life Cycle Cost Analysis is the most appropriate methodology to compare project alternatives which contain rehabilitation and replacement options. Life-cycle cost analysis is one tool that local elected/appointed officials can use when evaluating alternatives. If minimization of the costs of construction and continued maintenance were the principal decision criteria, this kind of analysis would be essential. For this project, issues regarding the economic viability of the neighborhood during construction, the ability to construct the project in phases, and other impacts were more significant than life-cycle costs. Instead, the project used construction and reconstruction costs to weigh cost factors between rehabilitation and replacement options. 116 Transpor- The DEIS does not address cut-through traffic in the Sellwood 144, 162 tation neighborhood adequately. • Alternative E, and to a lesser degree C would clearly increase the traffic pressure trying to find ways around the bottlenecks on SE Tacoma St. The key factor affecting the potential for neighborhood cut-through traffic would be the treatment of the intersection of SE 6th Avenue and SE Tacoma Street. The preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined, would include a bicyclist/pedestrian- activated signal at this intersection. This signal would allow pedestrians and bicyclists to cross intermittently, but would not increase cut-through traffic because, most of the time, this intersection would be free flow, as it is currently.

I-32 Sellwood Bridge Project F i n a l Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I: Responses to DEIS Comments TABLE I-1 Responses to DEIS Comments ID Category Comment / Response Commenter IDs 117 Transpor- Please address safety of pedestrians in the neighborhood. 105, 119, 146, 149, tation • The term “cut-through traffic” does not do justice to the gravity of the 162, 163, 176 safety issue. These are neighborhoods with kids playing in the streets. One single careless driver could lead to a devastating and irreparable consequence. • There does not appear to be much concern for the neighborhood by the drivers. • Please keep our children's safety in mind. Safety of pedestrians, bicyclists, and automobile drivers has been a critical concern of the project from the outset. The preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined, and the treatment of the SE 6th Avenue and SE Tacoma Street intersection would not change the capacity of the roadway or the configuration of the intersection with respect to automobiles. The preferred alternative would add a bicyclist/pedestrian-activated signal to give pedestrians and bicyclists a safer opportunity to cross SE Tacoma Street at SE 6th Avenue. Under all alternatives, even the No Build Alternative, traffic is expected to increase by 33 percent over the next 20 years. Growing congestion on SE Tacoma Street could tempt more drivers to use neighborhood streets to try to escape congestion. Traffic-calming methods applied to the side streets and potential improvements to signalized intersections on SE Tacoma Street could help mitigate the tendency of some traffic to evade SE Tacoma Street. Such remedies would need to be the subject of separate projects because they are outside the project area, and the project would not increase the impact over the existing or projected No Build Alternative conditions. 118 Transpor- I was a representative to the legislature for 16 years. Traffic congestion, 167 tation and adverse impacts on local residents was always among the top five issues identified by voters. These issues were considered throughout the development of the project. The project team responded by not increasing the capacity of the bridge so that the through lanes would match the City of Portland’s 2001 Tacoma Main Street Plan. The preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined, would be responsive to issues local residents raised about community livability. These issues included significant improvements of bicycle and pedestrian facilities and the reinstatement of transit options in the corridor. 119 Transpor- Some alternatives will increase traffic on Tacoma Street, resulting in 146, 149, 163, 183 tation negative impacts on the neighborhood • Please assess the impacts on the neighborhood. It would split the neighborhood in two. • There should be access for autos entering Tacoma St. from the south during morning rush hour half way between 13th St and the bridge. Perhaps a signal that only operates during rush hour. SE Tacoma Street already acts as a significant barrier between north and south Sellwood during peak-hour traffic. The project is designed to maintain access to Sellwood from the west side of the Willamette River, but would not increase the capacity of through traffic, either on the bridge or within Sellwood. • Signalized intersections could improve crossing opportunities for north-south traffic. However, these intersections might add congestion for east-west traffic, which could increase the tendency towards cut-through traffic. A variety of solutions that would require trade-offs are available. These issues, which would require the attention of a separate study, are outside the responsibility of the project’s bridge replacement effort.

Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement I-33 Appendix I: Responses to DEIS Comments TABLE I-1 Responses to DEIS Comments ID Category Comment / Response Commenter IDs 120 Transpor- The DEIS does not consider the implications of the physical curb-to-curb 172 tation width of the bridge and the potential for future reconfiguration of the cross-section into a four-lane vehicle bridge. The curb-to-curb width of Alternative D Refined would be 37 feet, not wide enough to expand to four lanes. Creation of a four-lane vehicle cross-section could only be made by sacrificing sidewalk and bike lane space as well as causing significant impacts to the Sellwood neighborhood and SE Tacoma Street. If such a concept were proposed in the future, it would require public involvement, extensive study, and a transportation plan revision based on the needs of that future condition. 121 Transpor- I walk or ride a bike and have difficulty crossing Tacoma St, especially 113, 121, 126 tation during rush hour. You do not address how to mitigate this impact. • I need safe crossing of Tacoma for bikes and peds without causing traffic build-up. • I am concerned that in this community of 10,000, many of us have to cross Tacoma to access the schools. We can only cross at 17th which is an at capacity intersection, and still not safe enough, even with a signal. I am concerned for my children's safety. These issues are not addressed enough in the DEIS. Safety on Tacoma needs to be part of the Sellwood Bridge project. A bicyclist/pedestrian-activated signal was added to the preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined, at SE 6th Avenue to make it easier for pedestrians and bicyclists to cross SE Tacoma Street in the project area. The bridge project has applied measures to ensure safety that are applicable to the bridge study, such as limiting the capacity of the bridge, greatly improving bike and pedestrian facilities on the bridge, adding a bicyclist/pedestrian-activated signal on the east end, and adding signal-controlled crosswalks in the west-side interchange. A separate study would be needed to determine additional measures for addressing safety concerns elsewhere on SE Tacoma Street and in the neighborhood. The City of Portland has jurisdiction for SE Tacoma Street. 122 Transpor- I do not see any discussion of eastbound traffic after it leaves Sellwood. 76 tation • Traffic goes too fast through the neighborhood. I don't like the idea of more traffic in the neighborhood. • Is there any discussion of making a bridge to the south, and leaving the existing bridge for bikes and peds? Table 3.1-1 of Chapter 3 of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) listed the general origins and destinations of traffic that uses the bridge. Dispersion of traffic if the bridge were closed was discussed under “Bridge Closure during Construction” on page 3-13 of the DEIS. The economic consequences of long-term bridge closure were discussed under economic impacts starting on page 3-71 of the DEIS. Features such as a SE Grand Avenue extension and a signal at the SE 6th Avenue and SE Tacoma Street intersection, which were expected to increase the potential for neighborhood cut-through traffic, were eliminated from consideration during identification of the preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined. Metro's 1999 South Willamette River Crossing Study determined the general location of a bridge facility. Even if additional alternative crossings were to be considered in the future, the study considered it important to maintain access to Sellwood from the west side.

I-34 Sellwood Bridge Project F i n a l Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I: Responses to DEIS Comments TABLE I-1 Responses to DEIS Comments ID Category Comment / Response Commenter IDs 123 Transpor- The west end interchange and queuing lanes heading southbound to the 107 tation bridge need as much attention as the bridge itself. The west-side interchange design for the preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined, would add length to the off- and on-ramps to the bridge for traffic storage. The interchange would be on two levels, with Oregon (OR) 43 (SW Macadam Avenue) traffic on two through lanes below that would be free flowing. The existing signal to the River View Cemetery would be eliminated, and the cemetery access would be transferred to the intersection on the upper level of the interchange. 124 Transpor- Do not compromise the Sellwood Main Street Plan. Do not add pressure to 116 tation increase the number of lanes on Tacoma Street. The preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined, would have only two through lanes, as does SE Tacoma Street. This alternative, as well as all Build alternatives, would be consistent with the City of Portland’s 2001 Tacoma Main Street Plan. 125 Transpor- Address the impacts of re-establishing a de-facto freight route. The DEIS 172 tation mischaracterizes the truck impacts as “enhancing local delivery service” when the project will re-establish a regional east-west truck route across the river with a forecasted 1,600 trucks per day. Potential truck conflicts with the forecasted 9,350 pedestrians and bicyclists need to be addressed. In the City of Portland’s 2006 Freight Master Plan, SE Tacoma Street is designated as a Truck Access Street. This designation recognizes its role as an access and circulation route for the delivery of goods and services to neighborhood-serving commercial and employment land uses. Heavy truck traffic is forecasted as less than 5 percent of vehicle traffic. The shared-use path for bikes and pedestrians would be separated from the lanes in which trucks would operate. Some bicycles might choose to use the bike lane/shoulder area that would be immediately adjacent to the lanes in which trucks would operate. 126 Transpor- I prefer to keep the truck prohibition in place because they drive through 121, 167, 189 tation the neighborhood. They have found alternative routes by now. • The trucking industry rep testified that truckers do not now and will not rely upon the Sellwood Bridge in the future. I hope he is correct and accurately reflects the position of his peers. • No matter which alternative is selected, the current weight limit on trucks of 10 tons should be kept. Large trucks are just too burdensome to the Sellwood neighborhood. Buses could be exempted from this limit. The project Purpose and Need includes restoration of truck traffic as one of the goals of the project. The Sellwood community relies on truck services for re- supplying businesses, parcel delivery, and moving trucks. Heavy truck traffic is expected to represent less than 5 percent of total vehicle traffic on the bridge. 127 Transpor- Ensure the west interchange is designed to optimize the future capacity for 107, 172, 195 tation streetcar service across the Sellwood Bridge. There needs to be a future connection for streetcar so the system can head to the east and the south. After local elected/appointed officials identified and recommended Alternative D Refined as the preferred alternative, they modified the access between SE Tacoma Street and River View Cemetery to accommodate streetcar movement from SE Tacoma Street to a potential Portland to Lake Oswego streetcar line. At this time, the Portland to Lake Oswego Streetcar Project is undergoing environmental evaluation.

Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement I-35 Appendix I: Responses to DEIS Comments TABLE I-1 Responses to DEIS Comments ID Category Comment / Response Commenter IDs 128 Bike/ I would like to see the estimated increase in biking and walking under 122 Pedestrian various alternatives • Please include the long term benefits and costs of the alternatives with respect to attracting more pedestrian and bike use, replacing vehicle use. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) showed projected bicyclist and pedestrian traffic under the Build alternatives and the No Build Alternative (pages 3-32 and 3-33). Motorized traffic is not projected to vary among the different Build alternatives. Bicyclist and pedestrian traffic projections were considered as an addition to automobile traffic, not a substitute for it. Generally, analysts assumed that the existing substandard condition of the bike and pedestrian facilities on the bridge has suppressed demand. This demand is expected to increase rapidly after the new facility has been constructed. 129 Bike/ Evaluate an under deck bike/ped path that is attached to the bridge, but 172 Pedestrian not necessarily under the bridge. This configuration may have ramps that have a path that does not gain as much elevation, and does not require the spiral ramps. Following the December 10, 2008, public hearing, local elected/appointed officials investigated several configurations of the under-deck path. Ultimately, none of the proposals gained their full support. As now configured, the preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined, would have the bike lane and shared-use path on the same deck as the automobile traffic. Responses to Comments #2 and #6 refer to reasons the bicyclist and pedestrian communities did not favor either under-deck option. 130 Bike/ I am concerned about the safety of the west-side interchange for bicyclists 56 Pedestrian who are cycling from Lake Oswego to Portland, or Portland to Lake Oswego. The current road arrangement is unsafe. Which plan is best to protect these bicyclists? The Sellwood Bridge project would provide a shared-use path from the bridge north to SW Miles Street. Currently, no bike path or lane exists from the Sellwood Bridge south on Oregon (OR) 43 (SW Macadam Avenue) to Lake Oswego. It is beyond the scope of the proposed project to add such a bike path or lane at this time. However, two studies are underway that might provide paths for bicycles and pedestrians south of the Sellwood Bridge—the Portland-Lake Oswego Streetcar Study and the Metro Regional Trail Study. 131 Bike/ Evaluate the risk associated with optimizing the west interchange to 100, 129, 172 Pedestrian provide access to River View Cemetery. Maintaining bicycle access to and through the cemetery is an important, but potentially risky objective. The final interchange design should be contingent on the acquisition of a public easement to maintain public access through the cemetery. Consider the benefit/cost of other possible routes. The preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined, would maintain automobile and bicycle access to the River View Cemetery. Maintaining agreements with River View Cemetery that would allow bicycles to move through the cemetery to the interchange is outside the responsibility of the Sellwood Bridge project. However, the City of Portland is pursuing an agreement with River View Cemetery to formalize and protect this route.

I-36 Sellwood Bridge Project F i n a l Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I: Responses to DEIS Comments TABLE I-1 Responses to DEIS Comments ID Category Comment / Response Commenter IDs 132 Bike/ The most important aspects of a new a bridge is ample room for 141 Pedestrian pedestrians and bicycles. There needs to be sidewalks and bicycle lanes on both sides of the new bridge. Sidewalks need to be no less than 10 feet wide (if no bicycles) and 20 feet if it includes bicycles. The preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined, would maintain bike lanes and shared-use paths on both sides of the bridge. It is expected that the on-street bike lanes/shoulders (each 6.5 feet wide) would accommodate experienced bicycle riders who would normally travel faster. The shared-use paths would combine pedestrians with less experienced bicycle riders. The shared-use paths would be 12 feet wide. 133 Bike/ How will access to the Springwater Trail be handled? Both during 161 Pedestrian construction and after completion? Following construction, access to the Springwater Corridor Trail would be via the SE 6th Avenue intersection and local streets. The connection would also be maintained during construction, but safety concerns might require a short detour during portions of the construction period. 134 Right-of- We are homeowners that will not be displaced by the project but we will be 63, 84, 97, 106, Way impacted during construction. We are already being impacted by 214, 222 uncertainty. Our property values are lower now, and we cannot sell our properties due to uncertainty. Will we be compensated for loss of property value, inability to sell our property, or for the fact that fewer condo owners will be left to share the homeowners fees for the common areas? What about the loss of 21 parking spaces in our common area? • There are several owners, for health reasons, who desperately need to sell their homes now. However, they cannot sell because potential buyers are afraid of the consequences. • The document does not properly address the de facto condemnation of our building by the temporary bridge options. We would be between two construction sites, rendering our units unsalable. • We believe that the County has seriously underestimated the ROW costs of acquiring Sellwood Harbor units and common ground. • The federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, guides right-of-way acquisition for public transportation projects. Properties would be appraised for value at the time of acquisition, and would be given fair market value. The value would be appraised as if the property were not in a proposed construction zone, so the impending project would not influence the price. Relocation assistance might also be available. • Properties that were not acquired for the project would not be compensated for any temporary influence on the value of the property arising from the construction project. • Acquisition of the homeowner association’s common property would be compensable to the homeowner association. The ownership of the spaces would govern acquisition of the 21 parking spaces. The property now occupied by the 21 parking spaces is proposed as permanent right-of-way that would belong to Multnomah County. However, the final use of this space following construction has not been determined and might be the subject of right-of-way negotiations that could restore the parking spaces. • The preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined, could be constructed without the use of a temporary detour bridge, so the residential area would not experience this impact.

Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement I-37 Appendix I: Responses to DEIS Comments TABLE I-1 Responses to DEIS Comments ID Category Comment / Response Commenter IDs 135 Right-of- If you take properties from the building, condemn the whole building, or 97, 137, 158 Way allow us to relocate. Otherwise we are trapped in a construction zone for what may be a long time. • How will you compensate owners of condos if Alt. D is chosen? All condos will be greatly devalued, not just those that are acquired. There is no mention of the cost to compensate the Home Owners Association for the lost revenues and to compensate home owners for depreciated home values caused by this alignment (D). • The financial impact of the potential raise in HOA dues could impact the salability of our units. This was not adequately addressed. • The ROW costs do not appear to have a calculation to pay for 21 parking spaces that will be lost with the bridge alignment • During construction of All alternatives, our properties will be virtually un-sellable. We would certainly seek, at the very least, tax abatement. What does the county propose for mitigation? Please see the response to Comment #134. Laws governing right-of-way acquisition allow only for the acquisition of right-of-way that is required for the project. The balance of a property might be acquired if it would become a non- economic remainder. However, it is not likely that the balance of the condominium building would fall into this category. The potential for some impact to the homeowner association (HOA) dues was discussed in the economic impacts section of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). This issue would be addressed as part of future right-of-way negotiations with affected property owners. The cost for acquiring the 21 parking spaces was part of the right-of-way cost estimate. However, these were only estimates made with less precision than would be applied at the time of acquisition. All acquisition values would be recalculated at the time of acquisition, and would be based on fair market value at that time. Until then, it is best to use the values in the study only for determining relative differences among the alternatives in aggregate right-of-way costs. 136 Right-of- The threat of losing our home has adversely affected our lives. 98 Way It is regrettable that project planning, design, right-of-way acquisition, and construction impact those closest to the project more than others. It is hoped that, following construction of the bridge, these same residents would again experience the environment that existed prior to construction, or a better environment. 137 Right-of- DEIS 3-58 (Grand Place vacant): States that Grand Place is a “vacant 137 Way complex.” This is not accurate. Grand Place has several residential units occupied as of this writing (12/18/08) At the time the study was conducted, those units were not occupied. However, in making their assessment, the project team treated them as if they were occupied, knowing that, at some point in the future, it was likely that they would be occupied. Thank you for the updated information. 138 Right-of- There is the office building that would require businesses to relocate, but 117, 164 Way even the owner of the building agreed in the public meeting that businesses could be moved with less upheaval than people's homes. (Alt E) While the owner of the building did express this sentiment, some of the tenants expressed an opposing opinion. While local elected/appointed officials considered business relocation as a factor in not identifying or recommending Alternative E as the preferred alternative, other factors (such as the impacts to park properties, residential relocations, and the inability to construct the alternative in phases) were also important.

I-38 Sellwood Bridge Project F i n a l Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I: Responses to DEIS Comments TABLE I-1 Responses to DEIS Comments ID Category Comment / Response Commenter IDs 139 Right-of- The DEIS contains no structure or architectural certification that Alt. D 63, 215 Way plan can be implemented with the condemnation of only three homes from Building A, and only one from Building D. An architect and a structural engineer have examined the structures. Their evaluation has assured the project team that the units could be separated and the remaining building restored as presented in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). 140 Right-of- Would the cemetery be compensated for being cut off as in Alt. C? 143 Way The preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined, would not cut off access to the River View Cemetery. The cemetery would be compensated for property to be acquired for construction of the project. 141 Right-of- We acquired a building 4 years ago that will be displaced. This is our 173 Way retirement income. There are many complications. It would seem that our building is only needed temporarily if E is selected. We are hoping that the building can remain intact. It is the policy of the Federal Highway Administration and Multnomah County that no occupied buildings be located beneath this bridge. In addition, it is dangerous to have occupied buildings under bridges that are undergoing construction or demolition. The right-of-way disposition of individual properties would be the subject of direct negotiations with agents during right-of-way acquisition. Please raise your concern at that time. 142 Right-of- Land acquired for ROW can be used for additional park spaces on the east 97 Way side. This comment will be resolved during construction planning phases. 143 Right-of- DEIS 3-52, 54, 56 (parking) There is not presently adequate street parking 69, 137 Way on SE Spokane St. during the day between SE Grand and the Willamette River. In addition, late afternoon-evening parking takes up all present space most evenings. We want the county to make Spokane St west of Oaks Parkway, a permit parking (residents) zone. During project development, Multnomah County would carry out construction- period planning with the selected contractor. Issues such as construction-period parking would be determined at that time, and affected residents would be notified. The City of Portland regulates permanent parking on SE Spokane Street. 144 Minor Comments on the DEIS presentation: 246 Gram- • Reports should include graphics that demonstrate the impacts of the matical and Technical alternative bridge designs. Edits Reports developed to support the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) included graphics where the authors felt they were needed for the planning phase of project development. Bridge types and designs will be studied in depth during the design phase after the Federal Highway Administration issues a Record of Decision. At that time, additional graphics will be prepared. 145 Minor Comments on the DEIS presentation: 188 Gram- • ODFW suggests mapping proposed locations of water quality treatment matical and Technical facilities for inclusion in the FEIS Edits This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) addresses water quality treatment options and locations more specifically.

Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement I-39 Appendix I: Responses to DEIS Comments TABLE I-1 Responses to DEIS Comments ID Category Comment / Response Commenter IDs 146 Minor Pg 3-14 Balance cuts and fills 188 Gram- matical and Technical Edits The final design will adequately address the hydraulic needs of the project. The cuts and fills in this project would be most focused on the geotechnical needs of the landslide area. However, the design team is also mindful of cut-and-fill requirements as they relate to construction requirements in the floodplain. 147 Minor 3-15 Aquatic Resources, Page 3-156: Habitat in the Project Vicinity. The 188 Gram- sentence within the last paragraph of this section states, “The lower river matical and was only used by salmon and steelhead trout as a migration corridor.” A Technical clarifying sentence is needed. Historically, the lower Willamette River was a Edits major rearing area for salmon and trout. In the recent past, as a result of human influences on the river, the lower Willamette is primarily considered a migration corridor. Recent ODFW investigations documented evidence of salmon spawning in the lower Willamette River. Your comment is noted and incorporated into this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). 148 Biology Minimize in-water structures, Page 3.151, 3.14.3. ODFW recommends 188, 246 round piers as a mitigation measure. In water bents with square pier designs create greater scour than round piers. In water bents with square piers also increase the amount of large woody debris captured which can lead to gravel bar development. As of this writing, two bridge types are still under consideration. The bridge type will not be determined until final design, which will be after the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) issues a Record of Decision. The bridge’s piers will be designed to meet floodway standards and to reduce scour, as well as to minimize impacts on threatened and endangered fish species. It is always beneficial for the sake of the structure itself that it be designed to avoid the capture of large woody debris. Pier design will be evaluated and identified in the next phase of the project after FHWA issues a Record of Decision. 149 Biology Impacts to wildlife and habitat: Of particular concern to me is the lack of 167, 226 any helpful information about the impacts of massive construction upon the extremely sensitive habitat for endangered species—natural riverbank and parklands. It is equally as difficult to learn what mitigation may be recommended, or how much funding will be available, or how it will be allocated among competing interests. After Alternative D Refined was identified as the preferred alternative and access issues affecting the west side were resolved, the project team was able to negotiate a more specific mitigation plan for the west-side park areas. The nature of the mitigation is now part of an Agreement with Portland Parks & Recreation (PP&R). The mitigation with respect to wildlife would include: • Replacing the existing and planned culverts carrying Stephens Creek with a culvert or other crossing that would provide both fish and wildlife passage and meet standards set by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife • Restoring two unnamed drainages in Powers Marine Park so fish can use them as off-channel habitat Impacts to wetlands would be eliminated. PP&R would receive monetary compensation for the displaced acreage, which they could apply as they chose. The dollar amount would be determined at the time of right-of-way acquisition.

I-40 Sellwood Bridge Project F i n a l Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I: Responses to DEIS Comments TABLE I-1 Responses to DEIS Comments ID Category Comment / Response Commenter IDs 150 Biology Impacts to wildlife and habitat, Section 3.18 Wildlife. 189 It is well known that sea lions are found in the Willamette River. The federal Marine Mammal Protection Act makes it illegal to harm them. Possible impacts on them of this project are ignored in the DEIS. Some People do not like them, but others enjoy seeing them. Deer may venture into the project vicinity. I have seen them on East Island while walking on the Springwater Trail. The bald eagle uses the project area. It is still listed as threatened by the state. There is a federal Bald Eagle Protection Act. Compliance with federal and state mandates for treatment of the species is not mentioned in the DEIS. Further, the public is interested in any detriments to the eagles which might occur despite compliance with the mandates. The united States Fish and Wildlife Serviced has responded to a recent petition from the Center for Biological Diversity, et al., and agreed to consider the red tree vole for listing under the Endangered Species Act. This creature lives in Douglas fir trees and, according to park personnel, inhabits Tryon Creek State Park. The northern boundary of the park is about a mile from the west end of the Sellwood Bridge. It is possible that the vole can be found in Douglas firs close to or within the project and that it could be listed by the time construction is initiated. If there is any possibility of this situation arising, then the effects of the project on the vole must be treated in the EIS. The wildlife section was modified to reflect this comment. In addition, the Biological Assessment discuses the Steller sea lion. 151 Biology Minimize impact in the Stephens Creek Confluence habitat area 246 The preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined, has been modified in the area of Stephens Creek to reduce impacts and improve the existing condition. The existing culvert would be removed, and the design as proposed in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement [DEIS] has been refined. The culvert would be replaced with a crossing that would allow the passage of both fish and wildlife. Disturbed areas would be restored, in keeping with the restoration project that was completed in this area. 152 Biology Minimize forest and riparian habitat impacts. 246 Elimination of the spiral ramps from the preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined, would slightly reduce riparian habitat impacts compared to Alternative D. Forest impacts would increase somewhat on the west side of the interchange with Oregon (OR) 43 (SW Macadam Avenue) to accommodate potential future streetcar access to the bridge. 153 Biology Ensure adequate mitigation for habitat impacts 246 An Agreement with Portland Parks & Recreation has addressed mitigation for habitat impacts. A fish-and-wildlife-friendly passage would be constructed in Willamette Moorage Park at Stephens Creek in place of the current culvert. In Powers Marine Park, plantings and stream restoration would occur at two unnamed drainages to provide an off-river habitat for juvenile salmonids. 154 Parks and Minimize impact to Parklands 246 Recreation Following identification and recommendation of Alternative D as the preferred alternative, local elected/appointed officials refined the design to further reduce impacts to parklands. The spiral ramps were replaced by ramps that would follow the edge of the roadway, the width of the west end of the bridge was reduced by one lane, the path to the south of the interchange was eliminated, and a better crossing of Stephens Creek was developed. Collectively, these measures resulted in a small reduction in parkland impacts.

Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement I-41 Appendix I: Responses to DEIS Comments TABLE I-1 Responses to DEIS Comments ID Category Comment / Response Commenter IDs 155 Parks and Why does repairing the bridge and replacing the bridge on the existing 219 Recreation alignment impact nearly 4 acres of parkland? Repairing the bridge would have required a temporary structure on the park end because the bridge failure is primarily in the park at the west end of the bridge. The replacement (Build) alternatives on the existing alignment are significantly wider on the west end than the existing structure; include spiral ramps to access the pedestrian and bicycle path; and incorporate a road to maintain access to Powers Marine Park and the Staff Jennings property. All these features collectively cause impacts to nearly 4 acres of parkland. 156 Parks and My main concern is the impact of traffic and noise on the Riverfront Park. 105 Recreation Riverfront Park is an oasis of peace in Portland, perhaps the only place that is a real riverfront in Portland. Let's protect it. The preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined, would be on the same alignment as the existing bridge and would have the same traffic volume as the No Build Alternative. Though traffic and noise are expected to increase over time, the traffic noise level change would be very small and the average person would not be able to discern the change. 157 Air Quality Create a more rigorous analysis of the greenhouse gas emissions. Your 172 analysis fails to consider the impacts of the travel time benefits on Highway 43 and the potential to induce additional vehicle traffic on this route. The DEIS does not analyze the potential impact of enhanced transit service from dedicated transit lanes (Alternative E). At this time, neither the methodology nor the standards exist to perform a meaningful greenhouse gas emissions analysis on a project-by-project basis. Meaningful differences can only be determined on a regional basis. All alternatives, including the No Build Alternative, are expected to generate the same number of vehicles. The vehicle mix with the No Build Alternative would be the same as the existing conditions, All Build alternatives are expected to have some trade-off between single-occupancy vehicles and transit travel, and to have added truck travel. However, they would have the same total vehicles as the No Build Alternative. It is possible that all Build alternatives would have reduced miles traveled (VMT) compared to the No Build Alternative, but there is no expected differentiation between Build alternatives. Minor differences in travel speed through the project area are expected to be lost to the next intersection outside the project area and, therefore, would represent a false difference between the alternatives. That said, several aspects of all the Build alternatives would support a future possibility of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. All the Build alternatives would enable the use of public transit (whether bus or streetcar); greatly enhance the ability to walk and bicycle across the bridge; and greatly improve connectivity to existing paths and a potential streetcar line from Portland to Lake Oswego. The improved movement of automobile traffic north and south on Oregon (OR) 43 (SW Macadam Avenue) might contribute to a slight reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. However, this route is congested both north and south of the bridge, which might nullify this advantage. Greenhouse gas emissions are not a localized issue. Wherever they occur, they contribute equally to the problem. Moving them outside the project area is not a solution. Because the transit lanes of Alternative E would not add significantly to the efficiency of transit use, local elected/appointed officials determined they would not be cost effective. On the other hand, the preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined, was revised to support a streetcar connection between a potential SE Tacoma Street streetcar and a potential Portland-Lake Oswego streetcar line. It is not known whether streetcars would be added to these locations. However, bus transit would be restored once the bridge was completed.

I-42 Sellwood Bridge Project F i n a l Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I: Responses to DEIS Comments TABLE I-1 Responses to DEIS Comments ID Category Comment / Response Commenter IDs 158 Air Quality Section 3.21 Air Quality—The analysis ignored the fact that the 189 composition of the traffic differs considerably between the No-build and other alternatives. …It is asserted that stricter emissions controls on motor vehicles will reduce pollution over time. Contrarily, the letter from the Multnomah County Health Department to the Columbia River Crossing Project states that the increasing use of alternative fuels may worsen air pollution. Ethanol will increase acetaldehyde concentrations. Compressed natural gas will raise formaldehyde levels. Both of these chemicals are said to be probable carcinogens. A more complete analysis of air pollution is required. The air quality analysis used the standard modeling methodology and addressed the currently-required air quality standards. No standardized methodologies or data exist for addressing the potential air toxic emissions that are mentioned in this comment. The vehicle mix in the fleet and the available alternative fuels affect the air toxic emissions addressed in this comment. The Build alternatives would create a small switch from automobile to bus use. However, neither the Build alternatives nor the No Build Alternative would have an impact on the availability of alternative fuels. Changes in the fuels will happen independently of the project. Such changes would impact the Build alternatives and the No Build Alternative because the volume of traffic on the bridges would be the same under any of the alternatives analyzed in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). 159 Hydraulics Excavating stream banks as a mitigation measure to offset potential “rise” 188 in the FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area is not advisable. This type of mitigation measure destroys valuable riparian habitat, upsets habitat forming process and likely requires additional mitigation to offset impacts to stream and riparian function. Your comment will be considered if mitigation is actually required. Because the final decision regarding bridge type and design will not be made until after the Federal Highway Administration issues a Record of Decision, and more than one bridge type is still under consideration, floodplain and floodway issues have not been definitively determined. Projections of impacts are still estimates. Portland Parks & Recreation is working with Multnomah County to identify areas where manmade fill added in the past has reduced historic riparian habitat. These areas could potentially be excavated and planted with riparian species if project fill in the floodway would cause a flood “rise” condition. 160 Cultural Your plan calls for the removal of the house that is at the entrance of the 94, 199 cemetery. The Superintendent's House should be preserved and protected. The Superintendent’s House at the entrance to the River View Cemetery would not be removed under any of the alternatives analyzed in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) or under the preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined. 161 Cultural A small part of the structure on the east side is 120 years old. 187 The current structure, which was built in 1924, is about 85 years of age. Part of the bridge used recycled bridge parts from another bridge that was replaced. It is presumed that the commenter refers to this, which would make parts of the bridge significantly older than 85 years. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) examined impacts to the historic bridge structure; this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) discusses mitigation for removal of the historic bridge.

Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement I-43 Appendix I: Responses to DEIS Comments TABLE I-1 Responses to DEIS Comments ID Category Comment / Response Commenter IDs 162 Planning The DEIS does not address impacts to the Tacoma Main Street Plan. 155, 225 Honoring the Plan is essential. Page 3-65 of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) discussed the City of Portland’s 2001 Tacoma Main Street Plan. The DEIS discussed impacts to general plans on page 3-66, and the impacts of specific alternatives on page 3-69. All the alternatives would be consistent with the Tacoma Main Street Plan because all the alternatives would maintain only two through lanes on SE Tacoma Street and would not increase traffic over the next 20 years beyond what would be expected with the No Build Alternative. 163 Planning Alternatives are considered that contradict the South Willamette River 155, 225 Crossing Study saying that the "existing and future travel demands between origins and destinations served by the Sellwood Bridge exceed available capacity" contradicts the recommendation for the Crossing Study the "providing adequate regional traffic capacity in the Sellwood Bridge/SE Tacoma Street travel shed is not the responsibility of SE Tacoma Street." None of the alternatives considered in the Draft Environmental Impact Study (DEIS) adds capacity, which honors the conclusions of Metro’s 1999 South Willamette River Crossing Study. All the alternatives offer only two through lanes. All auxiliary lanes are designed only to process traffic through the interchange and intersections efficiently and safely, not to add capacity to SE Tacoma Street. 164 Visual I assume that different bridge designs would have different lighting schemes. 53 Please provide an analysis of the visual landscape at night. Please identify mitigation to minimize nighttime light and is spread. Would any light fixtures make use of solar panels for electricity? Details of lighting on the bridge have not been developed yet. Your comments will be considered during the development of this design refinement. 165 Noise I find a serious fault in how the DEIS Section 3.19 treats noise. The section 50, 64 gives levels for the existing condition and predicts them for the future conditions for the differing alternatives. They are much too low. Stated values range up to 72 dBA. A casual walk along Tacoma St. will show that this value is constantly exceeded. The Noise Technical Report gave its results in Leq(h), not dBA. These were then erroneously incorporated into the DEIS as dBA. Leq(h) is the hourly energy average of sound levels in dBA. I consider these averages very misleading. They make the noise appear to be much less severe than it really is. You are correct. Noise analysis for projects performed under the guidance of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) averages noise energy levels over an hour (Leq[h]), with the noise measured in decibels (A-weighted scale) (dBA). This scale best approximates human hearing. FHWA projects require this method of measurement, and of reporting. This method is used to determine the long-term, day-in-and-day-out levels of noise that are experienced. Incidental noise levels are not as consequential to either health or use of an area as average noise levels. However, all noise generation is included in the measurement. As the frequency of louder-than-average noise increases, the measured average noise level would increase.

I-44 Sellwood Bridge Project F i n a l Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I: Responses to DEIS Comments TABLE I-1 Responses to DEIS Comments ID Category Comment / Response Commenter IDs 166 Noise Table 3.19-1 gives the noise of a large truck at a distance of 50 feet as 90 189 dBA, not 72 dBA. On Tacoma Street, one cannot get 50 feet from passing traffic. Under the Build Alternatives, the resulting increase in noise from traffic is, for the most part, said to be negligible. There will be 9 times the heavy truck traffic on the bridge with many trucks weighing about 4 times that of those currently allowed on the bridge. They will certainly be noisy and the increase from present conditions, which are bad, will greatly worsen on the bridge and Tacoma St. This situation will worsen with all the Build Alternatives since they will greatly increase the number of trucks using the route. If the listener is very close by, the noise level of a single truck could be significantly higher than the Federal Highway Administration Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC), which are based on average noise energy. The noise a truck produces is dependent on several factors—engine noise, tire noise, speed, and type of pavement. Speed, tires, and pavement dominate most highway truck noise. However, in the Sellwood study area, speed and tire noise are lesser factors. Most listeners would experience the sound from beneath the bridge, which would create a different noise environment. Pedestrians and bicyclists would experience the noise from beside the trucks, but their exposure would be transitory. The greatest concern for noise exposure is for those who would be exposed continually, and over a long period of time. Therefore, analysts measure noise levels at residences and outdoor areas associated with them. In addition, the NAC look at the intended activities in the areas where people are exposed. Areas that require serenity have lower noise impact thresholds. Analysts usually assess outdoor activity areas for the ability of persons standing 6 feet apart to have a conversation. 167 Noise Noise should be inaudible to humans and wildlife beyond the very local, 106, 189 immediate boundaries of its source. For roads, that would be the right-of- way. • Even if the Oregon exterior Noise Abatement Criterion of 65 dBA leq(h) for a residence is met, the noise at that location is still very intrusive and objectionable. Speech interference occurs at a noise level above 60 dBA when people are more than 6 feet apart and they are not speaking loudly. Having sound be inaudible to humans and wildlife beyond the very local, immediate boundaries of its source is not an achievable standard on any road. This would require that destinations be hundreds to thousands of feet from the source, or that the listener be in a very noise-insulated space, such as a sound studio. 168 Purpose and Section 1.6 Why is the project needed? The Sellwood Bridge is described as 189 Need a Truck Access Street. Some Sellwood neighborhood streets are also truck access streets. In the DEIS there is little discussion of the need for or the benefits of large trucks having ready access to the area and none whatsoever of their adverse effects. The project is needed to maintain the connection between the east and west sides of the Willamette River for all modes of travel, not just trucks. When efficient transportation is maintained, the whole community benefits, either directly or indirectly. The City of Portland's 2006 Freight Master Plan establishes streets as Truck Access Streets. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was required to accept that status as a given.

Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement I-45 Appendix I: Responses to DEIS Comments TABLE I-1 Responses to DEIS Comments ID Category Comment / Response Commenter IDs 169 Construc- Section 2.3 construction activities. Blasting will be used on the west side of 189 tion the river for all build alternatives, most likely at night and on weekends. No Activities information on the size, frequency, noise and shock generation, chance of damage to nearby structures from ground shaking or details on the times of day – other than that they will be at night – of these blasts is provided. The purpose of an EIS is to inform the public of environmental effects, especially adverse ones, which in this case has not been done. This should be remedied in the FEIS. The project is several years away from developing firm construction-period plans. However, several standard blasting techniques would be applied. Shock generation from precision blasting would not damage structures. In addition, such blasting would be performed at night so the roadway could be closed during blasting to ensure that no motorists were exposed to the risks of falling rocks. It is likely that a series of small blasts would be detonated, and that rock blankets would be used. Other limitations and precautions would be included to adequately protect wildlife and nearby residents. The project would also follow local noise ordinances during construction. 170 Transpor- Below are comments focused primarily on the Transportation section of the 171 tation EIS. Other City bureaus are expecting to comment on different sections of the document. Comments are organized in different sections to address travel patterns, traffic operations, a review of the alternatives from a bicycle and pedestrian perspective, comments on the different cross sections, and other considerations. • Travel Patterns • Traffic • Reason for why bridge improvements would not lead to increased vehicular capacity in both corridors is not satisfactorily explained. • Congestion points on the two corridors (Hwy 43 and Sellwood/Tacoma) during peak hours are located at signalized intersections north at Taylors Ferry Rd/Macadam in the west and at Tacoma at SE 13th and SE 17th in the east, as well as on the bridge itself. To increase vehicular capacity, these signalized intersections would have to be widened in addition to widening the bridge. Doing this goes beyond the scope of this project. The Bridge being two lanes also assists in metering traffic volume that otherwise would use local streets on the east side to bypass congestion in the Tacoma corridor. • As a result, travel speed improvements are modest/insignificant (1 or 2 mph in 2035) across the River, which leads to unchanged travel patterns. • On Highway 43, as a result of west end interchange improvements, there are significant travel speed improvements (up to 7-8 mph) in the immediate area (SW Nevada to SW Riverdale). However, there are still significant congestion points north and south of the study area for people driving the Lake Oswego/Oregon City to downtown Portland corridor. In addition, the geographic constraints of the corridor limit the ability to attract more traffic onto the facility from other facilities. The end result is that the project does not lead to noticeable shifts in auto traffic. This explanation was incorporated in this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS).

I-46 Sellwood Bridge Project F i n a l Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I: Responses to DEIS Comments TABLE I-1 Responses to DEIS Comments ID Category Comment / Response Commenter IDs 171 Transpor- The EIS does not analyze travel impacts of alternatives on opening day, 171 tation year 2015. Because the bridge would be open to traffic during construction, the main changes on opening day could be the addition of truck and heavy vehicle traffic, including buses and emergency vehicles. The predicted heavy vehicle usage is 4 percent. At this time, there is not a plan in place for restoration of bus traffic. However, this could be developed and implemented once construction plans are more established. It is not likely that the Tacoma streetcar would be implemented immediately. The Portland City Council has voted to add it to the draft Streetcar Plan. However, the overall plan has not been adopted yet, the priority of implementation has not been established, and funding has not been secured. The change from single occupancy auto use to broader transit use would take time to develop. Bicycle and pedestrian traffic would likely increase initially because the new bridge would offer far superior facilities, and then grow at a slower, steady rate, as the recreationists and commuters discovered the facility. Bicycle use would be somewhat dependent on the development of bike paths and lanes north and south of the west-side interchange. The facility to the south is undergoing a planning effort. The facility to the north is being implemented over several years, though bicyclists can travel to the north using a combination of streets and paths. 172 Transpor- The traffic effects of tolling have not been incorporated into the EIS. This 171 tation should have an effect on peak travel demand if tolls are instated during the peak times. Tolling was evaluated early in the development process. However, it was never selected as a preferred method for funding construction of the bridge. At this time, Multnomah County is pursuing a vehicle registration fee, in addition to other sources of state and federal funding, for financing the bridge. 173 Transpor- Mode split 171 tation • The EIS does not adequately explain the effect of the built alternatives on mode split. EIS is silent on mode split policy at the City and region. • Compared to the No Build option, alternatives A through E provide significant improvements for bicyclists, pedestrians and transit users. The EIS identifies significant latent demand and continued growth of bicyclists. Transit service across the bridge would be resumed but it is not stated what future transit ridership across the bridge would be. As such, the EIS is silent on mode split changes as a result of the built alternatives. The EIS document would benefit from a combined table listing travel by different modes today and in 2035. The end result would be to show that the Built alternatives promote multimodal traveling and are more sustainable options than the No Build. In addition, the City is embarked on a Streetcar System plan that will inform new streetcar alignments throughout the city, including this corridor. A potential outcome could be two streetcar alignments: the line to Lake Oswego and one crossing the River via the bridge to connect to Tacoma Street on the east.

Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement I-47 Appendix I: Responses to DEIS Comments TABLE I-1 Responses to DEIS Comments ID Category Comment / Response Commenter IDs The modal split in the area was difficult to predict because the existing situation artificially suppresses the current demand. It is predicted that bicyclist and pedestrian demand would substantially increase in the future, stimulated by vastly improved facilities and connectivity. A potential east-west streetcar was added to the planning picture following the release of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), so it was not included in the traffic study. The north-south study is currently underway, but no data were available from that study during development of the traffic analysis for the bridge. The existing bridge did have two TriMet bus lines until the bridge was load-limited. It is safe to assume that these bus lines would be restored with a new bridge. The study did assume that the volume of traffic would remain the same regardless of whether a Build alternative or the No Build Alternative was selected.However, a change of mode would occur. Trucks and buses would be expected to become 4 percent of the traffic, while autos would be reduced by that amount to maintain the same volume. This means that the study assumed that 4 percent of trips would change to other modes, primarily public transit. The study did not attempt to determine whether these trips would be diverted to streetcar, bus, or even the Portland- Milwaukie light rail line. 174 Air Quality Greenhouse gas emissions 171 Building on the points above, the EIS is silent on the effect of the alternatives on greenhouse gas emissions. Analysis should indicate that, while vehicle travel on the corridor would remain unchanged, greater transit and bicycle and pedestrian travel result in greater multimodal travel, leading to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions per bridge/study area user. • EIS is silent on climate change and Peak Oil policy at the City. All alternatives, including the No Build Alternative, showed an equal increase in traffic in the future. Therefore, differences among the alternatives in absolute volumes of greenhouse gases is, logically, of little significance. What is important is that all Build alternatives allow for a substantial increase in the use of multiple modes of transportation. These transportation modes can produce less greenhouse gases, depending on what energy source is used and how that energy is generated. That said, the Build alternatives cannot be reliably differentiated on this basis. All Build alternatives could be just as effective. Even the No Build Alternative could experience a reduction, if auto fuels were changed. Therefore, the most significant decision made by the project related to greenhouse gases, is to accommodate all modes, which all Build Alternatives do. However, the most significant decisions regarding whether or not greenhouse gases will actually be reduced lie outside the project decision team. These involve development of fuel sources and vehicles that use alternative fuels, decisions to operate public transit across the bridge, decisions on how to fuel public transit, decisions by the public to use the public transit that is offered, and decisions on how to generate electricity, if electricity is the energy source. 175 Transpor- Freight 171 tation EIS should more clearly state the effect of the built alternatives on freight, which is to reinstate truck access currently limited as a result of the bridge's weight limitation. The effect would be to add about 1,500 trucks/large vehicles, or 4 percent of total daily traffic volume, back onto Tacoma and the bridge. The EIS should also state that the percentage and total truck volume (as well as truck type) would remain largely unchanged from the time prior to the 2004 weight restrictions). Your comment, which supports the findings of the traffic study, is noted.

I-48 Sellwood Bridge Project F i n a l Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I: Responses to DEIS Comments TABLE I-1 Responses to DEIS Comments ID Category Comment / Response Commenter IDs 176 Transpor- Eastern Interchange 171 tation • Traffic • The EIS analyzed the effects of three treatments: a No Change, a full traffic signal at SE 6th Ave. and a loop road connecting north and south of Tacoma under the Bridge using SE Grand Avenue. The EIS states that in terms of operations, the No change and the loop does not significantly affect traffic operations on Tacoma but full signal leads to failing level of service (LOS) on Tacoma, spilling traffic onto the western interchange. This is the case if generous green time is given to SE 6th Ave. The City finds that a) even under the No Change, traffic during the PM peak backs up onto the west end of the bridge, and b) that a traffic signal with significantly reduced green time on SE 6th Ave. leads to congestion levels on Tacoma and the bridge that are not significantly different than the No Change. • A pedestrian activated signal should be evaluated at this location given need to access across Tacoma and to community land uses, particularly to the north (Oaks Park, Sellwood Riverfront Park, Sellwood and Oak Pioneer Parks) as well as to future bridge sidewalks and bike lanes. • City TSP LOS policy for Tacoma, a Main Street, is not stated. Instead, page 3-9 of technical report uses RTP LOS policy, which is different (LOS E for two hours is considered “acceptable”). As regional and City policy on LOS should be similar, we assume that a different classification was used to measure Tacoma. TSP Policy allows for F for the first peak hour and E for the second for Tacoma Street classified as a Main Street. • Travel on local streets • The EIS indicates that the full signal would lead to the most cut through traffic using local streets, followed by the loop. The full signal, as designed in the EIS, would likely lead to more cut through, though it can be managed via a pedestrian activated signal or by reducing the amount of green time allowed for SE 6th Ave. The loop has considerable impact for cut through traffic, acting as a free flowing off ramp from the bridge to access the area north of the bridge. This loop would be hard to manage to diminish cut through traffic. • Access to land uses • Oaks Park, Sellwood Riverfront and Pioneer parks, and commercial and residential can benefit from improved automobile circulation to serve local and non-local trips. The challenge is to have greater neighborhood auto circulation not lead to greater non-local cut through traffic. Both the signal and the loop improve local accessibility to these land uses over the No Change. • Special events • A signalized intersection would be able to be managed for special events. A loop helps primarily eastbound traffic but gaps in traffic on Tacoma are still needed. Following the identification and recommendation of Alternative D as the preferred alternative, the east-side intersection was re-evaluated under several scenarios. A bicyclist/pedestrian-activated signal would be placed at this location, rather than a full auto traffic signal. This would allow both pedestrians and bicyclists to safely cross SE Tacoma Street at this location without making it easier for cut-through traffic, particularly eastbound traffic, to enter the neighborhood. Alternative D, with the above refinement and others, is evaluated in this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) as Alternative D Refined.

Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement I-49 Appendix I: Responses to DEIS Comments TABLE I-1 Responses to DEIS Comments ID Category Comment / Response Commenter IDs 177 Transpor- Western Interchange 171 tation • Three alternatives were evaluated as part of the EIS: a roundabout option (with and without pedestrian/bicycle facilities), a signalized option (single-point urban interchange) and a free flowing option (trumpet design). Below are some comments: • Roundabout • Not clear that the roundabout works well for pedestrians and bicyclists. The metering device helps traffic flow within the interchange during peak times so that it doesn't shut down, but how vehicles are supposed to allow for the safe crossing of peds and bicyclists is not clear (motorists in roundabouts are generally looking at oncoming traffic from the left, which may lead to less visibility for peds/bicyclists trying to cross using the marked crossings). • Not clear whether design would accommodate streetcar operations over the bridge from Hwy 43; it may require some additional engineering design and traffic control devices. • Trumpet • Pedestrian access and bicycle access severely limited. Access to cemetery poses significant negative impacts to business services and for pedestrian and bicycle access across cemetery. • Transit access severely limited via out of direction travel and longer distances. • Signalized • Works best for pedestrians and bicyclists accessing Hwy 43 and the cemetery • Free flowing northbound movement onto Hwy 43 from the bridge, needs more analysis, if there is a lot of pedestrian use during the AM peak. • Traffic operations seemed to have been modeled assuming a different intersection design: operations allow north to east traffic to occur at the same time as north to west traffic. Interchange design does not seem to allow that to occur. • Interchange could be designed to have one southbound/through lane onto Hwy 43 south and to access the cemetery. Your comments are supported by the traffic analysis. The roundabout would pose safety issues for pedestrians and bicyclists for the reasons stated. In addition, there appear to be turning radius issues for streetcars, if a roundabout were implemented. The trumpet design would eliminate access to two businesses. One business had alternate, but unsatisfactory access; the other business would have been displaced. The willingness of the River View Cemetery to allow bicycle traffic if their own access were curtailed seemed to be in question. The signalized interchange has been forwarded with the preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined. The intersection design would now combine the through lane with the west-to-southbound lane. This would eliminate one westbound lane on the west approach and reduce the southbound to Oregon (OR) 43 ramp to one lane. 178 Transpor- General 171 tation • Project team should ask for exemptions from ODOT as to the required spacing for access to the interchange in the Hwy 43 corridor. As designed, alternatives cut off access to existing land uses or lead to access that is more costly and with more environmental and social impacts. • Tolling is not properly analyzed in the EIS. Particularly, the traffic effects of tolling have not been incorporated into the EIS. This should affect the design of the western interchange in particular.

I-50 Sellwood Bridge Project F i n a l Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I: Responses to DEIS Comments TABLE I-1 Responses to DEIS Comments ID Category Comment / Response Commenter IDs Following the release of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and advancement of the preferred alternative (Alternative D Refined), the project team developed an Interchange Area Management Plan. This plan required a full assessment of accesses, changes in accesses, and requests for deviations for accesses that cannot meet standards set out in ORS Division 51. Analysts extensively evaluated all accesses within the interchange area. As a result of this evaluation, the access to Willamette Moorage Park would be moved further north. This access would be right-in, right-out only. Deviations would be granted for accesses to the River View Cemetery Superintendent’s House, Powers Marine Park, and the Staff Jennings property. The intersection at the River View Cemetery access would be eliminated. To accommodate streetcar movement between SE Tacoma Street and the potential streetcar line between Portland and Lake Oswego, the access road that would serve the cemetery was modified to go behind the Superintendent's House, rather than in front of it. 179 Bike/Pedest Bicycle/Pedestrian Elements of Alternatives 171 rian • Alternative A • It provides very good treatment of bicycle and pedestrian operations across the River because of the nature of the separated facility. • It avoids conflicts with the west side interchange. It avoids conflicts with the crossing of Tacoma and the need for cyclists and pedestrians to choose one side of the bridge over another. It may lead to longer travel for bicyclists/pedestrians traveling south on Hwy 43 and to the cemetery. • The bicycle/pedestrian overcrossing of Hwy 43 is an integral part of the design. Alternative A was not identified or recommended as the preferred alternative. Ultimately, the biking and pedestrian community felt that this alternative lacked "eyes on the road," the term used to indicate the passive surveillance of passing cars, and, therefore, was inherently less safe. This alternative would also create two bridge impacts to the river, as well as impacts to park properties that are considered negative. 180 Preference Alternative B 171 • Provides substandard facilities for cyclists and pedestrians. A minimum 5' bike lane on a high-volume roadway is not the type of bicycling infrastructure legacy we wish to leave to the next few generations who will use this bridge. Ten-foot shared use pathways (as we currently have on the Hawthorne Bridge) are inconsistent with the expected volumes projected to use that bridge. With the promise of a pathway on the west side of the river, and a streetcar stop on the west side of the river, bicycle and pedestrian traffic on the bridge is expected to be high. Our knowledge with shared use paths informs us that pedestrians and cyclists alike may have generally negative experiences using such a narrow combined facility and that this type of facility will deter from cycling, or at least not attract to cycling, the very people we wish to have riding in an area as thick with off-street pathways as are found in South Portland. • It creates uncomfortable crossings within a roundabout that will be more difficult for pedestrians to navigate than other proposed options. A somewhat wider cross-section has been identified and recommended as the preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined. It would provide space for on-street bicycle use for the experienced rider in addition to a 12-foot-wide shared-use path for less-experienced riders and pedestrians. Both on-street and shared-use paths are offered on both sides of the auto traffic lanes, encouraging one-way travel on the shared-use paths. All these features would make the space more comfortable for all users.

Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement I-51 Appendix I: Responses to DEIS Comments TABLE I-1 Responses to DEIS Comments ID Category Comment / Response Commenter IDs 181 Preference Alternative C 171 • The undercrossing makes for a terrible design for pedestrians and cyclists. In recent years the City has closed pedestrian undercrossings because of the unsafe conditions fostered by covered, out-of-the-way and car-free public spaces. • An alternative that would avoid pedestrians and cyclists being underneath would greatly improve this option. This comment was fairly universally expressed by the bicycling and walking communities. This design was dropped from consideration after several attempts were made to make it work by bringing the facility out from directly under the bridge. Ultimately, local elected/appointed officials identified and recommended a configuration that would have all travel modes on the same deck. 182 Preference Alternative D 171 • It provides very adequate facilities. Most importantly it provides opportunities for faster cyclists to separate themselves from both slower-moving cyclists as well as from pedestrians by creating 6.5' bike lanes. At the same time, this option provides adequate width for pedestrians to share space with slower-moving cyclists (one-way) cyclists. Alternative D Refined, has been identified and recommended as the preferred alternative. 183 Preference Alternative E 171 • It is awkward in the unbalanced cross-section it presents for pedestrians and cyclists. The suggested 8-foot pathway on the south side is too narrow for shared use and includes connections at the west end that are difficult at best. The shared 16-foot pathway on the north side is likely too narrow for the expected volumes of two-way bicycle and pedestrian traffic the bridge is expected to carry in the future. Local elected/appointed officials dropped this configuration from consideration as the preferred alternative. The Alternative D cross-section has been identified and recommended as the preferred alternative. 184 Bike/Pedest Cross Section Elements of Alternatives 171 rian • For alternative A and C, which do not have sidewalks next to travel lanes, they would benefit from having pedestrian access via a sidewalk in case of stalling or other emergency access issues. They may be required as part of reconstruction. • All alternatives should have the preferred bicycle lane and sidewalk width in the east end of the bridge at SE 6th Ave: that is, 12ft of sidewalk and 6.5 ft wide bicycle lanes. Per the Tacoma Main Street Plan, sidewalk width is 12ft and is to be acquired via dedication of land for right of way from adjacent properties. • Alternative E's transit lanes. The EIS does not clearly state what the transit benefits would be in terms of travel time/operations savings. Transit lanes do not seem to provide for sufficient travel timesavings to merit the extra cost. Your comment regarding sidewalks is noted. Alternative D, as refined, which has been identified and recommended as the preferred alternative, would address these issues within the design. The traffic evaluation did not show any real improvement in travel time savings from having transit lanes for this short a distance. Transit vehicles would have to integrate back into the regular travel lanes at either end of the bridge.

I-52 Sellwood Bridge Project F i n a l Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I: Responses to DEIS Comments TABLE I-1 Responses to DEIS Comments ID Category Comment / Response Commenter IDs 185 Transpor- General 171 tation • 36 ft curb-to-curb or wider would better satisfy emergency response needs and special events. At its narrowest, the curb-to-curb width of the roadway with the preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined, would be 37 feet (that is, two 12-foot-wide travel lanes with two 6.5-foot-wide shoulder/bike lanes). This would provide adequately for passage of emergency vehicles. 186 Transpor- A cycletrack design should be analyzed. 171 tation During final design, the City of Portland will be consulted related to this option. 187 Transpor- The alternatives would benefit from the continuation of the third, non- 171 tation continuous lane from Tacoma to be carried all the way across the bridge. This would allow vehicles to rely less on bicycle facilities during emergency/special situations but it would not lead to more vehicle capacity on the bridge and on the corridor. Those who were concerned that it could ultimately lead to four lanes on SE Tacoma Street strongly resisted this configuration. Local elected/appointed officials have dropped it from design consideration. 188 Transpor- Other elements 171 tation • The impacts of long bridge closure on the City's emergency response are significant. • The impacts of long bridge closure on travel patterns and access to commercial areas are significant. • The impacts of long bridge closure on bicycle and pedestrian accessibility across the Willamette River are significant. The impact of a long-term bridge closure was the most significant issue in identifying a bridge for construction. Local elected/appointed officials identified and recommended Alternative D Refined as the preferred alternative primarily because it could be constructed without long-term bridge closure and without using a temporary detour bridge. 189 Transpor- Preferred Project Elements 175 tation • East-side Connection • Free flow intersection as shown in Alternatives A and B. A proposed modification would be to include a bike/pedestrian only signal. This concept has been identified and recommended as part of the preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined. 190 Planning Bridge location, Rehabilitate or replace in current location/Although bridge 175 will be somewhat wider, this area is already impacted and avoids new impacts elsewhere/ - The preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined, would be constructed in the current location with widening to the south.

Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement I-53 Appendix I: Responses to DEIS Comments TABLE I-1 Responses to DEIS Comments ID Category Comment / Response Commenter IDs 191 Bike/Pedest Bicycle/Pedestrian Path Location 175 rian • 1st Choice: Underneath the bridge deck if the bike/pedestrian deck is off-set from the vehicle deck. This is a modification to Alternative C. • Make the most direct connections to trails on both sides of river by minimizing the vertical climb; Eliminating the three layer spiral ramp; Eliminating need for on-street travel; Least impact to natural resources. • Minimize loss of riparian area by relocating Hwy 43 to west as in Alternative D; Replace riparian area and improve habitat connectivity northwest of bridge. • Bicycle/Pedestrian Path Location, 2nd Choice: On the bridge deck as shown in Alternatives B or D./Less confusing and potentially out of direction travel if cyclists and pedestrians are next to vehicles; Less desirable trail to trail connection; More impacts to natural resources/Minimize impact of pair of spiral ramps of pair of spiral ramps by shifting both landward out of river and away from riverbank; Consider extending bike/pedestrian route along bridge approach ramps or partially straightening ramps above west-side trail; Replace riparian area and improve habitat connectivity northwest and southwest of the bridge. • Bicycle/Pedestrian Path Location, 3rd Choice: Separate bike/pedestrian bridge as shown in Alternative A though PP&R would prefer a different location. • Impacts of smaller bike/pedestrian bridge in Sellwood Riverfront Park are less than that of larger vehicular bridge adjacent to Sellwood Riverfront Park and Oaks Pioneer Church; Additional impacts to natural resources; Minimize loss of riparian area by relocating Hwy 43 to west as in Alternative D; Replace riparian area and improve habitat connectivity northwest and southwest of vehicle bridge; Relocate the bike/pedestrian spiral southward, out of the existing natural area. Several "under bridge" modifications were examined during the process that led to the identification and recommendation of Alternative D Refined as the preferred alternative. Ultimately, however, none was judged satisfactory. The on- deck configuration has been identified and recommended as the preferred alternative. The spiral ramps have been replaced with ramps that would follow the curve of the outside vehicle ramp and connect to the Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank). These changes would reduce the impacts to the riparian area. Mitigation for impacts would involve stream restoration of two unnamed drainages in Powers Marine Park. 192 Transpor- West-side Interchange 175 tation • Signal interchange as shown in Alternatives D or E. The signalized interchange has been identified and recommended as preferred, and slightly modified. The westbound to southbound lane has been combined with the westbound through lane. The southbound ramp to Oregon (OR) 43 was reduced to one lane. 193 Parks and Access Road to Powers Marine Park 175 Recreation • PP&R staff and visitors currently access Powers Marine Park from Hwy 43 and the Willamette River. New staff vehicle access can be made from relocated and improved west-side Greenway Trail. PP&R staff do not need an access road as shown in Alternatives A, B, and D. Current access from Oregon (OR) 43 requires non-permissible use of the highway shoulder and an unsafe crossing of a railroad track that is under study for more intense use. The preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined, would provide safe and legal use of a public access road to reach both Powers Marine Park and the Staff Jennings property.

I-54 Sellwood Bridge Project F i n a l Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I: Responses to DEIS Comments TABLE I-1 Responses to DEIS Comments ID Category Comment / Response Commenter IDs 194 Planning Bridge Location 175 • Rehabilitate or replace in current location as shown in Alternatives A-D. Alternative D Refined has been adopted as the preferred alternative. Alternative D Refined would replace the bridge at its current location. 195 Bike/Pedest Bicycle/Pedestrian Path Location 175 rian • 1st Choice: Underneath the bridge deck if the bike/pedestrian deck is off-set from the motorized use deck. This is a modification to Alternative C first proposed by Arun Jain of the City of Portland Planning Bureau. • 2nd Choice: On the bridge deck as shown in Alternatives B or D. • 3rd Choice: Separate bike/pedestrian bridge as shown in Alternative A, though PP&R would prefer a different location. Ramp between bridge and trail should be located in the developed area to the south, outside natural resource area. Following the release of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and receipt of comments, analysts examined several alternative ways to place the bicycle/pedestrian facility under or alongside the bridge or weaving from side to side. None offered a satisfactory solution. Ultimately, local elected/appointed officials identified and recommended the on-deck design for advancement as the preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined. 196 Preference Preferred Alternative as Detailed in the DEIS 175 • 1st Choice: Alternative C with a signal interchange on the west-side, free flowing intersection at the east-side connection and the bike/pedestrian deck off-set from the vehicular deck. • 2nd Choice: Alternative D with a free flowing intersection at the east- side connection with a bike/pedestrian only signal. Local elected/appointed officials identified and recommended Alternative D with a free-flowing intersection at the east end and a bicyclist/pedestrian-activated signal as the preferred alternative. The bicycling and walking community did not prefer the under-deck design because they perceived it as less safe. 197 Cultural Oaks Pioneer Church 175 • PP&R does not support alternatives that impact or (potentially) involve relocation of Oaks Pioneer Church (Alternatives A, B-temp detour bridge, and E). The preferred alternative would not impact Oaks Pioneer Church, either permanently or temporarily. 198 Planning The following table details the rationale for selecting the preferred element 175 and alternative and mitigation options for off-setting unavoidable impacts to park properties. • Element or Alternative/Rationale/Proposed Mitigation • East-side Connection, Free flowing intersection with a signal for bike/pedestrian crossing. (PP&R recognizes it is not the lead Bureau on this issue)/Avoid adding vehicles to neighborhood streets that serve as Willamette Greenway (Spokane) that full signal or under-crossing would make possible This point of view prevailed in refining Alternative D as the preferred alternative.

Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement I-55 Appendix I: Responses to DEIS Comments TABLE I-1 Responses to DEIS Comments ID Category Comment / Response Commenter IDs 199 Planning West-side Connection, Signal intersection; Hwy 43 relocated farther west as 175 shown in Alternative D • Minimize impact on natural area acreage, width and connectivity from wider roundabout and trumpet designs • Minimize impact of pair of spiral ramps by shifting both landward out of river and away from river bank. • Minimize impact of spiral ramps by design to extend bike/pedestrian route along bridge approach ramps or to provide straighter ramps partially above west-side trail Resources that compete for preservation and have special protection under Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966 requirements surround the west end of the bridge and interchange on both sides. The solution being forwarded attempts to reduce impacts to the minimum, and to balance impacts to resources so that all can continue effectively without significant deterioration. Therefore, the preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined, seeks to preserve and enhance natural habitat, while preserving historic properties and providing for all transportation modes in the corridor. 200 Process The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) has reviewed the 188 DEIS for the Sellwood Bridge Project and offers the following comments: • ODFW supports alternatives and design options that create the least amount of negative impacts to fish and wildlife populations. • When the final alternative and design options are chosen, ODFW looks forward to working with the Oregon Department of Transportation and Multnomah County to assist in the final design or mitigation measures that provide the most benefit to fish, wildlife and their habitats.• Following the identification and recommendation of Alternative D as the preferred alternative, the alternative was refined to reduce impacts to riparian vegetation and reduce in-water impacts. As mitigation, an existing culvert crossing of Stephens Creek and proposed additional crossings would be modified and replaced with a stream crossing that would be fish-and-wildlife friendly, following input from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. In addition, two unnamed drainages within Powers Marine Park would be restored for fish use as refugia. 201 Biology 3-18 Wildlife 188 • Page 3-174: Build Alternatives-Environmental Consequences- • This section states no effect on Peregrine Falcons. This section also states, “American Peregrine Falcon uses the area, but has not nested on the Sellwood Bridge”. Recent reports (October 30, 2008) by Audubon field workers indicate a falcon fledgling sighting on the Sellwood Bridge in the spring of 2008. The Audubon Society plans to monitor the site in the spring of 2009. ODFW suggests monitoring of the site with plans for mitigation measures assuming nesting is occurring on the bridge. If the final bridge design chosen does not contain elements that would lead to successful nest building then a nest box should be considered for placement on the bridge. Text has been added to this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) regarding this species. This species will be added to the list of species that would require monitoring during construction. Because the wildlife situation with respect to individuals of a species is dynamic, it will be addressed at the time of construction. Biological monitoring will be required during the construction period so that mitigation plans can respond to the situation as it develops.

I-56 Sellwood Bridge Project F i n a l Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I: Responses to DEIS Comments TABLE I-1 Responses to DEIS Comments ID Category Comment / Response Commenter IDs 202 Biology Page 3-175: Alternative Specific Impacts and Mitigation: 188 • Mitigation measures to minimize impacts to wildlife from blasting should be included in the FEIS. Blasting hazards include fly rock, air blast, noise, and vibration. It is estimated that the project would require 10 to 20 blasting sessions during the course of construction. A blasting specialist would design the blasts; a preblast survey would be made before the blasts; and air blast, vibration, and noise would be monitored during the blasts. Typical practices used would be smaller shots, adjusted in a delay pattern that would reduce (rather than amplify) the impacts of the blasts. Blasting mats would be used to control fly rock and reduce noise impacts. The time of year of the blasts might need to be adjusted to avoid disturbing nesting birds. 203 Typos/Word Appendix F-Summary of Permits and Clearances Needed: 188 Changes/Te • Need to include ODFW-Fish Passage Plan approval (OAR 635-412) chnical but not substantive comments Your comment is noted. The edit has been made in this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). 204 Typos/Word 3-13 Water Quality-ODFW suggests mapping proposed locations of water 188 Changes/Te quality treatment facilities for inclusion into the FEIS. chnical but not substantive comments This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) discusses water quality treatment facilities and their locations. 205 Hydraulics 3-14 Hydraulics-Balancing of cut/fill 188 Your comment is noted. During final design of the project, balance in cut and fill would be refined to comply with floodplain ordinances. 206 Hydraulics Page 3.151: 3.14.3 Mitigation- 188 • ODFW recommends round piers as a mitigation option. Inwater bents with square pier designs create greater scour than round piers. Inwater bents with square piers also increase the amount of large woody debris captured which can lead to gravel bar development. The final design of the in-water piers has not been determined. Piers will be optimally designed to adequately support the structure, minimize scour, avoid capture of large woody debris, comply with Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) no “net rise” requirements, and minimize impacts to fish and fish habitat. In-water structures will be the subject of a Biological Assessment and of various permits, including floodplain and navigational permits. 207 Bike/Pedest (Mitigation) Mitigate the lack of eyes on the street, noise, pigeon droppings 226 rian by hanging the bike/pedestrian shared path to side of bridge. It could alternate as proposed by Arun Jain, City of Portland, Planning Department or remain on one side. These issues have been addressed by advancing a preferred alternative that places the bicycle and pedestrian facilities on the same level as the vehicle traffic.

Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement I-57 Appendix I: Responses to DEIS Comments TABLE I-1 Responses to DEIS Comments ID Category Comment / Response Commenter IDs 208 Hydraulics Excavating stream banks as a mitigation measure to offset potential “rise” 188 in the FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area is not advisable. This type of mitigation measure destroys valuable riparian habitat, upsets habitat forming process and likely require additional mitigation to offset impacts to stream and riparian function. Excavation of stream banks is a standard remedy if approaching this from the floodway perspective, and was therefore mentioned in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). However, this approach would be extremely difficult to accomplish in the project area. It is unlikely that this remedy will be pursued. At this time, it is not possible to determine whether any remedy would be required because the bridge type and associated piers cannot be selected until later in the design process. The first effort would be to design the bridge piers so that there would be no net rise in the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Special Flood Hazard Area and, thus, no need for mitigation. If this could not be accomplished, other remedies would be sought. Bridge engineers, hydraulic engineers, and biologists will all be involved in designing a remedy. All aspects of the outcome will require permits, so the mitigation will receive adequate scrutiny to satisfy all regulatory stakeholders. 209 Biology 3-15 Aquatic Resources; 188 • Page 3-156: Habitat in the Project Vicinity- • The sentence within the last paragraph of this section states, “The lower river was used by salmon and steelhead trout as a migration corridor”. A clarifying sentence is needed. Historically the lower Willamette River was a major rearing area for salmon and trout. In the recent past, as a result of human influences on the river, the lower Willamette is primarily considered a migration corridor. Recent ODFW investigations documented evidence of salmon spawning in the lower Willamette River. This information has been incorporated in this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). 210 Biology Page 3-157: Other Anadromous Fish Species- 188 • ODFW suggests changing the title to: Other Native Anadromous Fish Species. American Shad are an anadromous fish species but a non-native fish species. This has been revised in this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). 211 Hydraulics Page 3-160: Piers in the River- 188 • This is a good opportunity to discuss the type of instream habitat within the proposed cross section of the river and how various pier types (square, round, etc.) effect or would not be affected by scour associated with different pier shapes. The project will use the pier type that is required to support the structure but at the same time minimizes impacts to flood elevations, scour, and fish habitat. A speculative tutorial on various types of piers would mislead the reader, and raise concerns about impacts that would not occur. 212 Biology 3-16 Vegetation 188 • Page 3-166: Mitigation & Page 3-170 Mitigation (Stephens Creek)- • Removal of mature trees within the project area will occur as a result of the project. ODFW suggests utilizing mature large woody debris in either the restoration project on Stephens Creek, donating them to a local watershed council or other entity with planned restoration projects within the lower Willamette River basin.

I-58 Sellwood Bridge Project F i n a l Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I: Responses to DEIS Comments TABLE I-1 Responses to DEIS Comments ID Category Comment / Response Commenter IDs The mitigation for the project would involve stream restoration of two unnamed streams in Powers Marine Park. Potentially, large woody debris could be used during this restoration, or other restorations in the area. 213 Parks and Portland Parks & Recreation is the proper name for the bureau. Please 226 Recreation make consistent throughout the document. This correction has been made in this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). 214 Typos/Word Remove "Undeveloped" from all descriptions of natural area lands. Natural 226 Changes/Te area land is managed for its natural resource functions and values and chnical but PP&R does not consider these lands undeveloped. not substantive comments This correction has been made in this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). 215 Parks and PP&R is not a typical ROW land owner. PP&R lands are managed for 226 Recreation multiple functions and values including active and passive recreation, habitat for wildlife and fish, views, and environmental education. The Draft EIS states that PP&R will be paid cash for the project ROW within parks based on fair market value of the land. PP&R does not consider this appropriate payment. The functions and values of each park must be evaluated and PP&R compensated based on the impacts to these values in additional park land or enhancements that will replace the impacted functions and values, plus the payment for the ROW. Mitigation measures have been negotiated with Portland Parks & Recreation, and are the subject of two Agreements. In addition to payment for the right-of-way (the value of which will be based on the use of the land as a park), two drainages would be the subject of stream restoration to provide off-channel fish habitat. In addition, the Stephens Creek area would have a crossing that would be fish-and- wildlife friendly and would be subject to restoration efforts, as warranted. 216 Parks and Westside Riparian habitat along the Willamette River has been greatly 226, Recreation reduced within the City of Portland. First priority is to avoid impacts to this habitat type. Any unavoidable impacts must be mitigated with in-kind replacement. The preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined, would only minimally impact Westside Riparian habitat. Changes in the design (such as replacing the spiral ramps with roadside ramps and reducing the west-end bridge approach by one lane) have reduced the impacts to Westside Riparian habitat compared to what was presented in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). 217 Parks and Alternatives should avoid or minimize additional fragmentation to wildlife 226, Recreation corridors along the river and between the riparian and upland forests. Because the preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined, would replace the existing bridge on the same alignment, no additional fragmentation to wildlife corridors would occur. The access road under the interchange would improve connectivity, as would replacing the culvert carrying Stephens Creek under the railroad track with a wildlife-and-fish-friendly crossing. 218 Parks and If proposed crossing location into Willamette Moorage Park is not changed, 226 Recreation then include a fish friendly crossing such as a bridge over the Stephens Creek. A fish-friendly crossing has been added to mitigation for the project.

Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement I-59 Appendix I: Responses to DEIS Comments TABLE I-1 Responses to DEIS Comments ID Category Comment / Response Commenter IDs 219 Typos/Word Change "non-programmed" to "passive" recreation for all natural area 226 Changes/Te parks or the natural area of a hybrid park. chnical but not substantive comments This correction has been made in this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). 220 Purpose and Global warming should be addressed in the EIS, not just in Cumulative 226 Need Effects. FHWA does not have any formal standards but the State of California has done some interesting work for SEQA compliance that could be used in the EIS evaluation. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not have standards, and neither an acceptable methodology nor reliable data are available to assess greenhouse gases for the project. Because all of the alternatives have the same predicted auto traffic (including the No Build Alternative), there would be little differentiation among the Build alternatives. All Build alternatives would allow for multiple modes of transportation. If alternative transportation modes were implemented and used, they would help reduce greenhouse gases. However, the implementation of any of the strategies to reduce greenhouse gases, other than providing for other transportation modes, is outside the decision authority of this project development process. 221 Parks and All alternatives show impacts to Willamette Moorage Park with the 226 Recreation proposed relocated Willamette Moorage Park and Macadam Bay Club entrance. The draft EIS does not evaluate other alternatives to this entrance. Between the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), Oregon statutes require the development of an Interchange Area Management Plan, one element of which is access management. After the preferred alternative, Alternative D, was identified, the project team worked with the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and Portland Parks & Recreation to refine the access design. The access has been moved as far north as possible without displacing businesses, and has been moved to avoid wetland impacts and reduce impacts to Stephens Creek. Several other options were evaluated. The option with the least overall impacts was identified for refinement of Alternative D as the preferred alternative. 222 Parks and PP&R suggests that creating a roadway with a bridge crossing of Stephens 226 Recreation Creek in the proposed Trolley ROW, on the west side of the rail track, that goes from the present entrance to SW Miles Street be evaluated as a possible alternative. This would eliminate the impacts to Willamette Moorage Park and the recently constructed Stephens Creek Fish Enhancement Project and keep open the possibility of additional creek restoration work upstream in the future. This suggestion and others were evaluated for the access. The access road for the preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined, would cross the railroad tracks at their existing crossing, run immediately north along the west side of the tracks, and turn east just south of the first commercial building to the north. The existing access road would be gated and left in place. Emergency vehicles, which would have difficulty negotiating the corners of the replacement access road, could use the existing road for access.

I-60 Sellwood Bridge Project F i n a l Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I: Responses to DEIS Comments TABLE I-1 Responses to DEIS Comments ID Category Comment / Response Commenter IDs 223 Parks and If the proposed crossing location into Willamette Moorage Park is not 226 Recreation changed, then include a fish friendly crossing such as a bridge over Stephens Creek. A fish and wildlife friendly crossing of Stephens Creek is now part of the mitigation plan. 224 Parks and Land-Based Construction - Construction Storage and Fabrication Areas: 0.5 226 Recreation to 1.0-ac. site will be needed near the proposed bridge construction and 5.0 to 8.0-acre site outside the project area. PP&R understands that the sites will be selected based on land availability during construction. Our preference is for sites not immediately adjacent to PP&R property. Laydown and storage sites have not yet been identified. Of the two, the one of concern is the site or sites required within the project area. Usually these are flat areas, often paved. They might include parking lots, areas cleared for construction, and other vacant areas. Because Portland Parks & Recreation (PP&R) property abuts the project for almost its full length on the west side, it is likely that some sites would be established adjacent to PP&R property. 225 Parks and Figures 3.2-2, 3.2-4, 3.2-6, 3.2-8, 3.2-10: West-side diagrams should show 226 Recreation the bike/pedestrian facility to which the new construction will connect (cemetery road); East-side diagram should show the existing Springwater Corridor. This will clarify the length of on-street connection needed to reach off-street trail; please confirm whether or not the stairway between SWC and SE Spokane will be replaced. This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) provides more detailed drawings of the bike/pedestrian facilities for the preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined. The stairway from the bridge to the Springwater Corridor Trail would not be replaced. Access from the bridge to the trail would be by SE 6th Avenue and SE Spokane Street. 226 Typos/Word Alternative C: Please note the reduced amount of vertical distance that 226 Changes/Te pedestrians and cyclists have to travel in this option. A flatter route should chnical but be more attractive to all human-powered users. Are profiles available for not the bike/pedestrian route of each alternative? substantive comments The preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined, includes a pedestrian and bicycle ramp similar to the one in Alternative C. Please see the updated drawings in this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). 227 Transpor- Mitigation) Do not build the east-side under-crossing 226 tation Local elected/appointed officials have eliminated the east-side undercrossing from consideration as part of the preferred alternative. 228 Typos/Word Table 3.2-7 and 3.208: Signalized intersection improves bicyclist and 226 Changes/Te pedestrian crossing of SE Tacoma Street unless it is a vehicle signal. Adding chnical but vehicles would make cycling more dangerous on SE Spokane as well. not substantive comments The preferred alternative signal is a bicyclist/pedestrian-activated signal to provide safe crossing for bicycles and pedestrians.

Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement I-61 Appendix I: Responses to DEIS Comments TABLE I-1 Responses to DEIS Comments ID Category Comment / Response Commenter IDs 229 Typos/Word (Mitigation) Either do not signalize the east-side intersection or make it 226 Changes/Te bicycle and pedestrian only (subject to PDOT recommendation). chnical but not substantive comments Based on the City's recommendation, the preferred alternative east-side intersection would not be signalized for auto traffic, but would have a bicyclist/pedestrian-activated signal for bicycle and pedestrian traffic to cross SE Tacoma Street. 230 Typos/Word 3.2.5 Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Bicyclist and Pedestrian 226 Changes/Te Impact – revise per comments above. chnical but not substantive comments The text in this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) has been altered to reflect the refined proposal. 231 Typos/Word Add a table that documents the vertical climb from trail on both east and 226 Changes/Te west to high point of bridge (or note length of ramps) [see attached chnical but spreadsheet]. For instance, for Alternative B the spiral ramp would contain not three loops to get bikes/pedestrians up or down the 1000 feet length substantive comments needed to ascend or descend from the bridge. This will most likely be a commuting and recreation barrier for most users. Because the designs at this phase of the project are conceptual and would be revised after the Federal Highway Administration selects a preferred alternative, qualitative text was added to this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) to address this comment. 232 Typos/Word Access to Macadam Bay Club. The draft EIS only evaluates one alternative 226 Changes/Te for relocating the existing access road. chnical but not substantive comments Between the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), Oregon statutes require the development of an Interchange Area Management Plan, one element of which is access management. After the preferred alternative, Alternative D, was identified, the project team worked with the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), and Portland Parks & Recreation to refine the access design. The access has been moved as far north as possible without displacing businesses, and has been moved to avoid wetland impacts and reduce impacts to Stephens Creek. Several other options were evaluated. The option with the least overall impacts was identified for refinement of Alternative D as the preferred alternative. 233 Parks and Willamette Shoreline Trolley and Future Streetcar - The draft EIS does not 226 Recreation evaluate any alternatives other than moving of the trolley ROW into Powers Marine and Willamette Moorage natural area parks. The Willamette Shoreline Trolley is under evaluation as a streetcar line in the Portland to Lake Oswego Draft Environmental Impact Statement (which has not yet been released). The Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) assumed the streetcar proposal with the largest footprint would be built. This footprint was chosen so that a full evaluation could be made for the bridge project without the risk that the streetcar project might add impacts that were not evaluated, thereby invalidating the Sellwood Bridge Project DEIS. It is possible that the Portland to Lake Oswego project will select a streetcar or other alternative with fewer impacts.

I-62 Sellwood Bridge Project F i n a l Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I: Responses to DEIS Comments TABLE I-1 Responses to DEIS Comments ID Category Comment / Response Commenter IDs 234 Parks and (Mitigation) Proposed Alternative for Macadam Bay Moorage Access: 226 Recreation Creation of a roadway with a bridge crossing of Stephens Creek in the proposed Trolley ROW, on the west side of the rail track, that goes from the present entrance to SW Miles Street to be evaluated as a possible alternative. After discussions on this topic and a revision of the access road in the preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined, Multnomah County agreed to replace the existing culvert plus the planned culverts carrying Stephens Creek with a fish-and- wildlife-friendly passage. This passage would be constructed according to Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife standards. 235 Parks and (Mitigation) Proposed Streetcar/Trail Alternatives: Reduce length of double 226 Recreation track through the park natural areas (Powers Marine and Willamette Moorage). Establish streetcar ROW in center of Hwy 43. Design multimodal Greenway Trail within existing streetcar ROW, not in the natural area. This is a concern the Draft Environmental Impact Statement under development for the Portland to Lake Oswego Streetcar Project should address. The Sellwood Bridge project has assumed the double-track scenario, as proposed in the initial concept development for the streetcar project. This allowed the analysts to determine the greatest probable impacts. If the streetcar study results in a smaller impact, then the impacts for the Sellwood Bridge project would be less. In that case, the Sellwood Bridge study would not require reevaluation. Because it is easier to document a reduction of impacts than an increase in impacts, this study assumed the worst case. 236 Parks and General comment: The scale of maps with aerial photo base and no 226 Recreation existing edge of pavement makes it difficult to analyze impacts to natural areas in Powers Marine Park and Willamette Moorage. Although overall acreage is importance, width of the riparian buffer is also significant. PP&R overlaid our west-side natural area parks over Alternatives A-E West 1C drawings to evaluate impacts. The evaluation was performed using a geographic information system (GIS). The impacted areas were often small slivers of vegetation that could not be effectively portrayed on the map scale used in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). During the refinement of Alternative D as the preferred alternative, the project team supplied Portland Parks & Recreation with maps at a much larger scale so they could participate in the refinement process. 237 Parks and Sellwood Riverfront Park (3-107) – include that the park is used for summer 226 Recreation concerts and movies. The revisions were made in this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). 238 Parks and Powers Marine Park (3-108) – include that the City of Portland, Bureau of 226 Recreation Environmental Services (BES) completed a capital improvement project in the park in 2007. Large woody debris was placed below the ordinary high water line to increase the habitat value for fish. Also, invasive plant species have been removed and native species planted. Ongoing revegetation work is currently funded by BES and PP&R through 2010. Park improvement and restoration activities have progressed as the project has developed. While the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) attempted to stay current, at some point, technical reports were finalized, even as park work continued. This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was updated to include some past work, but will never be current with a program that continues to be dynamic. Once the final design is completed, final mitigation plans and permits will be required. Mitigation plans would usually require some updating at that point to adjust to the current status of the area.

Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement I-63 Appendix I: Responses to DEIS Comments TABLE I-1 Responses to DEIS Comments ID Category Comment / Response Commenter IDs 239 Typos/Word Willamette Moorage Park (3-108) please change "hiking" trail to "shared- 226 Changes/Te use" trail. chnical but not substantive comments This correction was made in this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). 240 Parks and Willamette Moorage Park, first column, last paragraph (3-108) include: the 226 Recreation project also included riparian enhancement, removal of invasive and planting native species. Your comment is noted. 241 Parks and Springwater Corridor Trail (3-108) please add "downtown Portland to" 226 Recreation after "connecting" in second sentence of second paragraph The correction was made in this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). 242 Parks and Willamette Greenway Trail (East Bank; 3-109) Add second sentence in 226 Recreation second paragraph: SE Umatilla Street. There is a two-block gap and trail continues between SE Tenino and SE Linn. The correction was made in this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). 243 Typos/Word Table 3.9-1 (3-110) as noted elsewhere, remove "undeveloped" 226 Changes/Te chnical but not substantive comments Your comment is noted. 244 Typos/Word Table 3.9-1 (3-110): Area; Functions Impacted column does not address the 226 Changes/Te functions and values of the park that are impacted by each alternative. The chnical but EIS needs to address the riverine and riparian functions impacted by the not land conversion. substantive comments The functions and values impacted varied only in magnitude by alternative, and even the magnitude varied little among the alternatives. The preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined, would improve riverine functions through planned mitigation. Such mitigation would include stream restoration of two unnamed drainages and the creation of off-channel habitat for fish. In addition, a fish-and- wildlife passage would be restored on Stephens Creek by replacing a culvert with a fish-and-wildlife-friendly crossing structure. 245 Typos/Word Table 3.9-2 (3-110): Area; Functions Impacted column does not adequately 226 Changes/Te address the impacts to the functions and values of the riverine and riparian chnical but habitats impacted by the build alternatives. All alternatives convert not approximately 20% or greater area of the park to transportation uses. This substantive comments will have a large impact on the functions and values of the natural area. The project team modified the preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined, to reduce impacts to the natural habitat values within the park. Planned mitigation would provide stream restoration to two unnamed drainages that are currently degraded. For the most part, the footprint of the project would be similar to the existing footprint, and would cross the park in an area that is already significantly degraded.

I-64 Sellwood Bridge Project F i n a l Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I: Responses to DEIS Comments TABLE I-1 Responses to DEIS Comments ID Category Comment / Response Commenter IDs 246 Parks and 3.9.3 Direct Impacts, Mitigation, Alternative Specific Mitigation (3-110) 226 Recreation revise per suggestions elsewhere for no reduction park/natural area acreage. Evaluate potential of any land taken from business or residential displacement to be re-used as park/natural area under bridge. The project team modified Alternative D Refined to reduce impacts. These modifications include changing the bike/pedestrian ramps, altering the access road to Willamette Moorage Park, removing the path to the south from the design, extending the path to the north to SW Miles Street, and incorporating mitigation that would enhance off-channel fish habitat. They examined the conversion of potential right-of-way as mitigation. However, this approach is not supportable within the framework of the project acquisition requirements. 247 Typos/Word Mitigation Coordination at Local Parks call out box (3-111) the projects 226 Changes/Te have been completed, update box. chnical but not substantive comments This box has been updated in this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). 248 Typos/Word 3.9.3 Bullet for Powers Marine Park (3-111) the proposed mitigation is not 226 Changes/Te appropriate as the invasive species have been removed from the park and chnical but the tree canopy is intact. A fish enhancement project has been completed not at the park. Unsure what a river bank stabilization project would look like substantive comments at this location. Since this comment was made, a new mitigation plan has been developed with Portland Parks & Recreation. The mitigation measures are now more focused on enhancing off-channel fish habitat and providing wildlife passage. This section has been updated in this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). 249 Typos/Word 3.9.3 Bullet for Oaks Pioneer Park (3-11) include economic impacts to 226 Changes/Te SMILE for temporary reductions in revenues from church rentals during chnical but bridge construction. not substantive comments Text in this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) has been revised. 250 Typos/Word Sellwood Riverfront Park, Alternative A (3-112) placement of the bridge will 226 Changes/Te increase noise in the park, adversely impacting summer concert and movie chnical but programs. not substantive comments The preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined, would avoid these impacts by leaving the bridge in its existing location and widening it to the south, away from Sellwood Riverfront Park. 251 Parks and Sellwood Riverfront Park, Alternative A and E (3-112) The pedestrian/bike 226 Recreation alignment will result in removal of some of the existing black cottonwood riparian forest on the riverbank at the west edge of the park. Local elected/appointed officials have identified and recommended Alternative D, as refined, which avoids these impacts, as the preferred alternative. 252 Typos/Word Willamette Moorage Park (3-112): update mitigation for the park as the 226 Changes/Te Stephens Creek Fish Enhancement Project is complete, including riparian chnical but plantings. not substantive comments

Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement I-65 Appendix I: Responses to DEIS Comments TABLE I-1 Responses to DEIS Comments ID Category Comment / Response Commenter IDs The refinement of Alternative D as the preferred alternative has resulted in some amendment of the design within Willamette Moorage Park near Stephens Creek. The mitigation planned is the subject of an Agreement between Portland Parks & Recreation, Multnomah County, and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). Briefly, the Agreement provides for replacement of the existing Stephens Creek culvert under the railroad and the proposed culvert under the trail and access to Macadam Bay with a new fish-and-wildlife-friendly passage. This passage would be constructed according to Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife standards. To minimize visual and aesthetic impacts to the park, along the path, the project team has committed to provide sloped, stepped, vegetated walls along the bicycle/pedestrian trail that would extend from the Sellwood Bridge to Macadam Bay. The wall design would provide for structural support and wildlife habitat value in all areas except where they were not feasible from an engineering perspective. 253 Typos/Word 3.9.3 add last bullet before 3.9.4 Summary (3-114): (or where appropriate) 226 Changes/Te that indicates the Willamette Greenway Trail (SE Spokane Street Section) chnical but would be impacted by east end interchanges on Alternative C, D, E) with not appropriate mitigation being either existing east end intersection or substantive comments bike/pedestrian only signal [this is park and recreational impact as greenway trail connection to Springwater, WG along river and Sellwood Riverfront park] Alternative D Refined includes a pedestrian activated signal for bicycle and pedestrian crossing of SE Tacoma Street at 6th Avenue. The Springwater Trail passes under the bridge, offering unimpeded travel from north to south across SE Tacoma Street. 254 Typos/Word Table 3.9-3 cont. Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Park and 226 Changes/Te Recreation Impact, Willamette Greenway Trail (SE Spokane Street chnical but Section): replace "None" on C, D, E with "East-end interchange adds not vehicles to SE Spokane" substantive comments The assessment team did not conclude that there would be a significant addition of traffic on SE Spokane Street to the point of impairing it as a Willamette Greenway Trail for bicyclists. Sidewalks serve pedestrians. 255 Typos/Word (Mitigation) Mitigation needs to include land purchase that replaces the 226 Changes/Te functions and values lost, not just cash payment. chnical but not substantive comments After negotiation with the Portland Parks & Recreation, mitigation activities were developed and memorialized in two Agreements. 256 Typos/Word (Mitigation) Mitigation Measure for Specific Alternatives (Sellwood 226 Changes/Te Riverfront Park) add “Contribute funds for completion of Springwater chnical but Sellwood Gap (Alternative A) not substantive comments The list identifies potential mitigation items for Alternative A. Alternative D, as refined, has been identified and recommended as the preferred alternative.

I-66 Sellwood Bridge Project F i n a l Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I: Responses to DEIS Comments TABLE I-1 Responses to DEIS Comments ID Category Comment / Response Commenter IDs 257 Parks and (Mitigation) Mitigation Measure for Specific Alternatives (Powers Marine 226 Recreation Park) add "Redevelop Staff Jennings as natural area" (Alternative C) OR Alternative D would not acquire the Staff Jennings property. The availability of the Staff Jennings property as a mitigation site is, therefore, dependent on the owner being a willing seller, and the purchase would be made outside the project process because it is not required right-of-way for the project or its construction. 258 Transpor- (Mitigation) Mitigation reduction (Powers Marine Park) reduce need for 226 tation mitigation by changing west intersection from trumpet (or roundabout) The signalized interchange has been identified and recommended as the preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined, for the west-side interchange. Eliminating the spiral ramps and narrowing the cross-section by one lane on the west end of the bridge further reduced the footprint. 259 Parks and (Mitigation) Mitigation for impacts to Westside Riparian Habitat must be 226 Recreation in-kind replacement. Impacts to riparian habitat were reduced during the refinement of Alternative D as the preferred alternative. Mitigation has been the subject of negotiation and an Agreement between Portland Parks & Recreation, Multnomah County, and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). 260 Parks and (Mitigation) 'Daylight' and restore the existing perennial creeks that are 226 Recreation piped through Powers Marine Park. Bridge all trail/ROW creek crossings. The parties have agreed to mitigation for creek impacts within Powers Marine Park and Willamette Moorage Park. The mitigation measures, which are contained in an Agreement, include stream restoration of two unnamed drainages in Powers Marine Park and replacement of the culvert at Stephens Creek. 261 Parks and (Mitigation) Remove culverts beneath Hwy 43. Replace with structures that 226 Recreation allow passage for fish & wildlife. After negotiations with Portland Parks & Recreation and review by biologists, it was determined that replacement of the culvert beneath Oregon (OR) 43 would not be beneficial to the resource. 262 Parks and (Mitigation) Remove culvert beneath railroad ROW and construct a bridge 226 Recreation crossing at Stephens Creek adjacent to Willamette Moorage Park. This culvert would be replaced with a fish-and-wildlife-friendly crossing. It has not yet been determined whether the crossing would be a bridge or a large culvert. The crossing would be constructed in accordance with Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife guidance. 263 Parks and (Mitigation) Regrade, revegetate and restore Stephens Creek between 226 Recreation Macadam Blvd. and recently completed Stephens Creek Fish Enhancement Project. Any area within the park that would be disturbed during construction would be revegetated during completion of the project. Please note the responses to other comments regarding Stephens Creek, such as Comments #149, #151, #153, #154, #200, #215, #217, #218, #223, #234, #244, #252, #260, #262, #271, and #308. 264 Parks and (Mitigation) Acquire bluff and riverbank lands adjacent to existing 226 Recreation Willamette Greenway Trail (East Bank) ROW. Control invasives and revegetate with oak woodland species. Project-impacted, areas would be controlled for invasive plants and revegetated with native species. However, the project team has not agreed to acquire bluff or riverbank lands on the east side of the river.

Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement I-67 Appendix I: Responses to DEIS Comments TABLE I-1 Responses to DEIS Comments ID Category Comment / Response Commenter IDs 265 Parks and (Mitigation) Oaks Pioneer Park revegetate with native oak woodland 226 Recreation species. The preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined, would not impact Oaks Pioneer Park. 266 Cultural (Mitigation) Oaks Pioneer Park Compensate SMILE for any revenue 226 reductions from church rentals during construction. The preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined, would not impact Oaks Pioneer Park. 267 Cultural (Mitigation) Sellwood Riverfront Park, Alternative A noise mitigation should 226 include a noise barrier on the bridge. Local elected/appointed officials did not identify or recommend Alternative A as the preferred alternative. 268 Parks and (Mitigation) Sellwood Riverfront Park, Alternative A mitigation should 226 Recreation include planting additional large native trees. Local elected/appointed officials did not identify or recommend Alternative A as the preferred alternative, so no mitigation would be required. 269 Parks and (Mitigation) Sellwood Riverfront Park, Alternative A - Remove riprap, 226 Recreation control invasives, layback slope and increase width of existing riparian woodlands on west edge of park. Local elected/appointed officials did not identify or recommend Alternative A as the preferred alternative. 270 Parks and (Mitigation) Sellwood Riverfront Park, Alternative A - Remove 2 acres of 226 Recreation the invasive species black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) in north and east sides of park and revegetate with native oak woodland species. Local elected/appointed officials identified and recommended Alternative D as the preferred alternative, so no mitigation would be applied to this park. 271 Parks and General comment - BES and PP&R have already started revegetation work 226 Recreation at Powers Marine and Willamette Moorage Parks and have sufficient funding to continue invasive plant removal and native revegetation through 2010. In addition, fish enhancement projects have been completed at each park. Therefore, these stated mitigation measures are not appropriate. The mitigation measures have been changed as a result of negotiations with Portland Parks & Recreation and Portland Bureau of Environmental Services. The mitigation would include stream restoration of two streams in Powers Marine Park and culvert replacement at Stephens Creek. This mitigation has been documented in two Agreements. 272 Parks and General Comment: the quality and quantity of riparian habitat along the 226 Recreation west side of the Willamette River at Powers Marine and Willamette Moorage Parks may be underestimated in the site assessment components of the DEIS. The parks' riverine wetlands are dominated by Pacific willow with black cottonwood and Columbia River willow growing on the edges. These willow (Salix spp.) vegetation communities have limited distribution within the City limits. The Oregon Natural Heritage Program has identified Pacific willow shrub swamps as a medium priority ecosystem types for conservation in the Willamette Valley. Although both sites have reed canary grass in the understory, they also still contain patches of native stinging nettle and scattered native shrubs.

I-68 Sellwood Bridge Project F i n a l Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I: Responses to DEIS Comments TABLE I-1 Responses to DEIS Comments ID Category Comment / Response Commenter IDs The impacts on the west side have been reduced in the preferred alternative. The project would no longer impact wetlands in the area. The impacts were recalculated for Alternative D Refined because the design was modified to reduce impacts to riparian habitat. The analysts believe the initial assessment of existing habitat is correct. 273 Parks and All alignment alternatives will convert natural area parks to transportation 226 Recreation uses. This will result in a loss of functional habitat, vegetation cover, increase impervious surface, and fragmentation of the remaining riparian corridor. The project would result in the loss of functional habitat and vegetation cover. Stormwater runoff from an increased impervious surface would be treated. Because such runoff is not treated presently, a net improvement in water quality would result. The analysts do not predict increased fragmentation of the remaining riparian corridor. In terms of wildlife corridors, the analysts do not anticipate additional barriers to movement. In the case of Stephens Creek, an existing barrier would be removed and replaced with a crossing that would foster wildlife movement. 274 Parks and Plant Communities and Noxious Weeds (3-164 & 3-165): Please provide 226 Recreation plant surveys and wetland delineation information. Where is the location of the proposed impact to the Westside riparian habitat? [see section 3.16.3] The Biology Technical Report includes detailed maps. This material was judged to be overly detailed for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) discussion. The wetland was very small, and the design was changed in the preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined, to avoid it altogether. 275 Parks and 3.16.3 Build Alternatives Section Direct Impacts (3-165-167): Update this 226 Recreation section to reflect current revegetation work at Powers Marine and Willamette Moorage Parks by the City. The section has been updated in this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). 276 Parks and Update this section as the Stephens Creek Fish Enhancement Project has 226 Recreation been completed. The creek banks have been laid back and restored. The hydraulic connectivity between the floodplain of Stephens Creek and the Willamette River has been restored. Also, invasive vegetation has been removed and native species planted within the riparian zone. Restoration of this area was undertaken during the development of the project. For the preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined, the mitigation has been modified to address the existing railroad culvert and the original proposed culverts associated with moving the access to Willamette Moorage Park. The preferred alternative would move the access further north to minimize conflicts with Stephens Creek and to create greater spacing between the on-ramp to Oregon (OR) 43 and the access road. Mitigation would consist of replacing the existing culvert with a fish-and-wildlife-friendly culvert that would allow passage for these species. Areas disturbed as part of the project construction would be restored. 277 Typos/Word Update this section to reflect current revegetation work at Powers Marine 226 Changes/Te and Willamette Moorage Parks by the City. chnical but not substantive comments This section has been updated in this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS).

Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement I-69 Appendix I: Responses to DEIS Comments TABLE I-1 Responses to DEIS Comments ID Category Comment / Response Commenter IDs 278 Biology Include bald eagle, Cooper's hawk, red-tail hawk and osprey as potentially 226 affected avian species within the project areas on both the east bank and west bank of the river. These species have been included in this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). 279 Parks and Amphibian surveys are currently underway at Powers Marine and 226 Recreation Willamette Moorage natural area parks. This information has been added to this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). 280 Parks and Deer scat has been observed at Powers Marine Park. 226 Recreation Deer are noted as a species present in this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). 281 Parks and Recent sightings of a roosting pair of peregrines on the under structure of 226 Recreation the Sellwood Bridge at the east bank. Revisions have been made to this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). 282 Typos/Word Update the Wildlife Summary call out box. 226 Changes/Te chnical but not substantive comments Revisions have been made to this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). 283 Parks and (Mitigation) Wildlife passage culverts underneath HWY 43 to allow a 226 Recreation connection between uplands and the river. This mitigation was offered during negotiations, but was withdrawn for lack of interest and cost factors. The culvert under the streetcar track would be replaced. 284 Process (Mitigation) PP&R will need to give input on final determination of 226 reasonableness and feasibility during final design of the project. Portland Parks & Recreation (PP&R), which was included in negotiations for mitigation during the refinement of the design of Alternative D as the preferred alternative, has signed an Agreement on mitigation. PP&R will be consulted, as appropriate, during final design. 285 Typos/Word No edits suggested but note that "Mitigation planned" (near end of fifth 226 Changes/Te paragraph) will likely be completed as noted above and below. So PP&R is chnical but more interested in the use of right-of-way used during construction being not returned to park or recreational use, as noted in following sentence. substantive comments Mitigation has been somewhat revised as the result of meetings and agreements with Portland Parks & Recreation. The text in this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) has been revised to reflect mitigation agreements. Right-of-way required for the continued maintenance of the facility would remain as Multnomah County or Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) property. Where possible, it would be vegetated in keeping with the park vegetation goals where it abuts park property. Any temporary easements used during construction would be fully restored following park vegetation management guidelines.

I-70 Sellwood Bridge Project F i n a l Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I: Responses to DEIS Comments TABLE I-1 Responses to DEIS Comments ID Category Comment / Response Commenter IDs 286 Typos/Word 3.25.1 Past and Present Actions 1996 (3-200) Springwater Corridor Trail 226 Changes/Te east of SE McLoughlin opened in 1996; the segment of Springwater on the chnical but Willamette that passes under the Sellwood Bridge opened in 2003; add not 2007 Willamette River Water Trail established, water trail guide published. substantive comments Revisions have been made to this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). 287 Typos/Word 3.25.2 Foreseeable Actions revise bullet 8: SE Umatilla Street and SE 19th 226 Changes/Te Avenue at SE Ochoco Street [avoids confusion with only going to SE chnical but Ochoco and SE 13th Ave]; revise bullet 15 by adding Sellwood Riverfront not Park substantive comments The revisions have been made in this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). 288 Typos/Word 3-206: the portion of Springwater in the study area opened in 2003. 226 Changes/Te chnical but not substantive comments This information has been added to this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). 289 Parks and 3-206, first paragraph. This paragraph does not make sense in light of the 226 Recreation proposed impacts to the parks from proposed project. How does this address cumulative effects of the proposed project and other projects such as the trolley on the investments/improvements the City of Portland has already completed to improve the ecological health of these parks? This section is intended to provide a long view of what has occurred to a location over many years. In this case, the evaluation took European-American occupation of the area as a starting point. Early on, industrial uses consumed the east bank and River View Cemetery owned the west bank. Over the last century, the east bank was partially converted to public park use, as was the west bank. The view that both of these areas were natural areas that have been steadily degraded is inaccurate. However, it is correct to say that the natural area on the west side would suffer an incremental reduction of vegetated area as a result of the project. It is also correct that the recreation facilities would be significantly upgraded, and that more restoration of streams would occur. 290 Typos/Word First bullet (3-206) the paragraphs describing the west side parks does not 226 Changes/Te adequately address cumulative impacts to the area. Both Powers Marine chnical but and Willamette Moorage are natural area parks that are managed not primarily for their natural area values with limited passive recreation. The substantive comments potential 30 percent decrease in parkland and tree canopy and increase in impervious surfaces would adversely impact the fish and wildlife functions of the parks. Also increased visibility and use often adversely impacts wildlife use so increasing the recreation use may not be beneficial to the park. This section needs to address the adverse effects from this project and the proposed trolley on the wildlife functions. PP&R does not manage these parks as hybrid parks like Sellwood Riverfront Park and it is not intending to change the management for this or other projects. (Sellwood Riverfront Park is managed as a hybrid park where the developed portion is managed for active recreation such as the dog off leash area, picnicking, movies, etc.) The paragraph accurately describes the likely outcome of the project, but did not take note of the negative impacts to the management values of the park. This paragraph has been modified in this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) to reflect the point in your comment.

Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement I-71 Appendix I: Responses to DEIS Comments TABLE I-1 Responses to DEIS Comments ID Category Comment / Response Commenter IDs 291 Parks and Third bullet: add Sellwood Riverfront Park in list for on-going restoration. 226 Recreation This information has been added to this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). 292 Typos/Word Add missing bullet that notes that paddling and motorized boating is 226 Changes/Te increasing chnical but not substantive comments This information has been added to this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). 293 Typos/Word 3.25.4 Visual Resources The retaining wall and rock cuts-could [instead of 226 Changes/Te "would"] soften since it not entirely certain that vegetation will succeed, chnical but particularly with 30 - 80' high cuts/walls. not substantive comments This information has been added to this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). 294 Typos/Word 3.25.4 Vegetation 1st bullet - Off site mitigation for removal of trees within 226 Changes/Te the project areas does not address degradation to the riparian forest within chnical but the project area. This section is not addressing cumulative impacts to the not riparian system along this side of the river. substantive comments This was addressed under Vegetation in this section on page 3-209 in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). It was addressed comparatively, as well. 295 Parks and 2nd bullet - disagree that magnitude of impact is small when already 226 Recreation narrow width of riparian habitat is further decreased. How was 150 acres of Westside Riparian vegetation calculated and where is the vicinity this is mentioned? The analyst calculated Westside Riparian habitat using aerial imagery, measuring the extent of Westside Riparian habitat from the falls at Oregon City to the confluence with the Columbia River, including islands along this reach. To determine the extent of Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest within the project area, the analyst used the same methodology. The immediate vicinity included the area uphill of the project, including the forested area of the River View Cemetery. The broader project area included the forested area southwest of the project area and west of Terwilliger Road. This area includes Palatine Hill and Tryon Creek Park. 296 Parks and 3rd bullet - How does vegetation in the right of way improve wildlife 226 Recreation habitat? What species are targeted for this habitat type? Cite studies that show similar right of way plantings that provide habitat and supports native wildlife. To wildlife, vegetation replanted in the right-of-way would be indistinguishable from vegetation outside the right-of-way. Smaller birds, mammals, and reptiles would likely use this area, particularly those that use edges of vegetated areas. However, it is acknowledged that some species that are disturbed by human activity are unlikely to use spaces closest to the road. Because this strip is already very narrow, these species are unlikely to inhabit this area now.

I-72 Sellwood Bridge Project F i n a l Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I: Responses to DEIS Comments TABLE I-1 Responses to DEIS Comments ID Category Comment / Response Commenter IDs 297 Parks and 4th bullet - the project will impact vegetation restoration completed by the 226 Recreation City of Portland. This project will adversely impact these restoration projects within the project area. Needs to be addressed in the cumulative effects. As the preferred alternative, Alternative D, was revised, the impact to the restored area was reduced. Mitigation negotiated with Portland Parks & Recreation now complements efforts to restore Stephens Creek. 298 Transpor- The accumulated impact of walls, wider travel lanes, and new driveways 226 tation makes a substantial impact on connectivity. This needs to be addressed. While the analysts agree that the amount of total habitat has been reduced, they do not agree that connectivity would be changed. In fact, because there would be a road passage under the interchange and a culvert would be replaced that would allow fish-and-wildlife passage at Stephens Creek, connectivity would be greater than with the existing configuration. In addition, Alternative D Refined would reduce the impact from that presented in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on the park side of the interchange. 299 Process Below are concerns Portland Fire & Rescue has with the EIS and the bridge 227 proposals. Unfortunately, the EIS understates the impact of the current bridge on emergency response, as well as the options identified. Below are issues of the current problems, with desired characteristics following. This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) includes additional information. 300 Typos/Word Issues 227 Changes/Te • Presently, use by Fire apparatus is greatly limited. While ambulances can chnical but not utilize the bridge, Fire Engines may use the bridge for emergency substantive response only, with speed restricted to 15mph. Given the state of the comments bridge, this is still taking a chance, and only permitted during emergency response. Other Fire apparatus, including Fire Trucks (necessary at all residential and commercial type fires) as well as Heavy Squads and Water Tenders, are unable to use the bridge at any time, due to weight restrictions. This limits not only emergency operations, but also effective day to day operations requiring movement of companies. • This means significantly longer response times for multiple unit responses, including residential fires, commercial fires, major gas incidents, hazardous materials incidents, and any type of specialty rescue in SE or SW. • Due to the above, emergency response times are greatly increased (longer response times negatively affects citizens safety, firefighter safety, property loss, and impact to the environment). • · This also negatively impacts emergency response on single unit responses when companies in neighboring areas need to cover for first-in Fire apparatus that are already assigned, affecting the safety issues outlined above, as well as response reliability. The emergency services section in this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) has been revised to reflect this added information. It is likely that a new bridge structure would alleviate these issues. 301 Typos/Word New bridge or rehabilitated bridge is preferred over No build option 227 Changes/Te (existing conditions) chnical but not substantive comments A new bridge has been identified and recommended as the preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined.

Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement I-73 Appendix I: Responses to DEIS Comments TABLE I-1 Responses to DEIS Comments ID Category Comment / Response Commenter IDs 302 Transpor- Limit closures as much as possible. From an emergency response 227 tation perspective, ideally, we would like the bridge to be kept open, exercising alternatives (D and E). It is preferable that closures during construction are limited, in exchange for a fully operational bridge in the future. The preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined, would keep the bridge open to traffic during the construction period. 303 Transpor- Ideal/desirable curb to curb cross section for emergency vehicles would be 2 227 tation lanes in each direction, or 48 ft, plus bike lanes on both sides with sidewalk(s) for pedestrians. • This configuration allows: • - traffic to provide right of way to emergency vehicles • - minimizes high risk accidents on the bridge by separating different types of traffic (vehicular, bicycles, pedestrians) • - during an accident on the bridge, ensures higher likelihood of emergency access from either direction • - increases maneuverability and reduces risk of accidents due to less congestion • - accommodates for increasing density • · 36 ft curb to curb would be a minimum to maneuver an emergency vehicle in mixed traffic. • · Due to limited access and water supply issues, request several FDC's to provide water supply on the bridge for response to vehicle fires, hazardous materials or traffic accidents involving pin-ins (high risk/potential of fire during extrication). At its narrowest point, the cross-section of the preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined, would be two 12-foot-wide lanes with 6.5-foot-wide shoulder/bike lanes. On the ends of the bridge, the cross-sections would be three- and four- travel-lanes wide. While not the ideal that was suggested, it would be adequate for the passage of emergency vehicles. 304 Right-of- It is unfortunate that condos and business were allowed to be built so close 61 Way to the bridge in the first place, but since they are there it seems there is no way of avoiding some displacement. All of the Build alternatives studied in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) would displace at least one residential and several commercial properties. 305 Typos/Word The Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) 72 Changes/Te Statement for the Sellwood Bridge Project has been reviewed in our role as chnical but a cooperating agency. This document is generally adequate for the not purposes of our permit authority. Specifically referenced are Table S-4 on substantive comments page S-22 and page 3-7 where river navigation is discussed. We will supplement this information as needed in our independent evaluation following an application for a bridge permit. Your comment is noted. 306 Preference The industrial age is over and we are now in the informational age – no 98 more polluting our water, air and ground The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) considered impacts to the natural environment, including air and water quality, as well as potential impacts to fauna and flora in the area. The water treatment of runoff from the proposed bridge and interchange would be a vast improvement over current conditions, where runoff is untreated.

I-74 Sellwood Bridge Project F i n a l Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I: Responses to DEIS Comments TABLE I-1 Responses to DEIS Comments ID Category Comment / Response Commenter IDs 307 Typos/Word On Section 3.17 - It would be nice if you could provide a map of the 132 Changes/Te wetland and the proposed impacts. Also state the size of the delineated chnical but wetland. not substantive comments In the preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined, the alignment of the access road has been revised and would no longer impact the wetland. If any of the other alternatives had been preferred, the same modifications would have been made. This means that there would have been no impacts to wetlands under any alternative. The original size of the wetland was approximately 1 acre, of which 0.1 acre would be impacted. A general wetland map has been provided in Section 3.17 of this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). 308 Typos/Word The Service supports Alternative C with the through-arch bridge because 178 Changes/Te we believe it has the fewest impacts on the aquatic and terrestrial habitats chnical but in the Sellwood Bridge Project area. The Service believes Alternative C best not balances the long-term environmental objectives of minimizing habitat substantive comments removal and disturbance, minimizes the amount of new impervious surface needing stormwater management, and beneficially reduces the amount of bridge structures (number and volume) in the Willamette River which influences fluvial processes and fish passage. Following identification and recommendation of the preferred alternative, the design of Alternative D was altered so that the two remaining bridge choices rank 1 and 3 in sensitivity to fish habitat when tested against the original designs. Terrestrial impacts have been reduced by eliminating the spiral ramps in favor of bike/pedestrian ramps that would follow the roadway alignment and connect to paths away from the river’s edge. Fish and wildlife habitat would be enhanced by the addition of mitigation that would provide stream restoration of two unnamed drainages as off-channel refugia and replace a culvert with a fish-and-wildlife- friendly passage of Stephens Creek. 309 Typos/Word The Service is interested in the development of a restoration or mitigation 178 Changes/Te plan that compensates for habitats being impacted in a biologically sound chnical but and equitable manner. Determining the location, habitat quality and type not and the long-term management of sites are important factors the Service substantive comments wants to remain involved in the for the Sellwood Bridge Project. The Service will continue to work on the alternative specific environmental mitigation items through the CETAS team process. Mitigation has focused on stream reclamation projects to create off-channel habitat for fish. Two unnamed drainages within Powers Marine Park would be reclaimed, fish passage would be restored to Stephens Creek at the railroad culvert, and any impacts to the existing Stephens Creek restoration project would be mitigated in kind. The National Marine Fisheries Service requires a Biological Assessment for this project. Consultation would be required. There are no U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-listed species in the project area. 310 Minor Table 3.7-1 includes a statement that the Sellwood Riverfront Park has no 224 Gram- major events. This would be news to the thousands of people who gather matical and each Monday in July for the Riverfront Classics. This is of considerable Technical importance should Alternative E be selected as the bridge would tower over Edits the event and provide less than suitable accompaniment to the performers on stage as well as being a visual blight from both Spokane St. and the park itself. Table 3.7-1 refers to the Mayer Boys & Girls Club, it should be Fred Meyer. Text in this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) has been revised to reflect this information.

Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement I-75 Appendix I: Responses to DEIS Comments TABLE I-1 Responses to DEIS Comments ID Category Comment / Response Commenter IDs 311 Cultural The report fails to identify the Sellwood Community Center as an historic 224 structure that lies within a block of Tacoma Street. Although the DEIS does an admirable job of describing the current status of Tacoma Street, the Tacoma Main Street plan and the current cut through situation, it fails to address the history of the street and how poorly it functioned as a four lane thoroughfare for transit but how successfully it operated to split this neighborhood. To my mind only the Berlin Wall functioned as efficiently. Meanwhile it was the Main Street plan and the neighborhood's support of it that actually allowed for a greater volume of traffic to negotiate this corridor in a two lane configuration as opposed to a four lane. The Sellwood Community Center is outside the project impact area defined for the historic resources analysis. No physical changes to SE Tacoma Street east of SE 6th Avenue or the Sellwood Community Center would result from the preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined. Impacts to traffic on SE Tacoma Street and in the neighborhood are addressed in Section 3.1 of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). 312 Process, This points out in my mind the most glaring failure of the process. By 224 West limiting the scope of the project to 6th Street on the east end and 400 feet Interchange, on either side of the westside terminus, the citizens task force was forced to East deliberate as if what each end of the bridge attached to was of little Intersection import. Thus on the east side you wind up with an access road adjacent to the Springwater corridor or an unworkable signalized intersection in order to provide a means to service Oaks Park. On the west end you get "solutions" that involve "parking" cars on a bridge. For whatever reason it appears that the interchange on the west side has taken on a life and cost of its own. Nevermind that it is not the problem for the morning commuter as they will find themselves queued up soon enough at either Taylors Ferry Road or somewhere along Macadam Avenue. And for the evening commuter there is not an interchange possible that will do anything except speed them to a slow motion dance along Tacoma Street. Why spend $72 million dollars so that you can have two through lanes in each direction on Highway 43? For less than 1% of that amount you could solve a chunk of the evening commute problem. Just shut down the light at the mortuary at 4 pm so that there are no signals between Taylors Ferry and Dunthorpe. It is amazing to me the amount of time and effort that has gone into that westside interchange just to find that nothing functions any better than what is already there. As for the east end, had the CTF had the chance they may have come up with something very elegant such as a bridge that flies over the existing alignment so that no residences or businesses are trashed, allows for 6th Street to be the access road for Oaks Park and eliminates 6th, 7th and 8th Streets as cut through access points to Tacoma. Guess we'll never find out.

I-76 Sellwood Bridge Project F i n a l Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I: Responses to DEIS Comments TABLE I-1 Responses to DEIS Comments ID Category Comment / Response Commenter IDs Much effort was expended to ensure that interested people had meaningful opportunities to affect the project outcomes. Most of the ideas suggested in your comment were evaluated at some level during development. For example, elimination of the River View Cemetery access at 4:00 p.m. does not reduce the need for a signal at that location to allow the westbound-to-southbound ramp users to gain access to Oregon (OR) 43 (SW Macadam Avenue) southbound. However, elimination of the cemetery's direct access onto OR 43 would be part of the preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined. That access would be relocated so that the movement on OR 43 would not be impeded. Various touchdown points and access schemes were also evaluated on the east end of the project. The need to provide at-grade access to businesses that front on SE Tacoma Street, to have acceptable gradients on the bridge approach, and to meet the existing grade at certain points all control the design and elevation of the bridge. The proposed interchange was designed to address many existing problems. These problems include the inability for bus riders to transfer; the poor connections for bicyclists traveling north, south, and west; and the future connection to a streetcar station below. Some of the issues you raise are better addressed in broader planning processes where whole areas and networks are evaluated, and broader solutions are on the table. These types of planning studies consider which mix of modal solutions best addresses the problems, and the extent to which land use changes or operational improvements to existing facilities can address the problems. Once a project emerges from a plan as a development project, the solution type has usually already been identified, and the termini of the project have been determined.

Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement I-77 Appendix I: Responses to DEIS Comments TABLE I-1 Responses to DEIS Comments ID Category Comment / Response Commenter IDs 314 Process, In reviewing the complete EIS I noted that the East Side Study Area was a 225 Minor very small portion of the greater Sellwood-Westmoreland community. The Gram- EIS defines the study area and then applies its economic impacts only on matical and the study area–Section 3.6.1 on page 3.71–and notes that further analysis is Technical Edits, available in the Economic Technical Report. I obtained that report and Preference quickly discovered that indeed the East and West side study areas were very narrowly defined. The reasoning for this seems to be that since the new bridge will not add additional vehicular capacity there will be only narrow economic changes once an alternative is selected and the bridge is complete. This small study area is illustrated in Figure 4.1 of the Economic Technical Report and in the discussion on page 3-2. The problem is that this line of reasoning is in error when discussing the impacts of the bridge closure because there are no alternative routes across the river for 2.5 miles to the North and 8 miles to the south. This, by definition is a very broad impact area, but in the Technical Economic Report this is ignored because the initial study area is so narrowly defined. There are two questions regarding the economic impacts of the closure: 1) How big will the impacts be on the affected businesses, and 2) Over what area will the impacts occur? My opinion is that the Technical Economic Report answers the first question correctly as discussed in Table 5-1. Ranges of 15% to 35% declines in gross sales sound frightening, but probable. The second question is too narrowly defined in the study and the results are accordingly understated. On page 4-5 of the Economic report it states that there are 93 businesses in the economic study area employing 859 people. My question is what would those numbers be if the economic study area including all of Sellwood and Westmoreland?; or inner SE Portland from Holgate to upper Milwaukie? I think the Technical Economic Report approach of establishing Tier 1 through Tier 3 businesses is correct; however the area covered should be much, much larger. Stars Antiques, Tilde, Spielworks, American at Heart, Caprial's Bistro, Haggis McBaggis, Springwater Grill, St. Maine, Justin & Burks, Tres Fabu, Hash, and many other specialty retailers and restaurants draw customers to Sellwood-Westmoreland from the entire Portland metro area. Of the limited list named above, only two are included in the reports established study area. In my personal experience at my The UPS Store I have neighborhood customers, pass-through customers, and customers who have discovered my services while visiting the Sellwood-Westmoreland shopping area. As a result approximately 20% of my customers are from a zip code that is not 97202. Finally, many of these businesses have already experienced one bridge closure when the Bybee overpass was rebuilt and remember the severe impacts of that smaller project. For the Bybee crossing alternative crossings of 99E and the railroad tracks were available on Holgate St. and Johnson Creek Rd. In the case of the Sellwood Bridge the alternative crossings of the Willamette River are 2 ½ miles and 8 miles away. This means, under a bridge closure that travel patterns will be widely disrupted over a very large area, with corresponding economic disruptions. Thank you for sharing your experience. Local elected/appointed officials agreed that long-term bridge closure would have a large negative economic effect on the community. This factor was key in their identification and recommendation of Alternative D Refined as the preferred alternative. The text of this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) has been revised to generally reflect your point about the potential for more widespread economic impacts outside the immediate project vicinity.

I-78 Sellwood Bridge Project F i n a l Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I: Responses to DEIS Comments TABLE I-1 Responses to DEIS Comments ID Category Comment / Response Commenter IDs 315 Preference Only Alternatives B (with detour bridge), D and E provide for keeping the 225 bridge open during construction. In my opinion this is a fatal flaw for the no-build and other alternatives. A temporary detour bridge was an option with all the alternatives that required long-term bridge closure during construction (that is, Alternatives A, B, and C). Both Alternatives D and E required no long-term bridge closure. Local elected/appointed officials agreed that long-term bridge closure was unacceptable. This was a key factor in the identification and recommendation of Alternative D as the preferred alternative. 316 Preference The new Sellwood bridge piers and foundation should be based on bedrock. 166, 221 The river's edge is vulnerable to liquefaction and since major arteries of transportation cross the river it is necessary that the bridges built from now on are adhered to bedrock for stability. 1. The need for our bridges to be on bedrock is due to earthquake risk in the liquefaction zone that is prevalent along the river. 2. Address underlying issues. The project should address the underlying issues of structural adequacy, safety, seismic stability and, to the extent possible in this constrained corridor, capacity. The Alliance continues to believe that this facility is and will continue to be part of an important commuter and freight facility and its design should reflect that fact. The bridges would be founded on piles driven into bedrock. The preferred alternative is a new bridge, which would be designed to present day seismic standards. A through geologic evaluation would be performed on the design, and on geo-technical treatments proposed for the slide area. 317 Cost The open house very informative since I had the chance to ask engineers 187 /Funding about what has to be done on the bridge. • Phasing also makes more sense after a small economic discussion, Phasing will depend on the availability of funding when the decision to proceed with construction is made. 318 Bike/Pedest Table 3.2-6: the east intersection in this option would impact bicyclists and 226 rian pedestrians by adding more traffic to the bicycle boulevard on SE Spokane. It is a key access point for pedestrians and cyclists using Springwater Corridor and Sellwood Riverfront Park The preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined is not expected to increase traffic on SE Spokane Street over what would occur with the No Build Alternative. 319 Visual Table 3.11-1 Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Visual Resources 226 Impact: Significant east-side visual change? A change to yes as second bridge will make a visual impact. This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) has been revised to reflect your comment.

Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement I-79 Appendix I: Responses to DEIS Comments TABLE I-1 Responses to DEIS Comments ID Category Comment / Response Commenter IDs 320 Preference Based on that participation, and our experience with bicycle and 129 pedestrian traffic on the other Willamette River bridges, any cross section must include at least 12 feet on each side (24 feet combined total) for a shared bicycle/pedestrian path in order to meet future use projections and provide the best experience for current users. In addition to the minimum width requirement, the new facility must also provide a carfree connection to the Willamette Greenway Trail. • Of the 5 alternatives currently being compared in the Draft Environment Impact Statement (DEIS), we recommend Alternatives A or D for final selection as the locally preferred alternative. Furthermore, we strenuously oppose the facilities proposed in Alternatives B, C and E as they are all too narrow and have a variety of corollary problems related to safety, security, maintenance, transient activity and lack of intuitive design. The bicyclist/pedestrian community and local elected/appointed officials supported your recommendations in the identification of Alternative D Refined as the preferred alternative. The preferred alternative cross-section would incorporate two 12-foot-wide shared-use paths on each side of the bridge, as well as car-free connections to the Willamette Greenway Trail. 321 Cost/funding The approximately $54 million price-tag raises several relevant concerns. 129 The current lack of transportation funding has resulted in the creation of many plans and designs that are languishing due to lack of funding, and nothing indicates that the Sellwood Bridge bicycle and pedestrian facility would not fall prey to the same conditions. It is possible that if a separate facility is chosen, it could be subject to a different funding scenario and may not ever identify a funding source. The bicycle/pedestrian only facility should be built first, or if the auto bridge must be built first, that project must also fund the bicycle/pedestrian facility. Local elected/appointed officials identified and recommended Alternative D Refined as the preferred alternative, in part, to assure that bicycle and pedestrian facilities were delivered at the same time as the new bridge for motorized vehicles. 322 Preference COMBINING ELEMENTS IN THE DEIS 129 • A concept for a design based on a combination of elements has emerged from conversations with the Citizen Task Force, Program Advisory Group, and Bicycle and Pedestrian Working Group. The concept is a variant of Alternative A, and includes a proposal to build a new bridge, rather than rehabilitate the current bridge. The new bridge would have two vehicle lanes plus shoulders, and a separate bicycle/pedestrian bridge. All three groups have requested cost estimates for this plan, but figures may not be available until after the close of public comment on the DEIS. We recommend continued evaluation of this proposal to determine if the cost issues can be removed. • The Bicycle Transportation Alliance is a statewide non-profit organization that works to open minds and roads to bicycling. We represent bicyclists and the bicycle industry with over 5000 members in Oregon and SW Washington, and have seventeen years of experience in bicycle engineering, planning, education and advocacy. • Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important project for the city and the region.

I-80 Sellwood Bridge Project F i n a l Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I: Responses to DEIS Comments TABLE I-1 Responses to DEIS Comments ID Category Comment / Response Commenter IDs Following the December 10, 2008, public hearing and review of public and agency comments, the Community Task Force (CTF) explored a number of hybrid options, including the one described in your comment. Project staff prepared impact analyses for key variables of the hybrid options, including cost estimates. The cost of this option was similar to that of Alternative D. However, the CTF preferred Alternative D because most comments from bicyclists and pedestrians indicated a preference for bicycle and pedestrian facilities located adjacent to motorized vehicle facilities. The bicyclists and pedestrians noted that the presence of motorists would provide for greater security than facilities isolated from this passive surveillance. In addition, construction of a replacement bridge on the site of the existing bridge would have required long-term bridge closure during construction unless a temporary detour bridge were constructed. The CTF and local elected/appointed officials concluded that long-term bridge closure would cause unacceptable impacts to the community and that construction of a temporary detour bridge would not be an effective use of resources and would create impacts that could be avoided with Alternative D. The hybrid option, with a temporary detour bridge, would result in more adverse impacts to natural resources and east-side park facilities than those with Alternative D. 327 Utilities Many itemized comments related to potential utility impacts and referring 247 to Sections 2.2.2 (Build Alternatives), 2.3 (Construction Activities), 3.1.1 (Transportation Affected Environment), 3.12.3 (Geology Build Alternatives Environmental Consequences), and Appendix G (Summary of Mitigation and Environmental Commitments). Thank you for this information on potential utility impacts. Multnomah County will work with the Portland Water Bureau in the review of proposed water system impacts and mitigation as the design of the selected preferred alternative progresses and as more detailed design information becomes available. 328 Right-of- 380 SE Tacoma St, the Sellwood Building, is identified as an East-side 247 Way impact displaced building in Figure 3.3-3, Figure 3.3-4, Figure 3.3-5, Figure 3.3-6, and Figure 3.3-7, but there is no commentary offered regarding this displaced building. The displaced building is discussed in the “Impacts and Mitigation Common to All Build Alternatives” section on page 3-49 of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). 329 Utilities In the second sentence of the second bulleted item in the first column of 247 this page, the size of one of the existing water lines parallel to OR 43 is listed as 32 inches. The correct number is "36" inches. This correction was made in this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). 330 Utilities In the "Mitigation" paragraph, it is stated that "Impacted Utilities would be 247 replaced, reconstructed, or realigned." It should also be stated that the Sellwood Bridge Project will bear the cost for all required public water facility relocation and mitigation. The text to address this comment was added to this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). 331 Utilities The PWB would be interested in seeing a breakdown of the estimated costs 247 listed by impacted utility. For example, what percentage of the $2.87 million estimated for utility relocation in Alternative A is identified as being required for water system mitigation? The Utilities Technical Memorandum provides a breakdown of utility costs for each alternative. These estimates are preliminary. During final design, after a preferred alternative is selected, utility impacts will be estimated more accurately.

Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement I-81 Appendix I: Responses to DEIS Comments

102 Joan Beckley 163 Eric Miller TABLE I-2 103 Greg Ripplinger 164 Dorene Petersen Commenters by Commenter ID 104 Magdalena Valdivigso 165 Kathleen P. Holahan IDa Name 105 Monika DeBrakeleer 166 Bernie Bottomly 48 Blair Kramer 106 Hazel Gonsalves 167 Dick Springer 49 John Shurts 107 William Danneman 168 Miriam Nolte 50 John Tipton 108 Mary Anderson 169 Sanford Rome 51 Chelsea Bianchi 109 Martha Richards 170 Kate MacCready 52 John Russell 110 Del Scharffenberg 171 John Gillam 53 Derek Holmgren 111 Patti Shmilenko 171 Mauricio Leclerc 54 Chris Pheil 112 Mark Romanaggi 172 Tom Armstrong 55 Doug Prentice 113 Peter Pellegrin 173 Alan Mela 56 Diane Howieson 114 Laura Miller 174 Bob Akers 57 Diane Howieson 115 Lorraine Fyre 175 Zari Santner 58 Dan Pence 116 Matthew Galaher 176 Erin Hayes 59 Clifford Colvin 117 Lois and Marty Coplea 177 Greg Olson 60 Daniel Kaufman 118 Wendi Tucker 178 Paul Henson 61 Sharon Marcus 119 Amy Maki 179 Michael Brodeur 62 Jim Larpenteur 120 Leah Verwey 180 Julie Weis 63 John Lattig 121 Emily Harris 181 Dee Horne 64 Thomas Walsh 122 Beth Woodward 183 Barbara Sloop 65 Clarke Balcom 123 Jean Elyse Gilbert 184 Michael Crean 66 Jim Rech 124 Roz Roseman 185 Jim Friscia 67 Don Henderson 125 Priscilla Downing 186 Dustin Posner 68 Roland Haertl 126 Bradley Heintz 187 Adam Barka 69 Wayne Skall 127 Martha Mattus 188 Jim Brick 70 Zephyr Moore 128 Margery Howie 189 Thomas J. Walsh 71 Philip Haynes 129 Emily Gardner 191 Claudia Martinez 72 Austin Pratt 130 John Holmes 192 Jerome and Judith Partch 73 Robert E. and Lucy Wiegand 131 Ariel Smits 193 Wayne Skall 74 Peter Sweet 132 Nicole Navas 194 Dee Poth 75 Ed Murphy 133 Cordell Hull 195 Gerald Fox 76 Renee Moog 134 Loulie Brown 196 Martha Irvine 77 Bob and Kristin Howell 135 John Wold 197 C. Clark Leone 78 Sue Conachan 136 Cathy Prentice 198 G. Livingston 79 Charles Tindall 137 Tom Wakeling 199 Richard Atiyeh 80 Mark Scherzinger 138 Scott Rozell 200 Victor Christiansen 81 Mr. Clopton 139 Maggie Jarman 201 Lois and Marty Coplea 82 Mary and Gene Sayler 141 Mike LaTorre 202 Robert Ehni 83 Kenneth Ruecker 142 Reba Tobey 203 Anne Darrow 84 Richard Poulton 143 Jim Longwill 204 Mary King 85 Harriet Lesher 144 Tony Dal Molin 205 Jerry Renfro 86 Emory Powell 146 Paul Notti 206 Donaldina Yim 87 Karen Ripplinger 147 Tom Edwards 207 Margaret Foster 88 Robert Peterson 148 Cindy Anderson 208 Steve and Megan Adkins 89 Patricia Powell 149 Shanta Calem 209 Marychris Mass 90 Steven DeMonnin 150 Jan Dockstader 210 Mary Vaillancourt 91 Tyler Havener 151 Sheila Catterall 214 James Larpenteur 92 Judith Brock 152 Lance Lindahl 215 Allen and Mary Lou Dobbins 93 Judith (Mrs. Richard H.) Brock 153 Claudia Hutchison 216 Alice Duff 94 Jamie Strohecker 154 Brad Hathaway 217 Greg Meyer 95 Blair Campbell 155 David Collins 218 Linda Cahan 96 Fred Nomura 156 Sheila Strachan 219 David Parsons 97 Dee Poth 157 Mike Coyle 220 Christine Donnelly 98 Rolph B. Fuhrman 158 Christie Glynn 221 Patty Rueter 99 Cherie Nomura 160 Joan Beckley 222 Joel Grayson 100 David Noble 161 Stan Scotton 101 Daniel Houf 162 Frank Winicki

I-82 Sellwood Bridge Project F i n a l Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I: Responses to DEIS Comments

TABLE I-2 Commenters by Commenter ID IDa Name 223 Douglas R. Allen 224 Pat Hainley 225 Joel Fields 226 Emily Roth 227 Erin Janssens 246 Jennifer Goodridge 247 Cherri Warnke a The numbering system used for the individuals begins with 48 because the identification numbers could not be reset after the initial 47 “practice” items were entered into (and deleted from) the software database. Other inconsistencies relate to data entry errors.

Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement I-83 Appendix I: Responses to DEIS Comments

TABLE I-3 Information about the Commenters Organized by Last Name Organization or Affiliation Name (Commenter IDa) How Received Consolidated Comment ID (if applicable) Steve and Megan Adkins (208) Mail In 23, 35, 48, 57, 65, 81, 82, 85 Bob Akers (174) 40-Mile Loop Land Trust Mail In 75, 133 Douglas R. Allen (223) Mail In 35, 103 Cindy Anderson (148) Web Site 39 Mary Anderson (108) Open House 81, 108 Tom Armstrong (172) Portland Bureau of Planning Mail In 33, 120, 125, 127, 129, 131, 157 Richard Atiyeh (199) Mail In 20, 160 Clarke Balcom (65) Web Site 18, 19, 23, 24, 74 Adam Barka (187) Web Site 6, 44, 49, 50, 50, 52, 52, 55, 56, 94, 161, 317 Joan Beckley (102) Open House 14, 37 Joan Beckley (160) Riverpark Homeowners Assoc. Web Site 14, 20, 37, 81 Chelsea Bianchi (51) Web Site 11

Bernie Bottomly (166) Portland Business Alliance Web Site 2, 7, 9, 11, 34, 39, 40, 47, 82, 94, 96, 316 Jim Brick (188) Oregon Department of Fish and Mail In 34, 145, 146, 147, 148, 159, 200, 201, Wildlife 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212 Judith Brock (92) Web Site 20 Judith (Mrs. Richard H.) Brock Web Site 20 (93) Michael Brodeur (179) Sellwood Medical Clinic Web Site 13 Loulie Brown (134) Web Site 4 Linda Cahan (218) Web Site 79 Shanta Calem (149) Web Site 117, 119 Blair Campbell (95) Web Site 19 Sheila Catterall (151) Web Site 21 Victor Christiansen (200) Mail In 20 Mr. Clopton (81) Web Site 109 David Collins (155) Web Site 162, 163 Clifford Colvin (59) Web Site 6 Sue Conachan (78) Web Site 113 Lois and Marty Coplea (117) Mail In 13, 138 Lois and Marty Coplea (201) Mail In 25, 27, 114 Mike Coyle (157) Web Site 1, 65, 84 Michael Crean (184) Web Site 94, 115 Tony Dal Molin (144) Web Site 116, 117 William Danneman (107) South Portland Neighborhood Open House 123, 127, 132 Association Anne Darrow (203) Mail In 20 Monika DeBrakeleer (105) Open House 36, 66, 117, 156 Steven DeMonnin (90) Web Site 6, 28, 52, 55, 66 Allen and Mary Lou Dobbins Mail In 13, 17, 18, 21, 111, 139 (215) Jan Dockstader (150) Web Site 62 Christine Donnelly (220) Web Site 21, 81 Priscilla Downing (125) Web Site 20, 49 Alice Duff (216) Web Site 1 Tom Edwards (147) Daimler Corp Web Site 67 Robert Ehni (202) Mail In 20 Joel Fields (225) The UPS Store Mail In 9, 18, 27, 83, 162, 163, 314, 315 Margaret Foster (207) Mail In 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 23, 25, 26, 81 Gerald Fox (195) Mail In 31, 43, 53, 79, 86, 94, 127 Jim Friscia (185) SMILE Web Site 34, 38, 43, 83 Rolph B. Fuhrman (98) Mail In 14, 35, 136, 306

I-84 Sellwood Bridge Project F i n a l Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I: Responses to DEIS Comments

TABLE I-3 Information about the Commenters Organized by Last Name Organization or Affiliation Name (Commenter IDa) How Received Consolidated Comment ID (if applicable) Lorraine Fyre (115) Oaks Pioneer Church Open House 29 Matthew Galaher (116) Open House 83, 84, 96, 124 Emily Gardner (129) Bicycle Transportation Alliance Web Site 50, 64, 65, 67, 131, 320, 321, 322 Jean Elyse Gilbert (123) Web Site 11, 20 John Gillam (171) Portland Bureau of Transportation Mail In 43, 58, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188 Christie Glynn (158) Web Site 135 Hazel Gonsalves (106) Open House 17, 21, 23, 134, 167 Jennifer Goodridge (246) Portland Bureau of Environmental Mail In 144, 152, 153, 154 Services Joel Grayson (222) Maylie & Grayson Mail In 21, 81, 81, 134 Roland Haertl (68) Haertl Development / Consulting Web Site 45 Pat Hainley (224) Mail In 310, 311, 312, 313 Emily Harris (121) Web Site 4, 28, 34, 71, 81, 82, 83, 121, 126 Brad Hathaway (154) Web Site 7, 11, 28, 43, 70, 74, 89 Tyler Havener (91) Resonant Media Co Web Site 84 Erin Hayes (176) Web Site 117, 119 Philip Haynes (71) Web Site 97 Bradley Heintz (126) Web Site 121 Don Henderson (67) Web Site 13, 31 Paul Henson (178) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mail In 46, 309 Kathleen P Holahan (165) Web Site 13, 22, 23, 26 John Holmes (130) Web Site 13, 21, 24, 27 Derek Holmgren (53) Web Site 164 Dee Horne (181) Web Site 11, 84 Daniel Houf (101) Harper Houf Peterson Righellis Inc. Open House 9, 28, 48 Bob and Kristin Howell (77) Mail In 14, 15, 17, 18, 22, 23, 27 Margery Howie (128) Web Site 20 Diane Howieson (56) Web Site 130 Diane Howieson (57) Web Site 88 Cordell Hull (133) TriMet Web Site 18 Claudia Hutchison (153) Web Site 30 Martha Irvine (196) Mail In 20 Erin Janssens (227) Portland Fire & Rescue Mail In 299-303 Maggie Jarman (139) Web Site 34, 60, 67 Daniel Kaufman (60) Web Site 41, 99 Mary King (204) Mail In 7, 10, 11, 29, 29, 29, 43, 52, 54, 55, 62, 64, 66, 68, 77, 83, 162 Blair Kramer (48) Web Site 6, 49, 51 James Larpenteur (214) Mail In 14, 15, 17, 21, 21, 22, 23, 27, 99, 100, 104, 112, 134 Jim Larpenteur (62) Sellwood Harbor Open House 104, 112 Mike LaTorre (141) Web Site 132 John Lattig (63) Sellwood Harbor Condo Association Open House 15, 17, 99, 134, 139 Mauricio Leclerc (171) Portland Bureau of Transportation Mail In 43, 58, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188 C. Clark Leone (197) Mail In 20, 31 Harriet Lesher (85) River View Cemetery Plot Owner Web Site 20 Lance Lindahl (152) Brooklyn Action Corps Web Site 84 G. Livingston (198) Mail In 20 Jim Longwill (143) Web Site 8, 11, 28, 39, 52, 60, 82, 97, 140 Kate MacCready (170) Web Site 67, 78 Amy Maki (119) Sellwood Playgroup Association Web Site 117 Sharon Marcus (61) Web Site 10, 11, 111, 304

Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement I-85 Appendix I: Responses to DEIS Comments

TABLE I-3 Information about the Commenters Organized by Last Name Organization or Affiliation Name (Commenter IDa) How Received Consolidated Comment ID (if applicable) Claudia Martinez (191) Mail In 7, 11, 20 Marychris Mass (209) Mail In 28, 31, 53, 86, 98 Martha Mattus (127) Web Site 90, 91 Alan Mela (173) Mail In 141 Greg Meyer (217) Web Site 12, 17, 28, 52 Eric Miller (163) Sellwood Playgroup Association Web Site 34, 106, 107, 117, 119 Laura Miller (114) Open House 23, 26, 84 Renee Moog (76) Web Site 122 Zephyr Moore (70) One Earth Society Web Site 101 Ed Murphy (75) Sellwood Harbor Web Site 13, 17, 22, 23 Nicole Navas (132) Oregon Department of State Lands Web Site 307 David Noble (100) River View Cemetery Association Open House 20, 81, 84, 131 Miriam Nolte (168) Web Site 21, 81 Cherie Nomura (99) Mail In 13, 21, 23, 103, 135 Fred Nomura (96) Mail In 16, 17, 21, 22, 23, 44, 103 Paul Notti (146) Sellwood Moreland Improvement Web Site 29, 117, 119 League Greg Olson (177) Multnomah County Bicycle and Mail In 66, 75, 77, 88, 94, 133 Pedestrian Advisory Committee David Parsons (219) Web Site 155 Jerome and Judith Partch Mail In 20 (192) Peter Pellegrin (113) Open House 6, 45, 62, 96, 121 Dan Pence (58) Web Site 39, 64, 83, 109 Dorene Petersen (164) Web Site 14, 17, 18, 22, 82, 95, 138 Robert Peterson (88) Web Site 33, 44, 49, 60, 66 Chris Pheil (54) Web Site 6, 59 Dustin Posner (186) Web Site 4, 29, 66, 69 Dee Poth (97) Mail In 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 134, 135, 139, 142 Dee Poth (194) Mail In 14, 27, 102, 103, 104 Richard Poulton (84) Web Site 81, 134 Emory Powell (86) Web Site 14, 16, 18, 43, 47, 49, 94, 108, 108 Patricia Powell (89) RiverPark Web Site 31, 81, 108 Austin Pratt (72) US Coast Guard Mail In 305 Cathy Prentice (136) Web Site 27, 112 Doug Prentice (55) Web Site 31, 86 Jim Rech (66) Web Site 14, 23, 25, 44, 109 Jerry Renfro (205) Mail In 6, 46, 49, 51, 52, 54, 58, 63, 64, 80, 83, 95 Martha Richards (109) Open House 48, 52, 64, 68, 70, 75 Greg Ripplinger (103) The Silver Lining Clothing Co. Open House 9, 67, 69 Karen Ripplinger (87) The Silver Lining Clothing Co. Web Site 84 Mark Romanaggi (112) Open House 6, 67 Sanford Rome (169) Theresa Terrace Apartments Web Site 105 Roz Roseman (124) Web Site 11, 60, 86 Emily Roth (226) Portland Parks & Recreation Mail In 149, 207, 213-298, 318, 319 Scott Rozell (138) Web Site 67, 75, 76 Kenneth Ruecker (83) Web Site 31, 110 Patty Rueter (221) Portland Office of Emergency Mail In 316 Management John Russell (52) Web Site 9, 11, 62, 63, 76, 86 Zari Santner (175) Portland Parks & Recreation Mail In 33, 48, 69, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199 Mary and Gene Sayler (82) Web Site 32, 46, 48, 76, 96 Del Scharffenberg (110) Open House 6, 36, 49, 53, 69, 131

I-86 Sellwood Bridge Project F i n a l Environmental Impact Statement Appendix I: Responses to DEIS Comments

TABLE I-3 Information about the Commenters Organized by Last Name Organization or Affiliation Name (Commenter IDa) How Received Consolidated Comment ID (if applicable) Mark Scherzinger (80) Web Site 1, 5, 6, 13, 28, 34, 45, 49, 58, 62, 92, 93 Stan Scotton (161) Web Site 31, 133 Patti Shmilenko (111) Open House 23, 23, 81, 86, 109 John Shurts (49) Web Site 38 Wayne Skall (69) Web Site 81, 143 Wayne Skall (193) Mail In 23, 81 Barbara Sloop (183) Web Site 13, 13, 17, 119 Ariel Smits (131) Web Site 32 Dick Springer (167) Web Site 35, 35, 77, 86, 100, 102, 118, 126, 149 Sheila Strachan (156) Web Site 106, 108, 112 Jamie Strohecker (94) Web Site 20, 160 Peter Sweet (74) Web Site 87 Charles Tindall (79) Blue Line Transportation Web Site 40, 94 John Tipton (50) Web Site 23, 165 Reba Tobey (142) Sofas By Design Web Site 84 Wendi Tucker (118) Web Site 20 Mary Vaillancourt (210) Mail In 31 Magdalena Valdivigso (104) Open House 9 Leah Verwey (120) Campbell Salgado Studio, Inc Web Site 9 Tom Wakeling (137) Web Site 8, 9, 11, 28, 33, 81, 135, 137, 143 Thomas Walsh (64) Open House 165 Thomas J. Walsh (189) Mail In 6, 42, 47, 57, 107, 116, 126, 150, 158, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169 Cherri Warnke (247) Portland Water Bureau Mail In 327, 328, 329, 330, 331 Julie Weis (180) Web Site 9, 14, 84, 84 Robert E. and Lucy Wiegand Sellwood Harbor Mail In 15, 18, 23, 24, 27 (73) Frank Winicki (162) West Linn/Wilsonville School Web Site 116, 117 District John Wold (135) Web Site 84 Beth Woodward (122) Web Site 10, 69, 128 Donaldina Yim (206) Mail In 20 a The numbering system used for the individuals begins with 48 because the identification numbers could not be reset after the initial 47 “practice” items were entered into (and deleted from) the software database. Other numeric gaps relate to data entry errors.

Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement I-87

Appendix J. Original Comments on the DEIS

Table J-1 provides the text from the comments received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) (in the light-blue rows) within the comment period (between November 7 and December 22, 2008). Above each comment, the table lists the identifier for each comment, the name of the commenter, and information about how the comment was received. If a copy of the original document is available (file names indicated in parentheses in the white row of the “How Comment was Received” column), it is provided in a separate file (Sellwood_FEIS_AppJ-2.pdf).

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received 48 Blair Kramer Received via Web Site I received a document asking about the Sellwood Br. alternative that I would prefer. As far as I can see the only alternative that makes any sense, as far as being able to handle traffic smoothly, is alternative C. I am familiar with roundabouts as I've traveled thru Astoria on Hwy. 101 where there is a roundabout at the north end of the bridge (Youngs Bay Br.) located between Warrenton and Astoria. It is very confusing to people who are not familiar with it and especially the elderly, even those who are familiar with it. I also have run into problems with large semi-trucks being able to round the turn and staying in their lanes. Many times I have had to run up onto the island in the middle when a truck cuts it too close around the curve. Fortunately the State gave room to do so. But it is dangerous all the same. Also, as we all know, traffic signals are a necessity for safety reasons but they do impede the flow of all traffic. If they can be avoided they should. Also having to stop, idle, and then go wastes precious gasoline. Having only one alternative to choose from, that does not involve a roundabout or traffic signal, if a new bridge is to be constructed, I think alternative C is the only option that makes sense. 49 John Shurts Received via Web Site DEIS was well done. Thank you. I also took the survey. But just to echo my survey answers, I strongly favor the Alternatives that keep the bridge on its current alignment, whether rehabilitation or replacement. The Alternatives to north interfere too much with one of the jewels of the area -- Sellwood Park along the river. 50 John Tipton Received via Web Site do the right thing and move it to the north. and away from our homes. these condos were not built to withstand the high level of sound that comes with high numbers of trucks and cars that will come that close to are home. people can already see that im having dinner, i just dont want them to see What im having for dinner. 51 Chelsea Bianchi Received via Web Site I feel that there are four main issues, all regarding livability of all local residents, to consider when choosing between the alternatives listed for bridge design: closure periods, impact on recreation or parks, and preparation for the future thus keeping property values attainable for middle class families and not undervaluing their homes. In my opinion these issues trump other livability issues for the long term impact they will have on Sellwood, Lake Oswego, Johns Landing, and other neighborhoods. I feel that the option that best addresses these issues is Alternative D. There is no closure issue, 3.9 acres of park are lost compaired to the 3.8 of Alternative E but only 5 facilities. The construction phasing/cost/future reconfigure will destroy less housing and workplaces then Alternative E, cost less

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-1 Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received then Alternatives A and B, and allow for future adaptations thus keeping all neighborhoods viable parts of Portlands infostructure and not disconnected segments that have a hard time connecting. Please consider Alternative D as the best answer to the Sellwood Bridge Issue. 52 John Russell Received via Web Site If the bridge needs to have at least 3' shoulders, why not double their functionality and make them functional bike lanes, at least 6' or 6.5' wide? If shoulders weren't needed, I would, as a cyclists prefer a Hawthorne-bridge-style sidewalk with enough room for cyclists and pedestrians. With the expected number of pedestrians, it might even be acceptable to make the sidewalks somewhere in the range of 12' to 18' wide, but only to reduce the overall size and cost of the bridge, not to add vehicle lanes. As it appears that shoulders are in fact required, why not make them double as large-enough bike lanes? The vehicle congestion problem would not be solved in any way by adding more lanes, as the bottle neck would simply be moved to either side of the bridge. The real solution to that specific problem would be to look at a bridge in the vicinity of Lake Oswego. In the aforementioned aspects, along with the second lowest average cost, along with the absence of a closure, D is clearly the best option. 53 Derek Holmgren Received via Web Site Because the alternatives have different bridge designs, it is assumed the different bridge designs would have different lighting schemes. Chapter 3.11 (Visual Resources) does not analyze how the alternatives would affect the visual landscape at night. Please provide a description of the Sellwood Bridge's sources of nighttime light (such as bridge lighting, safety/roadway lighting, and lighting for pedestrians) in the affected environment. Then, please identify impacts on the visual landscape at night for each alternative. For example, would one alternative have more sources of light than another? Or, would one alternative have more visible sources of light than another? The visibility of light could be influenced by the color of the light, whether the light is flashing or steady, and the elevation of the light). Also, please identify mitigation to minimize nighttime light and its spread. For example, would shrouds be affixed to the bridge's light fixtures to prevent light from straying off-site? Would any of the light fixtures make use of solar panels for electricity? 54 Chris Pheil Received via Web Site I have already completed the last survey regarding the preferred bridge/interchange designs but then had another thought. My preferred design has always been a double deck design in order to lessen the impact that bridge width has on the adjacent bridges and residences. On the East end, has anyone considered moving the bridge on ramp back to 7th or 8th Avenue in order to allow the bridge height to soar over the businesses and residences in order to allow them to remain? Just a thought. Thanks, Chris Pheil 55 Doug Prentice Received via Web Site Being a Sellwood resident I favor the no build alternative. With the economy in such turmoil it makes

J-2 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received no sense to build a 300 million dollar bridge. Rebuild the existing bridge and save our neighborhood. I do not think the estimates have anticipated the potential legal litigation and lawsuits brought to the county if they try to condemn and move residents and businesses. This will even delay the process further and could even stop it. A new brige needs to be built in another area that takes the commuter traffic out of the Sellwood community. 56 Diane Howieson Received via Web Site I am concerned about the safety of the west side interchange for bicyclists who are cycling from Lake Oswego to Portland, or Portland to Lake Oswego. The current road arrangement is unsafe. Which plan is best to protect these bicyclists? 57 Diane Howieson Received via Web Site If one of the alternatives is selected that closes the bridge, the Tacoma St Ferry should be reinstated for pedestrians and cyclists. 58 Dan Pence Received via Web Site Please hurry up and get this done. Everybody has known that this bridge has needed to be updated or replaced for 30 years. It's time for action, enough with getting everybody to share their every opinion. My daughter drives to Lake Oswego using the Sellwood bridge every day. It's not safe for her or the other 40,000 people she shares it with. BTW when this crossing is closed her trip to school will be at least 15 miles longer each way and I can't imagine how long it will take her. My neighbor rides her bike across this bridge every day commuting to Lewis and Clark, it sucks for her. We are ready for this nightmare to end. 59 Clifford Colvin Received via Web Site I use the Sellwood Bridge everyday to go to work. I prefer the double decker option. Cars & trucks on top and bicycles & pedestrians on the bottom. Thank you. Clifford Colvin 60 Daniel Kaufman Received via Web Site I received your mailer today and it seems you left off one significant and cost-effective alternative. This would be to eliminate the bridge. Why is that not one of the alternatives? This is a serious question and since I live in the Sellwood-Moreland neighborhood. I also don't see any information in the flier about how we will fund construction. That would certainly effect the alternative I choose. Best regards, Dan Kaufman 5611 SE 15th Avenue Portland, OR 97202 61 Sharon Marcus Received via Web Site In the 34 years I have lived in Portland, my two neighborhoods have been Sellwood and Corbett/Lair Hill/Terwilliger (now South Waterfront). My husband and I frequently cross the Sellwood Bridge to shop and frequent restaurants, and I am therefore aware of the close proximity of buildings to the bridge as well as the crowded and dangerous nature of the bridge as it is currently configured. I prefer Alternative D primarily for the following two reasons: (1)There would be NO closure period which is important for the health and success of the businesses in Sellwood; (2) The cross-section of the design allows for future reconfiguration – very important for our rapidly growing area. The displacement of 5 condo units and 9 businesses with a total of 30 employees, as well as the 3.9 acres of park/rec. impact and 5 park facilities is not excessive when compared to the other options. It is unfortunate that condos and business were allowed to be built so close to the bridge in the first

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-3 Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received place, but since they are there it seems there is no way of avoiding some displacement. 62 Jim Larpenteur, Sellwood Harbor Received via Open House (062_JimLarpenteur.pdf) 1. The survey is flawed because it doesn't lend itself to voting on the hybrid alternatives that are supposed to be available. 2. The EIS is flawed because it doesn't address hybrid alternatives. We, you (CTF), and the PAG were promised to have the ability to mix and match within the 5 alternatives. There is no mix and match cost information. The Count in it's zeal to promote alternative D, designates 2 span of 64 ft. for Alt. D and saddles Alternative E, the preferred alternative for many of us, with a span of 75 ft. What would Alt E with a span of 64 ft cost? Does a "no" vote for Alt E mean the voter doesn't like the route or is it rejection of a 75 ft span for our neighborhood bridge? 63 John Lattig, Sellwood Harbor Condo Received via Open House (063_johnLattig.pdf) Association

• The Draft EIS is inadequate as a decision-making tool. Although it's been said that a “hybrid” solution may be the final recommendation, there is insufficient information in the EIS to allow for cost comparisons of alignmentlcross section/bridge type combinations. For example, there needs to be a cost matrix that allows one to identify the cost savings of pairing a narrower cross section with alignment F. • The EIS lacks any documentation that would support the assumption only 4 residential units at Sellwood Harbor will be destroyed by Alternative D. Three of those units would be stripped off the northern end of a 3-story building with below grade parking, and one unit stripped of the end of a 3 unit townhouse structure. The EIS should include certification by a structural engineer that what remains will be structurally sound. • In Section 3, it's acknowledged that the loss of one condo unit at River Park may result in fmancial harm to the condo association as a whole because of diminished dues revenue. No such acknowledgement is made for the potentially greater harm of destroying 4 of 38 units at Sellwood Harbor (Alternative D.). This is a serious omission. • More explicit detail regarding right-of-way costs should be included so that decision makers can verify the adequacy of the cost projections. Some of the statements in Section 4, Key Differentiators, are misleading: • It's implied as a negative factor that Alternative E will require the most right-of-way acquisition (11.7 acres vs. 10.5 acres.). This is mitigated by information presented in other sections of the EIS: Alternative E takes less parkiand space than other alternatives, and it reclaims land on the east side that can be used for other constructive public use such as Sellwood Riverfront Park expansion and transit facilities. • It's stated that Alternative E will adversely impact Oaks Pioneer Church, but the section 106 process concluded with a finding of “no adverse impact” and it's also stated there will be no 4(f) impact to the church. • With respect to Alternative E noise impact on the church, the projected change is only 2db at 2035 traffic levels and the overall db level is below the Oregon State criterion of 65db. 64 Thomas Walsh Received via Open House (064_ThomasWalsh.pdf) I ask that the CTh review and discuss the adequacy of the Seliwood Bridge DEIS before undertaking the process of selecting an alternative. If the DEIS has unnoticed

J-4 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received deficiencies, then the chances of making a proper choice become very small. The CTF should take the lead in critiquing the document. I offer an example of what I consider a serious fault in the DEIS. Section 3.19 treats noise. It gives levels for the existing condition and predicts them for the future conditions for the differing alternatives. They are much too low. They are said to be in units of dBA. Stated values range up to 72 cIBA. A casual walk along Tacoma St. will show that this value is constantly exceeded. A low-priced sound meter indicated that the emissions of most vehicles exceeded 72 cIBA and many approached 83 , 84 and even 85 CIBA. There is even a contradiction in the noise section. Large trucks will be traveling Tacoma St. under the build alternatives. Table 3.19-1 gives the noise of a large truck at a distance of 50 feet as 90 CIBA, not 72 dBA. On Tacoma Street, one cannot get 50 feet from passing traffic. The problem with the data in the main volume of the DEIS perhaps arises because the analysis and measurements to obtain levels, as described in the supporting document, “Noise, Seliwood Bridge Final Technical Report”, gave its results in Leq(h), not dBA. These were then erroneously incorporated into the DEIS as cIBA. Leq(h) is the hourly energy average of sound levels in dBA. I consider these averages very misleading. They make the noise appear to be much less severe than it really is. They are very much favored by groups and organizations which do not want limits placed on it, e.g., the aircraft owners, off-roaders, the FAA, the Forest Service, FHWA, etc. Noise levels should be given in environmental documents as it would be measured by rapid response meter settings as a function of time. If averages are given for some reason, they certainly should not be mislabeled. Even if the Oregon exterior Noise Abatement Criterion of 65 dBleq(h) for a residence is met, noise there is still very intrusive and objectionable. Speech interference occurs at 58 CIBA when people are more than 3 feet apart. [Daniel R. Raichel, The Science and Applications of Acoustics, Springer Science+Media, Inc., 20061. The CTh may all ready be doing what I am requesting. I hope so. At the last CTF meeting I mentioned two letters to officials of the Columbia River Crossing Project. commenting on it. One is from the Multnomah County Health Department, dated June 9, 2008 and the second is from the National Marine Fisheries Service, dated August 6, 2008. The first one is very applicable to this project. The second one contains some useful information. I suggest that at least some members of the CTh obtain copies and read them. 65 Clarke Balcom Received via Web Site Prefer dedicated transit lanes in Alternative E, which should be designed to allow for streetcar to Sellwood that could also connect to future Milwaukie lightrail. Best long-term value for the money. Also, Grand Place mostly still unoccupied, so minimal displacement. Can alignment be designed to go over or around River Park offices? Bike/ped trail alignment underneath roadway design (as in Alternative C) is clever, but presents danger of assault/rape out of sight of traffic. 66 Jim Rech Received via Web Site Go with Alternative E. The disruption, cost (please do the girder option), and future flexibility are too compelling. It's a horrible economy out there and the community needs to focus on practical priorities. Businesses can be moved. There is a great amount of vacant space. They can live with it. They probably will end up be better off. In contrast, the impact on people (dislocations)and neighborhoods needs to be addressed as a high priority. Don't force them to ask, beg or sue.

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-5 Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received Do this fast. The construction industry is hungry for business and the cost should be dramatically lower than quoted in the EIS. 67 Don Henderson Received via Web Site All the alignments will have an impact in some way, but alignment D is clearly a terrible choice. I remain amazed that it could even be an option. The displacement of so many long time residents is unconsciable. Further the gutting of a substantial portion of Sellwood Harbor will utterly destroy the value and livability of the remaining units. The best approach is to repair and maintain the existing bridge. This will eliminate the loss of any property and the displacement of any residents as well as any businesses. It, I suspect, would cost the least of all the other alternatives which is a good thing,too. 68 Roland Haertl, Haertl Development / Received via Web Site Consulting I am aware of the interchenge issues and problems at both east and west side. My comments: In 1966 I was invited by the Portland Arts commission to comment on the then submitted 8 ot 9 designs for the Fremont Bridge. A review of the criteria by me resulted in a preliminary design (drawn up by David Soderstrom), submitted to the Arts Commission by me (at that time employed by Storch Consulting Engineers), then recommended for implementation and then implemented. The Fremont tied-arch / through-arch concept does not appear to be the best solution in this case. A single eastside pylon, cable-stay bridge would address the problematic geology of the west side terminus and provide a visual counterpoint ot the high topography westside bank, resulting in an aesthetically exciting bridge. 69 Wayne Skall Received via Web Site Please do not build the temporary detour bridge on Spokane St. This would create an unliveable situation for the residents of this area. Riverpark Condominiums would be placed in a virtual "construction sandwich". I understand that this temporary detour bridge can be added to several of the alternatives. The DEIS is not addressing the impact of this temporary bridge on the area residents. It also does not address the fact that the parking along Spokane St. would be displaced as well as the parking spaces under the Sellwood Bridge. If this temporary detour bridge is built, our condos would be totally devalued, without any compensation. I have been to a task force meeting, as well as several public information meetings and I have seen the committee members talk about mixing and matching by adding this temporary bridge alternative to some of the other options. This is discussed very impersonally with no neighborhood input and no regard for the residents. If the task force insists on going ahead with the detour bridge, I believe that our only option will be to initiate legal action. I have seen first hand the lack of true feeling and the lack of compassion that the task force has for the people that actually live in the vicinity of the bridge. Please visit and look at the situation first hand, and put yourself in the position of someone that lives near the bridge and please take the temporary detour bridge off the table. 70 Zephyr Moore, One Earth Society Received via Web Site December 1, 2008 Dear Bridge Repair, The Fire Dept on a recent ballot begged for $0.25/$1,000 tax on PROPERTY to pay for new truck. A one-pound car dealer advertising rectangle on 3,000 pound car is $0.33/$1,000 tax on EVERYTHING

J-6 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received paid by EVERYONE. • Both gas taxes subsidize car dealers • Gas tax and business' Weight mile tax attempt to keep up with the cost of pavement repair. Weight on tire read wears road. Businesses use common avenues to deliver raw materials and finished goods for purpose of profit, thus—equitably—pay tax on that weight. Slip, skid and sliding extra weight in or on a vehicle wears road proportionate to its increase. Less weight on road = less tax. • Car dealers profit by screwing advertising rectangles—TATTOOS--over State on license plate. LOOK! Metal rectangles weigh a pound (454 grams) and are punted [football 404 g] everywhere! Consider: 1,000 miles/month average 33 miles or 970, 60-yard punts/day-- completed in about an hour. The mental, chemical and physical forces applied with straining effort to propel one-pound ad rectangle/3,000 lb. car consume man-made [$0.33/$1,000] and Earthly capital otherwise used or capable of being used to produce more wealth. Dealers pay no weight mile tax on the perpetually profitable-pound used and useful only on roads! • Think! Postal tax = $4.05/pound of advertising; one-way. RUBNUZD? • Cities, counties and State legislatures will have money to fill pits, cracks, ruts and holes after taxing car dealers for millions of pound-advertising rectangles that will thanklessly; daily, rub our roads raw. Or simply unscrew advertising from your car and beg your neighbors to do the same. Recycle metal rectangles with tin cans. Very Sincerely, Zephyr Thoreau Moore 71 Philip Haynes Received via Web Site In order to pay for the Sellwood Bridge (& Columbia River Bridge too), why not set up a toll? The new Tacoma Narrows Bridge has a toll on it. The Maple Street Bridge in Spokane had a toll on it, but now removed. 72 Austin Pratt, US Coast Guard Received via Mail In (072_US_Coast_Guard.pdf) The Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Statement for the Sellwood Bridge Project has been reviewed in our role as a cooperating agency. This document is generally adequate for the purposes of our permit authority. Specifically referenced are Table S-4 on page S-22 and page 3-7 where river navigation is discussed. We will supplement this information as needed in our independent evaluation following an application for a bridge permit. 73 Robert E and Lucy Wiegand, Sellwood Received via Mail In (73_Robert_and_Lucy_Wiegand.pdf) Harbor As owners of a townhouse at Sellwood Harbor, we are very concerned about the proposed alignments for the Sellwood Bridge. We strongly recommend that Multnomah County proceed with Alternative E for the proposed new bridge. We believe it is the alignment that will least adversely impact all of the residents of the Sellwood Community: • It is the only alternative that does not destroy existing homes; • It is the only alignment that accomodates transit; • It has the flexibility to accommodate future needs; • It is less costly;

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-7 Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received • It will have less impact on aquatic and water resources than Alt. D; and • There will be less adverse impact on the conversion of park land. We strongly believe any of the other options would be very damaging to Sellwood Harbor; it would result in the destruction of four residences here. This would adversely impact the owners of those properties as well as the remaining home owners as it would diminish the value of all the homes in Sellwood Harbor. We strongly urge the County to adopt Alternative E as the most fair and practical solution of the Sellwood Bridge reconstruction options. 74 Peter Sweet Received via Web Site I am flabbergasted that the best designs are all band aid solutions to a serious, regional traffic bottleneck. Why aren't planners thinking out 25-35 years and providing a real solution to getting Eastside commuters back and forth to their jobs via four-lane roads? I believe a new bridge should start at the foot of Taylor's Ferry and Macadam on the Westside and connect to McLoughlin Ave. near the Milwaukie Ave. overpass on the Eastside. Keep the present Sellwood Bridge, but limit it to pedestrian and bicycle traffic. 75 Ed Murphy, Sellwood Harbor Received via Web Site Alt D: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIS. When are you going to provide a Structural Engineer's and an Architect's Certification that you can cost effectively remove 3 homes from a 9 home 4 Story multifamily building? When are you going to provide accurate right-of-way cost estimates to purchase the land and 21 parking spaces, destroy and reconstruct the buildings, conpensate remaining home owners for their loss of homes values and the loss of HOA revenues caused by Alt D at Sellwood Harbor? The county staff made a special Power Point Presentation to have Alt D included, however, there has not been any factual evidence that the effects on Sellwood Harbor can be accomplish as proposed. Before Alt D moves forward, you need to provide factual evidence of the costs and loss in home values imposed on Sellwood Harbor in your loosely fabricated right-of-way cost projections. How can you in good conscious propose the bridge to land on unstable soils, the major contributing cause of the current bridge problems, on the West side of the River? Alt E: When will there be a cross section with related costs that is similar to Alt D be presented for Alt E? According the Draft EIS, Alt E can be less expensive than D, it lands on what appears to be stable soil on the West, does not harm the Oaks Pioneer Church, purchased right-of-way land that can have future park uses, does not harm Sellwood Waterfront Park, and does not destroy any existing homes. Why are you afraid to demonstrate these facts as positives? So far, the staff verbal reports have implied the above points as negatives. Alt E will not as implied, cause the loss of 216 jobs. People will need to relocate in SE and SW Portland that has nearly 2 millions square feet of vacant office space, however, the E Alternative will not cause the loss of jobs as implied by staff presentations. Thank you in advance for replying to my concerns. 76 Renee Moog Received via Web Site I am sorry I don't have the time to read the whole report nor have I been involved extensively in the planning meetings however I have scanned the options and discussions and here are my comment/questions.

J-8 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received I appreciate the need to safely carry various kinds of traffic across the Sellwood Bridge but I don't see any discussion of what happens to Eastbound traffic after it goes through Sellwood. I live on Johnson Creek Boulevard and from my perspective the traffic going through our RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD (speed limit 25) is already TOO MUCH and TOO FAST. If more traffic and specifically more cut through traffic (going to 205 via a neighborhood instead of 224) is planned for Johnson Creek Blvd. will be backed up even more (already there are times I wait 20 minutes to go from 99E to my house at 42nd and Johnson Creek Blvd- about 1/2 mile). I don't like the idea of more traffic going through Sellwood (it's already backed up to get onto the bridge at busy times) but if that is going to happen, what is being done to channel traffic onto 99E and down to 224 instead of through a RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD (speed limit 25)? Was there any discussion of making a new Bridge further South thus avoiding taking traffic that is southbound across the river in a less residential area? That would leave the current Sellwood bridge as a pedestrian/bike bridge. Thank you, Renee Moog PS. Over a year and a half ago I submitted questions to your site and never received a reply- I certainly would appreciate a reply. 77 Bob and Kristin Howell Received via Mail In (077_ Bob_and_Kristin_Howell.pdf) As property owners who would be effected by the location of the new bridge, we want to mkae our preferences know. We feel that Alternative E would have the most advantages for all concerned for the following reasons. 1. It would effect less parkland 2. Becuase more acreage is involved, the remaining land could be used for other projects that would benefit all 3. The proposed brige could be narrowed to keep costs down and widened at a later date when economics improve without disturbing businesses or residents. 4. The River Park Center is willing to be comdemned as they are having a hard time getting tenants due to the uncertain future of the bridge. If the City purchased the building now they would have ample time to relocate without jeopardizing jobs. 5. The bridge would be built on stable ground. 6. The noise factor would not disturb anyone. 7. It would allow for mass transit – now or at a later time. 8. It would release tenants of Sellwood Harbor and others from the "hostage" position we find ourselves in, waiting for a definite decision to be made. 9. There would be no property tax loss from Sellwood Harbor and those reamining. 10. There would be no need for the closure of the existing bridge. Please consider the above when making your final decision. Thank you, Bob and Kris Howell 78 Sue Conachan Received via Web Site On the survey, you asked us where we lived and what we used the bridge for, e.g. commuting to work. I think it would have been very interesting, not necessarily helpful to the overall survey information, but especially for commuting to work if it had asked what area we were commuting to, e.g. Hillsboro, Aloha, Tigard, Beaverton, etc. Then you could see if like people from the east of I-205

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-9 Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received who could just jump on the freeway systems were cutting through Sellwood just because instead of using the freeway. It wouldn't change anything but would see patterns of the traffic to and from. For example, I come from Oak Grove and I only travel 8 miles to go to Barbur Boulevard/Multnomah Boulevard area. No other option to travel over the Sellwood Bridge. Just a thought! 79 Charles Tindall, Blue Line Received via Web Site Transportation We do not support this project because it does not relieve congestion and it is not going to provide a freight route to move commerce. The alternative really seem strange. Ped goes from 20' to 37' and vehicle travel goes from 22' to 48'. The West-side Interchange should be interchangeable with the bridge designs. It is also important to know the cost of each interchange and how each effects traffic flow. Thank you, Charlie 80 Mark Scherzinger Received via Web Site Replacement of the Sellwood Bridge is a monumental effort in pleasing as many of the parties involved as possible. As I have no particular stake in the results except as a taxpayer, I am inclined to ponder other solutions and, at best, to treat the draft EIS as a shopping list. In addition, by controlling the project cost, it should be that much easier to fund. 1) I am not convinced that a replacement bridge must connect to Tacoma Street. Though submitted too late to sway the consideration of alignment alternatives, I have suggested a bridge alignment to the south that would use the old railroad right-of-way in the vicinity of Ochoco Street to connect to 17th and create a traffic corridor to Highway 224. 2) Otherwise, escalation of right-of-way costs leads to the conclusion that the replacement bridge should then have the same alignment as the existing bridge. 'No' for Alternatives D and E. 3) But a two-lane replacement bridge seems short-sighted for a projected 75-year lifespan. This appears to be driven by the planned future improvements to Tacoma Street which serve to strictly limit it's traffic capacity in favor of neighborhood livability. I have no problem with this priority and, in fact, I see this as adding weight to my first point. 4) It would take some convincing that a separate pedestrian/bicycle bridge ($52-58 million) should be considered at all. 'No' for Alternative A. 5) 'No' to Alternative B because of the detour bridge cost. Unless you can show a $30 million benefit from it's use. Would it have a higher weight limitation than the existing bridge? In addition, I fear the effect on the active landslide of the wider round-about interchange at the west end, not to mention increased right-of-way costs. 6) So it's 'Yes' for Alternate C. But why not make this a double-deck continuous truss bridge? This would maintain the narrow footprint and provide visual continuity with the existing bridge elevation. Consider a design with a two-lane bridge deck on both levels. One deck could be designated not just for pedestrian/bicycle but for transit, or even for future completion. While there is the added complexity of the connections at each end, it makes some allowance for future capacity expansion. It is unclear how much the more visually pleasing thru-arch would add to the overall cost; substantial if Alternative E is any indication. The right-turn-loop-under-bridge option at the east end is another attractive feature of this alternative. However, once again the size of the west-end interchange, though most attractive, incurs additional right-of-way costs and may be an issue with the active landslide. Perhaps the west-end interchange attached to Alternative D is a better fit?

J-10 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the draft EIS. I look forward to the continuing development of this project. 81 Mr. Clopton Received via Web Site This project should have been done twenty years ago. It's time to quit worrying about offending someone or diminishing the value of someone's property. Anyone who bought a home or business in the potentially impacted area in the last 10-20 years should reasonably have known that something was going to need to be done regarding the bridge in the very foreseeable future. It's time for someone to make a decision. 82 Mary and Gene Sayler Received via Web Site I like the arched bridge with the round-a-bout. The round-a-bouts seem to work everywhere iIhave experienced them. So mjch better at Wankers Corner and Lewis and Clark College. Also have been on the r-a-b in Europe and California -keeps traffic moving. I also think one wider lane for bicycles and pedestrians is enough – just 3-4 feet wider . I am 63 and love to ride bikes, but will not on that bridge until it is safer. Since costs will be a problem, we do not need lanes on each side of the bridge I also do not understand why the City of Portland or Clackamas County could not contribute to this project since so many residents are using this bridge on a daily basis. Perhaps they could forgo the bridge over 405 in Portland and prioritize the Sellwood Bridge project as more important – because it is!!! i do not want to see the bridge given a "band-aid" just to put off construction for another day. 83 Kenneth Ruecker Received via Web Site 2 day notice of the meeting shows your effort to limit the input from the general public. There were multipule meeting for the locals with many weeks notice. you have already allowed the locals to make a choice. Leave it the way it is! you don't and won't have the money. all of the proposed builds are ppipe dreams that do nothing to improve the traffic. Portland department of transportation abortions. 84 Richard Poulton Received via Web Site As a condo owner in the Riverpark complex on Spokane St. The EIS document does not properly address the defacto comdemnation of our Tower building with the Temporary Bridge options. Building the temporary bridge would in fact place our buildings between two construction sites for the term of the project rendering our units unsalaeble. In addition the document only briefly addresses the impact of lost HOA dues with the loss of Townhouse #1 and the financial impact to the HOA @ Riverpark. This could impact the future viability of the Home Owners Association as it would require an increase the monthly dues to a level making the units again unsaleable even after the bridge project was completed. 85 Harriet Lesher, River View Cemetery Received via Web Site Plot Owner I am in favor of Option E in the DEIS plan for the Sellwood Bridge. Please do not even consider option C--a bad mistake. Thank you.

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-11 Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received 86 Emory Powell Received via Web Site My wife and I live in Riverpark in the townhome closest to the bridge. We are history in four of the six plans. The process to date has been slow and frustrating. Our entire neighborhood has been effected financially and it is virtually impossible to sell our home or anyone elses in the neighborhood while no decision is forthcoming. As to the plans themselves I am opposed to any of the plans that include a circle or roundabout. Nj and Mass two of my former states have spent the last 20 yrs systematically removing them as they are terrible for effecicent traffic flow and very dangerous especially as it was explained that bikers and pedestrians will have to negotiate these obstacles. I feel that the option to the North E makes the most sense when taking in future requirements down the road. Considering the lack of funds at this time the less costly of all options should be considered. I hope whichever option is chosen is done as quickly as possible to have the least impact on the neighborhood. Option E also has the obvious advantage of leaving the current brige intact while building the new bridge. Thank you for concidering my comments. Emory Powell 87 Karen Ripplinger, The Silver Lining Received via Web Site Clothing Co. Being a small business owner in the Westmoreland neighborhood for 25 years, I am very concerned that there be any closure of the bridge during construction. Having survived the Bybee bridge being closed, we know from that experience that people do not go around, they just go some where else that is more convienent. That small overpass closure was difficult times for business's financailly. Primarily customers are within a 5 mile radius and being that we are less than a mile from the Sellwood bridge that cuts off a huge customer base. This possible bridge closure could mean the end to quite a few small businesses and neighborhoods. Customers are not loyal if there are huge barriers to getting to a potential business. We can not have a bridge closure it will be bad for business and the neighborhood! Thanks 88 Robert Peterson Received via Web Site I understand the reasoning behind making decisions for each of the three proposed bridges (Columbia River Br, Sellwood Br, and the Wilamette River walk/bike/train Br.) as a stand alone project. However, I believe we should be looking at these bridges as a total package that will have significant impact on our area and how we commute. The Columbia River bridge should not be a designed to make a statement but should be designed to handle traffic efficiently while allowing our electric train/bikes/walkers to cross the river. The bridge should not interfear with air traffic in or out of the Vancouver airport. The bridge should allow truck traffic from the ports at each end of the bridge to quickly and efficiently enter and exit the bridge. The Sellwood bridge design should be simple and basic, allowing traffic to once again cross the river unrestricted because of weight. The bridge routs traffic through a neighborhood and any significant increase in traffic over the bridge will only cause the usual bog down during high traffic times. Thus, the bridge should be a basic box design, which requires minimal maintainence over the decades this bridge will be in use. Two oversize lanes for traffic to cross the bridge safely is key. The oversize lanes will allow emergency vehicles to get up on the bridge once traffic moves off to the sides. In my opinion, the design statement bridge should be the new bridge proposed for the electric train, including bike/walking, to cross the river from OMSI to the new OHSU campas on the river. Making this the statement bridge will draw local and out of state tourist to the city as well as serve as a public transportation connector with down town and the outlying areas. The Sellwood bridge should stay where the current bridge is. I believe the traffic circle on the West

J-12 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received end will bring traffic to a stop is the North and South bround flow lanes are replaced by the circle. Historically drivers use common sence and take turns onto the bridge from the West end during heavy traffic. Bikers could easily use the new train/bike/walking bridge by OMSI rather than the Selwood bridge. 89 Patricia Powell, RiverPark Received via Web Site As the resident of TH #1 (RiverPark – right beside Sellwood Brige), our Unit will be condemned in four of the build options. One of my concerns is the amount of time that this process has taken. We were told over a year ago that a decision would be made in December 2007. We are now a year out from that date still no option has been chosen. During this time, home prices have declined and the economic climate is in a major downturn. The majority of funding required to complete any of the build options is expected to come from the Feds – however, I think that based on our current economy and the current "bail-outs" of major corporations/industries, obviously this funding is in no way guaranteed and in fact, may not be available. Therefore I think that a "no-build" option should still be on the books...but again, this option or any other should be made ASAP. All the residents of the Riverpark community have been in "freeze" mode for a number of years during this process. The option to build a temporary bridge while replacing the existing bridge would prove to be a major problem for any residents located near the bridges. The RiverPark residents would have to live between two construction sites for a number of years, which would make for negative livability and noise and parking/accessibility problems. Also, no one will be able to sell their property. In summary, I would like to see an intelligent decision made very quickly based on economic conditions and impacts on livability along with a guarantee that the funds have been awarded for this project. 90 Steven DeMonnin Received via Web Site I don't care for alternative E. It is the most destrive of the choices and the configuration of west end seems to offer more problems than it solves. as for the choices, I think the under pass ono the east side and the alternative Con the west side look like they make traffic flow best. I like bridge type C as it keeps bikes away from traffic. I think that is the safest way to orginize the traffic. Building a sepearte bike bridge is not cost effective. 91 Tyler Havener, Resonant Media Co Received via Web Site Hello, My name is Tyler Havener, owner of Resonant Media, a creative and design agency which maintains a small satelitte office co-located within Campbell Salgado Studio on Tacoma. I am not an Oregon resident. The livelihood of my business is not dependant on Sellwood/Moreland or Oregon, and I am not dependant upon Sellwood/Moreland. Additionally, bridge construction or closure would not have any effect on my ability to get to or from our offices each day. But I am writing to state for the record that any option that includes a bridge closure, for any length of time, is

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-13 Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received not plausible. On each day I commute to work, I conduct leisurely and personal errands in the Sellwood/Moreland community. Lunch. Dinner. Grocery Shopping. etc. It is abundantly clear to me as a patron of the local businesses, that they consist of, almost entirely, small boutique businesses. The size and economic scale of these businesses is absolutely dependant on constant and available access for patrons outside of the community, and the flow of potential patrons through the area. Residents and others in areas surrounding Sellwood/Moreland to the east would certainly be inconvenienced by a closure. But given that there are sufficient bypasses for a significant volume of traffic to be channeled around the neighborhood, local businesses would no longer be able to sustain themselves without the exposure. And the time required for the businesses in the community to rebuild after a reopening would be significantly longer than the closure itself, if the community was not altered permanently as a result. 92 Judith Brock Received via Web Site Dear Project Members, My husband and I are Lake Oswego residents who have our only two sons (died at 18 and 26 years old) buried at Riverview Cemetery. In what has been a very chaotic and uncertain world for us, this quiet acreage is a place of peace and solace and permanence to us. We visit there regularly. 93 Judith (Mrs. Richard H.) Brock Received via Web Site I just wrote and submitted comments on this site in support of Riverview Cemetery and alternative E, but am not sure they were actually sent. Did you receive them? Thank you, Judy Brock

94 Jamie Strohecker Received via Web Site I would like to submit my choice for Alternative E. It appears to provide the best plan for access to Riverview Cemetery for families and unlike Alternate C, it does NOT completely eliminate the lower access to the cemetery and funeral home. I would hope the goal of the new bridge plan is better and safer access as well as preserving the historic and beautiful values of Riverview Cemetery and Funeral Home, since Riverview is historic in its own right and a Portland treasure. Thank you for including my opinion and again, I choose Alternative E... NOT C !! 95 Blair Campbell Received via Web Site I understand that there were several concerns expressed about the impact of the northernmost bridge alignment on the little church. If that really amounts to a significant problem, let's move the church. I can easily picture it being moved into a picturesque section of Sellwood Park for a relatively small amount. Let's not let an issue that is so easily and inexpensively mitigated stand in the way of the most practical solution.

J-14 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received 96 Fred Nomura Received via Mail In (96_Fred_Nomura.pdf) I am a Sellwood resident who will be directly affected by the upcoming decision on bridge alignment, the options of which are covered in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). I have viewed the lengthy video summarizing the DEIS and conclude that there is a strong bias of decision-makers to support Alignment D. I strongly oppose Alignment D (A-D) and support Alignment E (A-E), for the following reasons: 1. A-D will destroy at least four condominium units in Sellwood Harbor. These are owner-occupied units, two of which are occupied by widows on fixed incomes. Three of these four units are in Building A, which is a nine unit building consisting of three units on each of three levels. It is not yet determined whether architecturally or structurally it is feasible to shear off the three end units and maintain the integrity of the remaining six units in the building. To put the entire nine units at risk would be disastrous. 2. The loss of at least four condo units will cause financial hardship to the owners of the remaining 33 units in several ways. First, the operating expenses will remain essentially the same but will be shouldered by only 33 owners, not 37, thus increasing the monthly association dues, and the ongoing capital expenses will likewise create additional financial strain on the remaining owners. Second, the market value of the remaining 33 units will be significantly less than the value would be if all 37 units remained intact. 3. A decision to approve A-D, even if construction does not begin for many years, will hold Sellwood Harbor owners hostage; they will not be able to sell ther units because the extent of the potential damage to their units' value, while considerable, cannot by quantified. This harm to Sellwood Harbor owners is already apparent; at least three elderly owners who need continuous care facilities have been unable to see their condos because there have been no buyers willing to take the risk created by your Alignment D scenario. A fourth owner, who moved out of state to be closer to family, also cannot sell his vacant unit and is hurting financially. All other owners who wish to move for any reason will be denied this freedom by the damage of your Alignment D. 4. Alignment D will build the West End interchange on unstable soil, requiring costly accommodation to make this interchange feasible. A-E provides for the West End interchange to be north of the current alignment, on stable ground. 5. It appears that A-E can be built faster and at less cost than A-E, when using a box-girder configuration. 6. Contrary to some voiced concerns, A-E will not harm either the Oaks Pioneer Church or the Sellwood Waterfront Park. The sound increase from the A-E has been estimated to be minimal, and should cause no adverse effect. Sellwood Waterfront Park will not be harmed; in fact, A-E will provide usable land from right-of-way purchases to expand the park, something that A-D does not accomplish. 7. A-E does not cause loss of jobs. It will cause relocation of some businesses, but jobs will not be threatened. Relocation of some businesses seem (to me) preferable to the prospect of elderly people displaced from their homes and other owners harmed financially by your A-D. For the above reasons, I very strongly oppose Alignment D and would strongly support Alignment E. Thank you. 97 Dee Poth Received via Mail In (097_Dee_Poth.pdf) Dear Sirs: I prefer Alternative E as the Sellwood Bridge replacement choice. I do not want Alternative D because it destroys the homes of four long time residents of Sellwood

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-15 Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received who live at Sellwood Harbor. Of those homes destroyed, two are widows on fixed incomes. The right-of-way costs will not purchase any reusable land for other than the bridge alignment. The right- of-way costs do not appear to have a calculation to pay for 21 parking spaces that will be lost with this bridge alignment. There is no mention of the cost to compensate the Home Owners Association at Sellwood Harbor for lost revenues and to compensate home owners for depreciated home values caused by this alignment. There has been no structural or architectural certification that the county can only take out 3 homes from building A at Sellwood Harbor. As long as Alternative D is a possible choice, owner can't sell their homes. There are several owners, for health reasons, who desperately need to sell their homes now. However, they cannot sell because potential buyers are afraid of the consequences to Sellwood Harbor if at least foiur of the homes are destroyed by Alternative D. The West interchange for Alternative D is going to be built on unstable soils that are sliding toward the river. Alternative E: This appears to be the best long term solution for a new bridge. This is the only alternative that does not destroy owner occupied existing homes. This is the only alignment that accommodates transit. This is the only bridge alignment that has flexibility to accommodate future needs. This is the only bridge that has a West side interchange tha lands on stable soils. Alternative E can be built 9 to 15 months faster than Alternative D depending on the type of bridge. When using box-girder configuration, Alternative E is $12 Million less costly than D. If a hybrid and narrower cross section is used, the bridge will be that much less expensive than D. Alternative E has less impact on aquatic resources than D. Alternative E creates less impervious survace area than Alternative D, thus it's impact on water resources is less. Alterantive E requires the conversion of slightly less plarkland area than Alternative D. Also, the land acquired for right-of-way can used for additional park spaces on the East side. There are three half truth arguements against Alternative E: Below are the emotional arguements and the realities as documented in the DEIS. 1. The alignment will force 216 people to loose their jobs. Truth is, no one will be forced to loose their jobs. Poeple will need to RELOCATE to other office spaces. According to GVA Kidder Mathews, as of 10/1/08, there is nearly 2 Million square feet of vacant office space in Southeast and Southwest Portland. Finding new office space should not be problem. 2. The alignment will cause great harm to the Oaks Pioneer Church. Truth is, according to the DEIS, there are only 2 decibels of sound increase from traffic levels in 2035. Further the repoprt states that Alterantive E will cause "no adverse effect" or historical impacts on Oaks Pioneer Church. 3. Sellwood Water Front Pakr will be harmed. Again, according to the DEIS there is no harm to the park. Fact, the E Atlernative is the only alternative that will have useable land from the right-of- wy purchases to expand the park. In other words, the purchase of right-of-way land for all other Alternatives will not yield any usable land for other than the bridge alignments. Sincerely yours, 98 Rolph B. Fuhrman Received via Mail In (098_Rolph_Fuhrman.pdf) Point #1 – My wife Janet and I are old. She is 85 and I am 88 – we have been married 65 years and for 28 of those years we have lived at Sellwood Harbor – The threat of loosing our home has adversely affected our lives and many of our neibors lives.

J-16 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received Point #2 – The industrial age is over and we are now in the informational age – no more polluting our water, air and ground Point #3 – fix the old bridge, ti should last for 15 or 20 years – by that time we will know what changes the new age will bring – we may all be riding in small electric cars or bicycles. Point #4 – If you must build a new bridge we vote for Alternative E 99 Cherie Nomura Received via Mail In (099_Cherie_Nomura.pdf) I am a Sellwood Harbor condo resident who will be directly affected by the upcoming decision on bridge alignment. It is obvious that the material as it is presented is slanted to support Alignment D. I absolutely oppose Alignment D more than any others. This alignment detroys at least four of our units. All are owner- occupied. By destroying four, you at the same time change all our remaining units in a very negative ways: 1. Three of the four condos targeted for destruction are part of a larger 9 condo building. How cn you destroy these three without negatively affecting the remaining 6 condos in this building. So, in truth, 9 condos would have to be purchased by the county to compensate the owners. 2. By destroying four units you in fact cause a financial hardship for the remaining units. We would only have 33 residents to pay for our operating costs instead of 37. This means the homeonwers dues would have to increase. 3. A decision to approve D, even if construction does not begin for many years, makes it impossible to sell our homes at a decent market value. Some of our owners, due to poor health, have had to move to assisted living and try to absorb that cost without bieng able to sell their Sellwood Harbor condo. Potential buyers are turned off by the unknown damage to the units caused by bridge construction. Buyers are waiting to see if alignment D is chosen. If so, they will not buy here. Your alignment D has caused us owners to be in a horrible, helpless position. You have other alignments that do not cause such havoc to home owners. 4. My first choice is Alternative E. No occupied homes would be affected. The 6 residential units in Grand Place that you have list have never been occupied. 5. For alternative E describe 9 buisiness' in the Sellwood Building which is mostly vacant. 2 in Grand Place which is unoccupied, and finally 37 in River Park Center. Which I believe is for sale or willing to relocate. 6. Relocation of some businesses seems (to me) preferable to the horrible prospect of elderly people displaced from their homes and other senior owners harmed financially by your alignment D. 7. How do you intend to compensate owners of Sellwood Harbor if alignment D is chosen? You will have greatly devalued all of our condos, not just the four alignment D would destroy. I strongly oppose alignment D and strongly support Alignment E. 100 David Noble, River View Cemetery Received via Open House (100_David_Noble.pdf) Association Testimony Re: Sellwood Bridge Project Before Policy Advisory Group & the Community Task Force At Public Hearing on Wednesday, December 10, 2008 My name is David Noble and I am the Executive Director of River View Cemetery Association and River View Cemetery Funeral Home. I am testifying this evening on behalf of the more than 10,000

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-17 Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received members of the cemetery association and their families and friends, as well as the hundreds of families who annually patronize our funeral home. For the last several years, as Multnomah County officials and the volunteer Community Task Force have worked to finalize plans for a replacement bridge, leaders of River View Cemetery have closely followed and participated in the proceedings. Many who are here tonight have already heard about the principal issues and concerns of our membership, but I would like to review them for the benefit of those who are members of the Policy Advisory Group and anyone else who may not have heard our concerns. More than 125 years ago, long before the current Sellwood Bridge was even built, a group of business and political leaders, such as yourselves, had the foresight to see that the growing riverfront town of Portland needed a cemetery that was beautiful, centrally located, and that would meet the burial needs of Portland-area families for centuries to come. They chose a large parcel of land overlooking the Willamette River, which offered natural beauty, a serene setting and which was conveniently close to the Bonnes and Taylor Ferries, to provide access to east Portland. From its inception and to this day, River View Cemetery has operated under the supervision of a dedicated, volunteer Board of Trustees who have never lost sight of its initial vision and purpose – to provide a permanent place of beauty and peacefulness where Portland-area families can forever be remembered. From the beginning of its existence, an important and primary entrance to River View Cemetery has been located on what is now Oregon Hwy. 43, just a few feet from the west end of the Sellwood Bridge. In keeping with the founder's goals to create a burial ground that would match the architectural splendor of the city, they commissioned Ellis Lawrence, founder of the University of Oregon's School of Architecture and Applied Arts, to design the cemetery building located adjacent to that entrance. Presently, that building now serves as River View Cemetery Funeral Home. Additionally, architect A.E. Doyle designed the nearby historic cemetery gates which complement the funeral home building. To this day, for nearly 100 years, River View's lower building and gates have been familiar landmarks to area residents, yet depending on choices you make, their existence may be in jeopardy. In 1925, River View Cemetery Association donated land for the intersection at the west end of the current Sellwood Bridge. Later, the Association donated land along the river for what would become Powers Marine Park. Now, the Association is again being asked to forfeit land for the good of the community. Although willing to do so, River View's Board of Trustees respectfully request that the interests of the cemetery and funeral home be respected and upheld in the process. Specifically, those "interests" include being able to retain a lower entrance, leave an adequate amount of land around the funeral home in order for it to be able to function and expand; and to maintain a buffer between the intersection and funeral home large enough to minimize traffic noise. On the following page these concerns are more fully explained. #1 – A replacement bridge should not be allowed to eliminate the cemetery's lower entrance, since that entrance existed long before the current Sellwood Bridge was even built. It could be argued that we do have other entrances; however, this is still the primary entrance for cemetery clients coming from southeast Portland or Lake Oswego; and it is the only entrance for River view Cemetery Funeral Home, which is housed in the historic brick building near the lower entrance. Therefore, Alternative "C", and most importantly, the "trumpet" interchange should not be selected since they eliminate any access to the funeral home and a very important access to the cemetery. #2 – River View Cemetery has serious concerns regarding any long-term closure of the bridge. Funeral processions coming to River View Cemetery from East Portland and Milwaukie all utilize the Sellwood Bridge. Subjecting mourners to a considerably longer detour route would be emotionally difficult, time consuming and more expensive; therefore such a closure should be avoided if at all possible. For this reason, Alternative "C" should once again be avoided since it wold result in a three and a half year closure. Alternative "A" is not acceptable for the same reason. River View Cemetery's

J-18 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received Board of Trustees endorses either Alternative "D" or "E", since they will both maintain traffic access to the bridge by utilizing staged construction. #3 – River View also has concerns regarding the proximity of the various proposed interchanges to the historic building that houses River View Cemetery Funeral Home. We have yet to be told just exactly how close the retaining walls and ramps of the nearby intersection will be to this important building; however, it would appear that they may be aesthetically unpleasing, would take land needed for future growth and would bring traffic noise unacceptably close to the funeral home. River View Cemetery Funeral Home is a growing business and had planned to utilize the area surrounding the funeral home for expansion and additional parking; but it would appear that the retaining walls and ramps would prohibit us from doing so. Like any funeral home, we make every effort to provide a quiet, peaceful atmosphere for our bereaved families, by minimizing noise around our building. Current plans will bringing traffic and noise unacceptably close to the funeral home. Therefore, the cemetery Board endorses Alternative “E”, since it would allow for the retaining wall and traffic to be at least a little further from the front entry. #4 – The status of our lower building has not been properly portrayed. Representatives of River View have attended nearly every public meeting held regarding the Sellwood Bridge in the last two years, as well as having multiple one-on-one meetings with county officials. Throughout that process, it was made imminently clear that the historic building near our lower entrance is not a “caretaker’s residence”, but rather, is a separate business entity known as River View Cemetery Funeral Home. Nonetheless, the building’s use continues to be mis-categorized on the website, in the Environmental Impact Statement, and in other published materials. Please be aware that any alternative that closes our lower entrance will eliminate our ability to operate a funeral home out of that building. Officials have suggested that clients could easily find their way to the building by using other cemetery entrances. This would require elderly, bereaved individuals to negotiate anywhere from 1.5 to 3 miles of steep, narrow, winding, and often slippery roads to reach the funeral home; a requirement we do not consider reasonable. Eliminating the lower entrance would also subject funeral home clients to hazardous conditions outside the cemetery. To reach an alternate entrance, they would have to proceed north on Hwy. 43 (Macadam Avenue); turn left and go up Taylor’s Ferry Road to an alternate entrance where they would have to attempt to turn left against heavy traffic coming down the hill without the benefit of a turn lane or a traffic signal. This would be a recipe for disaster. #5 – An important east-west bicycle corridor could be in jeopardy. Hundreds of bicyclists from Lewis & Clark Collete, Terwilliger Boulevard, the OSHU campus and other southwest Portland areas access the Sellwood Bridge by bicycling through River View Cemetery; specifically on the road descending to the cemetery’s lower entrance. Any bridge alternative that results in the closure of the cemetery’s lower entrance would most likely result in the eventual closure of this popular bike route, since River View would no longer have a business reason to incur the costs of maintaining the lengthy section of road that descends from the cemetery above down to Hwy. 43 and the Sellwood Bridge. In summary, the Board of Trustees of River View Cemetery Association, on behalf of its members, respectfully requests that the Policy Advisory Group select an alternative that: • Does not eliminate River View Cemetery’s lower entrance; • Does not result in any lengthy closure of the bridge during construction; • Does not take the land immediately surrounding the funeral home needed for parking and future expansion; and, • Protects the appearance and noise levels surrounding the historical building that houses River View Cemetery Funeral Home by requiring that all elements of the west end intersection be as far away from the building as possible, but no less than 25 feet from it’s front entryway. It is the opinion of the Association Board that Alternative “E” with a signalized intersection will

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-19 Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received best accomplish the above goals. 101 Daniel Houf, Harper Houf Peterson Received via Open House (101_Harper_Houf.pdf) Righellis Inc. Harper Houf Peterson Righellis Inc. (HHPR) respectfully submits this letter as testimony related to the Sellwood Bridge Alternatives developed with the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. As a multi-discipline consulting firm who focuses in transportation design, HHPR understands and appreciates the complex nature of your task, and we appreciate the opportunity to comment on the alternatives prepared to date. HHPR is a firm of senior-level civil engineers planners, landscape architects, technicians, and surveyors with design, technical, and management experience. Our Portland and Corporate office is located on the eastside of the Willamette River just north of the Sellwood Bridge. We are located in the second floor of the River Park Center Building, and our address is 205 SE Spokane Street, Suite 200. As reported in the Daily Journal of Commerce, HHPR is currently the 9th largest engineering firm in the region, and is the 4th largest Oregon Engineering firm with corporate headquarters in Oregon. HHPR has been rated consistently as one of the top 50 civil engineering firms to work for in the United States by Civil Engineering News. Our comments on the Alternatives are summarized below: We strongly oppose Alternative E. This Alternative would have the greatest residential and business impacts including hte relocation of our firm. HHPR is a major employer headquartered in the Sellwood area and employs over 50 professionals in the fields of engineering, surveying, land use planning, landscape architecture, accounting, human resources, and marketing. We enjoy our current location for a variety of different reasons, which include ease of access to and from work, close to downtown, access to the Springwater Trail (in September of 2008, 12.5% of all trips by HHPR employees to our Portland office were made by bicycle), and of course, the proximity and beauty of the Willamette River. Many of our employees live on the eastside of the river within the City of Portland and are able to utilize these benefits. In September of 2007 HHPR relocated its Corporate Office from Macadam Avenue to its current location in the River Park Center Building. It was a bit of a home coming for two of HHPR Principals Ron Peterson and Dan Houf who both grew up in the Eastmoreland area and attended Cleveland High School. As a company we are committed to a strong SE Portland/Sellwood community, and are excited about contributing to the built environment and improving peoples' lives such as our pro bono work for the new Cleveland Community Field. We feel strongly about maintaining our Sellwood location, and to say the least, it would be a disappointment and hardship to have to relocate from the community we grew up in and chose to grow our business. HHPR favors the general alignment Alternative D with the following comments: 1) We are in favor of this option because there are no closure periods. Closing hte bridge for an extended period would create a hardship to the surrounding areas of the eastside of Portland, as well as to the employees of our firm. The area would experience a substantial amount of cut- through traffic and congestion if the bridge were closed. 2) We also favor the roundabout intersection/interchange configuration on the Westside of the river. As the civil engineers for the Lewis and Clark Law School Roundabout, Staffort-Borland Roundabout, and the New SE 172nd Roundabout in Clackamas County, in addition to many others on the drawing board, we are in favor of roundabouts as a safer and more effective alternative to signalized intersections, and we encourage further evaluation of this configuration with Alignment D. Thank you for your consideration of our comments. We look forward to being a part of this process

J-20 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received as it moves forward. 102 Joan Beckley Received via Open House (102_Joan_Beckley.pdf) I am the owner of #9 Riverpark Townhouse at 152 SE Spokane Street. I am in favor of Alternative "E" due to the fact while construction is going on there would be no need to close the existing bridge. If Alternatives A, B, C, or D are chosen Riverpark will "lose" 14 parking spaces currently under the bridge. Now there is not adequate street parking during the day. 103 Greg Ripplinger, The Silver Lining Received via Open House (103_Greg_Ripplinger.pdf) Clothing Co. I would like to see Alt D because it seems to have the least closure which will affect our business. Also I would like to see a separation of ped and biks and auto by physical barriers so that peds, bikes, and autos stay in their own space (lanes). I would also like to see a design that enables cleaning of ped, bike, and auto lanes to remove dangerous debris, such as glass, screws, liquids, etc. . . . . 104 Magdalena Valdivigso Received via Open House (104_Magdalena_Valdivigso.pdf) I am a business owner that commutes from Lake Oswego to Eastmoreland every day. Personally, I like option "D" bcause it will keep business open and provide access from Lake Oswego to the East side. 105 Monika DeBrakeleer Received via Open House (105_Monika_DeBrakeleer.pdf) Main concern: increase in traffic thru neighborhoods, cut thru traffic, more noise impacting Waterfront Park, Tacoma Street. Riverfront Park is an oasis of peace in Portland perhaps the only place that is real riverfront in PDX. Lets protect. Why not try and keep the existing bridge with improvements, and better bike lanes, ped widen the lanes, change the lighting, etc. Also, I think having a totally separate bike/ped is a danger for us all. 106 Hazel Gonsalves Received via Open House (106_Hazel_Gonsalves.pdf) After a very careful and thoroughly objective study of the various options, I have to come to a conclusion that Option "E" is the best solution. My reasons being – 1) Selecting "Option E" would immediately eliminate the necessity of a temporary bridge, thus saving several millions of dollars which could be put to better use. 2) Option "E" will cause the least amount of hardship to the residents of the area. 3) The implementation of Option "E" will avoid the limitations and constrictions that will restrict the design and width of the replacement bridge recommended under the other options. Under Option "E" it will be possible to design a bridge with the maximum number of lanes and other facilities which will be necessary to meet future requirements of the community. 4) Selecting any of the other options will result in some residents losing their homes. Furthermore, even the residents whose homes will be saved, will have to endure tremendous hardships and health hazards from the demolition and construction equipment and materials that will almost literally operate through their living rooms. The noise, dust and pollution will be a constant source of aggravation and health hazard for years to come. Many of these families are senior citizens and have contributed a major part of their resources to make these apartments their homes to live a peaceful life. All such hopes will be completely

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-21 Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received shattered. 5) As regards the loss of jobs in the event of implementing Option "E", it must be understood that the jobs will not be lost, but simply relocated to another nearby area. On the other hand, the families affected in implementation of any of the other options, will be trapped with no way of relocating as there will be no buyers for their apartments in the construction zone, even at a devalued price. 107 William Danneman, South Portland Received via Open House (107_William_Danneman.pdf) Neighborhood Association The west end interchange and queuing lanes heading southbound to the bridge need as much attention as the bridge itself. The most important aspects of a new bridge is ample room for pedestrians and bicycles. There needs to be sidewalks and bicycle lanes on both sides of the new bridge. Sidewalks need to be no less than 10 feet wide (if no bicycles) and 20 feet if it includes bicycles. The other requirement needs to be a future connection for streetcar so the system can head to the east and the south. 108 Mary Anderson Received via Open House (108_Mary_Anderson.pdf) Alternatives: A number of alternatives may include phased construction and/or a temporary bridge. Both of these things – phased construction and a temporary bridge will negatively impact those of us living very near the bridge (I live at River Park). They impact property values and quality of life, with no provision for compensation. Please decide and build the bridge asap and shut down traffic if need be to get it completed. Thank you. 109 Martha Richards Received via Open House (109_Martha_Richards.pdf) I like the alternatives that provides bike lanes in addition to shared sidewalks – fast-riding commuters don't mix well with peds (Alt. D) Alt. C's use of a straight (non-spiral) bike/ped ramp on west side is better than the spiral ramps in the other alternatives. Although the separate, covered bike/ped facility on Alt C is very appealing as is the separate bike/ped bridge of Alt. A, I would be more comfortable if those designs provided clear signage to keep bikes and peds separated. I'm no traffic engineer, but the trumpet interchange (Alt C) and the roundabout (Alts A and B) seem better than signals. Definitely include transit lanes (Alt E) excellent for long-term capacity! Whatever the details, make sure that it's designed for first-class bike/ped/transit access – that's the only way we can accommodate future growth in the region. 110 Del Scharffenberg Received via Open House (110_Del_Schurffenberg.pdf) I have been bike commuting across this bridge daily for 5 years, in rain, sunshine, snow, ice. I also drive across to access points in SW Portland. Unfortunately I do not much like any of your proposed alternatives much as I love roundabouts in general, the bridge end is not the place for one. What's wrong with the simple bridge approaches currently? They work. The problem is the too-narrow bike "lane/sidewalk". Alt. C, with a sub-deck would be great. But I am reluctant to fully endorse that because of the stupid interchange at the west end. Too complicated. Just rehabilitate the bridge as-is and add the lower ped/bike path. Do not even think about closing cemetery access. That's were most

J-22 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received bike commuters go. Or build a new car bridge and convert the entire old one to bike/ped use. The recent days the bridge was own only to bike/peds were awesome. 111 Patti Shmilenko Received via Open House (111_Paiti_Shmilenko.pdf) Alt "E" is the only viable option period – This alt. has no closure, which is important to the broader base of all Sellwood biz owners and residents. A temp bridge is an insane idea and 100% unacceptable would need to condemn our property with this. The River Park office building can find other office space. #1 priority is livability period. We are families, people. Also this is not a regional fix for Clackamas Co. Don't destroy our neighborhood and homes. Also, we have been unable to sell for 2 years and our taxes are the same. We need resolution from Mult Co 112 Mark Romanaggi Received via Open House (112_Mark_Romanaggi.pdf) I have reviewed the mailings sent to me and read the articles in numerous local newspapers. I feel that getting the bicyclists and pedestrians away from traffic is absolutely essential. I feel that Alternative "C" is the best design to accomplish this. Ten different family members agree with me after reviewing the proposed designs. The alternative we have come up with is design "D". This design seems to comfortably "spread things out" so that vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians all have a safe right of way crossing the river. 113 Peter Pellegrin Received via Open House (113_Peter_Pellegron.pdf) Of the alternatives, I think C would best balance the needs of the region. Beyond that I would include; 1) the bridge should be built to at least a 200 year standard. Beyond practicalities it should be beautiful and individually expressive. It should not look like a freight corridor in New Jersey, for example. 2) The bridge has regional significance. It links Southeast to I-5 and downtown. It should be regionally funded. 3) Macadam-Hwy 43- and 99E are both 4 lane roads. The bridge and Tacoma should be 4 lanes (or 2/1 that switches) to prevent bottlenecks. If lights on Tacoma were timed at 23 mph traffic would be calmed and drive slowly like it does on timed streets downtown. Lets spend a little extra, if required, to build a bridge we can be proud of. 114 Laura Miller Received via Open House (114_Laura_Miller.pdf) I strongly oppose the closing of the bridge, because of the severe detrimental impact on all business done in Sellwood Moreland area. This is a growing business/resident community that is unique in it's ability to combine small neighborhood community style and yet draw from all over the Portland/Metro and suburban area as a resident as well, I love this and is the reason I have lived and worked in Sellwood for 20 years; to close the bridge could be absolutely ruinous to this precious community which really serves as a prototype for what small neighborhood businesses can do with benefits to all - 115 Lorraine Fyre, Oaks Pioneer Church Received via Open House (115_Document1.pdf) I would like to voice my opposition to Bridge E – extremely large for our streets (Macadam & Tacoma) – the impact on the church and our neighborhood would be far reaching – we are so intertwined in all aspects of the neighborhood (funding) – not to mention the historical values – the

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-23 Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received other bridges would cause disruption but in the long run that is only temporary – with the potential loss of the churches revenue that would be forever. 116 Matthew Galaher Received via Open House (116_Matthew_Galaher.pdf) Portland prides itself for it's progressive ideas that promote livability. Sellwood residents reflect this, in part in the traffic calming that has been achieved on the east side of the Sellwood Bridge. This has promoted small businesses in the neighborhood. Please choose a no closure alternative. Multnomah Co. should not fund a bridge for Clackamas and Washington Counties. Both bridge closure as well as any undoing of the Tacoma traffic calming (islands, two lanes, etc.) will impact both the community/neighborhood of Sellwood and small businesses. 117 Lois and Marty Coplea Received via Mail In (117_LoisMartyCoplea.pdf) Firstly, let me thank all involved in the creation of the DEIS for their time and efforts in dealing with a volatile situation . . . Secondly, let me clarify, as substantiated by our address, we are Sellwood Harbor residents. With that established, let me say that regarding Bridge Alternative under consideration, I find it not only to reflect poor judgment but also that it shows a vivid degree of immorality that still under consideration is an alternative (D to be specific) which would have any portion (the West interchange) grounded in soils which are unstable. Portland is known for its pro-save the planet stance on so many levels and yet we have under consideration an alternative in which this massive amount of dollars would be spent to create a potentially disastrous configuration. Shame on us all if this goes further. Speaking of despicable possibilities, it appears that way to me to choose any alternative which would take even on person's home when not a necessity due to other viable choices which would provide better life alternatives. Office space is abundant in the SE and SW areas. There is a huge distinction between relocating and losing a job. Please do not insult our intelligence with this distortion of the facts. With the economic losses the residents at Sellwood Harbor are currently experiencing, the compensation by the county comes up. The argument that Alternative D is less expensive than E does not hold water as I read the facts. Consider environmental and logistical scenarios for transit and for meeting future needs of such . . . Alternative E is a better option we believe. So, we have park land, church issues, on and on. I ask you to look at the numbers under the numbers and truths amidst the half-truths. Again, Portland is known for putting people at the forefront of decisions when possible. It is possible in the selection of an alternative for the Sellwood Bridge. It would be different if there were not choices. I beg you to step out of the boxed in thinking and step into the more humanistic and eco friendlier possibility presented in your Alternative E. If you believe I plead my case for Alternative E "just because" I am a resident of Sellwood Harbor, I ask you to re-read my words. They would reflect the same principled thinking and beliefs in our government influenced decisions if I lived across the planet. Thank you for your time and consideration to my plea. 118 Wendi Tucker Received via Web Site Please do NOT do anything that would in any way harm the lower entrance to the RiverView Cemetary or its property. Four generations of my family are or will be buried there and we always use the lower entrance and love the beautiful drive up to the top of the hill, widening through the gravesites. I believe option "E" is the option that will have the least impact to the cemetery, its

J-24 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received grounds, and operations. Thank you for your time! 119 Amy Maki, Sellwood Playgroup Received via Web Site Association Please consider how the new bridge will impact traffic and how this traffic will affect the safety of our kids. I cross Tacoma regularly with my young children on foot, in stroller, or on bikes. Please make sure the plan keeps young pedestrians in mind. Thank you. 120 Leah Verwey, Campbell Salgado Received via Web Site Studio, Inc After reviewing the options, I believe that Alternative D is the best option for fixing the Sellwood bridge. 121 Emily Harris Received via Web Site I live in Sellwood and use the bridge to commute to work – most often by foot or bike. I tend to favor option B withOUT a temporary replacement bridge. My priorities are: 1. Better, faster, safer bike and pedestrian access across the bridge and to ped/bike routes on both sides. I considered the alternative of a bike/pedestrian only bridge, but I travel in the dark often and I do worry about my safety. I also am not sure how much the impact of a ped/bike bridge would impact parkland. 2. Safe pedestrian crossings around Tacoma Street. Even just more striped crosswalks would be a big improvement! I cross Tacoma to visit friends and patronize businesses. I definitely do NOT want to see big back ups of traffic on Tacoma (much better to leave them, if they need to continue, on 43, where pedestrians/residents aren't impacted.) I realize that before the closure of the bridge to heavy traffic trucks used the route a lot. I say they have gotten used to whatever detours and increased costs that imposed and will be just fine if they can't use the Sellwood Bridge in the future. I want to continue to keep trucks off the bridge because to get there they have to drive through our neighborhood. That particular element of traffic is worse for the livability and sense of community in the neighborhood than anything else. 3. The least possible disruption of, in this order of priority, parkland, residential units, businesses. Let me note that while there are elements of the other alternatives I think would be acceptable, Alternative E is not at all acceptable to me. It's far too big, seems to be designed mainly with cars/trucks in mind, and seems it could lead to backups as traffic flowed into two lanes off the bridge onto Tacoma (as well as neighborhood cut-throughs, as the EIS notes.) Pressure to widen Tacoma would only grow. Two other things for your consideration: 1. If it's possible to keep the bridge open to even just foot traffic during construction, that would help out! (And I'm not the only one who walks to work from Sellwood!) It's a quick drive to the Ross Island Bridge; it's a longer bike ride and too far to walk. The reason I tend to favor no temporary bridge though, is because the irreparable impact that would have seems much bigger than the benefit. 2. As you look at connecting bikers/walkers to the northbound trail on the west side, please consider improvements to the area just north of Staff Jennings. The path dips below street level in two places – so pedestrians and cyclists are out of view of traffic. I am often traveling in the

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-25 Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received dark and they are great potential attack spots. Thank you very much. 122 Beth Woodward Received via Web Site As a frequent user of the existing bridge by car (for shopping), who would prefer to walk or bike across it more often, I would like to see the estimated increase in biking and walking under various alternatives. From my review of the alternatives presented in the Draft EIS, I believe Alternative D is the one that would encourage more pedestrian and bike use of the bridge and therefore reduce carbon dioxide producing traffic. Thank you for acknowledging that many pedestrians and bikers would not feel safe using a separated bridge. The ones proposed on a lower deck are disgusting, because in addition to the safety problem, users would be deprived of the esthetic rewards of crossing the bridge on foot or bike--enjoying the view and sky above. Please include the long term benefits and costs of the alternatives with respect to attracting more pedestrian and bike use, replacing vehicle use. (I believe Alternative D would provide the greatest net benefit in this respect.) Thank you for the chance to comment. Beth Woodward 123 Jean Elyse Gilbert Received via Web Site As a life-long resident of Portland, who has many relatives interred at Riverview Cemetery, and who owns a niche there herself, I have very definite concerns regarding the Sellwood Bridge Project. Any changes to the west end of the bridge could negatively affect the lower access to Riverview Cemetery. The loss of a lower entrance could jeopardize the future of the RVC Funeral Home which is housed in the historic building that was formerly the caretaker's residence. The proximity of the lower entrance to the west end of the bridge has put that entrance in very real jeopardy. I want a plan that maintains the historic lower entrance and access to the funeral home. This entryway existed long before the current Sellwood Bridge was built, and it is the only entrance to the funeral home, so a replacement bridge should not be allowed to take it away. Anyone who is familiar with the terrain knows that it is not reasonable to expect clients, many of whom are elderly, recently bereaved, to wind their way through miles of curvy cemetery roads to find the funeral home. And without its own entrance, its future is in serious peril, since there is no other suitable spot on the grounds to locate it. Option "E," which includes a traffic signal, and will provide better traffic flow than a roundabout interchange, is the best choice! It places the bridge and west end intersection further north a bit, therefore causing less impact on the funeral home property. "D" would have to be my second choice. J. E. Gilbert 124 Roz Roseman Received via Web Site The most important factors in choices for me are 1. Avoid destroying people's homes including condos. 2. Avoid destroying people's businesses 3. Keep it simple – 2 lanes, wide sidewalks & bike lanes on both sides - Avoid enlarging the bridge; don't make it inviting to more traffic 4. No, for sure, to 4 lanes or any widening that would ever make 4 lanes possible, as continues to be feared in the neighborhood.

J-26 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received So far, Alternative D seems to make the most sense because it destroys the least of any of the alternatives, even though it destroys 9 businesses and 5-6 homes. PLEASE – Don't give in to any design that would encourage 4 lanes down the line. Bluntly speaking, if the communities to the south and east feel greater traffic capacity is needed, then there should be another bridge added to share the traffic. We are a set of neighborhoods (Sellwood, Westmoreland, Eastmoreland) that don't want to become a throughway that will destroy the scale of living existing here now. Thank you for considering my views. 125 Priscilla Downing Received via Web Site We have family buried at Riverview Cemetery. It appears that only the "E" plan would allow current access to the cemetery. The cemetery is an historic landmark and those involved in the upkeep and visitation of family, should have convenient access to the property. I appears that the round about would infringe on the property and on access to the property. Thank you for considering my thoughts. Priscilla Downing 126 Bradley Heintz Received via Web Site Dear Mr. Pullen, I am writing to comment on the failure of the DEIS to address the environmental impacts that the different bridge options will have on pedestrians and bicycles crossing SE Tacoma St and 17th Ave. The DEIS insufficiently analyzes safety in regard to the new traffic flows as a result of traffic changes associated with each Sellwood bridge option. The steady stream of Sellwood bridge traffic feeding the state's busiest two lane bridge travels across two lane Tacoma Street then down two lane 17th street to finally connect to two lane highway 224. In the process, motorists cross 17 intersections in the Sellwood neighborhood. Sellwood Moreland is home to over 10,000 residents. Pedestrians and bikers need to cross Tacoma street and 17th Street to access 2 elementary schools, one middle school, a community center, a community pool, a neighborhood association, a wildlife refuge (Oaks Bottom), three large parks (Sellwood, Westmoreland and Sellwood Riverfront Park) and nearly a dozen community churches. The DEIS states (DEIS, section 3.1.3, page 3-10) that congested conditions and capacity-constrained traffic currently exist on SE Tacoma St, and the signalized intersections at SE 13th and 17th Aves are performing at near-capacity or over-capacity conditions. As a pedestrian and bicyclist I have found it difficult to cross Tacoma St with the current traffic volume. I am concerned that an improved bridge will increase traffic volumes more making the crossing more unsafe for myself and my children. It is impossible to compare bridge options in regards to neighborhood pedestrian and children safety without an appropriate assessment in the EIS. The health, safety and quality of life of neighborhood residents, including children, is dependent upon a reasonable comparison of bridge build and no-build options in regards to the ability to cross SE Tacoma St and 17th Ave at a variety of existing intersections. As a father of two little boys, I am concerned for the safety of my children. We need to cross Tacoma Street and 17th Street to access Sellwood facilities. Just this month a little boy was struck by a truck at the intersection of 13th and Tacoma. The boy was not alone. Rather he was accompanied by his mother when a truck failed to see the boy. It's scary for me to find that a safety focused parent wasn't able to keep her son safe when crossing Tacoma Street. Tacoma Street safety needs to be part of any

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-27 Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received Sellwood Bridge Project.

127 Martha Mattus Received via Web Site 1st comment: The safety and comfort of non-motorized bridge users is always less on a shared bridge. I recommend building a new vehicle only bridge on the north alignment (Alternative E) with no bike or pedestrian lanes and keeping the existing Sellwood Bridge as a bicycle/ pedestrian bridge. This would lower the size and cost of the new bridge and provide non-motorized users a safe crossing free of the noise and smell of motorized vehicles. 2nd comment: In the event of a major earthquake, the safety of all bridges will be suspect. The foundations of the new bridge should include ferry docks with road access to allow the movement of emergency vehicles – fire trucks, etc- across the river by ferry/barge or on a quickly constructed temporary pontoon bridge in the event of a major earthquake. 128 Margery Howie Received via Web Site Do not use alternative "C" it makes no sense to remove the only logical entrance to Riverview based on the only location for the funeral home. Any new access would be way too difficult for the elderly and bereaved to navigate. My parents are buried at Riverview and in the future my siblings and nieces and nephew will be there. Keep in mind Riverview has been there longer than the Sellwood Bridge. Its entrance should be preserved for historic significance as well as other reasons. 129 Emily Gardner, Bicycle Transportation Received via Web Site Alliance For more than 80 years, the Sellwood Bridge has provided an important connection across the Willamette River for residents throughout the region. Unfortunately, for cyclists the Sellwood Bridge has been one of the largest single barriers to cycling in the region because of its sub-standard design, as we found when researching our Blueprint for Better Biking: 40 Ways to Get There. As it is now, cyclists on the bridge are legally required to walk their bikes on the narrow sidewalk or are forced to share narrow travel lanes with busy car traffic. Most cyclists choose to ride on the narrow sidewalk resulting in dangerous interactions with pedestrians and other cyclists. The Sellwood Bridge Project, which will repair and/or replace the bridge, offers us an opportunity to improve this facility for cyclists and enhance its value as a local and regional connector for all users. The BTA has been represented on the Citizen Task Force and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Working Group for the project for the last two years, working to produce and evaluate alternatives and designs that would offer the most safety and comfort for bikers and walkers on the Sellwood Bridge. Based on that participation, and our experience with bicycle and pedestrian traffic on the other Willamette River bridges, any cross section must include at least 12 feet on each side (24 feet combined total) for a shared bicycle/pedestrian path in order to meet future use projections and provide the best experience for current users. In addition to the minimum width requirement, the new facility must also provide a carfree connection to the Willamette Greenway Trail. Of the 5 alternatives currently being compared in the Draft Environment Impact Statement (DEIS), we recommend Alternatives A or D for final selection as the locally preferred alternative. Furthermore, we strenuously oppose the facilities proposed in Alternatives B, C and E as they are all too narrow and have a variety of corollary problems related to safety, security, maintenance, transient activity and lack of intuitive design. ALTERNATIVE A

J-28 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received Alternative A would provide a completely separate, 23 foot wide, bicycle and pedestrian bridge to the north of the Sellwood Bridge alignment. Such a facility would remove nearly all conflicts between bicyclists/pedestrians and motorists at the west side interchange area, and would create an almost 10- mile car free loop for transportation and recreational users. With creative design, it could become a signature landmark for the city and the region, and would make a positive and inspirational statement about the value of biking and walking in our communities. The approximately $54 million price-tag raises several relevant concerns. The current lack of transportation funding has resulted in the creation of many plans and designs that are languishing due to lack of funding, and nothing indicates that the Sellwood Bridge bicycle and pedestrian facility would not fall prey to the same conditions. It is possible that if a separate facility is chosen, it could be subject to a different funding scenario and may not ever identify a funding source. The bicycle/pedestrian only facility should be built first, or if the auto bridge must be built first, that project must also fund the bicycle/pedestrian facility. We also recommend that a plan be made for concerns about safety, security, and maintenance on a completely separate facility. ALTERNATIVE D We believe that money spent on biking and walking has always proven to be money well-spent, and these facilities consistently exceed expectations in terms of user counts. We also recognize the need to achieve a reasonable balance between our desires as cyclists to have high quality, safe facilities and the reality of the current financial climate. Alternative D is the preferred choice in lieu of a completely separate bicycle/pedestrian bridge. Alternative D allocates 36 feet to bike and foot traffic, including a ‘commuter' style, wide bike lane designed for bicycle traffic that wishes to travel at higher speeds than are normally appropriate on shared use facilities. WEST SIDE INTERCHANGE Regardless of which bridge cross-section is selected, we recommend a signalized intersection instead of either the trumpet or roundabout options. With the high volume and speed of auto/truck traffic at the interchange, any of the free-flowing intersection designs currently under consideration will be less safe for cyclists and pedestrians, even if a bicycle activated “HAWK” signal is installed. Their design naturally encourages cars to go faster, and creates issues with drivers seeing cyclists and pedestrians as they try to make their way through the interchange. The trumpet configuration, in particular, could result in closure of the Riverview Cemetery access road, which is currently an important route for cyclists. Cyclists wishing to continue westbound from the west side of the Sellwood Bridge often use the Riverview Cemetery access road, instead of traveling significantly out of direction, making steep climbs and traveling on narrow roads with no shoulders exposed to high speed auto traffic. The road is owned and maintained by the Cemetery, and as such can be closed to traffic or left un- maintained by the Cemetery. The Cemetery has been gracious thus far, allowing the small number of hearty bicycle commuters to use the access road on their daily commutes. However, with improved bicycling facilities in the future, a significant increase in the number of cyclists traveling through the corridor is projected. We strongly encourage Multnomah County and the City of Portland to work with the Cemetery to reach a formal agreement on preserving access to the road for cyclists and maintenance of the roadway. COMBINING ELEMENTS IN THE DEIS A concept for a design based on a combination of elements has emerged from conversations with the Citizen Task Force, Program Advisory Group, and Bicycle and Pedestrian Working Group. The concept is a variant of Alternative A, and includes a proposal to build a new bridge, rather than rehabilitate the current bridge. The new bridge would have two vehicle lanes plus shoulders, and a separate bicycle/pedestrian bridge. All three groups have requested cost estimates for this plan, but figures may not be available until after the close of public comment on the DEIS. We recommend

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-29 Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received continued evaluation of this proposal to determine if the cost issues can be removed. The Bicycle Transportation Alliance is a statewide non-profit organization that works to open minds and roads to bicycling. We represent bicyclists and the bicycle industry with over 5000 members in Oregon and SW Washington, and have seventeen years of experience in bicycle engineering, planning, education and advocacy. 130 John Holmes Received via Web Site I favor Alternative E, as the best alternative by far. However, I favor this alternative with a 64' cross section. Unfortunately, your publication Volume 3, Number 1, Fall 2008 is inaccurate and unfair in its presentation. It is skewed in favor of Alternative D, which is by far the worst alternative presented (this alternative was almost dropped by the original Task Force, and only remained in consideration with a member or two of that group suggesting that everyone could take another look at it after the Draft EIS. It should have been dropped. The problem with Alternative D is that it is destructive of a significant part of the inner Sellwood neighborhood, the Sellwood Harbor Condominiums (where my wife and I live along with 36 other households). It is also damaging to the River Park Condominiums next door to a lesser degree. We love our neighborhood and do not want to see it destroyed, as is contemplated in D. Although the above referenced publication refers to 4 residential displacements in Sellwood Harbor, this is both false and extremely misleading. We have 38 units(homes) in Sellwood Harbor. 27 of these units are in 3 buildings with 3 floors in each building, and 3 units per floor. Then, we have 11 Townhouse units that are in additional buildings, with either 2 or 3 units per building. Your publication contemplates chopping the end off of one of the 3 story buildings, and taking 3 units, and chopping the end off of one of the Townhouse buildings and taking one more unit (out of three units in that building). Neither of these suggested "choppings" is possible or feasible. The residential displacements in Sellwood Harbor will be 12, and not 4 as represented. Further, all 38 units in Sellwood Harbor are affected by Alternative D. We all own an undivided 1/38 interest in all of the common areas, walkways, garages, siding, roofing, etc. In addition, our economic model is based on 38 owners paying dues and assessments. Thus, we are all damaged by Alternative D. The cloud of this proposal has substantially devalued our properties, and no one will buy a home in Sellwood Harbor. Contrary to your publication, all 37 owners in our Sellwood Harbor section of the greater Sellwood neighborhood will be severely damaged by Alternative D. The inaccuracy and slant of your publication absolutely prevents a fair survey regarding comments. It should have pointed out that Alternative E could be done with a 64' width (which it does not) and costed with the narrower width. It further should have pointed out that the displacements in Alternative E only involve a couple or a few owners in that Grand Place is brand new, and River Park Center does not have multiple owners to my knowledge, while Alternative D is extremely damaging to 37 households in a community that has been an integral part of the Sellwood neighborhood since the early 1980's. In addition to the above comments, Alternative E provides the best, the most flexible with transportation options, and the most cost effective transportation corridor for our Sellwood neighborhood and all of the other users of the Sellwood Bridge. Respectfully submitted'

J-30 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received 131 Ariel Smits Received via Web Site The option to do nothing but repair the bridge is not acceptable. This would spend public money with no tangible gain in the long run. As far as the bridge itself is concerned, a replacement cannot be more than 2-3 lanes (2 lanes alone or with a "suicide" lane). There is no way a larger bridge could be accommodated by neighborhood roads without a severe detriment to the community 132 Nicole Navas, Oregon Department of Received via Web Site State Lands On Section 3.17 – It would be nice if you could provide a map of the wetland and the proposed impacts. Also state the size of the delineated wetland. 133 Cordell Hull, TriMet Received via Web Site Working for Trimet I like the transit lane option and believe track should be built into the transit lane decks for future streetcar extension routed on Tacoma St. South on 13th Ave Sellwood via Bybee St. to or trough Reed College campus and up Woodstock or Steel to connect to future 39th Ave Streetcar 134 Loulie Brown Received via Web Site I strongly approve of Option B. In balancing the constraints of bridge closure, rights of way, relocation, and ongoing access, it makes most sense to maintain the current structure, bring it up to code, provide better pedestrian and bike access, and minimize the amount of public resources (money and park land) impacted. 135 John Wold Received via Web Site Please arrange to have the bridge open during the project. I live work and go to church in Sellwood. To do otherwise will have major detrimental effect on the residents and businesses in Sellwood. 136 Cathy Prentice Received via Web Site I am a homeowner that could be impacted by the Sellwood Bridge Alignment options. When I went to vote on the survey offered by the EIS, I couldn't find the Alternative E with a 64 foot span. Why is this? There are many good reasons to vote for Alt.E-64'-less intrusion to our neighborhood, flexible pedestrian-bike lanes, cheaper to build, etc., and this Alt. was specifically mentioned prior to this survey, so I feel the public hasn't been given the opportunity to vote on Alt. E with a 64 foot span. Without presenting all the Alignment options that were decided on, this survey loses credibility. Can you remedy this? 137 Tom Wakeling Received via Web Site Sellwood Bridge Comments on DEIS DEIS pp. 3-54, 55, 62, 63, 75, and 76 (temporary detour bridge): Any ‘temporary detour bridge’ on SE Spokane St. will place my family's home between the existing Sellwood Bridge and the ‘temporary’ detour bridge. This action will render our property a value-less piece of land between two major construction projects for an extended period of time. In building a temporary detour bridge, utility relocations and disruptions will add additional project costs, considerable noise and environmental dangers, and long-term negative impacts to adjacent residences and businesses. Any alternative that includes a temporary detour bridge will adversely

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-31 Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received affect 49 families in Riverpark Condominiums as well as Oaks Pioneer Church, and many others on Spokane St. We have retained legal counsel and will pursue litigation if the temporary detour bridge is advanced. DEIS pp. 3-74 through 3-78 (property values): Our property values have ALREADY been severely reduced due to the publicity and the uncertainties surrounding the bridge. During construction of ALL alternatives, our properties will be virtually un- sellable. We would certainly seek, at the very least, tax abatement. What does the county propose for mitigation? DEIS 3-52, 54, 56 (parking): There is not presently adequate street parking on SE Spokane St. during the day between SE Grand and the Willamette River. In addition, late afternoon-evening parking takes up all present space most evenings. We want the county to make Spokane St. west of Oaks Parkway a permit parking (residents) zone. DEIS 3-58 (Grand Place vacant): States that Grand Place is a ‘vacant complex’. This is not accurate. Grand Place has several residential units occupied as of this writing (12/18/08). DEIS 3-80 We feel Alternative D is in a reasonable cost range, seems to have the least overall negative impact for residents, businesses, and bridge users, and seems to provide the most ‘bang for the buck’. Though the other Alternatives might be of shorter construction duration, we are willing to endure a longer construction time for what we feel is the best outcome. We favor building the bridge on the current alignment as long as no detour bridge is built on SE Spokane St. We are very much against Alternative E, as it will negatively impact our family and our neighborhood and is not as cost-effective. We favor Alternative D (delta frame bridge), using the narrowest possible width necessary to keep a river crossing open during construction.

138 Scott Rozell Received via Web Site Give bikes at least as much consideration as cars. The cycling community is continuing to grow and we provide a clean alternative for Portland's environment. Lastly, as this is the only southern portal to the west hills, give bikes a healthy space with which to cross (unlike the renovations to Ross Island Bridge). 139 Maggie Jarman Received via Web Site My biggest concern is putting in a bridge bigger than "the Neighborhood" can handle! This is the only bridge that feeds into a neighborhood! We can barely handle the traffic it currently has. We/YOU need to stay focused, and not try and provide room for more cars, just make the bridge safe! That is the Original goal of this project. The Ross Island is designed for traffic and no bikes. The I224 signs even say for traffic to use Mcloughlin not 17th and Sellwood bridge. I would like to see a three lane bridge AT THE MOST, third lane a "flex lane" for bus's and emergency vehicles only, changing for rush hour only!

J-32 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received Bikes COMPLETLY off the bridge. Under or their OWN bridge. For their safety. Even now when they are not suppose to be in the car lanes they are. Their "own" lane on the bridge is not safe. Too many "like to" ride side by side, and feel they have a right. It's their nature and there is no "policing" for this just traffic jams. We barely have the money (of which most recently federal $$ where given to a new bike bridge, go figure?????) so we don't need to spend more than we need. PLEASE stay focused! Don't try and please everyone and be more than we need. We Are a neighborhood with a bridge. Come and See!! Our Street lights don't even accommodate our traffic!

141 Mike LaTorre Received via Web Site Must have lots of room for many bikes 142 Reba Tobey, Sofas By Design Received via Web Site Whatever option is selected, the Sellwood Bridge MUST STAY OPEN!!! At least 50% of my customers live on the West side and will not make the extra effort to go way around to other bridges when other businesses are closer to them. I and my other retail neighbors will not survive if the bridge is closed. And as a property owner in Sellwood, my tenants will not renew their leases and, therefore, I will not be able to make my mortgage payments. The entire residential neighborhood will be adversely affected as well by lowering property values. That is because one of the attractions to the Sellwood neighborhood is the ability to walk to neighborhood business and the whole community feeling. If businesses close, this will negatively affect the entire neighborhood. And of course, many people who work in Sellwood will lose their jobs. Feel free to contact me directly to discuss further.

143 Jim Longwill Received via Web Site Hello Task Group, Thank you for hearing my comments. I live in SE Portland and work at the River Park Center next to the bridge. I do *not* speak on behalf of my employer (PSMFC) or River Park Center; however, I do hope you would avoid alternative ‘E' inasmuch as it would obviously compel our office to move away. That said, there are other arguments I would like to make. Having attended a public hearing and heard many arguments. I understand that there is great resistance to having a closure of any length of time, and that budgets are *very* tight these days. I have considered the options and would suggest the following: • Please build an actual new bridge! I am against the ‘no-build' alternative; • Avoid building a 4-carlane (super-wide) bridge such as in alt ‘E'. I believe it will tax Tacoma St. and invite more car-only trips in an age when travelers would better be encouraged to consider transit alternatives; • Avoid doing a temporary detour bridge such as in alt ‘B'. The cost (~$30 mil as I understand) —is simply too high to sink into a mere construction phase only; • Please consider a Trumpet-style interchange on the west side such as in alt ‘C'. This looks like the only option that safely avoids traffic snarls over the long term. I hope you can provide some compensation due to the unfortunate impact on Riverview cemetery;

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-33 Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received • In the near term, as a way of paying for the bridge, consider implementing a toll bridge! While over a temporary period a toll booth (probably on West end) might hold up traffic — “ this is an excellent way to help pay for a bridge. ‘You use it, you pay for it.' -- is truly democracy in action! I think a $2.00 toll would be fine—and have provision for a ‘nexus' pass /decal for frequent users. With the above adjustments and with an effort to minimize overall disruptive impacts; I strongly favor alternative ‘D’ and with the Delta-frame style of bridge. I like the sleek look of the Delta frame and with less cost than the Deck-arch. 144 Tony Dal Molin Received via Web Site The impact of bridge traffic capacity on cut-through traffic was not directly considered. While some thought was given to the effect of the SE 6th Ave. interchange on cut-through traffic, the obvious correlation with increased overall bridge traffic capacity was never mentioned. Regardless of the east-side interchange design, more traffic to/from the bridge will undoubtedly increase cut-through traffic in the neighborhoods immediately north and south of SE Tacoma St. What is less obvious, but IMHO much more impactful, is that this cut-through traffic spreads out through the neighborhoods affecting a much wider area. I personally have tracked cut-through commuters between my house and the bridge despite being located 16 blocks away. Options E, and to a lesser degree C, would clearly increase the traffic pressure trying to find ways around the bottlenecks on SE Tacoma St. While the design of the east-side interchange could increase this pressure, the root cause of the problem is that the bridge already accommodates more traffic than Tacoma can handle. Any design that increases the bridge's capacity will only aggravate the already unsafe level of Sellwood neighborhood cut-through traffic. Finally, I would like to note that ‘cut-through' traffic does not do justice to the gravity of its impact on the livability of our community. The areas of concern are nearly 100% residential, front porch living, kids playing in the street neighborhoods — the kind of environment that builds community and counters suburban flight. The consequences of a single careless driver in too much of a hurry to get home can be devastating and irreparable. Reducing this immense impact to a ‘moderate increase in neighborhood cut-through traffic' is disingenuous at best. 146 Paul Notti, Sellwood Moreland Received via Web Site Improvement League December 10, 2008 PAG Members Re: Sellwood Bridge Consideration and Neighborhood Impact To the Policy Advisory Group Members: On behalf of the Sellwood Moreland Improvement League, I am writing you to express our neighborhood's commitment to achieving and maintaining all aspects of the Tacoma Main Street Plan, especially as it relates to the future of the Sellwood Bridge. You will be faced with making a difficult choice on a preferred alternative over the next several months. While the options and issues are undoubtedly complex, the neighbors of Sellwood will be significantly impacted by the decision. The neighborhood has consistently advocated that any bridge choice support the following: 1. Avoid increasing traffic pressure on the two lanes of Tacoma Street 2. No increase in neighborhood cut through traffic 3. Preserve the economic vitality, ambience and prestige of the Oaks Pioneer Church, a nationally

J-34 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received registered historic structure. Several of the proposed options increase traffic throughput onto the west side of the bridge, which will likely bring more traffic onto Tacoma Street than the current bridge. Ensuring a future bridge does not increase the available cars at one time in our neighborhood is a high priority for the neighborhood. In addition, there exists concern that increased traffic volume in our neighborhood will put additional pressure on traffic cut through, both north and south of SE Tacoma Street. Reducing cut-through traffic has been a long time policy of the neighborhood association and we urge you to consider options that have the least potential for cut through traffic. Finally, proposed alignment changes in Alternative E would adversely affect the operation of the Oaks Pioneer Church, as well as affect city and neighborhood treasures, including the Sellwood Riverfront Park. We urge you to reject modification of the bridge alignment. SMILE has been concerned from the beginning of this process that neighborhood impacts would not be adequately addressed in the design of a new Sellwood Bridge. Especially challenging has been the CTF and PAG's self limited scope to not include impacts to the neighborhood past SE 6th avenue, the entrance into our neighborhood. SMILE appreciates the overwhelming support of the PAG and city and county leaders, especially Mayor Elect Adams, Metro Councilor Robert Liberty and others who have publicly professed support for the Tacoma Main Street plan and vowed not to support alternatives that would put pressure to undo this neighborhood achievement, which promotes livability and urban renewal. This is an historic time for Sellwood – Moreland, as well as for the tri county area. SMILE appreciates your consideration in this matter. We view this as an opportunity to ensure neighborhood livability can coexist with regional transportation issues. Thank you for your consideration. 147 Tom Edwards, Daimler Corp Received via Web Site I have ridden to work for years and have risked my life on this bridge as it is the only one available to route myself to work on my bike. PLEASE provide a safe bike lane in your design or a separate pedestrian/bike passage bridge as we need this VERY MUCH!!!! Thank you! Tom Edwards 148 Cindy Anderson Received via Web Site Even though I do not use this bridge on a regular basis anymore, I do think that it is critical to have a bridge in this area, and the "no build" option is not viable. Making what at best are temporary repairs is not a fiscally responsible action, and will not allow the use of the bridge ie public transportation etc in the long run. Please consider building a new bridge even though in these tough economic times this is a tough call, it is important to the Sellwood community and the Portland community as a whole to have this east/west connection remain open. Thank you. 149 Shanta Calem Received via Web Site Please take the time to assess the affects of the bridge changes on the Sellwood/West Moreland neighborhood. If Tacoma Street were to become a thoroughfare it would split the neighborhood in two. In addition, please consider the safety of pedestrians. The appeal of this neighborhood is the ease with which we can walk to the schools, local businesses, and to each other's homes.

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-35 Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received Thank you. 150 Janet Dockstader Received via Web Site If the bridge is 4 lanes, make the street on the east side 4 lanes. If the bridge is 2 lanes, leave the eastside street 2 lanes. Thanks. i trust you will do the best with whatever funding you can provide. 151 Sheila Catterall Received via Web Site Riverpark Community, along with our neighbors to the south Sellwood Harbor, consists of more than 70 homes with families representing a microcosm of any neighborhood in a community. Residents of the Riverpark/Sellwood Harbor neighborhood reflect a microcosm of diversity: single, married, old, young, gay, straight, ethnically diverse, students, professionals and a significant number of retired seniors. Our home values are currently affected by the discussion of the bridge construction, so our homes cannot be sold and will not be sold if Alternatives A-D are approved. 152 Lance Lindahl, Brooklyn Action Corps Received via Web Site This letter of comment is submitted on behalf of the Brooklyn Action Corps (BAC) Neighborhood Association. At this time, the BAC does not have an opinion as to which specific bridge option should be adopted. However, we strongly believe that a closure of the Sellwood Bridge, whether temporary or permanent, would have a catastrophic effect on nearby neighborhoods and must be avoided. The Brooklyn Neighborhood has a vested interest in the well-being of Milwaukie Avenue. It is our "Main Street" and our direct link to both the Central Eastside and to Sellwood-Moreland. It also the only major street in our neighborhood that is friendly to both pedestrians and bicyclists. Numerous community development efforts in our neighborhood over the past twenty years have worked to strengthen Milwaukie Avenue as a pleasant place to both live and work. This very livability would be seriously threatened by a closure of the Sellwood Bridge. Whenever this bridge is closed for maintenance, or for a special event, congestion along Milwaukie Avenue brings traffic to a standstill. This past summer, when the bridge was closed for repairs at night, it was not unusual to find bumper to bumper traffic on Milwaukie Avenue at 9:30 in the evening. Any bridge option adopted must look closely at the traffic impacts that will likely occur. Any construction to the bridge will no doubt increase traffic along both Milwaukie Avenue and McLoughlin Boulevard, and these streets are already in desperate need of modernization and safety improvements. Very little attention has been given to how these major streets would function without a Sellwood Bridge. The Executive Board of the Brooklyn Action Corps hereby requests that any plan for a new Sellwood Bridge must be one that keeps the existing bridge open during the period of construction.

153 Claudia Hutchison Received via Web Site Moving the Bridge to the North side would unfairly force those of us who purchased north-facing condo homes to face a bridge. (We waited for a north-facing condo to become available and we paid much more for it than the equivalent south (bridge-facing) condo. A decision to move the bridge north should accompany a fair "buy-out" for condo owners who prefer not to face a bridge out their

J-36 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received windows. 154 Brad Hathaway Received via Web Site I've heard others refer to the proposed new bridge as a 100 year structure. While I don't know if this is a fair characterization, I can certainly see that the choices now being made will have a lasting effect far beyond the bridge span, the affected road segments, and nearby landscape. Certainly, livability for nearby residents will be impacted for decades. It is really important that we get this structure ‘right-sized'. A ‘super-sized' bridge begs the question, ‘to where?’ Tacoma Street serves the local community and, in its current configuration, also makes a significant contribution to regional needs. As regional needs continue to grow, solutions must extend beyond what this single bridge can achieve. Alternative D seems best suited and most appropriately scaled for the site. It just doesn't make sense to spend so much money salvaging the existing structure (Alternatives A or B). Security issues related to Alternative C make it seem significantly less attractive. Alternative E seems too large without radically rethinking the traffic flow coming off the east end. Further still, after leaving the open house recently held at OMSI, I wondered about the cross-section just east of the west-end interchange. I was told by one of the staff members (on site that evening to answer questions) that the extra lanes were needed to store or queue traffic as it waits to get through the interchange and in a way that prevents construction on OR 43 (I'm sure they explained this better than I just did). I later wondered way these lanes couldn't be stacked horizontally along OR 43 (to the side of the lanes needed to keep the traffic moving north and south). It might take additional excavation along the west side of the river to support these additional lanes, but wouldn't it be cheaper to build extra lanes on land than suspend them in the air over a river? 155 David Collins Received via Web Site The alternatives in the draft EIS do not specifically address impacts to the Tacoma Main Street Plan. Alternatives are considered that contradict findings from South Willamette River Crossing Study. The fourth bullet in the project need statement "Existing and future travel demands between origins and destinations served by the Sellwood Bridge exceed available capacity" contradicts the recommendation from the South Willamette River Crossing Study that "providing adequate regional traffic capacity in the Sellwood Bridge/SE Tacoma Street travelshed is not the responsibility of SE Tacoma Street." 156 Sheila Strachan Received via Web Site I just finished reviewing the Draft EIS and taking the "survey". The survey was superficial and did not address any real issues about the bridge, the public involvement process or the range of alternatives put forth in the DEIS. 1. The scope of the EIS failed to consider a Hwy 224/43 crossing by narrowing the project scope so as to focus the outcome to get the answer the county wants: one which forces the Sellwood bridge to become the South Willamette Crossing. By piling multiple conflicting objectives into this one project, the Sellwood bridge becomes a regional bridge, when a regional bridge should undergo a separate EIS. 2. The timeline for the DEIS is ONE YEAR behind schedule. This seriously undermines the public involvement process by dragging the process out for such a long time. 3. The DEIS failed to address the values of the Tacoma Main street plan. The effects of all alternatives on the Tacoma Main Street plan should be fully evaluated. 4. The DEIS failed to fully analyze effects to the neighborhood traffic patterns and pedestrian and

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-37 Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received bike safety. Each bridge alternative will result in significantly different traffic volumes and cut through traffic in the neighborhood east of the bridge. These effects should be fully evaluated. 5. Alternative E in the Draft EIS is completely beyond the scope of this analysis. It constructs Trojan horse transit lanes where no transit corridor has been identified. Alternative E deserves no further analysis. 157 Mike Coyle Received via Web Site Please consider and comment on the following items regarding build alternatives, bridge closure, and phasing: 1. In alternative "A", why can't a temporary bridge be built similar to alternative "B"? This would maintain vehicular traffic and be beneficial for the commuter as well as local businesses. 2. If alternative "A" is selected please consider constructing the pedestrian/bike bridge prior to decommissioning the existing Sellwood Bridge. This would allow the ongoing use of at least some form of transportation over the river at this location for the estimated 2 years of construction. 158 Christie Glynn Received via Web Site To Whom It May Concern: I'll be brief. My husband and I were the first family to move into Riverpark Condominiums nearly nine years ago. Our community has thrived, and as a result the city has gained valuable citizens. As you are well aware, there are several bridge options that threaten the very structure of our buildings. If you must proceed with any option other than the No Build Alternative, condemn our building. Please do not trap us in a location that will be besieged by construction for the foreseeable future and may, depending on which bridge option is selected, become surrounded by bridges, reducing our quality of life. Condemn our building and allow us to relocate. It's the only fair alternative.

160 Joan Beckley, Riverpark Homeowners Received via Web Site Assoc. Re: Chapter 3 – IMPACTS & MITIGATION My property value has been severely reduced due to the uncertain future of this issue. I live in one of the 10 Riverfront Assoc. Townhomes of which two have been for sale for TWO YEARS. A third Townhouse was for sale for 9 months and recently taken off the market. As you know our Riverfront Homeowner's Assoc. will seek legal action if a temporary bridge idea happens. We will seek TOTAL CONDEMNATION OF THE ENTIRE COMPLEX. Our health will be threatend from the dust and pollution. Our Assoc. will lost 14 parking spaces currently under the existing bridge plus loss of property value. I URGE YOU TO PLEASE CHOOSE ALTERNATIVE E. 161 Stan Scotton Received via Web Site My concern is the impact that the chosen bridge choice will have on my residence (and the surronding neighborhood) at SE 7th and Spokane St. Noise, litter, traffic (vehicle and truck), parking, paving and ramping over park space, and the liviability of the remaining residential neighborhood (at the east side terminus) are my major concerns. Whatever choice is made, I request that efforts be made (and funded) to make the impact on those living, working and recreating in the area as minimal

J-38 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received as possible. How will access to the Springwater Trail be handled? Both during construction and after completion. Because of the break at Umatilla St., Spokane St. is a major access to the Springwater Corridor and needs to be maintained and needs to provide safe access for pedestrians and bicyclists. Moving traffic through our neighborhood seems to be the issue. Not the effect on the neighborhood. I always have and remain a supporter of the "do nothing" option. Close the bridge to vehicle and truck traffic and use it for pedestrian and bicycles only. 162 Frank Winicki, West Linn/ Wilsonville Received via Web Site School District The impact of bridge traffic capacity on cut-through traffic was not directly considered. While some thought was given to the effect of the SE 6th Ave. interchange on cut-through traffic, the obvious correlation with increased overall bridge traffic capacity was never mentioned. Regardless of the east-side interchange design, more traffic to/from the bridge will undoubtedly increase cut-through traffic in the neighborhoods immediately north and south of SE Tacoma St. What is less obvious, but IMHO much more impactful, is that this cut-through traffic spreads out through the neighborhoods affecting a much wider area. Options E, and to a lesser degree C, would clearly increase the traffic pressure trying to find ways around the bottlenecks on SE Tacoma St. While the design of the east-side interchange could increase this pressure, the root cause of the problem is that the bridge already accommodates more traffic than Tacoma can handle. Any design that increases the bridge's capacity will only aggravate the already unsafe level of Sellwood neighborhood cut-through traffic. Finally, I would like to note that ‘cut-through' traffic does not do justice to the gravity of its impact on the livability of our community. The areas of concern are nearly 100% residential, front porch living, kids playing in the street neighborhoods – the kind of environment that builds community and counters suburban flight. The consequences of a single careless driver in too much of a hurry to get home can be devastating and irreparable. Reducing this immense impact to a ‘moderate increase in neighborhood cut-through traffic' is disingenuous at best. 163 Eric Miller, Sellwood Playgroup Received via Web Site Association Introduction: I submit these comments regarding the DEIS on behalf of the Sellwood Playgroup Association, an affiliation of 5 playgroups in the Sellwood-Moreland neighborhood with well over 100 children ranging from 0 to 5 years of age. I am also writing on behalf of Amber Bozman and her 4-yr- old son, Aidan. On November 14, 2008, while he was legally riding his bike across SE Tacoma St, Aidan was struck by a truck. While his helmet was destroyed, he miraculously escaped uninjured. The primary focus of my comments relates to the failure of the DEIS to address the environmental impacts, positive or negative, that the different bridge options will have on the neighborhood children's ability to cross SE Tacoma St and 17th Ave. The DEIS insufficiently analyzes the health, safety and quality of life of children in this same regard as required by NEPA. Neighborhood: Sellwood Moreland is home to over 10,000 residents. Pedestrians and bikers need to cross Tacoma street and 17th Ave, both heavy with bridge commuter traffic of some 30,000 daily vehicles, to access 2 elementary schools, one middle school, a community center, a community pool, a neighborhood association (SMILE), a wildlife refuge (Oaks Bottom), three large parks (Sellwood, Westmoreland and Sellwood Riverfront Park) and nearly a dozen community churches. Sellwood Bridge Project NEPA required components of the DEIS: NEPA requires an EIS (NEPA regulations, 40 CFR, Sec. 102(2)(C)) whenever a major federal action significantly (NEPA regulations, 40 CFR, Sec. 1508.27 Significantly). affects the quality of the human environment (NEPA regulations,

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-39 Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received 40 CFR, Sec. 1508.14 Human environment). The Scope of the Sellwood Bridge Project is required to include indirect effects (NEPA regulations, 40 CFR, Sec, 1508.25 Scope) of the action. Indirect effects are defined as those caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable, and include those related to induced changes in the pattern of land use and health (NEPA regulations, 40 CFR, Sec. 1508.8 Effects). The Sellwood Bridge DEIS is required to include reasonably foreseeable changes that will occur in the pattern of use of the affected facilities, health and safety of any induced changes upon the affected facilities, and the quality of the human environment upon the affected facilities. SE Tacoma St is an affected facility: SE Tacoma Street is a facility within the affected environment and is included within the Sellwood Bridge Project DEIS study area in regards to economic analysis, environmental justice, and various demographics. The fact that SE Tacoma St has been studied from the bridge at SE 6th Ave through to 99E indicates that it is recognized by the Sellwood Bridge Project that the alternative build options A through E would impact this facility. SE 17th Ave is an affected facility: SE 17th Ave between SE Tacoma St and Rt 224 in Milwaukie is significantly impacted by bridge commuter traffic. Data in the DEIS (Table 3.1-2, page 3-9) shows that in an existing 24-hr period some 1,000 of the 14,600 total eastbound vehicles crossing the bridge turn off of Tacoma before SE 11th Ave. An additional 2,400 turn off before SE 15th Ave. Then a full 4,200 turn off of Tacoma St prior to SE 23rd Ave. Examining together both the volume of these numbers and the difference between them is a strong indication that a substantial number of vehicles do not use SE Tacoma to reach 99E and Rt 224. SE 17th Ave (as well as smaller neighborhood streets as cut-through traffic), is providing Clackamas County commuters an alternative and often used short- cut to Rt 224 and should be included in the traffic analysis components of the DEIS. When the Tacoma corridor is not congested or over-burdened, any changes in traffic flow from the bridge will effect traffic flow along the corridor: The DEIS states (DEIS, section 3.1.3, page 3-10) that congested conditions and capacity-constrained traffic currently exist on SE Tacoma St, and the signalized intersections at SE 13th and 17th Aves are performing at near-capacity or over-capacity conditions. Language in the DEIS states that these conditions exist ‘during peak periods’, and that ‘By 2035, the SE Tacoma St corridor will continue to function at congested conditions for several hours each day’. Using a general definition of ‘several’ (Merriam-Wesbter Dictionary: Several: 2 a: more than one b: more than two but fewer than many ) and assuming there are 12 daylight hours in a day, there are as many as 10 daytime hours that are not congested, not capacity-constrained, nor at near-capacity conditions. Under these conditions, any changes or differences in traffic flow from the bridge onto Tacoma St at SE 6th Ave will alter traffic flow and patterns through the Tacoma St corridor, including SE 17th Ave south to Rt 224. The different bridge alternatives could alter vehicle-traffic-carrying capacity, flow, or other traffic patterns along this corridor during times that the corridor is not congested, over-burdened or over- constrained. Each of the alternatives, no build, and A through E, provide different traffic constraining components at the 2-lane connection to SE Tacoma St at 6th Ave, therefore presenting differing traffic flows that will move onto and through SE Tacoma St and 17th Ave: The alternatives provide differences in presence or not of turning lanes and presence or not of a stoplight at SE 6th. Some of the alternatives clearly have been designed to handle higher traffic volume and flow over the span of the bridge than others. For example, Alternative E has a span of 5 vehicle lanes at the western cross-section, 4 vehicle travel lanes at the middle cross-section, and 3 vehicle lanes and 1 turning lane at the eastern cross-section while Alternative A has a span of 3 vehicle travel lanes and 1 turning lane at the western most cross-section, 2 vehicle travel lanes in the middle cross-section, and 2 travel lanes, 1 turning lane and 8' of shoulder at the eastern cross-section. These differences will pose different traffic volumes and patterns at the eastern edge of the bridge project. The fact that all alternatives maintain two travel lanes on SE Tacoma St does not mean that all of the alternatives provide the same flow of traffic onto SE Tacoma St. For instance, a stoplight at the east end of the bridge at SE 6th Ave, which

J-40 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received exists for Alternatives D and E, will interrupt eastbound traffic flow onto SE Tacoma at regular intervals. Alternatively, no stoplight at SE 6th Ave, consistent with the no-build option and Alternatives A, B and C, will present a flow of cars onto Tacoma St either consistent with the current flow (which is currently a streaming, continuous flow of vehicles during peak hours), or dependent upon the degree to which a west-side interchange is constraining traffic. There are at least 3 alternative west-side interchanges being examined in the bridge project, each of which will constrain or allow flow of traffic differently. Differing effects of pedestrian safety crossing SE Tacoma St and 17th Ave: Based on the above information, it is reasonable to believe that a pedestrian crossing Tacoma St on the existing crosswalk at SE 7th Ave, 1 block east of the bridge connection, will have a different experience in regards to health, safety and quality of life, depending upon which bridge option is chosen. It is also reasonable to believe that a pedestrian crossing Tacoma St at the next signal controlled intersection, at SE 13th Ave, will have a different experience in regards to health, safety and quality of life, depending upon which bridge option is chosen. The same is true at the next intersection in the Tacoma St corridor, SE 17th Ave. The same is true at controlled intersections along SE 17th Ave south of Tacoma St. Further, pedestrians crossing Tacoma St or SE 17th Ave at any of the streets that intersect them will have a different experience in regards to health, safety and quality of life, depending upon which bridge option is chosen. This is worrisome because Oregon law allows pedestrian crossing of Tacoma and 17th Ave at any uncontrolled intersection. Any change in traffic flow, for better or worse, onto Tacoma St, presents a significant, indirect and reasonably foreseeable health, safety and quality of life environmental impact to neighborhood pedestrians crossing Tacoma St and 17th Ave. It is required by NEPA that this be reported in the DEIS. The current DEIS fails to address these impacts in regards to pedestrians crossing SE Tacoma St at existing designated crosswalk intersections as well as the undesignated intersections. Changes to traffic controls at SE 13th and 17th: It is reasonable to believe that the above stated differences in traffic flow onto Tacoma St that would be created by the different bridge options will create a need to change how the intersections at SE 13th and 17th Avenues are controlled. Regardless of whether or not these intersections are controlling existing traffic flow sufficiently well, or that some hours of the day these intersections are functioning at over-capacity, if different bridge options provide different flows of traffic into these intersections, even if it occurs only during non- peak, unconstrained or not overburdened hours of the day, there are foreseeable indirect effects that must be addressed in the EIS. This falls within the NEPA defined scope of the EIS as indirect effects, defined as those caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable, and include those related to induced changes in the pattern of land use. Any bridge option meeting two of the stated goals of the project would present increased traffic onto SE Tacoma St: Improved traffic mobility (stated project goal, pages ES-9 and 1-9) as well as improved mass transit circulation and capacity (stated goal, pages ES-10 and 1-9) across a new Sellwood Bridge would alter, and likely increase, traffic flow onto SE Tacoma St at SE 6th Ave. The statement that “vehicle-traffic-carrying capacity and performance on the Sellwood Bridge would not be substantially improved by any of the Build alternatives” (DEIS, page 3-10) directly contradicts these stated goals. Any bridge option that meets either of these two stated goals would present increased traffic mobility, circulation and capacity onto the Tacoma St corridor. Comparison of bridge options in regards to the health, safety, and quality of life of pedestrians as stated above is impossible with the current DEIS: It is impossible to compare bridge options in regards to neighborhood pedestrian and children safety without an appropriate assessment in the EIS. The EPA describes the public's role as an important one in the NEPA process, providing input on what issues should be addressed in an EIS and in commenting on the findings in an agency's NEPA documents. This letter is such a provision to the lead agency: The health, safety and quality of life of neighborhood residents, including children, is dependent upon a reasonable comparison of bridge build and no-build options in regards to the ability to cross SE Tacoma St and 17th Ave at the variety

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-41 Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received of existing intersections. Closing: Aidan was lucky when that truck hit him last month. I hope that another accident does not happen in the future. If it does, I hope that the child will be as lucky as Aidan was. The safety of neighborhood children who need to cross commuter traffic moving to and from the bridge needs to be considered a high priority. Absence of assessment of this environmental impact of the different bridge options is a negligent omission from the EIS. This may leave the city, county, the Sellwood Bridge Project legally liable if another accident does occur. Inclusion of such an assessment in the EIS is necessary for a valid comparison of neighborhood safety between the bridge options. This is critical to the safety of neighborhood children and necessary to minimize the risk of accidents like Aidan's occurring in the future. 164 Dorene Petersen Received via Web Site Good morning my name is Dorene Petersen. My husband, Robert Seidel and I have owned our home and lived at Riverpark Townhome #5 since the Riverpark complex, which is immediately north of the Sellwood bridge, was built – so about 6 years. My husband is a business owner in Sellwood – http://www.essentialoil.com/ and I am a business owner in Portland City with my office near Macadam on Hood Ave – http://www.achs.edu. In addressing the Sellwood bridge replacement issue both my husband and I would prefer alternative E. Clearly we would suffer as will all of Riverpark's families with increased noise, impacted view, health issues from pollution, and reduced property values just to name a few, with any alternative other than E. More importantly though, alternative E is the obvious choice primarily because it has more potential for expansion in the future. It could be expanded with a streetcar. In a conversation with the engineer from CH2M Hill at the recent public meeting, he informed me that alternative E has enough room for a streetcar and that it would not take a lane away from traffic. This is not a possibility with the other alternatives. Adding a streetcar would decrease the total amount of traffic reducing the overall total carbon footprint. Barack Obama's new transportation secretary, LaHood has shown he will find funds to support the financially strapped highway trust fund, which pays for roads and bridge projects nationwide. With a more farsighted plan that reduces the carbon foot print the Sellwood bridge replacement project could attract some of those funds. Alternative E would have less impact from the geological issues that have plagued the bridge in its current position or the bridges in the other proposed areas. Alternative E would have less impact on the families who live in the area. There is the office building that would require businesses to relocate but even the owner of the building agreed in the latest public meeting that businesses could be moved with less upheaval than people's homes. Alternative E would allow the present bridge to stay open while E is built and prevent business closures in Sellwood or Westmoreland. This was a major concern at the public meeting. Alternative E would not require a temporary bridge to be built with obvious savings as a result. I appreciate your consideration of these points.

165 Kathleen P. Holahan Received via Web Site While it has been clear since the beginning of this project that the Multnomah County engineers favor alternative D, including their making a formal presentation to get it back on the table after it was removed by the Community Task Force as a whole, Alternative E, the alternative suggested by the community, appears to be the most flexible, cost effective alternative, and would require relocation of

J-42 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received the fewest established homeowners. The office building affected by E contains many small businesses which could be relocated. The owner of the office building has publicly indicated that he felt that people's homes were more important than commercial offices. The "homes" mentioned as being impacted by Alternative E are mostly unoccupied newly built condos. The instability of the hills and the site of the current west side interchange has been downplayed, and it is indicated that there is an engineering "fix" for that. Well, the hills of Portland do not stop moving, and that instability has been the cause of the historic problems with the current bridge, required removing segments of the current bridge as the ground relentlessly shifts towards the east. The west side of Alternative E would involve more stable ground, which would promote long-term stability of a new bridge. I am a widow on a fixed income living in one of the Sellwood Harbor condominiums that would be demolished by Alternative D. My intent has been to live in my home for the rest of my life -- as long as possible. While it is stated that Alternative D would only take 4 condominiums from Sellwood Harbor, and one from the group north of the bridge, no engineering studies have been done to demonstrate that this is feasible, and original projections were that 12 condomiums would be removed from Sellwood Harbor. The developers of the project have expressed concern that the integrity and construction of the buildings are such that units cannot be removed in a piecemeal fashion. In summary, I strongly support Alternative E as the best alternative with the most flexibility for the foreseeable future of this area. 166 Bernie Bottomly, Portland Business Received via Web Site Alliance The Sellwood Bridge, as the only river crossing between the Ross Island and I-205 bridges, is an important component of the region's transportation system. The bridge provides local access for neighborhoods on either side, but also provides critical regional connections between Clackamas, Multnomah and Washington counties. Further, any replacement bridge will serve this community for nearly a century. It is essential that transportation projects of this physical and financial scope be evaluated within a long-term regional context of economic and transportation needs and impacts. The Alliance feels the following elements must be addressed in considering the alternatives for addressing the obvious shortcomings of the existing structure: 1. Cost. While this should not be an overriding factor, it must be an important consideration in selecting an alternative. Neither the state, the region nor Multnomah County currently have sufficient funds to construct any of the proposed alternatives. While a federal stimulus package may be a potential alternative, the level of demand for these funds nationally means the likelihood of securing them for this project is small at best. In this case we should not let the perfect (and expensive) be the enemy of the good (and fiscally realistic). 2. Address underlying issues. The project should address the underlying issues of structural adequacy, safety, seismic stability and, to the extent possible in this constrained corridor, capacity. The Alliance continues to believe that this facility is and will continue to be part of an important commuter and freight facility and its design should reflect that fact. 3. Safety. The reason we are considering a new structure is because the existing bridge has significant safety concerns that will, in the short term, grow worse as the approaches to the bridge continue to deteriorate. We should not spend the vast sums being contemplated for this project in addressing the structural safety problems just to create new ones in the traffic flow patterns or isolation of bike and pedestrian users. 4. Minimize impacts on business and neighborhoods. No project of this nature can be completed without some impact on the neighboring community. That is just a fact of living in an urban

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-43 Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received environment. However, to the extent possible given financial realities and the necessities of constructing a project of regional importance, the impacts on businesses and neighbors should be minimized. After assessing the characteristics of the options presented, the Alliance finds that Option D unphased sub alternative comes closest to meeting the decision criteria stated above. While it has some drawbacks, no project of this kind can be conceived without some tradeoffs. Our reasoning for eliminating the other alternatives from consideration is as follows: Option A. This alternative fails on a number of our criteria. It is one of the most expensive, it does not fully address the underlying shortcomings of the existing structure and the construction of a separate bike/ped bridge could have significant impacts on existing businesses. Finally, under either a phased or unphased approach this alternative would require extensive closures of the existing facility, which will have significant impacts on businesses in the Sellwood area. Finally, this option and Option B include a roundabout, which the Alliance believes may be unworkable in this configuration. Option B. This alternative has the same failings as Option A, but is more expensive. The Alliance has difficulty in seeing how the construction of a temporary bridge at a cost of $30 million is viable given the difficult questions regarding the financing of the overall project. At the end of the day, the rehabilitated bridge will not have a useful life expectancy that could justify the investment of $222 million in reconstruction costs. Option C. While this option is attractive from a cost standpoint, the Alliance believes it has two drawbacks. The first is the length of closure required, particularly in the unphased sub alternative. The second is the proposal to place the bike/ped facilities under the roadway. Our experience with Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) makes us highly averse to creating spaces that are not visible, have periods of low use, and would tend to be dark and isolated. These tend to be areas prone to criminal behavior, graffiti, drug use and other undesirable behaviors that will tend to make this facility unattractive to commuters and recreational users. Option E. The cost of the through arch bridge sub alternative for this option appears prohibitive but the greatest disadvantage to this option is the significant adverse impact on existing businesses on both the east and west side of the river. As we stated earlier, it's impossible to pursue a project of this scale without some business impacts, but this alternative seems to maximize rather than minimize such impacts and should therefore be rejected. While this bridge provides significant additional capacity, the constraints of SE Tacoma Street are such that the additional bridge capacity may not translate into decreased transit times Sellwood neighborhood. The Alliance has serious concerns regarding cost escalation for the phased sub alternatives. Inflation, the mobilization and demobilization of work crews and contractors, the likelihood of changing political leadership leading to modifications to the design are all likely to add considerably to the total cost of the project. For this reason, the Alliance recommends moving forward with the unphased sub alternative to Alternative D to minimize cost and maximize the efficiency of the construction process. We acknowledge this will require a longer period of construction impacts to bridge users and Sellwood area businesses, but believe this is mitigated by the fact that this alternative can be achieved with a minimum period of full bridge closure. We acknowledge that there will be impacts on the adjacent neighborhoods and fully support design and engineering options that minimize those impacts to the extent possible while still providing for local and regional mobility. Resources for transportation projects are highly constrained at the local, state and federal levels. In order to maximize potential financial support, improvements should be made to address the significant capacity problems that currently exist. This will be an extremely costly project with a very long lifespan.

J-44 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received Thank you for the opportunity to comment. 167 Dick Springer Received via Web Site Dear People: Native Oregonian & SE Portland resident most of my life -- Sellwood homeowner for 24+ years. Former state legislator representing SE & SW Portland for 16 years (1981-96, including service on the Senate Transportation Committee and as Senate Majority Leader). Though I was not a member of the Community Task Force, I attended most of its meetings as well as several of the the elected officials (and agency directors)meetings. I have testified and presented written comments to both groups (spring '07). As a candidate and legislator I have participated in countless neighborhood meetings and visited thousands of constituents door-to-door. Traffic congestion, and adverse impacts on local residents was always among the top five issues identified by voters. I represent only myself in these comments and have no financial, business or other tangible interest in the bridge options. My primary concern is to protect the best interests of my neighbors consistent with prudent public policy. I prefer a conservative approach -- either no build or the least disruptive re-habilitation option, recognizing that the west approach requires relatively immediately attention regardless of the choice. Multnomah county and the state have a wealth of experience in the successful restoration of older and more heavily traveled bridges -- St. Johns, Ross Island, Hawthorne & Broadway, to name a few. In my previous appearances noted above, I have stated that bikes & pedestrians are a priority, as well as public safety and Tri-Met buses -- heavy trucks are not. The trucking industry rep testified candidly at the 12/10/2008 public hearing that truckers do not now (due to weight limits) and will not rely upon the Sellwood Bridge in the future. I hope he is correct as far as his prediction and accurately reflects the position of his peers. We can buy more time at a reasonable annual cost in order to re-evaulate needs in 10-20 years when transportation modalities & usage will most certainly have changed in ways that we may not be able to foresee. Perhaps in that time, other jurisdictions and/or the region will recognize responsibility for another South Willamette River crossing or at least share the financial costs. Of particular concern to me is the lack of any helpful information about the impacts of massive constructon upon the extremely sensitive habitat for endangered species -- natural riverbank and park lands. It is equally as difficult to learn what mitigation may be recommended, or how much funding will be available, or how it will be allocated among competing interests. Thank you for you kind consideration.

168 Miriam Nolte Received via Web Site My preference is for option E for the new Sellwood Bridge. With alternatives A, B, C, and possibly D, a temporary bridge could be an option. Since I live at Riverpark Condominiums in the tower building, the idea of having a bridge on either side of the building for an unknown amount of time, seems an incredible inconvenience, impacting our property values and quality of life here. Option E does not take out any homes. Also Option E would require no bridge closures during construction of the new bridge to the South. 169 Sanford Rome, Thersa Terrace Received via Web Site Apartments The snow has limited my ability to provide a real insite analysis. Postponement of the filing date would

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-45 Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received be helpful if extended to at least 1 week after the snow thaws. 170 Kate MacCready Received via Web Site Of the four bridge plans presented, I was disappointed to note that in all there was such an emphasis on auto lanes. Although some ped lanes were included, I would have liked to see designated bike lanes. Also, some reference to earlier mentioned possibilities for trolley tracks would have been far sighted. 171 John Gillam and Mauricio Leclerc, Received via Mail In Portland Bureau of Transportation (171_Memo_Sellwood_Bridge_PDOT_EIS_Comments.doc) Below are comments focused primarily on the Transportation section of the EIS. Other City bureaus are expecting to comment of different sections of the document. Comments are organized in different sections to address travel patterns, traffic operations, a review of the alternatives from a bicycle and pedestrian perspective, comments on the different cross sections, and other considerations. Travel Patterns Traffic Reason for why bridge improvements would not lead to increased vehicular capacity in both corridors is not satisfactorily explained. Congestion points on the two corridors (Hwy 43 and Sellwood/Tacoma) during peak hours are located at signalized intersections north at Taylors Ferry Rd/Macadam in the west and at Tacoma at SE 13th and SE 17th in the east, as well as on the bridge itself. To increase vehicular capacity, these signalized intersections would have to be widened in addition to widening the bridge. Doing this goes beyond the scope of this project. The Bridge being two lanes also assists in metering traffic volume that otherwise would use local streets on the east side to bypass congestion in the Tacoma corridor. As a result, travel speed improvements are modest/insignificant (1or 2 mph in 2035) across the River, which leads to unchanged travel patters. On Highway 43, as a result of west end interchange improvements, there are significant travel speed improvements (up to 7-8 mph) in the immediate area (SW Nevada to SW Riverdale). However, there are still significant congestion points north and south of the study area for people driving the Lake Oswego/Oregon City to downtown Portland corridor. In addition, the geographic constraints of the corridor limit the ability to attract more traffic onto the facility from other facilities. The end result is that the project does not lead to noticeable shifts in auto traffic. The EIS does not analyze travel impacts of alternatives on opening day, year 2015. The traffic effects of tolling have not been incorporated into the EIS. This should have an effect on peak travel demand if tolls are instated during the peak times. Mode split The EIS does not adequately explain the effect of the built alternatives on mode split. EIS is silent on mode split policy at the City and region. Compared to the No Build option, alternatives A through E provide significant improvements for bicyclists, pedestrians and transit users. The EIS identifies significant latent demand and continued growth of bicyclists. Transit service across the bridge would be resumed but it is not stated what future transit ridership across the bridge would be. As such, the EIS is silent on mode split changes as a result of the built alternatives. The EIS document would benefit from a combined table listing travel by different modes today and in 2035. The end result would be to show that the Built alternatives promote multimodal traveling and are more sustainable options than the No Build. In addition, the

J-46 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received City is embarked on a Streetcar System plan that will inform new streetcar alignments throughout the city, including this corridor. A potential outcome could be two streetcar alignments: the line to Lake Oswego and one crossing the River via the bridge to connect to Tacoma Street on the east. Greenhouse gas emissions Building on the points above, the EIS is silent on the effect of the alternatives on greenhouse gas emissions. Analysis should indicate that, while vehicle travel on the corridor would remain unchanged, greater transit and bicycle and pedestrian travel result in greater multimodal travel, leading to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions per bridge/study area user. EIS is silent on climate change and Peak Oil policy at the City. Freight EIS should more clearly state the effect of the built alternatives on freight, which is to reinstate truck access currently limited as a result of the bridge's weight limitation. The effect would be to add about 1,500 trucks/large vehicles, or 4 percent of total daily traffic volume, back onto Tacoma and the bridge. The EIS should also state that the percentage and total truck volume (as well as truck type) would remain largely unchanged from the time prior to the 2004 weight restrictions). Traffic Operations Eastern Interchange Traffic The EIS analyzed the effects of three treatments: a No Change, a full traffic signal at SE 6th Ave. and a loop road connecting north and south of Tacoma under the Bridge using SE Grand Avenue. The EIS states that in terms of operations, the No change and the loop does not significantly affect traffic operations on Tacoma but full signal leads to failing level of service (LOS) on Tacoma, spilling traffic onto the western interchange. This is the case if generous green time is given to SE 6th Ave. The City finds that a) even under the No Change, traffic during the PM peak backs up onto the west end of the bridge, and b) that a traffic signal with significantly reduced green time on SE 6th Ave. leads to congestion levels on Tacoma and the bridge that are not significantly different than the No Change. A pedestrian activated signal should be evaluated at this location given need to access across Tacoma and to community land uses, particularly to the north (Oaks Park, Sellwood Riverfront Park, Sellwood and Oak Pioneer Parks) as well as to future bridge sidewalks and bike lanes. City TSP LOS policy for Tacoma, a Main Street, is not stated. Instead, page 3-9 of technical report uses RTP LOS policy, which is different (LOS E for two hours is considered “acceptable”). As regional and City policy on LOS should be similar, we assume that a different classification was used to measure Tacoma. TSP Policy allows for F for the first peak hour and E for the second for Tacoma Street classified as a Main Street. Travel on local streets The EIS indicates that the full signal would lead to the most cut through traffic using local streets, followed by the loop. The full signal, as designed in the EIS, would likely lead to more cut through, though it can be managed via a pedestrian activated signal or by reducing the amount of green time allowed for SE 6th Ave. The loop has considerable impact for cut through traffic, acting as a free flowing off ramp from the bridge to access the area north of the bridge. This loop would be hard to manage to diminish cut through traffic. Access to land uses Oaks Park, Sellwood Riverfront and Pioneer parks, and commercial and residential can benefit from improved automobile circulation to serve local and non-local trips. The challenge is to have greater

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-47 Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received neighborhood auto circulation not lead to greater non-local cut through traffic. Both the signal and the loop improve local accessibility to these land uses over the No Change. Special events A signalized intersection would be able to be managed for special events. A loop helps primarily eastbound traffic but gaps in traffic on Tacoma are still needed. Western Interchange Three alternatives were evaluated as part of the EIS: a roundabout option (with and without pedestrian/bicycle facilities), a signalized option (single-point urban interchange) and a free flowing option (trumpet design). Below are some comments: Roundabout • Not clear that the roundabout works well for pedestrians and bicyclists. The metering device helps traffic flow within the interchange during peak times so that it doesn’t shut down, but how vehicles are supposed to allow for the safe crossing of peds and bicyclists is not clear (motorists in roundabouts are generally looking at oncoming traffic from the left, which may lead to less visibility for peds/bicyclists trying to cross using the marked crossings). • • Not clear whether design would accommodate streetcar operations over the bridge from Hwy 43; it may require some additional engineering design and traffic control devices. Trumpet • • Pedestrian access and bicycle access severely limited. Access to cemetery poses significant negative impacts to business services and for pedestrian and bicycle access across cemetery. • • Transit access severely limited via out of direction travel and longer distances. Signalized • • Works best for pedestrians and bicyclists accessing Hwy 43 and the cemetery • • Free flowing northbound movement onto Hwy 43 from the bridge, needs more analysis, if there is a lot of pedestrian use during the AM peak. • • Traffic operations seemed to have been modeled assuming a different intersection design: operations allow north to east traffic to occur at the same time as north to west traffic. Interchange design does not seem to allow that to occur. • • Interchange could be designed to have one southbound/through lane onto Hwy 43 south and to access the cemetery. General • • Project team should ask for exemptions from ODOT as to the required spacing for access to the interchange in the Hwy 43 corridor. As designed, alternatives cut off access to existing land uses or lead to access that is more costly and with more environmental and social impacts. • • Tolling is not properly analyzed in the EIS. Particularly, the traffic effects of tolling have not been incorporated into the EIS. This should affect the design of the western interchange in particular. Bicycle/Pedestrian Elements of Alternatives Alternative A • It provides very good treatment of bicycle and pedestrian operations across the River because of the nature of the separated facility. • It avoids conflicts with the west side interchange. It avoids conflicts with the crossing of Tacoma and the need for cyclists and pedestrians to choose one side of the bridge over another. It may

J-48 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received lead to longer travel for bicyclists/pedestrians traveling south on Hwy 43 and to the cemetery. • The bicycle/pedestrian overcrossing of Hwy 43 is an integral part of the design. Alternative B • Provides substandard facilities for cyclists and pedestrians. A minimum 5' bike lane on a high volume roadway is not the type of bicycling infrastructure legacy we wish to leave to the next few generations who will use this bridge. Ten-foot shared use pathways (as we currently have on the Hawthorne Bridge) are inconsistent with the expected volumes projected to use that bridge. With the promise of a pathway on the west side of the river, and a streetcar stop on the west side of the river, bicycle and pedestrian traffic on the bridge is expected to be high. Our knowledge with shared use paths informs us that pedestrians and cyclists alike may have generally negative experiences using such a narrow combined facility and that this type of facility will deter from cycling, or at least not attract to cycling, the very people we wish to have riding in an area as thick with off-street pathways as are found in South Portland. • It creates uncomfortable crossings within a roundabout that will be more difficult for pedestrians to navigate than other proposed options. Alternative C • The undercrossing makes for a terrible design for pedestrians and cyclists. In recent years the City has closed pedestrian undercrossings because of the unsafe conditions fostered by covered, out-of-the-way and car-free public spaces. • An alternative that would avoid pedestrians and cyclists being underneath would greatly improve this option. Alternative D • It provides very adequate facilities. Most importantly it provides opportunities for faster cyclists to separate themselves from both slower-moving cyclists as well as from pedestrians by creating 6.5' bike lanes. At the same time, this option provides adequate width for pedestrians to share space with slower-moving cyclists (one-way) cyclists. Alternative E • It is awkward in the unbalanced cross-section it presents for pedestrians and cyclists. The suggested 8-foot pathway on the south side is too narrow for shared use and includes connections at the west end that are difficult at best. The shared 16-foot pathway on the north side is likely too narrow for the expected volumes of two-way bicycle and pedestrian traffic the bridge is expected to carry in the future. Cross Section Elements of Alternatives • For alternative A and C, which do not have sidewalks next to travel lanes, they would benefit from having pedestrian access via a sidewalk in case of stalling or other emergency access issues. They may be required as part of reconstruction. • All alternatives should have the preferred bicycle lane and sidewalk width in the east end of the bridge at SE 6th Ave: that is, 12ft of sidewalk and 6.5 ft wide bicycle lanes. Per the Tacoma Main Street Plan, sidewalk width is 12ft and is to be acquired via dedication of land for right of way from adjacent properties. • Alternative E’s transit lanes. The EIS does not clearly state what the transit benefits would be in terms of travel time/operations savings. Transit lanes do not seem to provide for sufficient travel timesavings to merit the extra cost. General

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-49 Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received • 36 ft curb-to-curb or wider would better satisfy emergency response needs and special events. • A cycletrack design should be analyzed. • The alternatives would benefit from the continuation of the third, non-continuous lane from Tacoma to be carried all the way across the bridge. This would allow vehicles to rely less on bicycle facilities during emergency/special situations but it would not lead to more vehicle capacity on the bridge and on the corridor. Other elements • The impacts of long bridge closure on the City’s emergency response are significant. • The impacts of long bridge closure on travel patterns and access to commercial areas are significant. • The impacts of long bridge closure on bicycle and pedestrian accessibility across the Willamette River are significant. • Bridge architecture, as with tolling and funding, is an important element that, even though it is not prominently detailed in the EIS, it does have a bearing in the City’s decision on the Locally Preferred Alternative. 172 Tom Armstrong, Portland Bureau of Received via Mail In Planning (172_BOP_Sellwood_Bridge_DEIS_comments_12-22-08.pdf) Dear Mr. Pullen: The City of Portland's Bureau of Planning offers the following comments on the evaluation of the potential impacts of the Sellwood Bridge Project in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). The Bureau of Planning supports the rehabilitation or replacement of the Sellwood Bridge, especially as a means to restore east-west transit service, enhance pedestrian and bicycle connections, and provide for future expansion of the streetcar network across the Willamette River. However, the Bureau of Planning thinks the DEIS does not adequately consider or address the following issues: Consider the long-term impacts of the width of the bridge deck. The Sellwood Bridge project will restore and enhance a regional mobility corridor through the Sellwood neighborhood and Tacoma Main Street. By adopting a narrow definition of the project and project area, the DEIS does not adequately address the long-term impacts to livability in the Sellwood neighborhood in terms of community cohesion, north-south access across Tacoma Street, or vehicle cut-through traffic in the neighborhood. More importantly, the DEIS analysis of bridge deck cross-section alternatives does not consider the implications of the physical curb-to-curb width and the potential for future reconfiguration of the cross-section into a four-lane vehicle bridge. Create a more rigorous analysis of the greenhouse gas emissions. The DEIS includes a blanket statement that all alternatives have the same energy impact because the traffic volumes would be the same under all build alternatives. However, this analysis fails to consider the impacts of the travel time benefits on Highway 43 and the potential to induce additional vehicle traffic on this route. Also, the DEIS does not analyze the potential impact of enhanced transit service from dedicated transit lanes (Alternative E). This analysis is critical given the state, regional, county, and city goals with respect to climate change and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Address the impacts of re-establishing a de-facto freight route. The DEIS mischaracterizes the truck impacts as “enhancing local delivery service” when the project will re-establish a regional east-west truck route across the river with a forecasted 1,600 trucks per day. The DEIS also does not directly address the potential conflicts between 1,600 trucks and a forecasted 9,350 pedestrians and bicyclists. These potential conflicts need to be factored in the evaluation of the size, type and

J-50 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received location of bicycle and pedestrian facilities and would appear to favor a significant separation or separate facility. The DEIS does not adequately assess the impacts of this large volume of trucks on the character and quality of the Tacoma Main Street and its potential to degrade the attractiveness of the area for transit-oriented, pedestrian-friendly development. Re-evaluate Alternative C with respect to the pedestrian/bicycle facility as a separate facility that utilizes the structural support of the bridge, but not necessarily running directly under the bridge. As shown in the illustration below, a separate ped/bike facility that is attached to the bridge structure but separated from the bridge deck would provide a buffer from the vehicle traffic while achieving cost savings by utilizing the bridge structure and minimizing the number of in-water structures. Also, a winding ped/bike path gives greater linear length to absorb needed changes in elevation, which will provide a gentler slope to be more bike and pedestrian friendly. If properly configured it is conceivable that the ped/bike path could be almost at the same level as the roadway at the crest to minimize the height of the bridge for navigational clearance, thereby saving cost. Separating the ped/bike alignment and elevations can also optimize their east and west landings by providing direct connections to the trails on either side of the river and not requiring sharp corkscrew ramps. Concerns about safety, illegal camping, and pigeons are moot due to the exposure to the elements and the fact the alignment is for the most part not under the road deck. Evaluate the risk associated with optimizing the west interchange to provide access to River View Cemetery. Maintaining bicycle access to and through River View Cemetery is an important, but potentially risky objective. The final interchange design should be contingent on the acquisition of a public easement to maintain public access through the cemetery. At the same time, a cost-benefit analysis should consider other alternative routes or facility enhancements that provide an equivalent bicycle access from the bridge to SW Terwilliger Boulevard. Ensure the west interchange is designed to optimize the future capacity for streetcar service across the Sellwood Bridge. Transit corridors are a fundamental component of Portland's growth management strategy and all infrastructure investments should be optimized for higher capacity transit. Specifically, the DEIS evaluation of the three interchange alternatives does not address the suitability of the interchange design for streetcars in terms of slopes, curve radii, alignment, and ramp length to enable a streetcar connection across the bridge and onto the Willamette Shoreline Trolley tracks. 173 Alan Mela Received via Mail In (173_AlanMela.pdf) I'm Alan Mela. My wife Karen & I own the Office Building at 380 SE Spokane – under the East end of the Sellwood bridge. We very much appreciate the work the Citizen Task Force has done in discussing and evaluating alternatives to replace the Sellwood Bridge. Receiving community input, considering it in light of past regional / local transit plans, and bearing in mind requirements for current transportation construction has been a difficult job. We have taken the surveys, and written some letters expressing our opinions on the situation as it has progressed. We also appreciate the consideration the Policy Advisory Group has given to the process and community concerns. Our office building seems originally to have been a door manufacturing plant comprising part of the East Side Mill complex in Sellwood's early years. Much evidence of that era remains in the exposed rough-hewn ceiling rafters & joists and post & beam supports, and even a large walk-in safe (built in Ohio) installed on the first floor that is used now for document storage. Not to mention some footings for an old bridge that was incorporated into the structure in the late 1920s. The office-clients range from Professionals, to Crafts-manufacturing offices, to Non-profits to Specialty Press. An eclectic and enjoyable group, many have been there for a number of years.

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-51 Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received This is not "your average office building". It is a very interesting place, and a special community of businesses – that we have had a great time working with. It is also a very 'efficient' building – expenses are low relative to comparables. And it exemplifies re-purposing and updated use of a major part of Sellwood's history – reinforcing the character of the immediate neighborhood and the community of Sellwood (which appeals to us from so many perspectives). It would be a shame to lose it. Karen & I are in the process of retiring to Portland (though looking to continue working), and to that end have bought a home nearby (an updated 1930s cottage). Aside from our 'day jobs' and raising a family, over the course of 30+ years we have owned seven small interesting (residential) income properties. We have enjoyed improving them & left them better for our tenure. This is our first office building, bought four years ago – intended to be the last, and a major source of retirement income. We are very seriously impacted by this. Most of the alternatives require condemning our office building. So we are looking at having to go through the very arduous process of finding a replacement within the narrow property-exchange-driven constraints of time, finances, and type of property. Doing this while transitioning into 'retirement' will only be more complicated and difficult. As we understand it, Alternative E would only 'take' it for nearly a year – vacating the building to remove the old bridge. There are multiple renters with varying lease expiration dates – as leases expire and vacancies rise, we still have to pay the mortgage & other bills. This also presents major challenges. The article on our building's history in the October BEE commented that in 1924 automobile travel was deemed less important than lumber operations, so that the old bridge had to be built to accommodate the Mill – a truly mind-boggling notion today. What remains of the Mill may have to be removed to accommodate a new bridge and its automobile traffic. But we have hoped that the 'Troll Building' might continue to be a part of the Sellwood community, a tie to its past, and to support such a terrific group of clients for many years into the future. 174 Bob Akers, 40-Mile Loop Land Trust Received via Mail In (174_Sellwood_Br_Final_EIS_letter.doc) The 40-Mile Loop has enjoyed great success and is now approximately three-fourths complete. As you know the 40-Mile Loop is a linear open space and trail network encircling much of the western part of Multnomah County and is nearly 140 miles in length. Of the 16 remaining gaps in the Loop, the Sellwood Bridge is one of the most important and strategic as the Loop makes its way back and forth from the west side of the Willamette River to the Springwater Section of the trail via the Sellwood Bridge. The 40-Mile Loop cannot be completed without it crossing the Sellwood Bridge. Equally important is that the trail over the bridge be a multi-use trail (12' wide), separated from traffic, not just sidewalks and bike lanes. The trail has become an important part of the region's multi-modal transportation system. This multi- use crossing is essential for serving the public in the years to come as alternative transportation becomes more and more important. Thanks for your consideration and assistance with “Closing the Loop” 175 Zari Santner, Portland Parks & Received via Mail In (175_Sellwood_Bridge_001.pdf) Recreation As detailed in the Draft EIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation, lands owned and managed by Portland Parks & Recreation (PP&R) will be adversely impacted by Alternatives A-E. As stated on page 4(f)-1 Project actions requiring use of such resources must document that no feasible and prudent alternatives to their use exists, and must fully consider measures to minimize harm to those resources. The Director of PP&R must agree in writing that the project has avoided or minimized impacts to park lands

J-52 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received affected by the project. The following are PP&R's preferred elements and ranking of alternatives (some with suggested modifications) based on avoiding or minimizing impacts to natural areas, developed parks and bike/pedestrian trails with the project area. Public safety and park access were also considered when selecting preferred elements and alternatives. Portland Parks & Recreation Preferred Options for 4(f) Evaluation Preferred Project Elements East-side Connection Free flow intersection as shown in Alternatives A and B. A proposed modification would be to include a bike/pedestrian only signal. West-side Interchange Signal interchange as shown in Alternatives D or E. Access Road to Powers Marine Park PP&R staff and visitors currently access Powers Marine Park from Hwy 43 and the Willamette River. New staff vehicle access can be made from relocated and improved west-side Greenway Trail. PP&R staff do not need an access road as shown in Alternatives A, B, and D. Bridge Location Rehabilitate or replace in current location as shown in Alternatives A-D. Bicycle/Pedestrian Path Location 1st Choice: Underneath the bridge deck if the bike/pedestrian deck is off-set from the motorized use deck. This is a modification to Alternative C first proposed by Arun Jain of the City of Portland Planning Bureau. 2nd Choice: On the bridge deck as shown in Alternatives B or D. 3rd Choice: Separate bike/pedestrian bridge as shown in Alternative A, though PP&R would prefer a different location. Ramp between bridge and trail should be located in the developed area to the south, outside natural resource area. Preferred Alternative as Detailed in the DEIS 1st Choice: Alternative C with a signal interchange on the west-side, free flowing intersection at the east-side connection and the bike/pedestrian deck off-set from the vehicular deck. 2nd Choice: Alternative D with a free flowing intersection at the east-side connection with a bike/pedestrian only signal. Oaks Pioneer Church PP&R does not support alternatives that impact or (potentially) involve relocation of Oaks Pioneer Church (Alternatives A, B-temp detour bridge, and E). The following table details the rationale for selecting the preferred element and alternative and mitigation options for off-setting unavoidable impacts to park properties. Element or Alternative/Rationale/Proposed Mitigation East-side Connection, Free flowing intersection with a signal for bike/pedestrian crossing. (PP&R recognizes it is not the lead Bureau on this issue)/Avoid adding vehicles to neighborhood streets that serve as Willamette Greenway (Spokane) that full signal or under-crossing would make possible/ - West-side Connection, Signal intersection; Hwy 43 relocated farther west as shown in Alternative D/Minimize impact on natural area acreage, width and connectivity from wider roundabout and trumpet designs/Minimize impact of pair of spiral ramps by shifting both landward out of river and

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-53 Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received away from river bank. Minimize impact of spiral ramps by design to extend bike/pedestrian route along bridge approach ramps or to provide straighter ramps partially above west-side trail Bridge location, Rehabilitate or replace in current location/Although bridge will be somewhat wider, this area is already impacted and avoids new impacts elsewhere/ - Bicycle/Pedestrian Path Location, 1st Choice: Underneath the bridge deck if the bike/pedestrian deck is off-set from the vehicle deck. This is a modification to Alternative C./Make the most direct connections to trails on both sides of river by minimizing the vertical climb; Eliminating the three layer spiral ramp; Eliminating need for on-street travel; Least impact to natural resources./Minimize loss of riparian area by relocating Hwy 43 to west as in Alternative D; Replace riparian area and improve habitat connectivity northwest of bridge. Bicycle/Pedestrian Path Location, 2nd Choice: On the bridge deck as shown in Alternatives B or D./Less confusing and potentially out of direction travel if cyclists and pedestrians are next to vehicles; Less desirable trail to trail connection; More impacts to natural resources/Minimize impact of pair of spiral ramps of pair of spiral ramps by shifting both landward out of river and away from riverbank; Consider extending bike/pedestrian route along bridge approach ramps or partially straightening ramps above west-side trail; Replace riparian area and improve habitat connectivity northwest and southwest of the bridge. Bicycle/Pedestrian Path Location, 3rd Choice: Separate bike/pedestrian bridge as shown in Alternative A though PP&R would prefer a different location./Impacts of smaller bike/pedestrian bridge in Sellwood Riverfront Park are less than that of larger vehicular bridge adjacent to Sellwood Riverfront Park and Oaks Pioneer Church; Additional impacts to natural resources./Minimize loss of riparian area by relocating Hwy 43 to west as in Alternative D; Replace riparian area and improve habitat connectivity northwest and southwest of vehicle bridge; Relocate the bike/pedestrian spiral southward, out of the existing natural area. If you have any questions about PP&R’s comments, please contact me, or Brett Horner, Planning Manager, at (503) 823-1674. 176 Erin Hayes Received via Web Site My biggest concern, as a Sellwood-Moreland community member, is the affect of traffic in our neighborhood. Tacoma Street used to be terrible to cross, it was a 4-lane mess. Over the last several years, we've worked to create a much better Tacoma Street which encourages pedestrian use. It still needs needs further efforts, but as a community, we're working on it. We need to build on what we've created, not destroy it by increasing traffic. Apparently commuters from Clackamas County have felt that their needs are more important than the people actually living in the neighborhood. Despite the fact that they aren't paying for the bridge. They don't care about Tacoma Street traffic or the pedestrian community. It's clear they're working to ensure our neighborhood become the most convenient thru-way for their inter-county commute. The DEIS needs to take Tacoma traffic concerns to heart as we do. Please don't cave to the demands of people who don't even live in the county. Thank you, Matt, Erin and Josh Hayes 177 Greg Olson, Multnomah County Received via Mail In (177_12-19- Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory 08_BPCAC_Sellwood_DEIS_Letter.pdf) Committee The Multnomah County Bicycle and Pedestrian Citizen Advisory Committee (BPCAC) appreciates the opportunity to provide input on this critically important project. Representatives of BPCAC have

J-54 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received participated in the project's community involvement process and have been impressed with the openness and comprehensiveness with which this effort has been conducted. BPCAC recognizes the importance of the Sellwood Bridge in providing a transportation connection fro all modes of roadway travel and that some modes such as bicycling and walking have been at a growing disadvantage due to design and operational shortcoming of the existing structure compared to modern standards and travel needs. BPCAC also recognizes that the context for solving the Sellwood Bridge problem is a difficult one with competing environmental, modal, planning, and funding interests. Because of this complexity, BPCAC has chosen to focus its input on important design characteristics a successful project solution must have to serve bicycle and pedestrians users rather than signaling out a recommended design alternative. These essential characteristics would be: • An operationally safe and attractive crossing for bicyclists and pedestrians that encourages a growing use of these modes. The design should be mindful that these users range from experienced riders and walkers to casual recreationists including small children on a family bicycle outing. A sufficiently wide multi-use path or a combination of shoulder bicycle lanes and sidewalks could be suitable for meeting this need. • Full network access for non motorized travelers. Linking bicyclists and pedestrians just to Greenway trails or adding the Cemetery cut-through does not go far enough in addressing bicycling and walking as key travel modes for the future. Within the 75-year design life of the new bridge, it is reasonable to expect improvements along Highway 43 to support non- motorized travel – an important consideration in choosing the design for the west intersection. • A secure crossing for bicyclists and pedestrians that gives users a reasonable feeling of safety from criminal activity or other attractive nuisances. This would be especially important for solutions that involve removing bicyclists and pedestrians from the view of other travel modes and activities. • construction and phasing plans that minimize disruption to bicycle and pedestrian travel. Non motorized modes of travel are generally more adversely impacted by lengthy detours or prolonged route closures that other travel modes. • Convenient pedestrian and bicycle access to transit on Tacoma Boulevard and Hwy 43. • A visual asset that is attractive to the different user modes and complements the natural setting and community context. • Consider principles of sustainability in the design and maintenance of the facility. Among the alternatives currently being considered, Alternative "D" comes the closest to achieving the above desired characteristics. Please keep this committee informed of the Board's plans for the Sellwood Bridge. 178 Paul Henson, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Received via Mail In (178_SellwoodbrDEIS.doc.pdf) Service The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Sellwood Bridge Project, SE Tacoma Street and Oregon State Highway 43, Multnomah County, Oregon. The Service has reviewed previous National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) stages of this proposed project through the Collaborative Environmental and Transportation Agreement for Streamlining (CETAS) process. Early agency coordination through the CETAS process has the goal to effectively implement the policy of avoidance, minimization, and mitigation of impacts to natural resources and to provide early input regarding a project's impacts under other laws, such as the Endangered Species Act. As project planning continues, the Service anticipates working with the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) through CETAS on recommendations for

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-55 Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received appropriate restoration and/or mitigation associated with a preferred alternative per our Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401) responsibilities. A no build, and five build alternatives have been presented in the Sellwood Bridge DEIS. The five build alternatives include two alternatives that involve rehabilitation of the existing bridge (Alternative A includes a separate bike/pedestrian bridge), and three replacement bridge alternatives. Of the three replacement bridge alternatives, alternatives C and D would be built along the existing bridge alignment while Alternative E would be on a new alignment north of the existing bridge. The proposed project site is within a heavily developed corridor generally with degraded environmental conditions. However, the Willamette River provides andoromous and resident fish habitat and is a critical migratory corridor. Riparian habitat in the Willamette River corridor is relatively limited laterally but does provide some habitat to various species of resident and migratory birds. Much of the historical habitat was forested wetlands and uplands. Currently, commercial and residential development occupy most of the land around the proposed Sellwood Bridge Project with Oaks Bottom Park just north and River View Cemetery to the east providing forested open areas. The Service supports Alternative C with the through-arch bridge because we believe it has the fewest impacts on the aquatic and terrestrial habitats in the Sellwood Bridge Project area. The Service believes Alternative C best balances the long-term environmental objectives of minimizing habitat removal and disturbance, minimizes the amount of new impervious surface needing stormwater management, and beneficially reduces the amount of bridge structures (number and volume) in the Willamette River which influences fluvial processes and fish passage. The Service is interested in the development of a restoration or mitigation plan that compensates for habitats being impacted in a biologically sound and equitable manner. Determining the location, habitat quality and type and the long-term management of sites are important factors the Service wants to remain involved in the for the Sellwood Bridge Project. The Service will continue to work on the alternative specific environmental mitigation items through the CETAS team process. If you wish to contact us to discuss these comments, please contact David Leal of my staff. 179 Michael Brodeur, Sellwood Medical Received via Web Site Clinic I have a medical clinic on S.E. 133th and Umatilla. We provide primary care medical pediatric and specialty cardiology services. Closing the bridge would be difficult for our patients and staff who come from the west side. I live in Sellwood Harbor. Bridge option "D" would displace nine and possibly twelve families. Therefore option "D" should not be a consideration. The effect of the project on people and families is the most important priority. I appreciate all the work that has been done 180 Julie Weis Received via Web Site Keeping the Sellwood Bridge open during construction of a replacement bridge is essential -- hence I support either Alternative D or Alternative E. My husband and I bought our home in Sellwood in 1998 and never dreamed that our access would be cut off for an extended period of time by a bridge closure. I travel the bridge twice a day, both for work and to access service providers on the immediate west side of the bridge. There simply is no good alternative route for those of us in Sellwood seeking to travel in that area -- forcing people to take the Ross Island Bridge would be incredibly wasteful of resources and time, not to mention extremely disruptive.

J-56 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received 181 Dee Horne Received via Web Site As I live in Sellwood close to the bridge and commute to Beaverton each day, my first priority is to keep the bridge open during the entire construction process. Also, the whole neighborhood is defined by the quaint small businesses that would suffer if the bridge were closed. My choice is D as future development is possible, bridge will be open, safety considerations for bikes, peds and cars are dealt with, not as many businesses, residences to be removed. The interchange on each end I'm not so concerned about as long as it is smooth and doesn't create huge back ups as is now. There should be access for autos entering from south of Tacoma during morning rush hour. Perhaps a light half way between bridge and 13th or light at east end of bridge for commuters between 12th and river, south of Tacoma to merge into traffic and onto bridge during commute times. This light would only function at commute times. Thank you for your consideration of my comments. 183 Barbara Sloop Received via Web Site You have accumulated many statistics and figures on the Sellwood Bridge and have a decision to make. I am an 18 1/2 year resident of Sellwood Harbor Condominiums and, in contrast, offer an emotional, human price tag for you to consider. I am a widow in my seventies, living on a fixed income (which has diminished considerably in this distressing economy), and my wonderful home is one of the four which would be removed for Alternative D. This alternative would affect me tremendously, but would affect all the others living at Sellwood Harbor, as well. It would actually destroy our entire community of seniors – financially, emotionally and aesthetically – by reducing revenue to the condo association for monthly expenses and by destroying its amenities and basic ambiance. None of us wants to move at this stage of life but if we did, our condos are not saleable with this onus on the property and our property values continue to be severely eroded. This fact wouldn't matter if it were only on paper and we did not have to move at great expense. In contrast, Alternative E, which we all favor, has many positive factors: it impacts office space (easily relocated) instead of homes; it is the least expensive (if built at 64') and quickest to build; it lands on stable soil on the west bank of the river; it retains Oaks Pioneer Church (which was moved to the present site and could be moved slightly to the north) and Oaks Park with little impact. We residents of Sellwood Harbor are proud and active participants in the Sellwood neighborhood. We LOVE the location and do not want to lose our homes – but we are also thinking people and offer these sound reasons for you to study and select Alternative E. Alternative D does not consider the impact on the lives of good citizens. It is a known fact that when people have major changes in their lives (a death in the family, divorce, loss of job, loss of home, etc.), people become ill. Think of your own parents in such a situation. I urge you to vote for Alternative E as the best long-term solution. 184 Michael Crean Received via Web Site Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) – An LCCA is the most appropriate methodology to compare project alternatives which contain rehabilitation and replacement options. It would more accurately estimate the overall costs of project alternatives and result in the selection of a design that ensures the facility will provide the lowest overall cost of ownership consistent with its quality and function. It is because it factors in not only construction cost but operation and maintenance costs as well as economically useful lives of the various alternatives. For instance the economical useful life of a rehabilitation option is much shorter than that of a new replacement. Its' maintenance and operation costs are also higher. These would be taken into account with a LCCA.

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-57 Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received 185 Jim Friscia, SMILE Received via Web Site As a member of the Sellwood Moreland neighborhood, I want to be sure that whatever choice is finally made takes into account the Tacoma Main Street plan that as adopted by the city. I also want to reiterate the position as taken by the SMILE board that any choice made: 1. Avoids increasing traffic pressure on the two lanes of Tacoma Street; 2. Does not increase neighborhood cut through traffic; and 3. Preserves the economic vitality, ambience and prestige of the Oaks Pioneer Church, a nationally registered historic structure. Personally I also want to add that I support replacing the bridge on the current alignment and that bridge closure during construction be minimal or not at all to avoid adverse impact on neighborhood businesses. Thank you. 186 Dustin Posner Received via Web Site 1) Preferred alternative is option 'B'. 2) I really dislike the separate Alternate bike/pedestrian bridge to the north of option 'A' 3) I really dislike the underdeck pedestrian/bike section of option 'C'. 4) Option 'E' is totally unacceptable because of the destruction of the little community chapel building in Sellwood park. 187 Adam Barka Received via Web Site The West side a traffic light intersection, or a trumpet shape intersection. The bridge cross-cut should be Alignment B, this has enough space for both peds, bikers, and vehicles, with the possibility for an extra lane. The East side should have a right-turn underpass onto SE Grand Ave, or a 3 lane setup with the center lane turning North onto SE 6th Ave. Bridge style does not matter, I am a man of function over form. \ The open house very informative since I had the chance to ask engineers about what has to be done on the bridge. Phasing also makes more sense after a small economic discussion, and there were also some structural and historical point made clear which I didn't find in the DEIS – namely that a very small part of the structure on the East side is ~120 years old. I'd either support a light or the trumpet shaped intersection. Roundabout would be very hard to deal with. However, a light means a built in cost of operation... This is just a note on making it efficient in the long run too. Thanks you for asking for our opinion. 188 Jim Brick, Oregon Department of Fish Received via Mail In (188_Sellwood_Bridge_DEIS.doc) and Wildlife The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) has reviewed the DEIS for the Sellwood Bridge Project and offers the following comments: ODFW supports alternatives and design options that create the least amount of negative impacts to

J-58 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received fish and wildlife populations. When the final alternative and design options are chosen, ODFW looks forward to working with the Oregon Department of Transportation and Multnomah County to assist in the final design or mitigation measures that provide the most benefit to fish, wildlife and their habitats. ODFW also provides the following specific information pertaining to the DEIS: 3-13 Water Quality-ODFW suggests mapping proposed locations of water quality treatment facilities for inclusion into the FEIS. 3-14 Hydraulics-Balancing of cut/fill Page 3.151: 3.14.3 Mitigation- ODFW recommends round piers as a mitigation option. Inwater bents with square pier designs create greater scour than round piers. Inwater bents with square piers also increase the amount of large woody debris captured which can lead to gravel bar development. Excavating stream banks as a mitigation measure to offset potential “rise” in the FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area is not advisable. This type of mitigation measure destroys valuable riparian habitat, upsets habitat forming process and likely require additional mitigation to offset impacts to stream and riparian function. 3-15 Aquatic Resources; Page 3-156: Habitat in the Project Vicinity- The sentence within the last paragraph of this section states, “The lower river was used by salmon and steelhead trout as a migration corridor”. A clarifying sentence is needed. Historically the lower Willamette River was a major rearing area for salmon and trout. In the resent past, as a result of human influences on the river, the lower Willamette is primarily considered a migration corridor. Recent ODFW investigations documented evidence of salmon spawning in the lower Willamette River. Page 3-157: Other Anadromous Fish Species- ODFW suggests changing the title to: Other Native Anadromous Fish Species. American Shad are an anadromous fish species but a non-native fish species. Page 3-160: Piers in the River- This is a good opportunity to discuss the type of instream habitat within the proposed cross section of the river and how various pier types (square, round, ect.) effect or would not be affected by scour associated with different pier shapes. 3-16 Vegetation Page 3-166: Mitigation & Page 3-170 Mitigation (Stephens Creek)- Removal of mature trees within the project area will occur as a result of the project. ODFW suggests utilizing mature large woody debris in either the restoration project on Stephens Creek, donating them to a local watershed council or other entity with planned restoration projects within the lower Willamette River basin. 3-18 Wildlife Page 3-174: Build Alternatives-Environmental Consequences- This section states no effect on Peregrine Falcons. This section also states, “American Peregrine Falcon uses the area, but has not nested on the Sellwood Bridge”. Recent reports (October 30, 2008) by Audubon field workers indicate a falcon fledgling sighting on the Sellwood Bridge in the spring of 2008. The Audubon Society plans to monitor the site in the spring of 2009. ODFW suggests monitoring of the site with plans for mitigation measures assuming nesting is occurring on

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-59 Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received the bridge. If the final bridge design chosen does not contain elements that would lead to successful nest building then a nest box should be considered for placement on the bridge. Page 3-175: Alternative Specific Impacts and Mitigation: Mitigation measures to minimize impacts to wildlife from blasting should be included in the FEIS. Appendix F-Summary of Permits and Clearances Needed: Need to included ODFW-Fish Passage Plan approval (OAR 635-412) 189 Thomas J. Walsh Received via Mail In (189_TomWalsh-SellwoodCommentL.pdf) Subject: 1) Sellwood Bridge Draft Environmental Impact Statement. 2) My preferred alternative for the project Dear Mr. Pullen: I have some comments on the DEIS. I have labeled them with the number and title of the section of the DEIS to which they pertain. The DEIS contains a lot of useful information. However, it does not comply in many areas with the National Environmental Policy Act and its implementing regulations. The DEIS is supposed to give the environmental consequences and impacts of the proposed actions [40 CFR 1502.16]. It is not at all complete in this respect and for one environmental effect assessed, noise, it is erroneous, misleading and contradictory. My comments are not exhaustive. Although, I discuss some technical issues and I am certain that what I say is correct, I claim no technical expertise. Following the comments on the DEIS, is a brief discussion of my preferred project alternative. It is a modified version of Alternative C. DEIS COMMENTS Section 1.6 Why is the project needed? The Sellwood Bridge is described as a Truck Access Street. Some Sellwood neighborhood streets are also truck access streets. In the DEIS there is little discussion of the need for or the benefits of large trucks having ready access to the area and none whatsoever of their adverse effects. Most local businesses cannot accommodate them. There is little parking for them. The few that currently make deliveries often double park on side streets leaving barely enough room for an automobile to pass. They make a lot of noise (see Section 3.1.9 below). Their exhaust fumes, especially under certain atmospheric conditions, are obnoxious and unhealthy. The bigger ones fail to stay in designated lanes when making turns. When they turn at street corners they sometimes go onto the sidewalk. Also, drivers waiting in left turn lanes may have to back up out of the way of a truck so that it can complete its turn. Trucks block the line of sight at street intersections when they ignore the law and park too close to the intersection, which they often do. Section 2.3 Construction Activities Blasting will be used on the west side of the river for all build alternatives, most likely at night and on weekends. No information on the size, frequency, noise and shock generation, chance of damage to nearby structures from ground shaking or details on the times of day – other than that they will be at night – of these blasts is provided. The purpose of an EIS is to inform the public of environmental effects, especially adverse ones, which in this case has not been done. This should be remedied in the FEIS. Section 3.18 Wildlife It is well known that sea lions are found in the Willamette River. The federal Marine Mammal Protection Act makes it illegal to harm them. Possible impacts on them of this project are ignored in the DEIS. Some people do not like them, but others enjoy seeing them. Deer may venture into the project vicinity. I have seen them on East Island while walking on the Springwater Trail. The bald eagle uses the project area. It is still listed as threatened by the state. There is a federal Bald Eagle

J-60 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received Protection Act. Compliance with federal and state mandates for treatment of the species is not mentioned in the DEIS. Further, the public is interested in any detriments to the eagles which might occur despite compliance with the mandates. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service has responded to a recent petition from the Center for Biological Diversity, et al., and agreed to consider the red tree vole for listing under the Endangered Species Act. This creature lives in Douglas fir trees and, according to park personnel, inhabits Tryon Creek State Park. The northern boundary of the park is about a mile from the west end of the Sellwood Bridge. It is possible that the vole can be found in Douglas firs close to or within the project and that it could be listed by the time construction is initiated. If there is any possibility of this situation arising, then the effects of the project on the vole must be treated in the EIS Section 3.19 Noise. There are a number of problems with the noise analysis in the main DEIS volume. They appear to have come about from commission of errors and attempts to mislead. In the DEIS (Fig. 3.19-10), traffic noise levels are given at selected locations affected by the project for what is described as existing conditions. They are not for existing conditions. They were computed assuming that the current vehicle weight limit of 10 tons was not in effect. This limit was imposed in 2005. A limit of 32 tons had been set in 1985. The composition of the traffic over the bridge used in the computations included all vehicles licensed for highway use. No mention is made of this fact. One has to happen to come across it in a document [Sellwood Bridge Project Noise Technical Report, CH2MHILL] which is not issued with the DEIS but is only available upon request. The result of this deception is to make the existing conditions appear noisier. The proposed alternatives, by comparison with these fictitious existing conditions, will cause a lesser increase in noise than they really do [Noise levels memorandum, Table 1, Noise Technical Report]. Also given in the DEIS are the predicted levels for the future traffic conditions at these locations for the different alternatives. The noise levels are said to be in units of dBA. This is basically untrue. The implication is that they are fast response measurements which is what the human ear would hear. They are not. They are Leq(h) which is the hourly average of the noise in dBA [Noise Technical Report]. Misrepresenting them in this way leads one to believe of course that the noise, though objectionable, is much less worse than it really is. I consider these averages very misleading. They are very much favored by groups and organizations which do not want limits placed on it, e.g., aircraft owners, off-roaders, the Federal Aviation Administration, the USDA Forest Service, Federal Highway Administration, etc. Noise levels should be given in environmental documents as it would be measured by rapid response meter settings (0.2 second) as a function of time. Maximum values and those exceeded 0.1%, 1%, 5%,10%, etc. of the time for each hour of the day should be given. If averages are given for some reason, they certainly should not be mislabeled. Maximum stated values for noise (Fig. 3.19-10) range up to 72 dBA. If they really are in dBA, as the term is ordinarily used, they are much too low. A casual walk along Tacoma St. will show that this value is now constantly exceeded. A low-priced sound meter (may not meet ANSI specifications) indicated that the emissions of most vehicles exceeded 72 dBA and many approached 83, 84 and even 85 dBA. There is even a contradiction in the noise section. Large trucks will be traveling Tacoma St. under the build alternatives. Table 3.19-1 gives the noise of a large truck at a distance of 50 feet as 90 dBA, not 72 dBA. On Tacoma Street, one cannot get 50 feet from passing traffic. Under the Build Alternatives, the resulting increase in noise from traffic is, for the most part, said to be negligible. There will be 9 times the heavy truck traffic on the bridge with many trucks weighing about 4 times that of those currently allowed on the bridge. The daily number of heavy trucks using the Sellwood Bridge in 2035 is predicted to be 1600. That, on average, is more than one a minute. A good portion of the time these large trucks will be accelerating from a stop. They will certainly be noisy (see Table 3-19.1 of the DEIS) and the increase from present conditions, which are bad, will greatly worsen on the bridge and Tacoma St. In addition to the increased truck traffic, on weekdays

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-61 Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received there will be 10 bus trips across the bridge every hour. The claim is made in the DEIS that humans cannot distinguish between noise levels which differ by less than 3 dBA. This may be arguably so. (A chart in a reference on the subject [ Cyril M. Harris, Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control, Acoustical Society of America, 1998, Figure 17.13] would seem to indicate otherwise.) However, humans can certainly distinguish between some Leq(h) which differ by 0 dBA. A constant noise of 60 dBA for an hour is certainly different to the human ear from one which is well above 60 dBA for a few seconds and then silent for the remainder of the hour but which also has an Leq(h) of 60. The noise section seems very confused about the information it is presenting. Currently, traffic noise from OR 43 can be heard, as is admitted, in Sellwood Riverfront Park. It can also be heard in Sellwood Park and is annoying in both places. This situation will worsen with all the Build Alternatives since they will greatly increase the number of trucks using the route. Noise should be inaudible to humans and wildlife beyond the very local, immediate boundaries of its source. For roads, that would be the right-of-way. Even if the Oregon exterior Noise Abatement Criterion of 65 dB leq(h) for a residence is met, the noise at that location is still very intrusive and objectionable. Speech interference occurs at a noise level above 60 dBA when people are more than 6 feet apart and they are not speaking loudly ["Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety," EPA/ONAC 550/9-74-004, March, 1974 - other sources give lower levels for speech interference]. Hard-of-hearing individuals have much more difficulty understanding speech in noisy conditions than do those with normal hearing [Hearing Loss, Harvard Health Publications, 2000]. The needs of those so handicapped should be taken into account in any noise analysis. A letter from the Multnomah County Health Department to the Columbia River Crossing Project commenting on its DEIS [dated June 9, 2008; signed Lillian Shirley and Gary Oxman] cites studies showing the harmful effects of noise on health. Noise impacts from construction equipment such as that from trucks, cranes and other construction equipment is absurdly described as low. Yet, as pointed out above, Table 3.19-1 of the DEIS gives the noise of a heavy truck as 90 dBA and that is at a distance of 50 feet. Drilling of shafts and vibratory compaction are admitted to have high noise levels, but no quantitative data for them are given. Vibration and vibration induced noise are not treated. Mitigations are mentioned in the Noise Technical Report, but are very lacking in detail. Acoustic barriers around stationary equipment is one, but no description of their effectiveness or what the minimum levels would be which would require their use is discussed. Blasting is mentioned briefly in Section 2.3. Noise and shock waves from it and their effects on humans and other creatures are not analyzed. It is common knowledge that many dogs are very disturbed and/or frightened by fireworks. Mine is. The same would be true for blasting. It is reasonable to assume that much wildlife would react similarly. Many nocturnal predators, such as raccoons and owls, have hearing thresholds 10 dB below that of a human with good hearing (threshold 0 dB) [Richard R. Fay, Hearing in Vertebrates, Hill-Fay Associates 1988]. There is a good chance that many animals, both domestic and wild, would be panicked by blast noise. If noise from trucks, which can emit 90 dBA, is stated to be low, what level is considered high? The DEIS treatment of noise is not only deficient, it is illogical. Section 3.21 Air Quality In the determination of the effects of the project on air quality, it was assumed that the traffic levels for all alternatives, including that for the No-build, would be the same. This is perhaps reasonable. However, ignored was the fact that the composition of the traffic differs considerably between the No-build and other alternatives. The number of heavy trucks per day in the latter, projected to be 1600, exceeds the number per day in the former by a factor of 9. The effects of air pollution can be very local. On stagnant air days, when walking on Tacoma St., there is from time to time the smell of exhaust. This exhaust is most likely, and will be for years to come, harmful to those residing on

J-62 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received Tacoma St. and immediately adjacent to the bridge. A long study of children living within 500 yards of freeways showed that they suffered impaired lung function [“Freeways’ tainted air harms children’s lungs, experts say”, Los Angeles Times, January 26, 2007]. Traffic levels on the Sellwood Bridge and Tacoma St. are nowhere equal to that on a busy urban freeway. However, those living very close to the bridge and Tacoma St., say within 15 to 25 yards, may very well be harmed by the exhaust gases. It is asserted that stricter emissions controls on motor vehicles will reduce pollution over time. Contrarily, the letter from the Multnomah County Health Department to the Columbia River Crossing Project states that the increasing use of alternative fuels may worsen air pollution. Ethanol will increase acetaldehyde concentrations. Compressed natural gas will raise formaldehyde levels. Both of these chemicals are said to be probable carcinogens [Sellwood Bridge Project Air Quality Technical Report, CH2MHILL, October 2008]. A more complete analysis of air pollution is required. PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE My preferred alternative would be keeping the current bridge and limiting its use to bicyclists and pedestrians. Of the build alternatives offered in the DEIS, I would like to see a version of Alternative 3 built. No matter which alternative is selected, the current weight limit on trucks of 10 tons should be kept. Large trucks are just too burdensome to the Sellwood neighborhood. Buses could be exempted from this limit. Walking and cycling across the bridge would be much more pleasant if the paths for these modes were separated from motor vehicle traffic and its noise, exhaust fumes and collision danger. This is achieved in Alternative C by putting the pedestrian/bicycle paths on a separate level beneath the one for motorized traffic. One objection to having the non-motorized traffic on this separated path is that its users are not visible to motor vehicle occupants and, therefore, in more danger and less likely to get timely help if needed. There are portions of the Springwater Trail which are not visible from a roadway over much greater distances than the length of the Sellwood Bridge. This does not seem to be much of a problem for the trail or discourage its use. A second objection is that the path suspended beneath the vehicle roadway would be covered overhead and attract the homeless and pigeons. This is a problem. As stated in the DEIS, the problem of the homeless and criminally intent can be mitigated by video cameras. Frequent patrolling by law enforcement would also help. This costs some money. The project sponsors seem ready to spend money on fancy, but not necessarily attractive, structures to make a statement, e.g., the through-arch bridge. Yet, I think, because better law enforcement costs money, it was not listed as a mitigation. Nowadays, most bridge users have cell phones and can easily notify police should any homeless loitering or camping occur. The pigeon roosting problem may be minimized by not having exposed ledges, girders, etc., suitable for their nests. Alternative C should be modified by the elimination of the 2nd traffic lane in the west bound direction in the middle of the bridge. Further, the simplest structure compatible with the underneath bicycle- pedestrian path should be selected. The simpler the structure, the less it will degrade the views of the surrounding cityscape and landscape, both of which are attractive. The through-arch design selected for this alternative is expensive, not pretty, and will interfere with other views. A SE Grand Ave. extension is part of this alternative. The DEIS admits that the extension would increase cut-through traffic in the neighborhood. It therefore should be eliminated from the project. CONCLUSION I ask that you remedy the faults of the DEIS. I further request that one of my choices for preferred alternative and its method of operation (no large trucks) be selected. Livability is very important. It is very beneficial economically. Also, there are ethical duties to the environment and domestic and wild creatures. 191 Claudia Martinez Received via Mail In (191_Martinez.pdf) Mike I am a senior citizen and have arrangements at RiverView cemetery.

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-63 Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received Please seriously consider using Alternative "E" so I can easily access the funeral home there and my family and friends especially the handicapped and elderly can conveniently access. Your consideration is deeply, gratefully appreciated on this matter of concern. Anything but C, maybe D, prefer E 192 Jerome and Judith Partch Received via Mail In (192_Partch.pdf) My wife and I purchased burial plots several years ago at River View Cemetery. One of our reasons for choosing River View was the availability of the Funeral Home at the main entrance of the cemetery. It is our opinion that Alternative "C" jeopardizes the future of the funeral home by closing the lower entrance to the cemetery from Macadam Avenue. The only access to the funeral home would be by a very difficult winding road through the cemetery from SW Taylors Ferry. Alternative C also closes the most convenient cemetery entrance for visitors from southeast Portland and Lake Oswego. Alternative E appears to be the best for continued access both during construction and into the future. But any of the other alternatives are better than C. WE know it is difficult to balance all interests in a project like this, but we urge you to consider the interests of all the people represented by the cemetery and reject Alternative C. 193 Wayne Skall Received via Mail In (193_Skall.pdf) Please do not displace homeowners in order to build a new bridge when option E is available. This is the most sensible option because no residences are destroyed. Residences and families should take precedence over businesses. The church can be moved away from the new bridge just as it was moved before. The temporary detour bridge would totally destroy any chance of our being able to sell our homes at Riverpark Condominium and would create an unlivable situation for us. We would be forced to take legal action and seek total condemnation and fair value for our homes. We would be placed in a construction sandwich which would destroy the quality of life that we now enjoy. 194 Dee Poth Received via Mail In (194_Poth.pdf) I sent a letter with my Sellwood Bridge comments and choices two weeks ago. I would like to add to that letter. I continue to support Alternative E but I neglected to say that I support the 64 ft. span not the 75' span that's being presented in the survey and the EIS. It was made very clear at the Task Force meeting and Policy Advisory Group meeting that this could go forward only if it was understood that all of the alignments and their integral parts could be interchanged among each other. The EIS doesn't address this mix and match concept in its analysis of costs of the alternatives. Multnomah County, in its not very well veiled support of the Alt. D alignment saddled Alternative E with the 75' span. The needs of the Sellwood-Moreland community will be served by the 64' spanned bridge while the threat of a 4-lane monstrosity going through the neighborhood would not be. The bridge can remain open while its being built. There's no question in my mind that the survey will result in overwhelming support for Alt. D, particularly from the neighborhood, because the opportunity to vote on Alt. E as a 64' spanned bridge was not made available to the public. While the survey provided some flexibility on changes to the choice you make, it's not adequate to make the point that we're really voting for the Bridge described in Alt D with an E alignment. Alt. E will not be getting the votes it deserves because it's a vote for a 75' bridge and the community doesn't want it. It's obvious from the EIS numbers that Alt. E as a 64' span bridge would be substantially cheaper to build than Alt. D. Alt. E is the best approach to replacing the Sellwood Bridge. 195 Gerald Fox Received via Mail In (195_Fox.pdf) 1) In the short term, consider replacing the failed west approach with a steel structure.

J-64 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received 2) Appearance is vital. This must be a bridge to be proud of. 3) I think a cable stay would look dramatic and cost less. 4) The tower and abutments could be built around the existing bridge to reduce closure time. 5) See if the military is interested in building a temporary bridge. 6) Make sure the bridge can carry the streetcar. Actually designed for it, not just "lip service" 7) The east/west commute cannot be carried on Tacoma alone. Advocate for a future train service on the Milwaukie/Lake Oswego/Beaverton rail line. 8) Why does this bridge cost 3 times more than the proposed light rial bridge at OMSI? Cut out some or all of the interchange to save cost. 9) If neither Macadam or Tacoma is being widened, why do we need an expensive new interchange? 196 Martha Irvine Received via Mail In (196_Irvine.pdf) To whom it may concern: As a senior citizen who visits RiverView Cemetery where many family members, including my husband are buried, I am concerned about traveling from the East Portland area and not being able to have the lower entrance to River View Cemetery! Please consider maintaining this entrance for all those from the East side of Portland and of Gresham. 197 C. Clark Leone Received via Mail In (197_Leone.pdf) I have read the Draft Environment Impact Statement on this subject, and for the record submit these comments about it. Of the five alternatives, only the "No Build" does not have an adverse impact on the setting of River View Cemetery, an historic resource. Alternative C is the worst, however, for in addition to having an adverse impact, it utterly destroys access from Macadam to the cemetery's historic Superintendent's House (now the funeral home). I am unalterably opposed to Alternative C for the following reasons: 1. My family has lived in and around Portland for five, going on six, generations. Most of my ancestors are buried in River View (even some who did not reside and expire in Portland) and have used all of its facilities. Hence River View is an ancestral burial ground for us. My relatives and I visit the cemetery frequently. a. Because I live in Multnomah Village, I can conveniently use the Taylors Ferry Road entrances. When returning home from the Sellwood or Dunthorpe areas, however, I use the Macadam entrance to visit the cemetery. b. Other family members will encounter great inconvenience if the Macadam entrance is obliterated. Those relatives live on the east side, near Sellwood, or in Dunthorpe, and use the Macadam entrance exclusively. 2. No matter what time of day, and regardless of the season or weather, I see numerous bicyclists coasting from the Taylors Ferry/Palatine entrances down to Macadam, and pedaling uphill from Macadam to Taylors Ferry/Palatine. They use the route as a short cut and in order to avoid heavily trafficked streets. I believe that cyclists will be, and should be, dismayed and outraged to find that the cemetery's quiet, lovely roadway will no longer be available to them. I therefore support Alternative E. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-65 Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received 198 G. Livingston Received via Mail In (198_Livingston.pdf) I am writing to you as an associate member of Riverview Cemetery, in regard to the lower entrance of said property on Macadam Avenue. I am in agreement with the board as to the preference of Alternative E. I have many relatives and friends interned at Riverview and other unfilled plats. I fully support the administration of Riverview on any alternative that seems to be the wisest. 199 Richard Atiyeh Received via Mail In (199_Aityeh.pdf) I was deeply disturbed when I read about the different alternates for the new Sellwood Bridge. My family has been in Portland from 1900. We have may of our family interned at River View since 1920. I do not understand why you have to destroy an old established entrance of a Cemetery that has been in the location since 1882. It was there before the existing Sellwood Bridge was built. Your plan calls for the removal of the historic building that is at the entrance of the cemetery. If the building has to be removed there is no other place for the Funeral Home on the River View property. I think that your plans disregard the people that use the cemetery entrance to visit their loved ones. Some times when you want to change a plan you do not consider who is going to be hurt by your decisions. I have reviewed your 5 alternatives and feel the only one to preserve the River View Funeral Home is E since it places the bridge and west end intersection further north. If this is not possible I strongly suggest ANYTHING BUT C. Thank you for reading my letter and I hope my feelings will be heard by the ones who will be making the decisions. 200 Victor Christiansen Received via Mail In (200_Christiansen.pdf) My wife and I have burial plots in Riverview Cemetery, and live in the Lake Oswego area, so our entrance to the cemetery is from the lower east entrance on highway 43 at what is now the west end of the Sellwood bridge. The lower entrance has so much historical value, and what we will us as our mortuary. The best plan for the west connection to the bridge is the plan E. Plan E would preserve teh historic lower entrance and the funeral home facility. We are losing so much historical property, so when we have choices as we do with this bridge west end, we should preserve what we can. Thank you for your consideration of this matter, and we hope that the Sellwood Project committee will see the merits in saving the historical lower entrance. Many of use use the lower entrance to access the cemetery, and would find some hardship if it were to be removed. 201 Lois and Marty Coplea Received via Mail In (201_Coplea.pdf) Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comment – Additional Comment – Please add to my original letter. Often when expressing concerns and preferences on an important project, it is an afterthought which in its "slow burn" becomes a front and center and extremely relevant thought which should impact the decisions being reached. With that said, please add to our comment letter which should be in the hands of Mike Pullen well before this writing, these additional comments: In reading the EIS there is initial confusion for the reader. There is now clarity of thought regarding

J-66 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received the possibility for different width spans to be adapted. I urge you to focus on the interchangeability of these various spans, if you will, for the various alignments under consideration. There are many considerations, demands, restrictions as well as many possibilities. Let us focus on the Alignment E with the 64' span. Let us ASK WHY THIS ALIGNMENT E WITH A 64' SPAN WAS NOT . . . HAS NOT . . . BEEN MADE AVAILABLE FOR A PUBLIC VOTE? This is our questin to each of you. Why is this possibility being kept away from the public? Why would "A Community Task Force" NOT present this alternative to the community? How can we residents demand this be offered up for vote? With deep concern, 202 Robert Ehni Received via Mail In (202_Ehni.pdf) It came to my attention that the Sellwood Bridge Project may interfere with the lower level of River View Cemetery. At this time there are 5 alternatives that are being considered. I would like you to know that my choice would be option E. I would like the lower level of River View Cemetery to remain unchanged and to also maintain the lower entrance into the cemetery. Thank you for considering my comments. 203 Anne Darrow Received via Mail In (203_Darrow.pdf) Riverview has been in my family for over 60 years when our lot was purchased by my father for his brother who was killed in WWII in the South Pacific. It would be a shame for people to come to the cemetery and have to travel over narrow roads, that were not meant for many cars, to reach the main building. In our case the families no longer live in Portland and are not familiar with the site. Also at issue would be the cost to Riverview. I cast my vote for E. Thank you. 204 Mary King Received via Mail In (204_King.pdf) After attending the public hearing regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, I wish to provide the following comments. Restoring direct TriMet bus service from Tacoma Street across the Sellwood Bridge to downtown Portland is my top priority. I commute by bus to downtown Portland from my home in Westmoreland and support any bridge option that favors public transportation and will not increase the number of vehicle lanes. Bus interchange stops should be included in the bridge design. Although I am in favor of the dedicated transit lanes in Alternative E, I am opposed to its northerly alignment. Providing safe access on the bridge for bicyclists and pedestrians is very important to me. I prefer the pedestrian and bicycle paths in Alternative D. I would also support a double-deck bridge design with a separate lower deck for pedestrians and bicycles, but I don't like the three lane vehicle design of Alternative C. I adamantly oppose Alternative E because it would encroach on Sellwood Riverfront Park. Honoring the Tacoma Main Street Plan is essential. Tacoma Street must remain a two-lane neighborhood street and must not become a through-fare for Clackamas County vehicle commuters. I favor a hybrid design that includes an east-side underpass to allow bridge users to travel to north from Tacoma Street without having to turn left across Tacoma. This will benefit visitors to Sellwood Riverfront Park and the Oaks Amusement Park.

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-67 Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received Avoiding negative impacts to Sellwood Riverfront Park is a significant issue to me. Alternative E is unacceptable because the northerly alignment will diminish the quality of Sellwood Riverfront Park. Noise, visual impacts, air quality and associated health concerns would detract from this important community resource. There is no comparable place to enjoy the river, gather on the lawn for concerts, events, off-leash dog exercising, and a respite from crowds, cars, and congestion. Although Willamette Park is nearby across the river, there is an entry fee. I also value preserving the current location of the Oaks Pioneer Church. Free-flowing traffic is necessary to reduce the potential for cut-through traffic into the surrounding neighborhood on the east side. I would not support a traffic light on the east side of the bridge, and I favor an underpass instead. I do not like traffic circles and prefer the west-side trumpet interchange. Preventing cut-through traffic into the surrounding neighborhood on the east side by keeping traffic moving is very important. Keeping the bridge open would be good. Although I consider the long-term benefits of building the best bridge possible more important than living with bridge closure, ti would be good if the bridge could remain open during construction. Thank you for considering my concerns. 205 Jerry Renfro Received via Mail In (205_Renfro.pdf) I have attended the meetings for the Sellwood Bridge Project for the past two years. I have read the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and considered the five options proposed, Here are my thoughts on the bridge itself. One of the most important resolutions of the bridge project should allow for the smoothest flow of traffic possible upon its completion. I suggest that the trumpet interchange proposed in Option C allows for this. A stop light at each end of the bridge (or either end for that matter) will congest traffic just as many motorists currently experience at the intersection of 13th and Tacoma. A roundabout on the west end of the bridge seems to have a high likelihood of causing major congestion in peak traffic hours as well. Option C resembles what currently exists for the Sellwood Bridge. Although it is not perfect, it is probably the best in maintaining a continuous flow of traffic under all circumstance. The frustration of impatient drivers in stand-still traffic often causes behavior to deviate from the norm in a negative way. The proposed loop at the east end of the bridge for eastbound traffic should be considered regardless of which type of bridge is selected. Traffic bound for Oaks Park or Sellwood Park that is proceeding east over the bridge should not have to negotiate a left-turn on 6th Avenue during peak hours. The cloverleaf loop in Option C resolves this conflict. The underpass associated with the loop also would allow for motorists to get from the north side of Tacoma Street to the south side without having to proceed to 13th Avenue to cross with a traffic light. As mentioned above, adding a traffic light at 6th Avenue would cause unnecessary congestion. Aesthetically, in my opinion the Through-Arch Bridge is the best suited for the Sellwood community. Consider the bridges in downtown Portland. The Hawthorne, the Steele, and the Broadway bridges are works of art. The Morrison is a flat topped bridge that lacks character in comparison to those around it. Thus, the Through-Arch Bridge does justice to the wonderful Sellwood community. In addition, I would suggest lighting the bridge daily at dusk to enhance its beauty. I love cycling, but I hate having to cross the Sellwood Bridge on a bike. If there is oncoming cycling traffic, one person has to stop and hug the cement rail just so the other can pass. Any of the bridge alternatives would greatly help the cyclists of the Portland area. The construction of the new viaduct between East Moreland and West Moreland was a big inconvenience. However, residents mad the best of it and hardly give it a second thought today. I feel

J-68 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received that not long after the Sellwood Bridge Project is complete, motorists will forget about the inconveniences associated with it. It is the businesses in the Sellwood area that we must consider. Can they survive unto a forty-two month period without patrons who would normally use the Sellwood Bridge? If we choose Option C would we then consider building the $30 million temporary bridge? I think residents can make it without the bridge, but the businesses, can they survive? We must be sensitive to the entire community needs. I respect the feelings of those who expressed their concerns at the recent public testimony meeting held at OMSI on December 10th. On a final note, Infrastructure Projects seem to be getting the attention of our President-Elect. Is it possible the Sellwood Bridge Project might qualify as one of these projects? It is certainly worth pursuing. 206 Donaldina Yim Received via Mail In (206_Yim.pdf) Regarding the various proposed design changes for the bridge project that would affect my future home at Riverview Cemetery where many of my family members reside now, I wish to voice my opinion about the different designs proposed. I feel that it is in the best interest of all those who have family and members who enter from the Sellwood Bridge and are used to that entrance to not modify it any more than the suggested "E". It is ridiculous to expect even the younger baby boomers to drive carefully up the curvy road leading to the plot of my most recently buried sister, whom I will be placed next to the next time God calls. Have you tried it during a good day? I was born 86 years ago in Portland and now live in California, which I like but do not wish to be buried here. So when the time comes, I hope you have the consideration and thought to look in the future for my family and maybe your too may pay me the honor of passing by my resting place up one of those curvy hills. Thank you for making an easy "E" alternative plan for that rickety old Sellwood Bridge, which happens to be not as important as it is, teh best way to have accesss to burial sites, such a beautiful one overlooking the Willamette River towards Mt. Hood. God bless you for doing this right thing for us that will be residing at River View Cemetery. Pick alternative "E" please. I like to have flowers to smell where I rest. Thanks. 207 Margaret Foster Received via Mail In (207_Foster.pdf) My option preference is option E for the new Sellwood bridge and I will list the reasons why below: With alternatives A, B, C & possibly D, a temporary bridge could be an option. I do not want a temporary detour ridge. It would make our 49 family homes and property a "construction sandwich" between 2 bridges and render our property valueless. Our property values have already been severely reduced due to the issues created by the uncertainty of what will happen to the property. DEIS p. 3-54, 3-79 With alternatives A, B, C & D we will "temporarily" lose the 14 parking spaces currently under the bridge. Each condo that has one of these spaces pays yearly property taxes on that space. We would need a tax abatement for this issue. DEIS p. 3-52, 3-54, 3-56 Our parking is limited now. With a temporary bridge we would also lose the parking on Spokane Street. Spokane St. is the only access to reach our homes. At the present time it is difficult to gain access to our homes when any special events are happening at Oaks Park. With a large increase in daily traffic of cars, trucks, and large equipment we will have even more difficulty getting in or out of our area. River Park has 49 homes with a number of the residents being senior citizens, some with severe

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-69 Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received disabilities, which makes moving to another location extremely difficult. Increased air pollution and noise from the addition of large trucks and buses when options A, B, C, or D is chosen. Some of these options widen the bridge which also increases pollution and noise and would mean the bridge would only be 10 ft from our building and render our homes unsalable and unlivable. Option E has 4 lanes, 2 of which are for mass transit that could be converted for light rail and streetcars at a future date. This wold be in keeping with the long range goals of Multnomah Co. to reduce carbon emissions and the greening of our Portland area. Options A, B, C & D reserves the right to widen the bridge at a future date which could then cause more homes to be taken out. Option E does not take out any homes. Option E would have no bridge closures during construction of the new bridge. People who work in any of the businesses displaced would not be losing jobs but just relocate to new office spaces. The amount of acreage impacted by option E would be less than nay of the other options (3.8 acres). If using the box girder bridge style it would cost less than A, B, or D and the same cost as option C ($280 million). There would be no phasing with option E so construction could not drag out for many years. 208 Steve and Megan Adkins Received via Mail In (208_4291_001.pdf) Our comments are about three specific points in the Draft EIS, the Detour Bridge, the Bridge itself and the Pedestrian/bike bridge. DETOUR BRIDGE We are unalterably opposed to a detour bridge on Spokane Street. This route as a permanent alternative (blue route) was eliminated early in the process because it would impose almost impossible living conditions on the 49 families living in the Riverpark Condominiums. It would also make working in the office complex adjacent to us completely unacceptable. WE see no reason to imagine that a temporary detour bridge for the years it would take to complete this project is any different. Property Values A detour bridge would sandwich our families between two ugly massive structures for several years. The instant this project was started our properties became almost impossible to sell. A final decision as to the route will make a great positive difference because it will eliminate uncertainty. If however a detour bridge is not immediately removed from the table we may well find our proprieties virtually ruined by the County for a decade. Elimination of Businesses We feel strongly that business complexes are necessary to the health of Sellwood. A detour bridge will further impact the ability of immediately adjacent business properties to thrive. This project has already effectively ruined the chances of getting customers into the new triangle building. It could easily do the same to the brick office complex. Parking/Access to the Park Today we are experiencing an increasing number of safety concerns in the Park and surrounding wooded areas. The homeless are basically taking over the area at night. AT a recent meeting with the Parks Department, the supervisor for the Sellwood Riverfront Park acknowledged this growing problem. The City of Portland has reported many times that all overhead structures attract transients. A detour bridge will certainly cause greater property and pedestrian/bike safety issues that

J-70 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received no one believes the County can control. The County can't control it now. Sellwood Riverfront Park is an important park of Sellwood. Growing safety issues and a detour bridge will unavoidably impact in a negative way, pedestrian and bike access to the park. This will be true for the Sellwood community in general and for our 49 families. Many our our residents and adjacent property owners are dog owners who use the park multiple times throughout the day. Construction of the detour bridge would add to this impact. Noise and Air Pollution With construction on both the north and south sides of Riverpark, increased noise, dust, vehicl emissions and vibration will be inflicted upon the Riverpark residents, thus interfering with their comfort, use of outdoor spaces, including decks, health and the structural integrity of the Riverpark buildings. In that regard, Riverpark owners are already impacted by noise from the current bridge, which will be exacerbated by the construction activity on both sides in addition to noise resulting from the use of the temporary bridge. A detour bridge would be built within a few feet of where several of our families live and sleep. Imagine trying to live and sleep with traffic and the associated noise and vehicle emissions within a few feet your bedroom window. It is absurd to consider this acceptable and will make the homes unlivable for the duration of the project. This will almost certainly result in very public litigation. Cost The cost of the detour bridge is just too high, notwithstanding the financial burden it will put on the facilities it will impact. Should the funds ever get approved it will cost more. it will take longer, it will be here longer and by the time it gets removed will be noisier, dustier with emissions worse than our current bridge. It will almost assuredly be a fiscal and environmental blemish on our community for a decade or more. PEDESTRIAN BICYCLE BRIDGE We should find a cheaper way to build this bridge. We all know that people, bikes and cars/trucks do not blend well on the same road. There are always increased safety concerns and the result is injury to the slowest and smallest. A separate bridge would enhance our existing bike paths and make the existing two lane bridge easier to build. It would also make it easier to build a round about on the est end. This bridge, if built first, would minimize the impact on pedestrians and bikes during a temporary shut down of the existing bridge. REHABILITATE THE EXISTING BRIDGE The Sellwood Bridge should be a permanent 2 lane bridge designed to support the current traffic levels allowed by Tacoma Street only. We do not care about the impact on Clackams County or Lake Oswego. There are alternate ways over the river and they should use them. Clearly, the County technical staff does not want to rehabilitate the existing bridge. Hopefully they will not get their wish. The cheapest solution, which is usually the best solution, is to address the west end issues by building a round about which is the preferred solution in the rest of the world. Then leave the balance of the bridge alone until additional repair monies are necessary to address the east end. It would last another 20 years before we need to repair the east end. Shut down the bridge for the time it takes to address the west end. There are other ways across the river and will suffice for the short time it is down. We have experienced it before and it worked well enough. Leave the east end exactly as it is today. We do not support the around and under to Spokane Street. It will create additional places for transients to collect and will set-up Spokane Street as a couplet to Tacoma. This must be avoided at all costs. We certainly do not trust Multnomah or Clackamas

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-71 Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received counties, Metro, or ODOT to protect our home street. In conclusion, no Temporary Detour bridge should be constructed regardless of the bridge configuration or route that is ultimately selected. A pedestrian/bike bridge needs further fiscal consideration. And, fixing the existing bridge’s fundamental short term problem, which is the west end, is the best solution. 209 Marychris Mass Received via Mail In (209_DEIS_Written_Public_Comments- 2.pdf) #1 choice – no build 1) The best idea of the evening: Building a "skinny" bridge over current bridge, drop it into place!! Great idea! Also just fixing west end and not rebuild. 2) worst idea – E – I was on off-leash advisory committee. It took more than 10 years to get PP&R to adopt an off-leash program. This alignment adversely affects usage of OLA as well as affecting dogs and pedestrians from noise and other pollution and would make access dangerous. 3) Most important!! Clackamas County has to build a bridge. This isn't something we can ignore in the decision!!! 4) Tax the bike users!! They need to pay their share! 210 Mary Vaillancourt Received via Mail In (210_DEIS_Written_Public_Comments- 2.pdf) I was unable to take the online survey. How about the no build alternative? Why? 1. does not disrupt residents and businesses 2. park areas are left intact 3. cheaper 4. do we really want to encourage heavier traffic? So in addition to the no build would it work to build the alternative A ped/bike bridge along side the no build plan? Thanks for all the info. 214 James Larpenteur Received via Mail In (214_JamesLarpenteur.pdf) This isn't a fair fight. In my opinion, the only Build Alternatives to the Sellwood Bridge redo project that will be seriously considered by the decision makers are the Alternative D and Alternative E alignments. I support a modified Alternative E alignment because Alternative D would require condemnation of our home in the Sellwood harbor Condominium and deny to the public the benefits that an Alternative E alignment with an Alternative D 64' span width configuration would provide. It's no secret to anyone closely following the Sellwood Bridge replacement saga that the Multnomah County Project Team is promoting the adoption of the Alternative D alignment. The concept of the Alternative E alignment was created by Sellwood neighborhood residents and active businesses on both sides of the Willamette River to alleviate congestion, disruption and the condemnation of owner occupied homes as well as solve the traffic needs of the local area. Survey recipients should have been given the opportunity to vote for the Alternative E alignment with the Alternative D 64' span width configuration. A strong neighborhood survey vote for Alternative D is every bit a reflection of the neighborhood's objection to a monstrous 75' width span four lane bridge as it is to anything else. Only a fool would ignore the threat of Alternative E as presently configured that at some point in

J-72 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received time some government agency will insist on converting Tacoma St. into a four-lane thoroughfare and disembowel the Tacoma St plan Sellwood residents fought so hard for and finally received. So the survey is fatally flawed fro its failure to permit a fair vote on Alternative E with a 64' width span in competition with Alternative D. It's no answer to say that the survey accommodates changes by the voter to the proffered Alternative. The ability to mix and match various elements of the configurations of each of the Alternatives within the Alternatives was an essential ingredient of the approval by the CTF and PAG of the current selection process. While the check-the-box feature for changes to the county's preferred Alternative (but only check one box) was an attempt to incorporate a mix and match element to the survey, it feel far short of being adequate. To add insult to injury, the County offers the survey participant to make written comments on the form but then advises that they won't be considered. Most participants don't have the background on these rather complex choices to make an intelligent decision and, if they do, the survey choices are confusing and unsatisfying. The closest an Alternative E proponent can come to a reduced span width is a reduction to something like the "narrowest width possible". Checking that box suggests just as well that we ignore bike and ped concerns which are well served by Alternative D and opt for something like an Alternative B configuration. Not fair! The DEIS represents a major body of work and its detail is helpful. Unfortunately, it doesn't go far enough. There is no cost information to provide us with a basis for mix and match analysis which is an essential part of this phase of the project. The public and the decision makers are entitled to know what an Alternative E alignment would cost with an Alternative D 64' span width configuration. That the cost would be substantially less and the time to build reduced is obvious. Much time is devoted in the DEIS to "key differentiators", some of which are made to look like Alternative E would destroy the quality of life in the Sellwood neighborhood. it's amazing how one decibel of increased noise can so tremendously negatively impact the revenues of SMILE. Certainly, the County engineers and SMILE can work out an accommodation for placement of bridge supports and Oaks Pioneer Church that reasonably satisfies both interests. Put another way, is it reasonable to condemn five owner-occupied homes, two of which belong to elderly widows, in order to spare the inconvenience of a possible minor relocation of the church. Although not give such status in the DEIS, there are several positive key differentiators, in addition to substantial cost savings, that should be considered when utilizing the Alternative E alignment with and Alternative D configuration. Alternative is the only Build Alternative: 1) that doesn't require condemnation of owner-occupied homes; 2) that permits use of significant right-of-way land for beneficial use such as additional parkland, a transit center, and additional parking, a current serious deficiency, for Oaks Pioneer Church; 3) that offers a smooth uninterrupted bridge crossing during the entire course of construction; and 4) allows for the west end of the bridge and its interchange to be built on known stable ground, the cost of which can be calculated reliably rather than the unstable ground supporting the existing west end of the bridge, the remediation of which is a presently unknown project. It appears to me that the County has seriously underestimated the right-of-way acquisition costs for the Sellwood Harbor Condominium property it proposes to take for the project under Alternative D. Assuming the County can limit the acquisition of living units to just four, a conclusion we all question, it seems to be taking lightly the acquisition of significant common area including over half of our much needed overflow parking area, and the residual damages to the remaining owners in the complex, particularly the remaining owners in Buildings A and D, by reason of the taking. Neither the DEIS nor anyone else has come up with a plan for financing the project. The DEIS talks generally of building the bridge in phases. What an obnoxious solution to lay on the Sellwood community and others affected. Failure to have a financing plan in place or, at least, have a realistic

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-73 Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received path to provide for one illustrates a lack of commitment by the powers that be to this project. That leads me to my last and most important point that I want to make in this comment letter to you. The owners of Sellwood Harbor Condominiums and River Park Condominiums are being held hostage by this dark cloud of negative uncertainty. Nobody can sell his/her home and at least four owners in Sellwood Harbor have health issues that require them to be living in assisted living facilities. It's absolutely essential that if the County can't raise the funds promptly to construct the Build Alternative of its choosing that the County publicly abandon the rehab/replacement project and proceed with a No Build alternative that meets the current needs of users of the Sellwood Bridge. Please be fair with us. 215 Allen and Mary Lou Dobbins Received via Mail In (215_Dobbins.pdf) This letter is written in strong support of Sellwood Bridge Alternative E. Additionally, the letter carries a message of strong opposition to Alternative D. It ends with an appended personal note. Support of Alternative E: Our reading of the EIS does not apparently point out the following positive features of Alternative E: 1. Alternative E can be built more rapidly than Alternative D. 2. Alternative E can be the least expensive if the same width (64 feet) is used as shown in Alternative D. 3. Alternative E is the only one that has a west side interchange that lands on stable land. 4. Alternative E will have only minimal impact on the nearby city park. Dog-friendly functions and other activities can readily take place underneath most of the spans of the Alternative E. 5. Alternative E will NOT result in the destruction of the beautiful Oaks Pioneer Church. The building is historic, however, the site on which it stands is NOT. Indeed, the church has been moved several times in its life time. 6. Alternative E provides the least disruptive alignment relating to transit. 7. Alternative E is the only one that can later be modified to accommodate future transportation needs. 8. Most importantly, Alternative E is the only alternative that does NOT destroy owner-occupied existing homes! Serious concerns regarding Alternative D: Our reading of the EIS did not seem to address the following matters: 1. The project has provided conflicting information over time about the number of Sellwood Harbor homes likely to be condemned in this project. Initially, planners stated that all of both building A (9 homes, 16 residents) and Building D (3 homes, 6 residents) would be condemned if Alternative D were selected. More recently, the planners revised their estimate such that only 3 homes in Bldg A and 1 home in Bldg D would be condemned. We are skeptical regarding how many homes would ultimately be taken out. Serous questions about both buildings' foundations, engineering integrity, and aesthetics remain. The EIS contains no structure or architectural certification that the Alternative D plan can be implemented with the condemnation only of three homes from Building A, and only one from Building D. 2. The threat of Alternative D is resulting in the holding hostage of all residents of both River Park and Sellwood Harbor Condominium communities (88 homeowners) to the Sellwood Bridge project. At present, none of the residents can sell their property. If Alternative D is selected, this unacceptable hostage situation will continue indefinitely into the future, with dreadful economic consequences dragging on for months or years.

J-74 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received 3. Alternative D will directly negatively impact River Park and Sellwood Harbor either through the loss of resident's homes, because of the proximity of the Alternative D new bridge, or both. 4. Alternative D will directly negatively impact River Park and Sellwood Harbor because of the condemnation of homes and the resulting in reduced operating revenue received by their associations. 5. Alternative D will directly negatively impact River Park and Sellwood Harbor because of the nuisance and annoyance of nearby Alternative D new bridge construction. Consider the following: • All residents in Sellwood are seniors and do not easily adjust to change; • Two of the homeowners directly threatened by Alternative D are widows living on fixed incomes. Acquiring new living accommodations without full reimbursement of resulting costs will be extremely difficult. • One resident directly threatened by Alternative D is suffering from Alzheimer's Disease and is going blind (see Personal Note below). She desperately needs to sell her home for fair market value to receive sufficient revenue to move into a needed assisted living facility. Isn't it more morally defensible to take a minimal amount of public parkland and one office building for a bridge than to take lands covered by significant numbers of homes in which reside live human Oregonians? A personal note from this writer: I am the husband of the woman mentioned immediately above. The threat of bridge widening nearby (Alternative D) is very unsettling to this person. Alzheimer's suffers require a stable environment. She, and I as caregiver, are troubled by the lack of decisions as to where and when the Sellwood Bridge will be repaired. Accordingly, following along the timeline originally published by the project staff, we committed, and mad a serious down payment, to move into the new continuous care facility at Terwilliger Plaza. The time for moving there was September 2008. Unhappily we found ourselves need to withdraw our commitment: the lack of any decisions about the Sellwood Bridge project resulted in the absence of interested buyers of our property, and so we had to remove our names from the list of those interested in moving into that continuous care facility. Indeed, because of the Sellwood Bridge project, we cannot move to ANY qualified continuous care facility whatsoever. If the decision-makers were to select Alternative D, with all its inherent problems of time, unavailable funding, and the unknown financial impact to our property, such a decision would probably lead us to appeal to the powers that be in hopes of an early condemnation and buy-out because of personal health hardship. If, however, Alternative E were to be selected, we are confident that within a reasonable amount of time the value of our property would return to that approximating our two recent real estate appraisals, so we could finally begin to implement the plans for how we will be living the last phases of our lives. 216 Alice Duff Received via Web Site Per your latest newsletter (Nov. 08), I favor Alternative A. 217 Greg Meyer Received via Web Site In reviewing the alternatives sent to me, I am immediately drawn to Alternatives C and D. I essentially like different elements of each. Alternative C: Positives: The Trumpet interchange makes sense. First, no traffic signals and second, while I was initially very excited about the roundabout option, I am concerned about traffic coming off the bridge trying to head south on 43 competing with traffic

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-75 Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received coming from the north (down Macadam from downtown)on 43 trying to get onto the bridge (the main flow of evening traffic). This seems like it will cause major traffic problems, as you a third element to today's problems (you already compete with traffic from the south to get on). Other positives, only displacing 46 employees and one condo. Negatives: 42 month bridge closure...yikes! Alternative D: Positives: Only 30 employees displaced. Adequate bike and ped crossings. Future configurations possible. No closure period. Negatives: The major issue I have is the traffic light. 5 condo units affected. A D/C Alternative? Can you have a trumpet plan with alternative D? Maybe the traffic light system will work well, I just can't tell, but am afraid of a traffic light, especially when there may be a way may to avoid it and have good traffic flow. Thanks for the opportunity to comment! 218 Linda Cahan Received via Web Site I'm sorry I didn't get this in by yesterday – didn't have power. I lived in Connecticut for many years. The state had to replace two bridges that received a huge amount of traffic. One was in Westport, CT – there was very limited room on either side to build a second bridge yet they were able to build a temporary bridge that, while ugly, worked better than the original that was historical. The solution was seamless and traffic was impacted only during the transition times between using the different bridges. The second bridge was on the Merritt Parkway in Stratford, CT. They also built a temporary bridge that worked great and again, traffic was only impacted when the road was "moved" to connect with the temp. bridge – and then with the new (original) bridge. The amount of traffic on both is very high yet the solutions worked very well with low impact. The town of Westport, CT probably has records on how it was done and the Stratford Bridge would have been built through the state – the office would be in Hartford, CT. 219 David Parsons Received via Web Site We received a flyer about the various bridge alternatives for the Sellwood Bridge project, and I can't help but notice that *all* of the build alternatives, including the ones that repair the bridge and replace the bridge on the existing alignment, claim to take ~4 acres of parkland. Why? 220 Christine Donnelly Received via Web Site Alternative E is the only option! I live at Riverpark and any other option would cause further property devaluation. In addition, the construction of a temporary bridge is NOT acceptable as it would cause pollution, dust and an unhealthy environment for residents in the Riverpark community. PLEASE go with "E" option! 221 Patty Rueter, Portland Office of Received via Mail In (221_PattyRueter.pdf) Emergency Management The new Sellwood bridge piers and foundation should be based on bedrock. The river's edge is vulnerable to liquefaction and since major arteries of transportation cross the river it is necessary that the bridges built from now on are adhered to bedrock for stability. The need for our bridges to be on bedrock is due to earthquake risk in the liquefaction zone that is prevalent along the river. 222 Joel Grayson, Maylie & Grayson Received via Mail In (222_Maylie__Grayson_DEIS_letter_12-18- 08.pdf) This office represents the Riverpark Condominium Association, a residential community consisting of 49 family residences. This residential community is located on SE Spokane Street, immediately to the north of the Sellwood Bridge. On behalf of our client, we convey its strong opposition to any plan that includes the construction of a "Temporary Detour Bridge." Among the reasons for this objection

J-76 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received are the following: Negative Effect on Property Values Property values will be significantly reduced, as the Riverpark community would be closely surrounded on both sides by two massive structures. The value and marketability of the Riverpark homes would be severely impacted for an indefinite period of time, which could span a number of years. Should some future decision-makers decide to allow the "temporary" bridge to remain for pedestrian bicycle or other uses then the problem would become permanent, instead of temporary. In addition, mature trees and landscaping, which are important and valuable amenities for the riverside neighborhood, would likely be removed, and the current unobstructed views would no longer exist. In essence, the habitability and marketability of the property will be significantly impacted by the construction of the "Temporary Detour Bridge." The property values will be substantially reduced due to the construction and other impacts set forth in this letter. Congestion and Safety Each option, with the exception of Alternative E, calls for the elimination of 14 parking spaces for the Riverpark residents and guests, with no absolute assurance that they will be restored after construction is completed. This parking is a required developmental element and an important amenity to the community. The elimination of on-site spaces puts serious pressure on other parking resources, including the local streets. A s a result, congestion and safety problems will increase significantly. Construction of a "temporary Detour Bridge" only adds to the se problems, as construction would be performed on both the north and south sides of the Riverpark community, creating a virtual island of land trapped between and under to bridges. In addition, another bridge structure will attract more transients, exacerbating an existing problem in the area. Law enforcement has been unsuccessful in addressing the transient problems and threats to safety that have resulted from the existing bridge. Accordingly, the influx of more transients will only negatively impact the safety of families that occupy these residences. Restricted Accessibility Access to Riverpark will be made more difficult due to the higher level of construction activity, congestion and street closures. This severe restriction on accessibility could have serious consequences, as fire, police and other emergency vehicles will find it more difficult to respond to urgent calls. Air and Noise Pollution With construction on both the north and south sides of Riverpark, increased noise, dust, vehicle emissions and vibration will be inflicted upon the Riverpark residents, thus interfering with their comfort, use of outdoor spaces including decks, health, and the structural integrity of the Riverpark buildings. In that regard, Riverpark owners are already impacted by noise from the current bridge, which will be exacerbated by the construction activity on both sides in addition to noise resulting from the use of the temporary bridge. In conclusion, no "Temporary Detour Bride" should be constructed regardless of the bridge configuration ultimately chosen. While our clients have shown their willingness to cooperate in the effort to obtain an improved bridge and transportation system, they must protect their interests through an lawful means at their disposal. Although litigation is a last resort, our clients are prepared to proceed if necessary. We appreciate the considerations given to the opinions of the Riverpark community, and remain willing to provide any additional information or insight that is required and trust that nay subsequent legal action can be avoided.

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-77 Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received 223 Douglas R. Allen Received via Mail In (223_DouglasAllen.pdf) Dear Chair Wheeler, Chair Peterson, and Councilor Liberty, From the news media, I gather that you are frustrated by the high cost of replacing the Sellwood Bridge at a time when spare money is scarce. I want to offer an alternative approach that will cost less but still do what needs to be done. A complete description is attached as a PDF file. I attended most of the Sellwood Bridge Citizen Task Force and Policy Advisory Group meetings for the Sellwood Bridge, and based on my years of involvement in transportation as a citizen activist, and based on my academic training in structural engineering, I have concluded that the process was deeply flawed, and failed to look at the most promising approach. I have written up my suggestions in the form of official comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, but on re-reading them, I felt that you three public officials might be in the best position to actually consider my recommendations, and push for further analysis. The essential feature of my recommendation is that by using an "orthotropic steel" deck, as was recently used to rehabilitate the Golden Gate Bridge, it will be cost-effective to repair, rather than replace the Sellwood Bridge. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions about what I am recommending. 224 Pat Hainley Received via Mail In (224_PatHainley.pdf) Here are my comments on the DEIS for the Sellwood Bridge. Table 3.7-1 includes a statement that the Sellwood Riverfront Park has no major events. This would be news to the thousands of people who gather each Monday in July for the Riverfront Classics. This is of considerable importance should Alternative E be selected as the bridge would tower over the event and provide less than suitable accompaniment to the performers on stage as well as being a visual blight from both Spokane St. and the park itself. The report fails to identify the Sellwood Community Center as an historic structure that lies within a block of Tacoma Street. Table 3.7-1 refers to the Mayer Boys & Girls Club. Fred would probably like it if his name were properly spelled. Oops! That's right he's dead. OK. His foundation would like it spelled right. Although the DEIS does an admirable job of describing the current status of Tacoma Street, the Tacoma Main Street plan and the current cut through situation, it fails to address the history of the street and how poorly it functioned as a four lane thoroughfare for transit but how successfully it operated to split this neighborhood. To my mind only the Berlin Wall functioned as efficiently. Meanwhile it was the Main Street plan and the neighborhood's support of it that actually allowed for a greater volume of traffic to negotiate this corridor in a two lane configuration as opposed to a four lane. This points out in my mind the most glaring failure of the process. By limiting the scope of the project to 6th Street on the east end and 400 feet on either side of the westside terminus, the citizens task force was forced to deliberate as if what each each end of the bridge attached to was of little import. Thus on the east side you wind up with an access road adjacent to the Springwater corridor or an unworkable signalized intersection in order to provide a means to service Oaks Park. On the west end you get "solutions" that involve "parking" cars on a bridge. For whatever reason it appears that the interchange on the west side has taken on a life and cost of its own. Nevermind that it is not the problem for the morning commuter as they will find themselves queued up soon enough at either Taylors Ferry Road or somewhere along Macadam Avenue. And for the evening commuter there is not an interchange possible that will do anything except speed them to

J-78 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received a slow motion dance along Tacoma Street. Why spend $72 million dollars so that you can have two through lanes in each direction on Highway 43? For less than 1% of that amount you could solve a chunk of the evening commute problem. Just shut down the light at the mortuary at 4pm so that there are no signals between Taylors Ferry and Dunthorpe. It is amazing to me the amount of time and effort that has gone into that westside interchange just to find that nothing functions any better than what is already there. As for the east end, had the CTF had the chance they may have come up with something very elegant such as a bridge that flys over the existing alignment so that no residences or businesses are trashed, allows for 6th Street to be the access road for Oaks Park and eliminates 6th, 7th and 8th Streets as cut through access points to Tacoma. Guess we'll never find out. PS This does not have to be part of the DEIS commentary but I have to tell you how much the sellwoodbridge.org website stinks when it came to trying to make comments on the DEIS. Why should I have to register with another website (Vuzit) to be able to access the ability to make comments and then why should I have to do anything besides just returning to the sellwoodbridge.org website to then make my comments? I consider myself fairly tech savvy but I wasn't about to sit through a tutorial and learn another program just to basically send an email. But what ticks me off even more is when, evidently, your server sends me some cryptic note about being "read only" when I try to add your email address as a contact to the Yahoo account that I use when I am at home. I had to have John Fyre forward me an email he received from you in order to send this email by the deadline. 225 Joel Fields, The UPS Store Received via Mail In (225_upsstoresellwoodbridge.doc) Thank you for accepting our comments on the Sellwood Bridge Project. As the owner of The UPS Store located just east of 13th Ave on Tacoma Street I have followed the planning process carefully, have a vested interest in the outcome, and have consistently stressed two points throughout the planning process: 1. The City of Portland Tacoma Main Street Plan and Metro's South Willamette Crossing Study both call for keeping Tacoma Street and the Sellwood Bridge at two traffic lanes. It makes no sense to have a larger capacity bridge for vehicular traffic when both ends of the bridge can't handle more. Pedestrian, transit and bicycle uses, however, should be encouraged and addressed. 2. The Sellwood Bridge is the only Willamette River crossing for many miles in either direction. As a result, any closure of the bridge will have a devastating impact to the business communities on both sides of the river over an extensive area. After reviewing both the EIS Executive Summary, the complete EIS, and the Economic Technical Report I do have several concerns on the alternatives and some of the assumptions used in the reports: Bridge Closure: Only Alternatives B (with detour bridge, D and E provide for keeping the bridge open during construction. In my opinion this is a fatal flaw for the no-build and other alternatives. Bridge Cross-Sections: The cross-section used in Alternative E is not consistent with either the South Willamette Crossing Study or the Tacoma Main Street Plan. Of further concern, while the EIS on page 4-23 provides reassurance that the two extra lanes would be dedicated for transit only, it also states on page 4-24 that “wider basic bridge cross-sections (Alternatives C, D & E) would maintain the bridge's flexibility to address future transportation needs because they would provide opportunities for future rechannelization or reconfiguration of the bridge deck.” Clearly, this portion of the EIS is contradictory, and the Alternative E cross-section should be dropped from consideration. All of the

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-79 Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received other cross-sections are substantially consistent with both adopted plans and are acceptable. Economic Impact of Bridge Closure: In reviewing the complete EIS I noted that the East Side Study Area was a very small portion of the greater Sellwood-Westmoreland community. The EIS defines the study area and then applies its economic impacts only on the “study area”- Section 3.6.1 on page 3.71 and notes that further analysis is available in the Economic Technical Report. I obtained that report and quickly discovered that indeed the East and West side study areas were very narrowly defined. The reasoning for this seems to be that since the new bridge will not add additional vehicular capacity there will be only narrow economic changes once an alternative is selected and the bridge is complete. This small study area is illustrated in Figure 4.1 of the Economic Technical Report and in the discussion on page 3-2. The problem is that this line of reasoning is in error when discussing the impacts of the bridge closure because there are no alternative routes across the river for 2.5 miles to the North and 8 miles to the south. This, by definition is a very broad impact area, but in the Technical Economic Report this is ignored because the initial study area is so narrowly defined. There are two questions regarding the economic impacts of the closure: 1) How big will the impacts be on the affected businesses, and 2) Over what area will the impacts occur? My opinion is that the Technical Economic Report answers the first question correctly as discussed in Table 5-1. Ranges of 15% to 35% declines in gross sales sound frightening, but probable. The second question is too narrowly defined in the study and the results are accordingly understated. On page 4-5 of the Economic report it states that there are 93 businesses in the economic study area employing 859 people. My question is what would those numbers be if the economic study area including all of Sellwood – Westmoreland?; or inner SE Portland from Holgate to upper Milwaukie? Alternatives that result in a closure of the bridge will be an unmitigated disaster for the business communities on both sides of the Willamette River far in excess of what the EIS and Technical Economic Report project. In my opinion, based upon my known customer base and my involvement with many of the community businesses, the bridge closure will cause economic disruptions that will extend for a mile or more North and South of the Sellwood Bridge on both sides of the River. I think the Technical Economic Report approach of establishing Tier 1 through Tier 3 businesses is correct; however the area covered should be much, much larger. Stars Antiques, Tilde, Spielworks, American at Heart, Caprial's Bistro, Haggis McBaggis, Springwater Grill, St. Maine, Justin & Burks, Tres Fabu, Hash, and many other specialty retailers and restaurants draw customers to Sellwood- Westmoreland from the entire Portland metro area. Of the limited list named above, only two are included in the reports established study area. In my personal experience at my The UPS Store I have neighborhood customers, pass-through customers, and customers who have discovered my services while visiting the Sellwood- Westmoreland shopping area. As a result approximately 20% of my customers are from a zip code that is not 97202. Finally, many of these businesses have already experienced one bridge closure when the Bybee overpass was rebuilt and remember the severe impacts of that smaller project. For the Bybee crossing alternative crossings of 99E and the railroad tracks were available on Holgate St. and Johnson Creek Rd. In the case of the Sellwood Bridge the alternative crossings of the Willamette River are 2 ½ miles and 8 miles away. This means, under a bridge closure that travel patterns will be widely disrupted over a very large area, with corresponding economic disruptions. My preferred alternative: My preferred alternative is either Alternative D or a reconfigured Alternative E with a reduced cross- section such as used in Alternatives B, C or D.

J-80 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received 226 Emily Roth, Portland, Parks & Received via Mail In Recreation (226_SBDEI_Comments_122208_final.doc) The following are the comments from the City of Portland, Parks & Recreation Department on the November 2008 Draft EIS for the Sellwood Bridge and draft Section 4(f) Evaluation. If you have questions about any of PP&R's comments, please contact Ms. Gregg Everhart at 505-823-6009 or by email: [email protected]. General Comments • Portland Parks & Recreation is the proper name for the bureau. Please make consistent throughout the document. • Remove “Undeveloped” from all descriptions of natural area lands. Natural area land is managed for its natural resource functions and values and PP&R does not consider these lands undeveloped. • PP&R is not a typical ROW land owner. PP&R lands are managed for multiple functions and values including active and passive recreation, habitat for wildlife and fish, views, and environmental education. The Draft EIS states that PP&R will be paid cash for the project ROW within parks based on fair market value of the land. PP&R does not consider this appropriate payment. The functions and values of each park must be evaluated and PP&R compensated based on the impacts to these values in additional park land or enhancements that will replace the impacted functions and values, plus the payment for the ROW. • Westside Riparian habitat along the Willamette River has been greatly reduced within the City of Portland. First priority is to avoid impacts to this habitat type. Any unavoidable impacts must be mitigated with in-kind replacement. • Alternatives should avoid or minimize additional fragmentation to wildlife corridors along the river and between the riparian and upland forests. • If proposed crossing location into Willamette Moorage Park is not changed, then include a fish friendly crossing such as a bridge over the Stephens Creek. • Change “non-programmed” to “passive” recreation for all natural area parks or the natural area of a hybrid park. • Global warming should be addressed in the EIS, not just in Cumulative Effects. FHWA does not have any formal standards but the State of California has done some interesting work for SEQA compliance that could be used in the EIS evaluation. Willamette Moorage Park/Stephens Creek • All alternatives show impacts to Willamette Moorage Park with the proposed relocated Willamette Moorage Park and Macadam Bay Club entrance. The draft EIS does not evaluate other alternatives to this entrance. • PP&R suggests that creating a roadway with a bridge crossing of Stephens Creek in the proposed Trolley ROW, on the west side of the rail track, that goes from the present entrance to SW Miles Street be evaluated as a possible alternative. This would eliminate the impacts to Willamette Moorage Park and the recently constructed Stephens Creek Fish Enhancement Project and keep open the possibility of additional creek restoration work upstream in the future. • If the proposed crossing location into Willamette Moorage Park is not changed, then include a fish friendly crossing such as a bridge over Stephens Creek. Chapter 2.3.2 Construction Methods Common to All Build Alternatives

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-81 Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received • Land-Based Construction – Construction Storage and Fabrication Areas: 0.5 to 1.0-ac. site will be needed near the proposed bridge construction and 5.0 to 8.0-acre site outside the project area. PP&R understands that the sites will be selected based on land availability during construction. Our preference is for sites not immediately adjacent to PP&R property. Chapter 3. 2 Bicyclists and Pedestrians • Figures 3.2-2, 3.2-4, 3.2-6, 3.2-8, 3.2-10: West-side diagrams should show the bike/pedestrian facility to which the new construction will connect (cemetery road); East- side diagram should show the existing Springwater Corridor. This will clarify the length of on-street connection needed to reach off-street trail; please confirm whether or not the stairway between SWC and SE Spokane will be replaced. • Alternative C: Please note the reduced amount of vertical distance that pedestrians and cyclists have to travel in this option. A flatter route should be more attractive to all human- powered users. Are profiles available for the bike/pedestrian route of each alternative? • (Mitigation) Mitigate the lack of “eyes on the street,” noise, pigeon droppings by hanging the bike/pedestrian shared path to side of bridge. It could alternate as proposed by Arun Jain, City of Portland, Planning Department or remain on one side. • Table 3.2-6: the east intersection in this option would impact bicyclists and pedestrians by adding more traffic to the bicycle boulevard on SE Spokane. It is a key access point for pedestrians and cyclists using Springwater Corridor and Sellwood Riverfront Park • (Mitigation) Do not build the east-side under-crossing • Table 3.2-7 and 3.208: “Signalized intersection improves bicyclist and pedestrian crossing of SE Tacoma Street” unless it is a vehicle signal. Adding vehicles would make cycling more dangerous on SE Spokane as well. • (Mitigation) Either do not signalize the east-side intersection or make it bicycle and pedestrian only (subject to PDOT recommendation). • 3.2.5 Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Bicyclist and Pedestrian Impact – revise per comments above. • Add a table that documents the vertical climb from trail on both east and west to high point of bridge (or note length of ramps) [see attached spreadsheet]. For instance, for Alternative B the spiral ramp would contain three loops to get bikes/pedestrians up or down the 1000 feet length needed to ascend or descend from the bridge. This will most likely be a commuting and recreation barrier for most users. Section 3.3 - Right of Way and Relocation • 3-49 – Impacts and Mitigation Common to all Built Alternatives: Access to Macadam Bay Club. The draft EIS only evaluates one alternative for relocating the existing access road. • Willamette Shoreline Trolley and Future Streetcar - The draft EIS does not evaluate any alternatives other than moving of the trolley ROW into Powers Marine and Willamette Moorage natural area parks. • (Mitigation) Proposed Alternative for Macadam Bay Moorage Access: • Creation of a roadway with a bridge crossing of Stephens Creek in the proposed Trolley ROW, on the west side of the rail track, that goes from the present entrance to SW Miles Street to be evaluated as a possible alternative.

J-82 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received • Proposed Streetcar/Trail Alternatives: • Reduce length of double track through the park natural areas (Powers Marine and Willamette Moorage). Establish streetcar ROW in center of Hwy 43. Design multimodal Greenway Trail within existing streetcar ROW, not in the natural area. 3.9 Parks and Recreation • General comment: The scale of maps with aerial photo base and no existing edge of pavement makes it difficult to analyze impacts to natural areas in Powers Marine Park and Willamette Moorage. Although overall acreage is importance, width of the riparian buffer is also significant. PP&R overlaid our west-side natural area parks over Alternatives A-E West 1C drawings to evaluate impacts. • Sellwood Riverfront Park (3-107) – include that the park is used for summer concerts and movies. • Powers Marine Park (3-108) – include that the City of Portland, Bureau of Environmental Services (BES) completed a capital improvement project in the park in 2007. Large woody debris was placed below the ordinary high water line to increase the habitat value for fish. Also, invasive plant species have been removed and native species planted. Ongoing revegetation work is currently funded by BES and PP&R through 2010. • Willamette Moorage Park (3-108) please change “hiking” trail to “shared-use” trail. • Willamette Moorage Park, first column, last paragraph (3-108) – include: the project also included riparian enhancement, removal of invasive and planting native species. • Springwater Corridor Trail (3-108) please add “downtown Portland to” after “connecting” in second sentence of second paragraph • Willamette Greenway Trail (East Bank; 3-109) Add second sentence in second paragraph: …SE Umatilla Street. There is a two-block gap and trail continues between SE Tenino and SE Linn. • Table 3.9-1 (3-110) as noted elsewhere, remove “undeveloped” • Table 3.9-1 (3-110): Area; Functions Impacted column does not address the functions and values of the park that are impacted by each alternative. The EIS needs to address the riverine and riparian functions impacted by the land conversion. • Table 3.9-2 (3-110): Area; Functions Impacted column does not adequately address the impacts to the functions and values of the riverine and riparian habitats impacted by the build alternatives. All alternatives convert approximately 20% or greater area of the park to transportation uses. This will have a large impact on the functions and values of the natural area. • 3.9.3 Direct Impacts, Mitigation, Alternative Specific Mitigation (3-110) – revise per suggestions elsewhere for no reduction park/natural area acreage. Evaluate potential of any land taken from business or residential displacement to be re-used as park/natural area under bridge. • Mitigation Coordination at Local Parks call out box (3-111) – the projects have been completed, update box. • 3.9.3 Bullet for Powers Marine Park (3-111) – the proposed mitigation is not appropriate as the invasive species have been removed from the park and the tree canopy is intact. A fish enhancement project has been completed at the park. Unsure what a river bank stabilization

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-83 Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received project would look like at this location. • 3.9.3 Bullet for Oaks Pioneer Park (3-11) – include economic impacts to SMILE for temporary reductions in revenues from church rentals during bridge construction. • Sellwood Riverfront Park, Alternative A (3-112) – placement of the bridge will increase noise in the park, adversely impacting summer concert and movie programs. • Sellwood Riverfront Park, Alternative A and E (3-112) – The pedestrian/bike alignment will result in removal of some of the existing black cottonwood riparian forest on the riverbank at the west edge of the park. • Willamette Moorage Park (3-112): update mitigation for the park as the Stephens Creek Fish Enhancement Project is complete, including riparian plantings. • 3.9.3 add last bullet before 3.9.4 Summary (3-114): (or where appropriate) that indicates the Willamette Greenway Trail (SE Spokane Street Section) would be impacted by east end interchanges on Alternative C, D, E) with appropriate mitigation being either existing east end intersection or bike/pedestrian only signal [this is park and recreational impact as greenway trail connection to Springwater, WG along river and Sellwood Riverfront park] • Table 3.9-3 cont. Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Park and Recreation Impact, Willamette Greenway Trail (SE Spokane Street Section): replace “None” on C, D, E with “East-end interchange adds vehicles to SE Spokane” • (Mitigation 3.9 Parks and Recreation) purchase that replaces the functions and values lost, not just cash payment. • Mitigation Measure for Specific Alternatives (Sellwood Riverfront Park) add “Contribute funds for completion of Springwater Sellwood Gap (Alternative A) • Mitigation Measure for Specific Alternatives (Powers Marine Park) add “Redevelop Staff Jennings as natural area” (Alternative C) OR • Mitigation reduction (Powers Marine Park) reduce need for mitigation by changing west intersection from trumpet (or roundabout) • Mitigation for impacts to Westside Riparian Habitat must be in-kind replacement. • ‘Daylight’ and restore the existing perennial creeks that are piped through Powers Marine Park. Bridge all trail/ROW creek crossings. • Remove culverts beneath Hwy 43. Replace with structures that allow passage for fish & wildlife. • Remove culvert beneath railroad ROW and construct a bridge crossing at Stephens Creek adjacent to Willamette Moorage Park. • Regrade, revegetate and restore Stephens Creek between Macadam Blvd. and recently completed Stephens Creek Fish Enhancement Project. • Acquire bluff and riverbank lands adjacent to existing Willamette Greenway Trail (East Bank) ROW. Control invasives and revegetate with oak woodland species. • Oaks Pioneer Park – revegetate with native oak woodland species. • Oaks Pioneer Park – Compensate SMILE for any revenue reductions from church rentals during construction. • Sellwood Riverfront Park, Alternative A – noise mitigation should include a noise barrier on the bridge.

J-84 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received • Sellwood Riverfront Park, Alternative A – mitigation should include planting additional large native trees. • Sellwood Riverfront Park, Alternative A - Remove riprap, control invasives, layback slope and increase width of existing riparian woodlands on west edge of park. • Sellwood Riverfront Park, Alternative A - Remove 2 acres of the invasive species black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) in north and east sides of park and revegetate with native oak woodland species. Section 3.11 – Visual Resources • Table 3.11-1 Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Visual Resources Impact: Significant east-side visual change? A – change to “yes” as second bridge will make a visual impact. Section 3.16 – Vegetation • General comment - BES and PP&R have already started revegetation work at Powers Marine and Willamette Moorage Parks and have sufficient funding to continue invasive plant removal and native revegetation through 2010. In addition, fish enhancement projects have been completed at each park. Therefore, these stated mitigation measures are not appropriate. • General Comment: the quality and quantity of riparian habitat along the west side of the Willamette River at Powers Marine and Willamette Moorage Parks may be underestimated in the site assessment components of the DEIS. The parks’ riverine wetlands are dominated by Pacific willow with black cottonwood and Columbia River willow growing on the edges. These willow (Salix spp.) vegetation communities have limited distribution within the City limits. The Oregon Natural Heritage Program has identified Pacific willow shrub swamps as a medium priority ecosystem types for conservation in the Willamette Valley. Although both sites have reed canary grass in the understory, they also still contain patches of native stinging nettle and scattered native shrubs. • All alignment alternatives will convert natural area parks to transportation uses. This will result in a loss of functional habitat, vegetation cover, increase impervious surface, and fragmentation of the remaining riparian corridor. • Plant Communities and Noxious Weeds (3-164 & 3-165): Please provide plant surveys and wetland delineation information. Where is the location of the proposed impact to the Westside riparian habitat? [see section 3.16.3] • 3.16.3 Build Alternatives Section Direct Impacts (3-165-167): Update this section to reflect current revegetation work at Powers Marine and Willamette Moorage Parks by the City. Section 3.17 – Wetlands • Update this section as the Stephens Creek Fish Enhancement Project has been completed. The creek banks have been laid back and restored. The hydraulic connectivity between the floodplain of Stephens Creek and the Willamette River has been restored. Also, invasive vegetation has been removed and native species planted within the riparian zone. Section 3.18 – Wildlife • Update this section to reflect current revegetation work at Powers Marine and Willamette Moorage Parks by the City. • Include bald eagle, Cooper’s hawk, red-tail hawk and osprey as potentially affected avian species within the project areas on both the east bank and west bank of the river. • Amphibian surveys are currently underway at Powers Marine and Willamette Moorage natural area parks.

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-85 Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received • Deer scat has been observed at Powers Marine Park. • Recent sightings of a roosting pair of peregrines on the under structure of the Sellwood Bridge at the east bank. • Update the Wildlife Summary call out box. • (Mitigation) Wildlife passage culverts underneath HWY 43 to allow a connection between uplands and the river. 3.19 Noise • Noise Summary • (Mitigation) PP&R will need to give input on final determination of reasonableness and feasibility during final design of the project. 3.23 Relationship of Short-Term Uses of the Environment and Long-Term Productivity • No edits suggested but note that “Mitigation planned…” (near end of fifth paragraph) will likely be completed as noted above and below. So PP&R is more interested in the use of right-of-way used during construction being returned to park or recreational use, as noted in following sentence. 3.25 Cumulative Impacts • 3.25.1 Past and Present Actions – 1996 (3-200) Springwater Corridor Trail east of SE McLoughlin opened in 1996; the segment of Springwater on the Willamette that passes under the Sellwood Bridge opened in 2003; add 2007 Willamette River Water Trail established, water trail guide published. • 3.25.2 Foreseeable Actions – revise bullet 8: …SE Umatilla Street and SE 19th Avenue at SE Ochoco Street [avoids confusion with only going to SE Ochoco and SE 13th Ave]; revise bullet 15 by adding Sellwood Riverfront Park • 3.25.4 Parks and Recreation • 3-206: the portion of Springwater in the study area opened in 2003. • 3-206, first paragraph. This paragraph does not make sense in light of the proposed impacts to the parks from proposed project. How does this address cumulative effects of the proposed project and other projects such as the trolley on the investments/improvements the City of Portland has already completed to improve the ecological health of these parks? • First bullet (3-206) – the paragraphs describing the west side parks does not adequately address cumulative impacts to the area. Both Powers Marine and Willamette Moorage are natural area parks that are managed primarily for their natural area values with limited passive recreation. The potential 30 percent decrease in parkland and tree canopy and increase in impervious surfaces would adversely impact the fish and wildlife functions of the parks. Also increased visibility and use often adversely impacts wildlife use so increasing the recreation use may not be beneficial to the park. This section needs to address the adverse effects from this project and the proposed trolley on the wildlife functions. PP&R does not manage these parks as hybrid parks like Sellwood Riverfront Park and it is not intending to change the management for this or other projects. (Sellwood Riverfront Park is managed as a hybrid park where the developed portion is managed for active recreation such as the dog off leash area, picnicking, movies, etc.) • Third bullet: add Sellwood Riverfront Park in list for on-going restoration. Add missing bullet that notes that paddling and motorized boating is increasing • 3.25.4 Visual Resources – The retaining wall and rock cuts…could [instead of “would”]

J-86 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received soften since it not entirely certain that vegetation will succeed, particularly with 30 – 80’ high cuts/walls. • 3.25.4 Vegetation • 1st bullet – Off site mitigation for removal of trees within the project areas does not address degradation to the riparian forest within the project area. This section is not addressing cumulative impacts to the riparian system along this side of the river. • 2nd bullet – disagree that magnitude of impact is small when already narrow width of riparian habitat is further decreased. How was 150 acres of Westside Riparian vegetation calculated and where is the vicinity this is mentioned? • 3rd bullet - How does vegetation in the right of way improve wildlife habitat? What species are targeted for this habitat type? Cite studies that show similar right of way plantings that provide habitat and supports native wildlife. • 4th bullet – the project will impact vegetation restoration completed by the City of Portland. This project will adversely impact these restoration projects within the project area. Needs to be addressed in the cumulative effects. • The accumulated impact of walls, wider travel lanes, and new driveways makes a substantial impact on connectivity. This needs to be addressed. • 3.25.4 Wetlands • Add Stephens Creek to list of locations • The City has not restored wetlands at Ross Island. The City has removed invasive species on 44-acres that is City owned and managed. • 3.25.4 Air Quality • 2nd bullet on climate change – does not adequately address the congestion that will be created by an undersized bridge or interchange and the impacts of increased traffic on OR 43 on greenhouse gas emissions within the City of Portland. Chapter 4. Comparison of Alternatives • Table 4.2-3 Bicyclist and Pedestrian Elements by Build Alternative • Safety Concerns (row six) for Alternative C could be mitigated by having separate deck below but to side of vehicles. • Link to Springwater Corridor (row 8) for Alternatives D & E – must use side streets with increased vehicle traffic • Add a row that documents the vertical climb from trail on both east and west to high point of bridge (or note length of ramps) [see attached spreadsheet]. • Tables 4.2-8 and 9 • For Powers Marine and Willamette Moorage parks include the percent of the park impacted by the project, not just the number of acres. • Include functions, values and activities impacted by the alternatives. • (Mitigation) PP&R vehicle access to Powers Marine Park will be from the improved Greenway Trail to avoid additional impacts to the natural area park. • Table 4.2-9 Alternative-specific Impacts to Section 4(f) Properties – Add Willamette Greenway (Spokane Street) – it has impacts for C, D, and E unless east interchanges modified. [This is similar to inclusion of Sellwood Bridge Recreational Trail.]

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-87 Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received • Figure 4.3-2 East-side connection - Add existing and proposed Springwater Corridor to diagram so impacts of traffic on bicyclists is more apparent. • Table 4.4-2 Summary of Impacts by Alternative - PP&R understands that relative significance of each property is considered but the EIS needs to include summary of activities, functions and values are impacted by each alternative. It is not as simplistic as number of sites and acreage. • Willamette Moorage Park (4-33) – delete significant. The amount of acreage that would be impacted is significant for all alternatives if percent is used instead of acres. • (Mitigation) Avoid impacts by taking the bike loop out of the natural area. • 4-33, 2nd bullet – separate Oaks Pioneer Park from Willamette Moorage and Powers Marine Parks. The natural area parks on the west side of the river are significant natural area parks providing intact riparian vegetation, listed fish habitat and wildlife functions. Chapter 4 – Comparison of Alternatives • Page 4-33 Willamette Moorage Park: All alternatives will significantly impact the natural area. Remove “significantly “ from the third line and just state that there are less impact from these alternatives. • Page 4-34 Factor 4 second bullet – Separate Oaks Pioneer Park from Willamette Moorage Park and Powers Marine Park. The later two parks are managed for their natural area functions. They provide significant fish and wildlife functions and riparian habitat along the Willamette River that is in short supply in this area. Fish enhancement projects have been completed at each natural area. Section 4(f) • The DEIS and Section 4(f) documents do not discuss any roadway access alternatives to adversely impacting Willamette Moorage Park. This needs to be disclosed before a de minimis determination can be made. • See all previous comments on the DEIS sections and incorporate where appropriate. • 4(f)-69, Factor 3 and 4 box, third bullet – at both Willamette Moorage and Powers Marine Parks the City of Portland has completed capital investment projects that significantly increased the habitat value of the parks and needs to be protected from adverse impacts to wildlife. 227 Erin Janssens, Portland Fire & Rescue Received via Mail In (227_ErinJanssens.pdf) Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Sellwood bridge EIS. Below are concerns Portland Fire & Rescue has with the EIS and the bridge proposals. Unfortunately, the EIS understates the impact of the current bridge on emergency response, as well as the options identified. Below are issues of the current problems, with desired characteristics following. Issues • Presently, use by Fire apparatus is greatly limited. While ambulances can utilize the bridge, Fire Engines may use the bridge for emergency response only, with speed restricted to 15mph. Given the state of the bridge, this is still taking a chance, and only permitted during emergency response. Other Fire apparatus, including Fire Trucks (necessary at all residential and commercial type fires) as well as Heavy Squads and Water Tenders, are unable to use the bridge at any time, due to weight restrictions. This limits not only emergency operations, but also effective day to day operations requiring movement of companies. • This means significantly longer response times for multiple unit responses, including

J-88 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received residential fires, commercial fires, major gas incidents, hazardous materials incidents, and any type of specialty rescue in SE or SW. • Due to the above, emergency response times are greatly increased (longer response times negatively affects citizens safety, firefighter safety, property loss, and impact to the environment). • This also negatively impacts emergency response on single unit responses when companies in neighboring areas need to cover for first-in Fire apparatus that are already assigned, affecting the safety issues outlined above, as well as response reliability. Ideal/desired characteristics of an improved Sellwood Bridge • New bridge or rehabilitated bridge is preferred over No build option (existing conditions) • Limit closures as much as possible. From an emergency response perspective, ideally, we would like the bridge to be kept open, exercising alternatives (D and E). It is preferable that closures during construction are limited, in exchange for a fully operational bridge in the future. • Ideal/desirable curb to curb cross section for emergency vehicles would be 2 lanes in each direction, or 48 ft, plus bike lanes on both sides with sidewalk(s) for pedestrians. This configuration allows: - traffic to provide right of way to emergency vehicles - minimizes high risk accidents on the bridge by separating different types of traffic (vehicular, bicycles, pedestrians) - during an accident on the bridge, ensures higher likelihood of emergency access from either direction - increases maneuverability and reduces risk of accidents due to less congestion - accommodates for increasing density • 36 ft curb to curb would be a minimum to maneuver an emergency vehicle in mixed traffic. • Due to limited access and water supply issues, request several FDC's to provide water supply on the bridge for response to vehicle fires, hazardous materials or traffic accidents involving pin-ins (high risk/potential of fire during extrication). Please let me know if you have any further questions. 246 Jennifer Goodridge, Portland Bureau of Received via Mail In (246_FW__Sellwood_Bridge_DEIS.msg) Environmental Services BES supports the need for replacing the Sellwood bridge and we understand that there are multiple interests to be balanced in the selection of the preferred alternative. We have prepared specific comments on the DEIS report (see attached file). In addition to those comments on the report text, we also offer the following general comments as feedback on the selection of bridge alternatives: 1. Minimize in-water structures. We strongly support alternative bridge designs that minimize the number of temporary as well as permanent in-water structures such as piers. It is well documented that non-native fish use the areas surrounding in-water structures to prey on small salmonids and other native fish. In-water structures also result in encroachment in the floodway (ordinary high water level) and adversely impact benthic habitat. We therefore recommend against a separate pedestrian/bike bridge or a detour bridge (during construction). 2. Minimize impacts in the Stephens Creek confluence habitat area. The City of Portland has just completed a $1 million habitat enhancement project in the confluence area of Stephens Creek

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-89 Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received and all bridge alternatives include revised access to Macadam Bay Club/Willamette Moorage. This revised access includes road construction and Greenway trail modifications within the project area, resulting in 0.1 acre of wetland impact. We support consideration of fish passage improvements at Stephens Creek confluence area as part of mitigation for habitat loss resulting from bridge construction. 3. Minimize impacts to Parklands. In addition to the Stephens Creek Natural Area, we support bridge alternatives that minimize impacts to Powers Marine Park. 4. Minimize forest and riparian habitat impacts. We prefer a bridge intersection on the west end that minimizes overall loss of trees and specifically minimizes the loss of riparian vegetation. To the extent that tree canopy must be removed to accommodate bridge design, we support designs that place a priority on protection of riparian areas. The integrity of the riparian corridor is a priority consideration for us. 5. Ensure adequate mitigation for habitat impacts. We realize that it is premature to identify specific mitigation actions related to bridge impacts until a preferred alternative is chosen and construction design is further advanced. We will strongly support mitigation concepts and sites that improve fish passage and provide benefits to riparian areas. 6. Reports should include graphics that demonstrate the impacts of the alternative bridge designs. Impacts are typically depicted in a hatch pattern overlay on maps that depict existing resources such as the ordinary high water, wetlands, forested areas, and land ownership boundaries. During the selection of the final alternative, please demonstrate how the bridge design avoids and minimizes environmental impacts. When the impacts are clearly mapped and identified, this helps select appropriate mitigation measures to ensure functional replacement for permanent, temporary, indirect, and cumulative impacts. 247 Cherri Warnke, Portland Water Received via Mail In Bureau (247_DEIS_Review_Comments_16Dec08.xls) I have reviewed the five bridge alternatives, and have perused the DEIS document. I am enclosing a spreadsheet listing my comments regarding the impact each alternative could have on the existing water facilities, as well as concerns the Portland Water Bureau (PWB) has with some other issues discussed in the DEIS. Other PWB staff are also reviewing the DEIS, and may submit their comments under separate cover. Thank you for the opportunity to review the different options and provide input on behalf of the PWB. If you have any questions regarding the attached comments, please feel free to contact me. 1 Relocation of the Willamette Shoreline Trolley further east could impact the existing 30" Steel Southeast Supply Water Line, and vault for the 30" water meter currently located at the west end of SW Sellwood Ferry Rd. 2 The following ten comments list potential West-side Interchange impacts of Alternative A. 2a Depending upon the resulting grade cuts, excavation for the proposed underpass access to Staff Jennings and Powers Marine Park could impact the existing 24" DI water main where it is crossed on the east side of OR 43. 2b Support structures for the northbound bridge on-ramp, and interchange roundabout could impact the existing 24" DI water main located along the east side of OR 43, depending upon their placement overtop of or adjacent to the water main. 2c It appears the fire hydrant located just north of the existing bridge structure and west of the south bound off-ramp lane, would end up located within the travel lane of the newly aligned northbound lane of OR 43.

J-90 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received 2d Support structures for the southbound off-ramp could impact the existing water service for 8421 SW Macadam Ave depending upon their placement overtop of or adjacent to that water service line. 2e The required fill and retaining walls for the access road to the proposed underpass to Staff Jennings, could negatively impact the existing water service for 8421 SW Macadam Ave. That service line will need to be sleeved underneath any retaining wall structures. 2f Support structures for the northbound bridge off-ramp could impact the existing 30" Steel Southeast Supply Water Line and the vault for the existing 30" water meter located at the west end of SW Sellwood Ferry Rd, and/or the existing 36" Steel Southeast Supply Water Line extending north along the access road for Staff Jennings. Any required fill and retaining wall to support the northbound bridge off-ramp could also negatively impact the 36" Steel water main. 2g The fill, retaining wall and bridge structure required for the realignment of the Willamette Shoreline Trolley tracks could negatively impact the existing 30" Steel Southeast Supply Line, and/or the existing 30" meter located in SW Sellwood Ferry Rd. The 30" Steel water line would need to be cased where it crosses under the realigned trolley tracks. The new trolley track location may also require relocation of the existing 30" meter. 2h It appears the existing fire hydrant currently located on the east side of OR 43 north of the access road to Staff Jennings would end up located in the travel lane of the proposed northbound bridge off-ramp. 2i The required fill and retaining wall for the north end of the northbound off-ramp could negatively impact the existing 36" Steel Southeast Supply Line located along the east side of OR 43. 2j The required fill and retaining wall for the proposed relocated Willamette Moorage Park and Macadam Bay Club entrance could negatively impact the existing 2" domestic service for 7720 SW Macadam Ave. That service line will need to be sleeved underneath any retaining wall structures. 3 The following two comments list potential impacts of the separate Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge in Alternative A. 3a The placement of bridge support structures for the separate Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge could negatively impact the existing 16" CI water main on the west side of OR 43, and the existing 36" Steel Southeast Supply Water Line on the east side of OR 43 if they are installed overtop of or adjacent to those water mains. 3b The placement of bridge support structures for the separate Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge could negatively impact the existing 4" DI water main located west of SE Oaks Park Way, and the domestic and irrigation services to Sellwood Park, if they are installed overtop of or adjacent to this water main and those water services. 4 The following 11 comments list potential West-side Interchange impacts of Alternative B. 4a Depending upon the resulting grade cuts, excavation for the proposed underpass access to Staff Jennings and Powers Marine Park could impact the existing 24" DI water main where it is crossed on the east side of OR 43. 4b The required fill and retaining walls for the access road to the proposed underpass to Staff Jennings, could negatively impact the existing water service for 8421 SW Macadam Ave. That service line will need to be sleeved underneath any retaining wall structures. 4c Support structures for the southbound off-ramp could impact the existing water service for 8421 SW Macadam Ave depending upon their placement overtop of or adjacent to that water service line. 4d Support structures for the northbound bridge on-ramp, and interchange roundabout could

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-91 Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received impact the existing 24" DI water main located along the east side of OR 43, depending upon their placement overtop of or adjacent to the water main. 4e It appears the fire hydrant located just north of the existing bridge structure and west of the south bound off-ramp lane, will be end up within the travel lane of the newly aligned north bound lane of OR 43. 4f Support structures for the northbound bridge off-ramp could impact the existing 30" Steel Southeast Supply Water Line, and the vault for the existing 30" water meter located at the west end of SW Sellwood Ferry Rd, and/or the existing 36" Steel Southeast Supply Water Line extending north along the access road for Staff Jennings. Any required fill and retaining wall to support the northbound bridge off-ramp could also negatively impact the 36" Steel water main. 4g The fill, retaining wall and bridge structure required for the realignment of the Willamette Shoreline Trolley tracks could negatively impact the existing 30" Steel Southeast Supply Line, and/or the existing 30" meter located in SW Sellwood Ferry Rd. The 30" Steel water line would need to be cased where it crosses under the realigned trolley tracks. The new trolley track location may also require relocation of the existing 30" meter. 4h The existing fire hydrant currently located on the east side of OR 43 north of the access road to Staff Jennings may be located in the travel lane of the east side of the northbound bridge off-ramp. 4i The support structures for the bike/pedestrian spiral ramps to the Willamette Greenway Trail will impact the existing 30" Steel Southeast Supply Water Line if they are installed overtop of or adjacent to that water main. 4j The required fill and retaining wall for the north end of the northbound off-ramp could negatively impact the existing 36" Steel Southeast Supply Water Line located along the east side of OR 43. 4k The required fill and retaining wall for the proposed relocated Willamette Moorage Park and Macadam Bay Club entrance could negatively impact the existing 2" domestic service for 7720 SW Macadam Ave. That service line will need to be sleeved underneath any retaining wall structures. 5 The proposed temporary Detour Bridge appears to be located directly overtop of the submerged 30" CI Southeast Supply Water Line. Although the river crossing portion of the Southeast Supply Water Line is buried approximately five feet under the river bottom, if the Detour Bridge is built in the proposed location, the Portland Water Bureau (PWB) would be required to re-install this main at a different location and abandon the existing line. Relocation of this pipeline would not only require a lengthy permit approval process, but would also add significant cost to the Sellwood Bridge Project. 6 The following 13 comments list potential West-side Interchange impacts of Alternative C. 6a Any grade cuts required to install the proposed Bike/Pedestrian underpass south of the west side interchange which will cross the existing 24" DI water main located along the east side of OR 43 may impact the water line and require it to be lowered. 6b Support structures for the elevated trumpet interchange could impact the existing 24" DI water main located along the east side of OR 43, if they are placed on top of, or adjacent to the water line. 6c It appears the fire hydrant located just north of the existing bridge structure and west of the existing south bound off-ramp lane, could be impacted by support structures for the proposed elevated trumpet interchange. It also appears that the present location of the hydrant barrel may end up in either the south bound OR 43 on-ramp or off-ramp. 6d Support structures for the southbound bridge off-ramp along the north side of the trumpet interchange could impact the existing 24" DI and 16" CI water mains, as well as the water service

J-92 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received connections for 8240 and 8260 SW Macadam Ave (Staff Jennings), if they are installed overtop of or adjacent to these water facilities. 6e Support structures for the east side of the southbound bridge off-ramp will impact the existing 36" Steel Southeast Supply Water Line if they are installed overtop of or adjacent to that water line. 6f It appears the existing fire hydrant currently located on the east side of OR 43 north of the access road to Staff Jennings would need to relocated so that it is accessible from the newly aligned OR 43. 6g Depending upon where the southbound lane feeding the eastbound on-ramp to the bridge changes from an on grade travel lane to the elevated on-ramp structure, the support structures for the elevated on-ramp could impact the existing 16" CI water main if they are installed overtop of or adjacent to that water line. 6h Support structures for the northbound bridge off-ramp could impact the existing 30" Steel Southeast Supply Water Line in SW Sellwood Ferry Rd if they are installed overtop of or adjacent to that water line. 6i The required fill and retaining wall for the north end of the northbound off-ramp could negatively impact the existing 36" Steel Southeast Supply Water Line located along the east side of OR 43. 6j The required fill and retaining wall for the east side of OR 43 north of this proposed Sellwood Bridge alignment could negatively impact the existing 30" Steel Southeast Supply Water Line and/or the existing 30" meter in SW Sellwood Ferry Rd. 6k Support structures for the proposed Willamette Shoreline Trolley bridge could negatively impact the existing 30" Steel Southeast Supply Water Line. Any at grade crossing with the trolley by this 30" Steel water line would need to be cased where it crosses under the realigned trolley tracks. 6l Support structures for the northbound Bike/Pedestrian bridge off-ramp could impact the existing 30" Steel Southeast Supply Water Line in SW Sellwood Ferry Rd if they are installed overtop of or adjacent to that water line. 6m The required fill and retaining wall for the proposed relocated Willamette Moorage Park and Macadam Bay Club entrance could negatively impact the existing 2" domestic service for 7720 SW Macadam Ave. That service line will need to be sleeved underneath any retaining wall structures. 7 The following two comments list potential East-side impacts of Alternative C. 7a The proposed lowering of SE Grand Ave could expose the existing 6" CI main which crosses the intersection of SE Tacoma St and SE Grand Ave. This section of water line may need to be lowered to accommodate the required cuts in the finish grade of SE Grand Ave. 7b Support structures for the west side of the East-side connection Bike/Pedestrian spiral ramp to the lower deck of the bridge may impact the existing 6" DI main located in a 30' easement west of SE Oaks Park Way extended, if they are installed overtop of or adjacent to that water line. 8 The following 10 comments list potential West-side Interchange impacts of Alternative D. 8a Depending upon the resulting grade cuts, excavation for the proposed underpass access to Staff Jennings and Powers Marine Park could impact the existing 24" DI water main where it is crossed on the east side of OR 43. 8b The required fill and retaining walls for the access road to the proposed underpass to Staff Jennings, could negatively impact the existing water service for 8421 SW Macadam Ave. That service line will need to be sleeved underneath any retaining wall structures. 8c Support structures for the northbound on-ramp to the bridge could impact the existing 24" CI

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-93 Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received water main located along the east side of OR 43, if they are installed overtop of or adjacent to that water line. 8d It appears the fire hydrant located just north of the existing bridge structure and west of the existing south bound off-ramp lane, could be impacted by support structures for the proposed upper level for the west-side interchange. It also appears that the present location of the hydrant barrel may end up in the north bound lane of the realigned OR 43. 8e Any required fill, retaining wall, and support structures for the northbound bridge off-ramp and far north merge lane could impact the existing 36" Steel Southeast Supply Water Line located on the east side of OR 43 if they are installed overtop of or adjacent to that water line. 8f It appears the hydrant barrel of the existing fire hydrant currently located on the east side of OR 43 north of the access road to Staff Jennings will end up in the northbound off-ramp merging lane to OR 43, and would need to be relocated. 8g The existing 30" Steel Southeast Supply Water Line located at the west end of SW Sellwood Ferry Rd could be impacted if cuts in the existing grade are required to connect the proposed underpass access to Staff Jennings with SW Sellwood Ferry Rd. 8h The fill, retaining wall and bridge structure for realignment of the Willamette Shoreline Trolley tracks could negatively impact the existing 30" Steel Southeast Supply Water Line, and/or the existing 30" water meter located in SW Sellwood Ferry Rd. The 30" Steel water line wound need to be cased where it crosses under any at grade crossing of the realigned trolley tracks. The new trolley track location may also require relocation of the existing 30" meter. 8i Support structures for the bike/pedestrian spiral ramp to the Willamette Greenway Trail on the north side of the Sellwood Bridge will impact the existing 30" Steel Southeast Supply Water Line if they are installed overtop of or adjacent to that water main. 8j The required fill and retaining wall for the proposed relocated Willamette Moorage Park and Macadam Bay Club entrance could negatively impact the existing 2" domestic service for 7720 SW Macadam Ave. That service line will need to be sleeved underneath any retaining wall structures. 9 The following four comments list potential East-side impacts of Alternative D. 9a Support structures for the SE Tacoma St bridge structure may impact the existing 6" DI main installed in a 30' wide easement parallel to and south of the southline of SE Tacoma St and west of SE Oaks Park Way extended. 9b The existing two fire hydrants currently located on the south side of SE Tacoma St west of SE Oaks Park Way extended may be impacted by support structures for the SE Tacoma St bridge structure, or may no longer be accessible to fire emergency vehicles due to the widening of SE Tacoma St at that location, and may require relocation. 9c If the SE Tacoma St roadway will be widened at the east end of the bridge structure, the existing fire hydrant on the north side of SE Tacoma St east of SE Grand Ave, may need to be relocated to remain outside of the travel roadway. 9d Support structures at the east end of the bridge structure may impact the existing 6" CI water main in SE Tacoma St crossing SE Grand Ave if they are installed overtop of or adjacent to that water main. 10 The following nine comments list potential West-side Interchange impacts of Alternative E. 10a Depending upon the resulting grade cuts, excavation for the proposed underpass access to Staff Jennings and Powers Marine Park could impact the existing 24" DI water main where it is crossed on the east side of OR 43. 10b The required fill and retaining walls for the access road to the proposed underpass to Staff

J-94 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received Jennings, could negatively impact the existing water service for 8421 SW Macadam Ave. That service line will need to be sleeved underneath any retaining wall structures. 10c Support structures for the northbound bridge on-ramp could impact the existing 24" DI water main currently located on the east side of OR 43, the fire hydrant located just north of the existing bridge structure and west of the existing south bound off-ramp lane, and the existing water service connections for 8240 and 8260 SW Macadam Ave (Staff Jennings), if they are installed overtop of or adjacent to these water facilities. 10d It appears that the present location of the hydrant barrel of the fire hydrant located just north of the existing bridge structure and west of the existing south bound off-ramp lane, may end up in between the northbound travel lane of OR 43, and the northbound bridge on-ramp, which may make it inaccessible to emergency vehicles. 10e Support structures for the northbound bridge off-ramp, including any fill and retaining wall required at the north side of the upper interchange, could negatively impact the existing 36" Steel Southeast Water Supply Line currently located in the access road to Staff Jennings if they are installed overtop of or adjacent to that water line. 10f Support structures for the upper level of the westside interchange could impact the existing 16" CI and 36" Steel Southeast Water Supply Line water mains, currently located in the northbound lane of OR 43 and in the access road to Staff Jennings respectively, if they are installed overtop of or adjacent to these water facilities. 10g Support structures for the upper level of the westside interchange could impact the hydrant run for the existing fire hydrant currently located on the east side of OR 43 north of the access road to Staff Jennings. It also appears that the hydrant barrel will end up underneath the northbound bridge off-ramp, which may make it inaccessible to emergency vehicles. 10h Depending upon where the northbound off-ramp no longer requires support structures as it parallels and merges with OR 43, any required support structures, including any required fill and retaining walls, could impact the existing 16" CI and 36" Steel Southeast Water Supply Line water mains, currently located in the northbound lane of OR 43, if they are installed overtop of or adjacent to these water mains. 10i The required fill and retaining wall for the proposed relocated Willamette Moorage Park and Macadam Bay Club entrance could negatively impact the existing 2" domestic service for 7720 SW Macadam Ave. That service line will need to be sleeved underneath any retaining wall structures. 11 The following four comments list potential East-side impacts of Alternative E. 11a Support structures for the East-side bridge could impact the existing 4" DI water main located west of SE Oaks Park Way north of SE Spokane St, if they are installed overtop of or adjacent to this water main. 11b Support structures for the East-side bridge could impact the existing 6" CI water main and 36" Southeast Supply Water Line located in SE Spokane St between SE Grand Ave and SE Oaks Park Way, if they are installed overtop of or adjacent to these water lines. 11c Support structures for the East-side bridge could impact the existing fire hydrant currently located on the south side of SE Spokane St at 82' west of the westline of SE Grand Ave, if they are installed overtop of or adjacent to this water facility. 11d Depending upon any required support structures, or depth of excavation required to complete the East-side connection with SE Tacoma St, the existing 6" CI water main in SE Tacoma St could be impacted if support structures are installed overtop of or adjacent to this water lines, or if the water main has less than 2' of cover at any point during roadway reconstruction.

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-95 Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received 12 Both the use of bridge structures or standard fill could negatively impact existing water facilities depending upon whether they are installed overtop of or adjacent to an existing water main, water service line or fire hydrant, and depending upon the depth of the proposed standard fill. 13 A PWB crew would need to be on site during any blasting activity along the west bank hillside to monitor the status and safety of the existing 24" DI and 16" CI water mains, and 36" Steel Southeast Supply Water Line. 14 A PWB crew would need to be on site during any drilling or pile driving activity for the bridge foundation in the Willamette River in order to monitor the status and safety of the submerged 30" CI Southeast Supply Water Line. 15 The PWB would like to be kept in the information loop regarding where temporary roadway and retaining walls will be required during construction of the new west-side interchange to determine what, if any, impact they will have on the existing water facilities, and what mitigation work will be needed to maintain the existing water system facilities. 16 The proposed location of the temporary detour bridge will be directly overtop of the submerged 30" CI Southeast Supply Water Line. Although the river crossing portion of the Southeast Supply Water Line is buried approximately five feet under the river bottom, if the Detour Bridge is built in the proposed location, the PWB would be required to re-install this main at a different location and abandon the existing line. Relocation of this pipeline would not only require a lengthy permit approval process, but would also add significant cost to the Sellwood Bridge Project. 17 The PWB would like to be kept in the information loop regarding any required temporary false- work and/or temporary widening of OR 43 in order to determine what, if any, impacts these temporary installations will have on the submerged 30" CI Southeast Supply Water Line, and the two existing fire hydrant currently located just north of the existing bridge structure and west of the existing south bound off-ramp lane, and on the east side of OR 43 north of the access road to Staff Jennings, respectively. 18 The PWB would like to be kept in the information loop regarding any required temporary false- work in order to determine what, if any, impacts these temporary installations will have on the submerged 30" CI Southeast Supply Water Line. 19 Depending upon where a street car station will be located at the west end interchange area of the Sellwood Bridge, that structure could significantly impact the existing water main located in the north bound lanes of OR 43, and/or the existing 30" Steel Southeast Supply Water Line located at the west end of SW Sellwood Ferry Rd and in the access road to Staff Jennings. 20 380 SE Tacoma St, the Sellwood Building, is identified as an East-side impact displaced building in Figure 3.3-3, Figure 3.3-4, Figure 3.3-5, Figure 3.3-6, and Figure 3.3-7, but there is no commentary offered regarding this displaced building. 21 In the second sentence of the second bulleted item in the first column of this page, the size of one of the existing water lines parallel to OR 43 is listed as 32 inches. The correct number is "36" inches. 22 In the "Mitigation" paragraph, it is stated that "Impacted Utilities would be replaced, reconstructed, or realigned." It should also be stated that the Sellwood Bridge Project will bear the cost for all required public water facility relocation and mitigation. 23 The PWB would be interested in seeing a breakdown of the estimated costs listed by impacted utility. For example, what percentage of the $2.87 million estimated for utility relocation in Alternative A is identified as being required for water system mitigation? 24 The PWB is concerned about the potential for damage to the existing 24" DI water main, 16" CI water main and 36" steel Southeast Supply Water Line as a result of cut-and-fill slope activity, the

J-96 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS

TABLE J-1 Text of the Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) IDa Name How Comment was Received installation of retaining walls and other structures within the existing Sellwood Slide area. Destabilization of the soil supporting these water facilities could result in pipe failure. The PWB would like to be kept in the information loop as the exact cut requirements are identified and slide mitigation is developed. 25 The PWB wants to participate in the review of proposed water system mitigation as the preferred alternative design progresses and as more detailed design information becomes available. a The numbering system used for the individuals begins with 48 because the identification numbers could not be reset after the initial 47 “practice” items were entered into (and deleted from) the software database. Other numeric gaps relate to data entry errors.

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-97

Appendix J. Original Comments on the DEIS

Table J-2 lists the commenters on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and indicates how those comments were received. A copy of the original comment document follows Table J-2 for those commenters that have a file name indicated in parentheses following “Received via Open House” or “Received via Mail In.” Sellwood_FEIS_App_J-1.pdf provides the text from all the comments received on the DEIS.

TABLE J-2 Commenters on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) ID Name How Comment was Received 48 Blair Kramer Received via Web Site 49 John Shurts Received via Web Site 50 John Tipton Received via Web Site 51 Chelsea Bianchi Received via Web Site 52 John Russell Received via Web Site 53 Derek Holmgren Received via Web Site 54 Chris Pheil Received via Web Site 55 Doug Prentice Received via Web Site 56 Diane Howieson Received via Web Site 57 Diane Howieson Received via Web Site 58 Dan Pence Received via Web Site 59 Clifford Colvin Received via Web Site 60 Daniel Kaufman Received via Web Site 61 Sharon Marcus Received via Web Site 62 Jim Larpenteur, Sellwood Harbor Received via Open House (062_JimLarpenteur.pdf) 63 John Lattig, Sellwood Harbor Condo Received via Open House (063_johnLattig.pdf) Association 64 Thomas Walsh Received via Open House (064_ThomasWalsh.pdf) 65 Clarke Balcom Received via Web Site 66 Jim Rech Received via Web Site 67 Don Henderson Received via Web Site 68 Roland Haertl, Haertl Development / Received via Web Site Consulting 69 Wayne Skall Received via Web Site

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-1 REVIEW DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION Appendix J: Copies of Comments on the DEIS

TABLE J-2 Commenters on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) ID Name How Comment was Received 70 Zephyr Moore, One Earth Society Received via Web Site 71 Philip Haynes Received via Web Site 72 Austin Pratt, US Coast Guard Received via Mail In (072_US_Coast_Guard.pdf) 73 Robert E and Lucy Wiegand, Sellwood Received via Mail In (73_Robert_and_Lucy_Wiegand.pdf) Harbor 74 Peter Sweet Received via Web Site 75 Ed Murphy, Sellwood Harbor Received via Web Site 76 Renee Moog Received via Web Site 77 Bob and Kristin Howell Received via Mail In (077_ Bob_and_Kristin_Howell.pdf) 78 Sue Conachan Received via Web Site 79 Charles Tindall, Blue Line Received via Web Site Transportation 80 Mark Scherzinger Received via Web Site 81 Mr. Clopton Received via Web Site 82 Mary and Gene Sayler Received via Web Site 83 Kenneth Ruecker Received via Web Site 84 Richard Poulton Received via Web Site 85 Harriet Lesher, River View Cemetery Received via Web Site Plot Owner 86 Emory Powell Received via Web Site 87 Karen Ripplinger, The Silver Lining Received via Web Site Clothing Co. 88 Robert Peterson Received via Web Site 89 Patricia Powell, RiverPark Received via Web Site 90 Steven DeMonnin Received via Web Site 91 Tyler Havener, Resonant Media Co Received via Web Site 92 Judith Brock Received via Web Site 93 Judith (Mrs. Richard H.) Brock Received via Web Site 94 Jamie Strohecker Received via Web Site 95 Blair Campbell Received via Web Site 96 Fred Nomura Received via Mail In (96_Fred_Nomura.pdf) 97 Dee Poth Received via Mail In (097_Dee_Poth.pdf)

J-2 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement REVIEW DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION Appendix J: Copies of Comments on the DEIS

TABLE J-2 Commenters on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) ID Name How Comment was Received 98 Rolph B. Fuhrman Received via Mail In (098_Rolph_Fuhrman.pdf) 99 Cherie Nomura Received via Mail In (099_Cherie_Nomura.pdf) 100 David Noble, River View Cemetery Received via Open House (100_David_Noble.pdf) Association 101 Daniel Houf, Harper Houf Peterson Received via Open House (101_Harper_Houf.pdf) Righellis Inc. 102 Joan Beckley Received via Open House (102_Joan_Beckley.pdf) 103 Greg Ripplinger, The Silver Lining Received via Open House (103_Greg_Ripplinger.pdf) Clothing Co. 104 Magdalena Valdivigso Received via Open House (104_Magdalena_Valdivigso.pdf) 105 Monika DeBrakeleer Received via Open House (105_Monika_DeBrakeleer.pdf) 106 Hazel Gonsalves Received via Open House (106_Hazel_Gonsalves.pdf) 107 William Danneman, South Portland Received via Open House (107_William_Danneman.pdf) Neighborhood Association 108 Mary Anderson Received via Open House (108_Mary_Anderson.pdf) 109 Martha Richards Received via Open House (109_Martha_Richards.pdf) 110 Del Scharffenberg Received via Open House (110_Del_Schurffenberg.pdf) 111 Patti Shmilenko Received via Open House (111_Paiti_Shmilenko.pdf) 112 Mark Romanaggi Received via Open House (112_Mark_Romanaggi.pdf) 113 Peter Pellegrin Received via Open House (113_Peter_Pellegron.pdf) 114 Laura Miller Received via Open House (114_Laura_Miller.pdf) 115 Lorraine Fyre, Oaks Pioneer Church Received via Open House (115_Document1.pdf) 116 Matthew Galaher Received via Open House (116_Matthew_Galaher.pdf) 117 Lois and Marty Coplea Received via Mail In (117_LoisMartyCoplea.pdf) 118 Wendi Tucker Received via Web Site 119 Amy Maki, Sellwood Playgroup Received via Web Site Association 120 Leah Verwey, Campbell Salgado Received via Web Site Studio, Inc 121 Emily Harris Received via Web Site 122 Beth Woodward Received via Web Site 123 Jean Elyse Gilbert Received via Web Site

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-3 REVIEW DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION Appendix J: Copies of Comments on the DEIS

TABLE J-2 Commenters on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) ID Name How Comment was Received 124 Roz Roseman Received via Web Site 125 Priscilla Downing Received via Web Site 126 Bradley Heintz Received via Web Site 127 Martha Mattus Received via Web Site 128 Margery Howie Received via Web Site 129 Emily Gardner, Bicycle Transportation Received via Web Site Alliance 130 John Holmes Received via Web Site 131 Ariel Smits Received via Web Site 132 Nicole Navas, Oregon Department of Received via Web Site State Lands 133 Cordell Hull, TriMet Received via Web Site 134 Loulie Brown Received via Web Site 135 John Wold Received via Web Site 136 Cathy Prentice Received via Web Site 137 Tom Wakeling Received via Web Site 138 Scott Rozell Received via Web Site 139 Maggie Jarman Received via Web Site 141 Mike LaTorre Received via Web Site 142 Reba Tobey, Sofas By Design Received via Web Site 143 Jim Longwill Received via Web Site 144 Tony Dal Molin Received via Web Site 146 Paul Notti, Sellwood Moreland Received via Web Site Improvement League 147 Tom Edwards, Daimler Corp Received via Web Site 148 Cindy Anderson Received via Web Site 149 Shanta Calem Received via Web Site 150 Janet Dockstader Received via Web Site 151 Sheila Catterall Received via Web Site 152 Lance Lindahl, Brooklyn Action Corps Received via Web Site 153 Claudia Hutchison Received via Web Site

J-4 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement REVIEW DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION Appendix J: Copies of Comments on the DEIS

TABLE J-2 Commenters on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) ID Name How Comment was Received 154 Brad Hathaway Received via Web Site 155 David Collins Received via Web Site 156 Sheila Strachan Received via Web Site 157 Mike Coyle Received via Web Site 158 Christie Glynn Received via Web Site 160 Joan Beckley, Riverpark Homeowners Received via Web Site Assoc. 161 Stan Scotton Received via Web Site 162 Frank Winicki, West Linn/ Wilsonville Received via Web Site School District 163 Eric Miller, Sellwood Playgroup Received via Web Site Association 164 Dorene Petersen Received via Web Site 165 Kathleen P. Holahan Received via Web Site 166 Bernie Bottomly, Portland Business Received via Web Site Alliance 167 Dick Springer Received via Web Site 168 Miriam Nolte Received via Web Site 169 Sanford Rome, Theresa Terrace Received via Web Site Apartments 170 Kate MacCready Received via Web Site 171 John Gillam, Portland Bureau of Received via Mail In Transportation (171_Memo_Sellwood_Bridge_PDOT_EIS_Comments.doc) 171 Mauricio Leclerc, Portland Bureau of Received via Mail In Transportation (171_Memo_Sellwood_Bridge_PDOT_EIS_Comments.doc) 172 Tom Armstrong, Portland Bureau of Received via Mail In Planning (172_BOP_Sellwood_Bridge_DEIS_comments_12-22-08.pdf) 173 Alan Mela Received via Mail In (173_AlanMela.pdf) 174 Bob Akers, 40-Mile Loop Land Trust Received via Mail In (174_Sellwood_Br_Final_EIS_letter.doc) 175 Zari Santner, Portland Parks & Received via Mail In (175_Sellwood_Bridge_001.pdf) Recreation 176 Erin Hayes Received via Web Site

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-5 REVIEW DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION Appendix J: Copies of Comments on the DEIS

TABLE J-2 Commenters on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) ID Name How Comment was Received 177 Greg Olson, Multnomah County Received via Mail In (177_12-19- Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory 08_BPCAC_Sellwood_DEIS_Letter.pdf) Committee 178 Paul Henson, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Received via Mail In (178_SellwoodbrDEIS.doc.pdf) Service 179 Michael Brodeur, Sellwood Medical Received via Web Site Clinic 180 Julie Weis Received via Web Site 181 Dee Horne Received via Web Site 183 Barbara Sloop Received via Web Site 184 Michael Crean Received via Web Site 185 Jim Friscia, SMILE Received via Web Site 186 Dustin Posner Received via Web Site 187 Adam Barka Received via Web Site 188 Jim Brick, Oregon Department of Fish Received via Mail In (188_Sellwood_Bridge_DEIS.doc) and Wildlife 189 Thomas J. Walsh Received via Mail In (189_TomWalsh-SellwoodCommentL.pdf) 191 Claudia Martinez Received via Mail In (191_Martinez.pdf) 192 Jerome and Judith Partch Received via Mail In (192_Partch.pdf) 193 Wayne Skall Received via Mail In (193_Skall.pdf) 194 Dee Poth Received via Mail In (194_Poth.pdf) 195 Gerald Fox Received via Mail In (195_Fox.pdf) 196 Martha Irvine Received via Mail In (196_Irvine.pdf) 197 C. Clark Leone Received via Mail In (197_Leone.pdf) 198 G. Livingston Received via Mail In (198_Livingston.pdf) 199 Richard Atiyeh Received via Mail In (199_Aityeh.pdf) 200 Victor Christiansen Received via Mail In (200_Christiansen.pdf) 201 Lois and Marty Coplea Received via Mail In (201_Coplea.pdf) 202 Robert Ehni Received via Mail In (202_Ehni.pdf) 203 Anne Darrow Received via Mail In (203_Darrow.pdf) 204 Mary King Received via Mail In (204_King.pdf) 205 Jerry Renfro Received via Mail In (205_Renfro.pdf)

J-6 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement REVIEW DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION Appendix J: Copies of Comments on the DEIS

TABLE J-2 Commenters on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) ID Name How Comment was Received 206 Donaldina Yim Received via Mail In (206_Yim.pdf) 207 Margaret Foster Received via Mail In (207_Foster.pdf) 208 Steve and Megan Adkins Received via Mail In (208_4291_001.pdf) 209 Marychris Mass Received via Mail In (209_DEIS_Written_Public_Comments- 2.pdf) 210 Mary Vaillancourt Received via Mail In (210_DEIS_Written_Public_Comments- 2.pdf) 211 Robert W. Hadlow, Ph.D., Oregon Received via Mail In (211_RobertHadlow.pdf) Department of Transportation, Region 1 212 Miguel Estrada, Oregon Department Received via Mail In (212_Sellwood_DEIS.pdf) of Transportation, Region 1 214 James Larpenteur Received via Mail In (214_JamesLarpenteur.pdf) 215 Allen and Mary Lou Dobbins Received via Mail In (215_Dobbins.pdf) 216 Alice Duff Received via Web Site 217 Greg Meyer Received via Web Site 218 Linda Cahan Received via Web Site 219 David Parsons Received via Web Site 220 Christine Donnelly Received via Web Site 221 Patty Rueter, Portland Office of Received via Mail In (221_PattyRueter.pdf) Emergency Management 222 Joel Grayson, Maylie & Grayson Received via Mail In (222_Maylie__Grayson_DEIS_letter_12-18- 08.pdf) 223 Douglas R. Allen Received via Mail In (223_DouglasAllen.pdf) 224 Pat Hainley Received via Mail In (224_PatHainley.pdf) 225 Joel Fields, The UPS Store Received via Mail In (225_upsstoresellwoodbridge.doc) 226 Emily Roth, Portland, Parks & Received via Mail In Recreation (226_SBDEI_Comments_122208_final.doc) 227 Erin Janssens, Portland Fire & Rescue Received via Mail In (227_ErinJanssens.pdf) 228 Janet Bebb, Metro Received via Mail In (228_metro_parks.DEIScomments.docx) 229 Melissa Whitaker, U.S. Environmental Received via Mail In (229_SummaryofRatingDefinitions.pdf) Protection Agency 230 Diana Collinson Received via Web Site 231 Bruce Anderholt Received via Web Site

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-7 REVIEW DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION Appendix J: Copies of Comments on the DEIS

TABLE J-2 Commenters on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) ID Name How Comment was Received 232 Cherie Bolton Received via Web Site 233 Susan Narizny Received via Web Site 234 Sandi Swinford Received via Web Site 235 Bob Marshall Received via Web Site 236 Maury Wickman Received via Web Site 237 Barb Pakula Received via Web Site 238 Susan Glosser Received via Web Site 239 Mary Sayler Received via Web Site 240 Gerald Fox Received via Web Site 241 Bernie and Barb Marlia Received via Web Site 242 r c Received via Web Site 243 David McCurry, HNTB Received via Web Site 244 Ed Williams Received via Web Site 245 Robert Platt, R. J. Platt Const. Inc. Received via Web Site 246 Jennifer Goodridge, Portland Bureau Received via Mail In (246_FW__Sellwood_Bridge_DEIS.msg) of Environmental Services 247 Cherri Warnke, Portland Water Received via Mail In Bureau (247_DEIS_Review_Comments_16Dec08.xls)

J-8 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement REVIEW DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION Appendix J: Copies of Comments on the DEIS

ID FName LName Organization ScannedDocument 62 Jim Larpenteur Sellwood Harbor 062_JimLarpenteur.pdf

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-9 REVIEW DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

≠

≥ ≥ Appendix J: Copies of Comments on the DEIS

ID FName LName Organization ScannedDocument 63 John Lattig Sellwood Harbor 063_johnLattig.pdf Condo Assoc

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-10 REVIEW DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

Appendix J: Copies of Comments on the DEIS

ID FName LName Organization ScannedDocument 64 Thomas Walsh 064_ThomasWalsh.pdf

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-11 REVIEW DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

Appendix J: Copies of Comments on the DEIS

ID FName LName Organization ScannedDocument 72 Austin Pratt US Coast Guard 072_US_Coast_Guard.pdf

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-12 REVIEW DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

Appendix J: Copies of Comments on the DEIS

ID FName LName Organization ScannedDocument 73 Robert E Wiegand Sellwood Harbor 073_Robert_and_Lucy_Wiegand.pdf and Lucy

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-13 REVIEW DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

Appendix J: Copies of Comments on the DEIS

ID FName LName Organization ScannedDocument 77 Bob and Howell 077_ Bob_and_Kristin_Howell.pdf Kristin

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-14 REVIEW DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

Appendix J: Copies of Comments on the DEIS

ID FName LName Organization ScannedDocument 96 Fred Nomura 096_Fred_Nomura.pdf

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-15 REVIEW DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

Appendix J: Copies of Comments on the DEIS

ID FName LName Organization ScannedDocument 97 Dee Poth 097_Dee_Poth.pdf

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-16 REVIEW DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

Appendix J: Copies of Comments on the DEIS

ID FName LName Organization ScannedDocument 98 Rolph B. Fuhrman 098_Rolph_Fuhrman.pdf

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-17 REVIEW DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

Appendix J: Copies of Comments on the DEIS

ID FName LName Organization ScannedDocument 99 Cherie Nomura 099_Cherie_Nomura.pdf

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-18 REVIEW DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

Appendix J: Copies of Comments on the DEIS

ID FName LName Organization ScannedDocument 100 David Noble River View 100_David_Noble.pdf Cemetery Association

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-19 REVIEW DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

Appendix J: Copies of Comments on the DEIS

ID FName LName Organization ScannedDocument 101 Daniel Houf Harper Houf 101_Harper_Houf.pdf Peterson Righellis Inc.

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-20 REVIEW DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

Appendix J: Copies of Comments on the DEIS

ID FName LName Organization ScannedDocument 102 Joan Beckley 102_Joan_Beckley.pdf

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-21 REVIEW DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

Appendix J: Copies of Comments on the DEIS

ID FName LName Organization ScannedDocument 103 Greg Ripplinger The Silver Lining 103_Greg_Ripplinger.pdf Clothing Co.

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-22 REVIEW DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

Appendix J: Copies of Comments on the DEIS

ID FName LName Organization ScannedDocument 104 Magdalena Valdivigso 104_Magdalena_Valdivigso.pdf

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-23 REVIEW DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

Appendix J: Copies of Comments on the DEIS

ID FName LName Organization ScannedDocument 105 Monika DeBrakeleer 105_Monika_DeBrakeleer.pdf

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-24 REVIEW DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

Appendix J: Copies of Comments on the DEIS

ID FName LName Organization ScannedDocument 106 Hazel Gonsalves 106_Hazel_Gonsalves.pdf

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-25 REVIEW DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

Appendix J: Copies of Comments on the DEIS

ID FName LName Organization ScannedDocument 107 William Danneman South Portland 107_William_Danneman.pdf Neighborhood Association

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-26 REVIEW DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

Appendix J: Copies of Comments on the DEIS

ID FName LName Organization ScannedDocument 108 Mary Anderson 108_Mary_Anderson.pdf

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-27 REVIEW DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

Appendix J: Copies of Comments on the DEIS

ID FName LName Organization ScannedDocument 109 Martha Richards 109_Martha_Richards.pdf

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-28 REVIEW DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

Appendix J: Copies of Comments on the DEIS

ID FName LName Organization ScannedDocument 110 Del Scharffenberg 110_Del_Schurffenberg.pdf

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-29 REVIEW DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

Appendix J: Copies of Comments on the DEIS

ID FName LName Organization ScannedDocument 111 Patti Shmilenko 111_Paiti_Shmilenko.pdf

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-30 REVIEW DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

Appendix J: Copies of Comments on the DEIS

ID FName LName Organization ScannedDocument 112 Mark Romanaggi 112_Mark_Romanaggi.pdf

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-31 REVIEW DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

Appendix J: Copies of Comments on the DEIS

ID FName LName Organization ScannedDocument 113 Peter Pellegrin 113_Peter_Pellegron.pdf

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-32 REVIEW DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

Appendix J: Copies of Comments on the DEIS

ID FName LName Organization ScannedDocument 114 Laura Miller 114_Laura_Miller.pdf

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-33 REVIEW DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

Appendix J: Copies of Comments on the DEIS

ID FName LName Organization ScannedDocument 115 Lorraine Fyre Oaks Pioneer 115_Document1.pdf Church

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-34 REVIEW DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

Appendix J: Copies of Comments on the DEIS

ID FName LName Organization ScannedDocument 116 Matthew Galaher 116_Matthew_Galaher.pdf

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-35 REVIEW DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

Appendix J: Copies of Comments on the DEIS

ID FName LName Organization ScannedDocument 117 Lois and Coplea 117_LoisMartyCoplea.pdf Marty

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-36 REVIEW DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

Appendix J: Copies of Comments on the DEIS

ID FName LName Organization ScannedDocument 171 John Gillam Portland Bureau of 171_Memo_Sellwood_Bridge_PDOT_EI Transportation S_Comments.doc

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-37 REVIEW DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

Date: 12/22/08

To: Ian B. Cannon, Multnomah County

From: Mauricio Leclerc, John Gillam, Transportation Planning, Portland Office of Transportation

Re: Sellwood Bridge EIS Comments

______

Below are comments focused primarily on the Transportation section of the EIS. Other City bureaus are expecting to comment of different sections of the document. Comments are organized in different sections to address travel patterns, traffic operations, a review of the alternatives from a bicycle and pedestrian perspective, comments on the different cross sections, and other considerations.

Travel Patterns

Traffic Reason for why bridge improvements would not lead to increased vehicular capacity in both corridors is not satisfactorily explained.

Congestion points on the two corridors (Hwy 43 and Sellwood/Tacoma) during peak hours are located at signalized intersections north at Taylors Ferry Rd/Macadam in the west and at Tacoma at SE 13th and SE 17th in the east, as well as on the bridge itself. To increase vehicular capacity, these signalized intersections would have to be widened in addition to widening the bridge. Doing this goes beyond the scope of this project. The Bridge being two lanes also assists in metering traffic volume that otherwise would use local streets on the east side to bypass congestion in the Tacoma corridor.

As a result, travel speed improvements are modest/insignificant (1or 2 mph in 2035) across the River, which leads to unchanged travel patters.

On Highway 43, as a result of west end interchange improvements, there are significant travel speed improvements (up to 7-8 mph) in the immediate area (SW Nevada to SW Riverdale). However, there are still significant congestion points north and south of the study area for people driving the Lake Oswego/Oregon City to downtown Portland corridor. In addition, the geographic constraints of the corridor limit the ability to attract more traffic onto the facility from other facilities. The end result is that the project does not lead to noticeable shifts in auto traffic.

The EIS does not analyze travel impacts of alternatives on opening day, year 2015.

The traffic effects of tolling have not been incorporated into the EIS. This should have an effect on peak travel demand if tolls are instated during the peak times.

Mode split The EIS does not adequately explain the effect of the built alternatives on mode split. EIS is silent on mode split policy at the City and region.

Compared to the No Build option, alternatives A through E provide significant improvements for bicyclists, pedestrians and transit users. The EIS identifies significant latent demand and continued growth of bicyclists. Transit service across the bridge would be resumed but it is not stated what future transit ridership across the bridge would be. As such, the EIS is silent on mode split changes as a result of the built alternatives. The EIS document would benefit from a combined table listing travel by different modes today and in 2035. The end result would be to show that the Built alternatives promote multimodal traveling and are more sustainable options than the No Build. In addition, the City is embarked on a Streetcar System plan that will inform new streetcar alignments throughout the city, including this corridor. A potential outcome could be two streetcar alignments: the line to Lake Oswego and one crossing the River via the bridge to connect to Tacoma Street on the east.

Greenhouse gas emissions Building on the points above, the EIS is silent on the effect of the alternatives on greenhouse gas emissions. Analysis should indicate that, while vehicle travel on the corridor would remain unchanged, greater transit and bicycle and pedestrian travel result in greater multimodal travel, leading to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions per bridge/study area user.

EIS is silent on climate change and Peak Oil policy at the City.

Freight EIS should more clearly state the effect of the built alternatives on freight, which is to reinstate truck access currently limited as a result of the bridge’s weight limitation. The effect would be to add about 1,500 trucks/large vehicles, or 4 percent of total daily traffic volume, back onto Tacoma and the bridge. The EIS should also state that the percentage and total truck volume (as well as truck type) would remain largely unchanged from the time prior to the 2004 weight restrictions).

Traffic Operations

Eastern Interchange Traffic The EIS analyzed the effects of three treatments: a No Change, a full traffic signal at SE 6th Ave. and a loop road connecting north and south of Tacoma under the Bridge using SE Grand Avenue. The EIS states that in terms of operations, the No change and the loop does not significantly affect traffic operations on Tacoma but full signal leads to failing level of service (LOS) on Tacoma, spilling traffic onto the western interchange. This is the case if generous green time is given to SE 6th Ave. The City finds that a) even under the No Change, traffic during the PM peak backs up onto the west end of the bridge, and b) that a traffic signal with significantly reduced green time on SE 6th Ave. leads to congestion levels on Tacoma and the bridge that are not significantly different than the No Change.

A pedestrian activated signal should be evaluated at this location given need to access across Tacoma and to community land uses, particularly to the north (Oaks Park, Sellwood Riverfront Park, Sellwood and Oak Pioneer Parks) as well as to future bridge sidewalks and bike lanes.

City TSP LOS policy for Tacoma, a Main Street, is not stated. Instead, page 3-9 of technical report uses RTP LOS policy, which is different (LOS E for two hours is considered “acceptable”). As regional and City policy on LOS should be similar, we assume that a different classification was used to measure Tacoma. TSP Policy allows for F for the first peak hour and E for the second for Tacoma Street classified as a Main Street.

Travel on local streets The EIS indicates that the full signal would lead to the most cut through traffic using local streets, followed by the loop. The full signal, as designed in the EIS, would likely lead to more cut through, though it can be managed via a pedestrian activated signal or by reducing the amount of green time allowed for SE 6th Ave.

2 The loop has considerable impact for cut through traffic, acting as a free flowing off ramp from the bridge to access the area north of the bridge. This loop would be hard to manage to diminish cut through traffic.

Access to land uses Oaks Park, Sellwood Riverfront and Pioneer parks, and commercial and residential can benefit from improved automobile circulation to serve local and non-local trips. The challenge is to have greater neighborhood auto circulation not lead to greater non-local cut through traffic. Both the signal and the loop improve local accessibility to these land uses over the No Change.

Special events A signalized intersection would be able to be managed for special events. A loop helps primarily eastbound traffic but gaps in traffic on Tacoma are still needed.

Western Interchange Three alternatives were evaluated as part of the EIS: a roundabout option (with and without pedestrian/bicycle facilities), a signalized option (single-point urban interchange) and a free flowing option (trumpet design). Below are some comments: Roundabout • Not clear that the roundabout works well for pedestrians and bicyclists. The metering device helps traffic flow within the interchange during peak times so that it doesn’t shut down, but how vehicles are supposed to allow for the safe crossing of peds and bicyclists is not clear (motorists in roudabouts are generally looking at oncoming traffic from the left, which may lead to less visibility for peds/bicyclists trying to cross using the marked crossings). • Not clear whether design would accommodate streetcar operations over the bridge from Hwy 43; it may require some additional engineering design and traffic control devices. Trumpet • Pedestrian access and bicycle access severely limited. Access to cemetery poses significant negative impacts to business services and for pedestrian and bicycle access across cemetery. • Transit access severely limited via out of direction travel and longer distances. Signalized • Works best for pedestrians and bicyclists accessing Hwy 43 and the cemetery • Free flowing northbound movement onto Hwy 43 from the bridge, needs more analysis, if there is a lot of pedestrian use during the AM peak. • Traffic operations seemed to have been modeled assuming a different intersection design: operations allow north to east traffic to occur at the same time as north to west traffic. Interchange design does not seem to allow that to occur. • Interchange could be designed to have one southbound/through lane onto Hwy 43 south and to access the cemetery. General • Project team should ask for exemptions from ODOT as to the required spacing for access to the interchange in the Hwy 43 corridor. As designed, alternatives cut off access to existing land uses or lead to access that is more costly and with more environmental and social impacts. • Tolling is not properly analyzed in the EIS. Particularly, the traffic effects of tolling have not been incorporated into the EIS. This should affect the design of the western interchange in particular.

Bicycle/Pedestrian Elements of Alternatives Alternative A

3 • It provides very good treatment of bicycle and pedestrian operations across the River because of the nature of the separated facility. • It avoids conflicts with the west side interchange. It avoids conflicts with the crossing of Tacoma and the need for cyclists and pedestrians to choose one side of the bridge over another. It may lead to longer travel for bicyclists/pedestrians traveling south on Hwy 43 and to the cemetery. • The bicycle/pedestrian overcrossing of Hwy 43 is an integral part of the design.

Alternative B • Provides substandard facilities for cyclists and pedestrians. A minimum 5' bike lane on a high- volume roadway is not the type of bicycling infrastructure legacy we wish to leave to the next few generations who will use this bridge. Ten-foot shared use pathways (as we currently have on the Hawthorne Bridge) are inconsistent with the expected volumes projected to use that bridge. With the promise of a pathway on the west side of the river, and a streetcar stop on the west side of the river, bicycle and pedestrian traffic on the bridge is expected to be high. Our knowledge with shared use paths informs us that pedestrians and cyclists alike may have generally negative experiences using such a narrow combined facility and that this type of facility will deter from cycling, or at least not attract to cycling, the very people we wish to have riding in an area as thick with off-street pathways as are found in South Portland. • It creates uncomfortable crossings within a roundabout that will be more difficult for pedestrians to navigate than other proposed options.

Alternative C • The undercrossing makes for a terrible design for pedestrians and cyclists. In recent years the City has closed pedestrian undercrossings because of the unsafe conditions fostered by covered, out-of-the-way and car-free public spaces. • An alternative that would avoid pedestrians and cyclists being underneath would greatly improve this option.

Alternative D • It provides very adequate facilities. Most importantly it provides opportunities for faster cyclists to separate themselves from both slower-moving cyclists as well as from pedestrians by creating 6.5' bike lanes. At the same time, this option provides adequate width for pedestrians to share space with slower-moving cyclists (one-way) cyclists.

Alternative E • It is awkward in the unbalanced cross-section it presents for pedestrians and cyclists. The suggested 8-foot pathway on the south side is too narrow for shared use and includes connections at the west end that are difficult at best. The shared 16-foot pathway on the north side is likely too narrow for the expected volumes of two-way bicycle and pedestrian traffic the bridge is expected to carry in the future.

Cross Section Elements of Alternatives • For alternative A and C, which do not have sidewalks next to travel lanes, they would benefit from having pedestrian access via a sidewalk in case of stalling or other emergency access issues. They may be required as part of reconstruction. • All alternatives should have the preferred bicycle lane and sidewalk width in the east end of the bridge at SE 6th Ave: that is, 12ft of sidewalk and 6.5 ft wide bicycle lanes. Per the Tacoma Main

4 Street Plan, sidewalk width is 12ft and is to be acquired via dedication of land for right of way from adjacent properties. • Alternative E’s transit lanes. The EIS does not clearly state what the transit benefits would be in terms of travel time/operations savings. Transit lanes do not seem to provide for sufficient travel timesavings to merit the extra cost. General • 36 ft curb-to-curb or wider would better satisfy emergency response needs and special events. • A cycletrack design should be analyzed. • The alternatives would benefit from the continuation of the third, non-continuous lane from Tacoma to be carried all the way across the bridge. This would allow vehicles to rely less on bicycle facilities during emergency/special situations but it would not lead to more vehicle capacity on the bridge and on the corridor.

Other elements • The impacts of long bridge closure on the City’s emergency response are significant. • The impacts of long bridge closure on travel patterns and access to commercial areas are significant. • The impacts of long bridge closure on bicycle and pedestrian accessibility across the Willamette River are significant. • Bridge architecture, as with tolling and funding, is an important element that, even though it is not prominently detailed in the EIS, it does have a bearing in the City’s decision on the Locally Preferred Alternative.

5 Appendix J: Copies of Comments on the DEIS

ID FName LName Organization ScannedDocument 171 Mauricio Leclerc Portland Bureau of 171_Memo_Sellwood_Bridge_PDOT_EI Transportation S_Comments.doc

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-38 REVIEW DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

Date: 12/22/08

To: Ian B. Cannon, Multnomah County

From: Mauricio Leclerc, John Gillam, Transportation Planning, Portland Office of Transportation

Re: Sellwood Bridge EIS Comments

______

Below are comments focused primarily on the Transportation section of the EIS. Other City bureaus are expecting to comment of different sections of the document. Comments are organized in different sections to address travel patterns, traffic operations, a review of the alternatives from a bicycle and pedestrian perspective, comments on the different cross sections, and other considerations.

Travel Patterns

Traffic Reason for why bridge improvements would not lead to increased vehicular capacity in both corridors is not satisfactorily explained.

Congestion points on the two corridors (Hwy 43 and Sellwood/Tacoma) during peak hours are located at signalized intersections north at Taylors Ferry Rd/Macadam in the west and at Tacoma at SE 13th and SE 17th in the east, as well as on the bridge itself. To increase vehicular capacity, these signalized intersections would have to be widened in addition to widening the bridge. Doing this goes beyond the scope of this project. The Bridge being two lanes also assists in metering traffic volume that otherwise would use local streets on the east side to bypass congestion in the Tacoma corridor.

As a result, travel speed improvements are modest/insignificant (1or 2 mph in 2035) across the River, which leads to unchanged travel patters.

On Highway 43, as a result of west end interchange improvements, there are significant travel speed improvements (up to 7-8 mph) in the immediate area (SW Nevada to SW Riverdale). However, there are still significant congestion points north and south of the study area for people driving the Lake Oswego/Oregon City to downtown Portland corridor. In addition, the geographic constraints of the corridor limit the ability to attract more traffic onto the facility from other facilities. The end result is that the project does not lead to noticeable shifts in auto traffic.

The EIS does not analyze travel impacts of alternatives on opening day, year 2015.

The traffic effects of tolling have not been incorporated into the EIS. This should have an effect on peak travel demand if tolls are instated during the peak times.

Mode split The EIS does not adequately explain the effect of the built alternatives on mode split. EIS is silent on mode split policy at the City and region.

Compared to the No Build option, alternatives A through E provide significant improvements for bicyclists, pedestrians and transit users. The EIS identifies significant latent demand and continued growth of bicyclists. Transit service across the bridge would be resumed but it is not stated what future transit ridership across the bridge would be. As such, the EIS is silent on mode split changes as a result of the built alternatives. The EIS document would benefit from a combined table listing travel by different modes today and in 2035. The end result would be to show that the Built alternatives promote multimodal traveling and are more sustainable options than the No Build. In addition, the City is embarked on a Streetcar System plan that will inform new streetcar alignments throughout the city, including this corridor. A potential outcome could be two streetcar alignments: the line to Lake Oswego and one crossing the River via the bridge to connect to Tacoma Street on the east.

Greenhouse gas emissions Building on the points above, the EIS is silent on the effect of the alternatives on greenhouse gas emissions. Analysis should indicate that, while vehicle travel on the corridor would remain unchanged, greater transit and bicycle and pedestrian travel result in greater multimodal travel, leading to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions per bridge/study area user.

EIS is silent on climate change and Peak Oil policy at the City.

Freight EIS should more clearly state the effect of the built alternatives on freight, which is to reinstate truck access currently limited as a result of the bridge’s weight limitation. The effect would be to add about 1,500 trucks/large vehicles, or 4 percent of total daily traffic volume, back onto Tacoma and the bridge. The EIS should also state that the percentage and total truck volume (as well as truck type) would remain largely unchanged from the time prior to the 2004 weight restrictions).

Traffic Operations

Eastern Interchange Traffic The EIS analyzed the effects of three treatments: a No Change, a full traffic signal at SE 6th Ave. and a loop road connecting north and south of Tacoma under the Bridge using SE Grand Avenue. The EIS states that in terms of operations, the No change and the loop does not significantly affect traffic operations on Tacoma but full signal leads to failing level of service (LOS) on Tacoma, spilling traffic onto the western interchange. This is the case if generous green time is given to SE 6th Ave. The City finds that a) even under the No Change, traffic during the PM peak backs up onto the west end of the bridge, and b) that a traffic signal with significantly reduced green time on SE 6th Ave. leads to congestion levels on Tacoma and the bridge that are not significantly different than the No Change.

A pedestrian activated signal should be evaluated at this location given need to access across Tacoma and to community land uses, particularly to the north (Oaks Park, Sellwood Riverfront Park, Sellwood and Oak Pioneer Parks) as well as to future bridge sidewalks and bike lanes.

City TSP LOS policy for Tacoma, a Main Street, is not stated. Instead, page 3-9 of technical report uses RTP LOS policy, which is different (LOS E for two hours is considered “acceptable”). As regional and City policy on LOS should be similar, we assume that a different classification was used to measure Tacoma. TSP Policy allows for F for the first peak hour and E for the second for Tacoma Street classified as a Main Street.

Travel on local streets The EIS indicates that the full signal would lead to the most cut through traffic using local streets, followed by the loop. The full signal, as designed in the EIS, would likely lead to more cut through, though it can be managed via a pedestrian activated signal or by reducing the amount of green time allowed for SE 6th Ave.

2 The loop has considerable impact for cut through traffic, acting as a free flowing off ramp from the bridge to access the area north of the bridge. This loop would be hard to manage to diminish cut through traffic.

Access to land uses Oaks Park, Sellwood Riverfront and Pioneer parks, and commercial and residential can benefit from improved automobile circulation to serve local and non-local trips. The challenge is to have greater neighborhood auto circulation not lead to greater non-local cut through traffic. Both the signal and the loop improve local accessibility to these land uses over the No Change.

Special events A signalized intersection would be able to be managed for special events. A loop helps primarily eastbound traffic but gaps in traffic on Tacoma are still needed.

Western Interchange Three alternatives were evaluated as part of the EIS: a roundabout option (with and without pedestrian/bicycle facilities), a signalized option (single-point urban interchange) and a free flowing option (trumpet design). Below are some comments: Roundabout • Not clear that the roundabout works well for pedestrians and bicyclists. The metering device helps traffic flow within the interchange during peak times so that it doesn’t shut down, but how vehicles are supposed to allow for the safe crossing of peds and bicyclists is not clear (motorists in roudabouts are generally looking at oncoming traffic from the left, which may lead to less visibility for peds/bicyclists trying to cross using the marked crossings). • Not clear whether design would accommodate streetcar operations over the bridge from Hwy 43; it may require some additional engineering design and traffic control devices. Trumpet • Pedestrian access and bicycle access severely limited. Access to cemetery poses significant negative impacts to business services and for pedestrian and bicycle access across cemetery. • Transit access severely limited via out of direction travel and longer distances. Signalized • Works best for pedestrians and bicyclists accessing Hwy 43 and the cemetery • Free flowing northbound movement onto Hwy 43 from the bridge, needs more analysis, if there is a lot of pedestrian use during the AM peak. • Traffic operations seemed to have been modeled assuming a different intersection design: operations allow north to east traffic to occur at the same time as north to west traffic. Interchange design does not seem to allow that to occur. • Interchange could be designed to have one southbound/through lane onto Hwy 43 south and to access the cemetery. General • Project team should ask for exemptions from ODOT as to the required spacing for access to the interchange in the Hwy 43 corridor. As designed, alternatives cut off access to existing land uses or lead to access that is more costly and with more environmental and social impacts. • Tolling is not properly analyzed in the EIS. Particularly, the traffic effects of tolling have not been incorporated into the EIS. This should affect the design of the western interchange in particular.

Bicycle/Pedestrian Elements of Alternatives Alternative A

3 • It provides very good treatment of bicycle and pedestrian operations across the River because of the nature of the separated facility. • It avoids conflicts with the west side interchange. It avoids conflicts with the crossing of Tacoma and the need for cyclists and pedestrians to choose one side of the bridge over another. It may lead to longer travel for bicyclists/pedestrians traveling south on Hwy 43 and to the cemetery. • The bicycle/pedestrian overcrossing of Hwy 43 is an integral part of the design.

Alternative B • Provides substandard facilities for cyclists and pedestrians. A minimum 5' bike lane on a high- volume roadway is not the type of bicycling infrastructure legacy we wish to leave to the next few generations who will use this bridge. Ten-foot shared use pathways (as we currently have on the Hawthorne Bridge) are inconsistent with the expected volumes projected to use that bridge. With the promise of a pathway on the west side of the river, and a streetcar stop on the west side of the river, bicycle and pedestrian traffic on the bridge is expected to be high. Our knowledge with shared use paths informs us that pedestrians and cyclists alike may have generally negative experiences using such a narrow combined facility and that this type of facility will deter from cycling, or at least not attract to cycling, the very people we wish to have riding in an area as thick with off-street pathways as are found in South Portland. • It creates uncomfortable crossings within a roundabout that will be more difficult for pedestrians to navigate than other proposed options.

Alternative C • The undercrossing makes for a terrible design for pedestrians and cyclists. In recent years the City has closed pedestrian undercrossings because of the unsafe conditions fostered by covered, out-of-the-way and car-free public spaces. • An alternative that would avoid pedestrians and cyclists being underneath would greatly improve this option.

Alternative D • It provides very adequate facilities. Most importantly it provides opportunities for faster cyclists to separate themselves from both slower-moving cyclists as well as from pedestrians by creating 6.5' bike lanes. At the same time, this option provides adequate width for pedestrians to share space with slower-moving cyclists (one-way) cyclists.

Alternative E • It is awkward in the unbalanced cross-section it presents for pedestrians and cyclists. The suggested 8-foot pathway on the south side is too narrow for shared use and includes connections at the west end that are difficult at best. The shared 16-foot pathway on the north side is likely too narrow for the expected volumes of two-way bicycle and pedestrian traffic the bridge is expected to carry in the future.

Cross Section Elements of Alternatives • For alternative A and C, which do not have sidewalks next to travel lanes, they would benefit from having pedestrian access via a sidewalk in case of stalling or other emergency access issues. They may be required as part of reconstruction. • All alternatives should have the preferred bicycle lane and sidewalk width in the east end of the bridge at SE 6th Ave: that is, 12ft of sidewalk and 6.5 ft wide bicycle lanes. Per the Tacoma Main

4 Street Plan, sidewalk width is 12ft and is to be acquired via dedication of land for right of way from adjacent properties. • Alternative E’s transit lanes. The EIS does not clearly state what the transit benefits would be in terms of travel time/operations savings. Transit lanes do not seem to provide for sufficient travel timesavings to merit the extra cost. General • 36 ft curb-to-curb or wider would better satisfy emergency response needs and special events. • A cycletrack design should be analyzed. • The alternatives would benefit from the continuation of the third, non-continuous lane from Tacoma to be carried all the way across the bridge. This would allow vehicles to rely less on bicycle facilities during emergency/special situations but it would not lead to more vehicle capacity on the bridge and on the corridor.

Other elements • The impacts of long bridge closure on the City’s emergency response are significant. • The impacts of long bridge closure on travel patterns and access to commercial areas are significant. • The impacts of long bridge closure on bicycle and pedestrian accessibility across the Willamette River are significant. • Bridge architecture, as with tolling and funding, is an important element that, even though it is not prominently detailed in the EIS, it does have a bearing in the City’s decision on the Locally Preferred Alternative.

5 Appendix J: Copies of Comments on the DEIS

ID FName LName Organization ScannedDocument 172 Tom Armstrong Portland Bureau of 172_BOP_Sellwood_Bridge_DEIS_com Planning ments_12-22-08.pdf

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-39 REVIEW DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

December 22, 2008

Sellwood Bridge Project Mike Pullen Multnomah County 2020 SW 4th Avenue, Suite 300 Portland, OR 97201

RE: Sellwood Bridge Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Dear Mr. Pullen:

The City of Portland’s Bureau of Planning offers the following comments on the evaluation of the potential impacts of the Sellwood Bridge Project in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). The Bureau of Planning supports the rehabilitation or replacement of the Sellwood Bridge, especially as a means to restore east-west transit service, enhance pedestrian and bicycle connections, and provide for future expansion of the streetcar network across the Willamette River. However, the Bureau of Planning thinks the DEIS does not adequately consider or address the following issues:

Consider the long-term impacts of the width of the bridge deck. The Sellwood Bridge project will restore and enhance a regional mobility corridor through the Sellwood neighborhood and Tacoma Main Street. By adopting a narrow definition of the project and project area, the DEIS does not adequately address the long-term impacts to livability in the Sellwood neighborhood in terms of community cohesion, north-south access across Tacoma Street, or vehicle cut-through traffic in the neighborhood. More importantly, the DEIS analysis of bridge deck cross-section alternatives does not consider the implications of the physical curb-to-curb width and the potential for future reconfiguration of the cross-section into a four-lane vehicle bridge.

Create a more rigorous analysis of the greenhouse gas emissions. The DEIS includes a blanket statement that all alternatives have the same energy impact because the traffic volumes would be the same under all build alternatives. However, this analysis fails to consider the impacts of the travel time benefits on Highway 43 and the potential to induce additional vehicle traffic on this route. Also, the DEIS does not analyze the potential impact of enhanced transit service from dedicated transit lanes (Alternative E). This analysis is critical given the state, regional, county, and city goals with respect to climate change and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Address the impacts of re-establishing a de-facto freight route. The DEIS mischaracterizes the truck impacts as “enhancing local delivery service” when the project will re-establish a regional east-west truck route across the river with a forecasted 1,600 trucks per day. The DEIS also does not directly address the potential conflicts between 1,600 trucks and a forecasted 9,350 pedestrians and bicyclists. These potential conflicts need to be factored in the evaluation of the size, type and location of bicycle and pedestrian facilities and would appear to favor a significant separation or separate facility. The DEIS does not adequately assess the impacts of this large volume of trucks on the character and quality of the Tacoma Main Street and its potential to degrade the attractiveness of the area for transit-oriented, pedestrian-friendly development.

Re-evaluate Alternative C with respect to the pedestrian/bicycle facility as a separate facility that utilizes the structural support of the bridge, but not necessarily running directly under the bridge. As shown in the illustration below, a separate ped/bike facility that is attached to the bridge structure but separated from the bridge deck would provide a buffer from the vehicle traffic while achieving cost savings by utilizing the bridge structure and minimizing the number of in-water structures. Also, a winding ped/bike path gives greater linear length to absorb needed changes in elevation, which will provide a gentler slope to be more bike and pedestrian friendly. If properly configured it is conceivable that the ped/bike path could be almost at the same level as the roadway at the crest to minimize the height of the bridge for navigational clearance, thereby saving cost. Separating the ped/bike alignment and elevations can also optimize their east and west landings by providing direct connections to the trails on either side of the river and not requiring sharp corkscrew ramps. Concerns about safety, illegal camping, and pigeons are moot due to the exposure to the elements and the fact the alignment is for the most part not under the road deck.

12/22/2008 | Page 2 of 3

Evaluate the risk associated with optimizing the west interchange to provide access to River View Cemetery. Maintaining bicycle access to and through River View Cemetery is an important, but potentially risky objective. The final interchange design should be contingent on the acquisition of a public easement to maintain public access through the cemetery. At the same time, a cost-benefit analysis should consider other alternative routes or facility enhancements that provide an equivalent bicycle access from the bridge to SW Terwilliger Boulevard.

Ensure the west interchange is designed to optimize the future capacity for streetcar service across the Sellwood Bridge. Transit corridors are a fundamental component of Portland’s growth management strategy and all infrastructure investments should be optimized for higher capacity transit. Specifically, the DEIS evaluation of the three interchange alternatives does not address the suitability of the interchange design for streetcars in terms of slopes, curve radii, alignment, and ramp length to enable a streetcar connection across the bridge and onto the Willamette Shoreline Trolley tracks.

Sincerely,

Tom Armstrong Southeast District Liaison

cc: Joe Zehnder, Bureau of Planning Arun Jain, Bureau of Planning Paul Smith, Bureau of Transportation Mauricio Leclerc, Bureau of Transportation Ian Cannon, Multnomah County Michael Eaton, Multnomah County Donna Kilber-Kennedy, CH2M Hill

12/22/2008 | Page 3 of 3 Appendix J: Copies of Comments on the DEIS

ID FName LName Organization ScannedDocument 173 Alan Mela 173_AlanMela.pdf

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-40 REVIEW DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION I'm Alan Mela. My wife Karen & I own the Office Building at 380 SE Spokane - under the East end of the Sellwood bridge.

We very much appreciate the work the Citizen Task Force has done in discussing and evaluating alternatives to replace the Sellwood Bridge. Receiving community input, considering it in light of past regional / local transit plans, and bearing in mind requirements for current transportation construction has been a difficult job. We have taken the surveys, and written some letters expressing our opinions on the situation as it has progressed.

We also appreciate the consideration the Policy Advisory Group has given to the process and community concerns.

Our office building seems originally to have been a door manufacturing plant comprising part of the East Side Mill complex in Sellwood's early years. Much evidence of that era remains in the exposed rough-hewn ceiling rafters & joists and post & beam supports, and even a large walk-in safe (built in Ohio) installed on the first floor that is used now for document storage. Not to mention some footings for an old bridge that was incorporated into the structure in the late 1920s.

The office-clients range from Professionals, to Crafts-manufacturing offices, to Non-profits to Specialty Press. An eclectic and enjoyable group, many have been there for a number of years.

This is not "your average office building". It is a very interesting place, and a special community of businesses - that we have had a great time working with. It is also a very 'efficient' building - expenses are low relative to comparables. And it exemplifies re-purposing and updated use of a major part of Sellwood's history - reinforcing the character of the immediate neighborhood and the community of Sellwood (which appeals to us from so many perspectives). It would be a shame to lose it.

Karen & I are in the process of retiring to Portland (though looking to continue working), and to that end have bought a home nearby (an updated 1930s cottage). Aside from our 'day jobs' and raising a family, over the course of 30+ years we have owned seven small interesting (residential) income properties. We have enjoyed improving them & left them better for our tenure. This is our first office building, bought four years ago - intended to be the last, and a major source of retirement income.

We are very seriously impacted by this. Most of the alternatives require condemning our office building. So we are looking at having to go through the very arduous process of finding a replacement within the narrow property-exchange-driven constraints of time, finances, and type of property. Doing this while transitioning into 'retirement' will only be more complicated and difficult.

As we understand it, Alternative E would only 'take' it for nearly a year - vacating the building to remove the old bridge. There are multiple renters with varying lease expiration dates - as leases expire and vacancies rise, we still have to pay the mortgage & other bills. This also presents major challenges.

The article on our building's history in the October BEE commented that in 1924 automobile travel was deemed less important than lumber operations, so that the old bridge had to be built to accommodate the Mill - a truly mind-boggling notion today. What remains of the Mill may have to be removed to accommodate a new bridge and its automobile traffic. But we have hoped that the 'Troll Building' might continue to be a part of the Sellwood community, a tie to its past, and to support such a terrific group of clients for many years into the future. regards,

Alan Mela

Appendix J: Copies of Comments on the DEIS

ID FName LName Organization ScannedDocument 174 Bob Akers 40-Mile Loop Land 174_Sellwood_Br_Final_EIS_letter.doc Trust

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-41 REVIEW DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

P.O. Box 262 Portland, OR 97207-0262

TO: Sellwood Bridge Team

FROM: 40-Mile Loop Land Trust

DATE: December 19, 2008

SUBJECT: COMMENT ON DRAFT EIS FOR SELLWOOD BRIDGE PROJECT

The 40-Mile Loop has enjoyed great success and is now approximately three-fourths complete. As you know the 40-Mile Loop is a linear open space and trail network encircling much of the western part of Multnomah County and is nearly 140 miles in length. Of the 16 remaining gaps in the Loop, the Sellwood Bridge is one of the most important and strategic as the Loop makes its way back and forth from the west side of the Willamette River to the Springwater Section of the trail via the Sellwood Bridge.

The 40-Mile Loop cannot be completed without it crossing the Sellwood Bridge. Equally important is that the trail over the bridge be a multi-use trail (12’ wide), separated from traffic, not just sidewalks and bike lanes.

The trail has become an important part of the region’s multi-modal transportation system. This multi-use crossing is essential for serving the public in the years to come as alternative transportation becomes more and more important.

Thanks for your consideration and assistance with “Closing the Loop”

40-Mile Loop Land Trust Board c/o Bob Akers, President 503-665-5519 Appendix J: Copies of Comments on the DEIS

ID FName LName Organization ScannedDocument 175 Zari Santner Portland Parks & 175_Sellwood_Bridge_001.pdf Recreation

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-42 REVIEW DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

Appendix J: Copies of Comments on the DEIS

ID FName LName Organization ScannedDocument 177 Greg Olson Multnomah County 177_12-19- Bicycle and 08_BPCAC_Sellwood_DEIS_Letter.pdf Pedestrian Advisory Committee

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-43 REVIEW DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

Appendix J: Copies of Comments on the DEIS

ID FName LName Organization ScannedDocument 178 Paul Henson U.S. Fish and 178_SellwoodbrDEIS.doc.pdf Wildlife Service

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-44 REVIEW DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

Appendix J: Copies of Comments on the DEIS

ID FName LName Organization ScannedDocument 188 Jim Brick Oregon Department 188_Sellwood_Bridge_DEIS.doc of Fish and Wildlife

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-45 REVIEW DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

12/22/08

Mr. Mike Pullen Sellwood Bridge Project 2020 SW 4th Ave., #300 Portland, OR 97210

Dear Mr. Pullen,

The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) has reviewed the DEIS for the Sellwood Bridge Project and offers the following comments:

ODFW supports alternatives and design options that create the least amount of negative impacts to fish and wildlife populations.

When the final alternative and design options are chosen, ODFW looks forward to working with the Oregon Department of Transportation and Multnomah County to assist in the final design or mitigation measures that provide the most benefit to fish, wildlife and their habitats.

ODFW also provides the following specific information pertaining to the DEIS:

3-13 Water Quality-ODFW suggests mapping proposed locations of water quality treatment facilities for inclusion into the FEIS.

3-14 Hydraulics-Balancing of cut/fill

Page 3.151: 3.14.3 Mitigation- ODFW recommends round piers as a mitigation option. Inwater bents with square pier designs create greater scour than round piers. Inwater bents with square piers also increase the amount of large woody debris captured which can lead to gravel bar development.

Excavating stream banks as a mitigation measure to offset potential “rise” in the FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area is not advisable. This type of mitigation measure destroys valuable riparian habitat, upsets habitat forming process and likely require additional mitigation to offset impacts to stream and riparian function.

3-15 Aquatic Resources;

Page 3-156: Habitat in the Project Vicinity- The sentence within the last paragraph of this section states, “The lower river was used by salmon and steelhead trout as a migration corridor”. A clarifying sentence is needed. Historically the lower Willamette River was a major rearing area for salmon and trout. In the resent past, as a result of human influences on the river, the lower Willamette is primarily considered a migration corridor. Recent ODFW investigations documented evidence of salmon spawning in the lower Willamette River.

Page 3-157: Other Anadromous Fish Species- ODFW suggests changing the title to: Other Native Anadromous Fish Species. American Shad are an anadromous fish species but a non-native fish species.

Page 3-160: Piers in the River- This is a good opportunity to discuss the type of instream habitat within the proposed cross section of the river and how various pier types (square, round, ect.) effect or would not be affected by scour associated with different pier shapes.

3-16 Vegetation

Page 3-166: Mitigation & Page 3-170 Mitigation (Stephens Creek)- Removal of mature trees within the project area will occur as a result of the project. ODFW suggests utilizing mature large woody debris in either the restoration project on Stephens Creek, donating them to a local watershed council or other entity with planned restoration projects within the lower Willamette River basin.

3-18 Wildlife

Page 3-174: Build Alternatives-Environmental Consequences- This section states no effect on Peregrine Falcons. This section also states, “American Peregrine Falcon uses the area, but has not nested on the Sellwood Bridge”. Recent reports (October 30, 2008) by Audubon field workers indicate a falcon fledgling sighting on the Sellwood Bridge in the spring of 2008. The Audubon Society plans to monitor the site in the spring of 2009. ODFW suggests monitoring of the site with plans for mitigation measures assuming nesting is occurring on the bridge. If the final bridge design chosen does not contain elements that would lead to successful nest building then a nest box should be considered for placement on the bridge.

Page 3-175: Alternative Specific Impacts and Mitigation: Mitigation measures to minimize impacts to wildlife from blasting should be included in the FEIS.

Appendix F-Summary of Permits and Clearances Needed: Need to included ODFW-Fish Passage Plan approval (OAR 635-412)

Jim Brick ODFW/ODOT Liaison Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Appendix J: Copies of Comments on the DEIS

ID FName LName Organization ScannedDocument 189 Thomas J. Walsh 189_TomWalsh-SellwoodCommentL.pdf

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-46 REVIEW DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

THIS E-MAILED COPY IS A DUPLICATE OF ONE SENT BY USPS ON 12/18. I BECAME CONCERNED THAT THE LATTER MIGHT NOT BE DELIVERED BY THE DEADLINE

THOMAS J. WALSH 1525 SE Rex St. Portland, OR 97202

(503) 235-2521 email: [email protected]

December 18, 2008

Attention: Mike Pullen Sellwood Bridge Project 2020 SW 4th Avenue, Suite 300 Portland, OR 97201

Subject: 1) Sellwood Bridge Draft Environmental Impact Statement. 2) My preferred alternative for the project

Dear Mr. Pullen:

I have some comments on the DEIS. I have labeled them with the number and title of the section of the DEIS to which they pertain. The DEIS contains a lot of useful information. However, it does not comply in many areas with the National Environmental Policy Act and its implementing regulations. The DEIS is supposed to give the environmental consequences and impacts of the proposed actions [40 CFR 1502.16]. It is not at all complete in this respect and for one environmental effect assessed, noise, it is erroneous, misleading and contradictory. My comments are not exhaustive. Although, I discuss some technical issues and I am certain that what I say is correct, I claim no technical expertise. Following the comments on the DEIS, is a brief discussion of my preferred project alternative. It is a modified version of Alternative C.

DEIS COMMENTS

Section 1.6 Why is the project needed?

The Sellwood Bridge is described as a Truck Access Street. Some Sellwood neighborhood streets are also truck access streets. In the DEIS there is little discussion of the need for or the benefits of large trucks having ready access to the area and none whatsoever of their adverse effects. Most local businesses cannot accommodate them. There is little parking for them. The few that currently make deliveries often double park on side streets leaving barely enough room for an automobile to pass. They make a lot of noise (see Section 3.1.9 below). Their exhaust fumes, especially under certain atmospheric conditions, are obnoxious and unhealthy. The bigger ones fail to stay in designated lanes when making turns. When they turn at street corners they sometimes go onto the sidewalk. Also, drivers waiting in left turn lanes may have to back up out of the way of a truck so that it can complete its turn. Trucks block the line of sight at street intersections when they ignore the law and park too close to the intersection, which they often do.

Section 2.3 Construction Activities

Blasting will be used on the west side of the river for all build alternatives, most likely at night and on weekends. No information on the size, frequency, noise and shock generation, chance of damage to nearby structures from ground shaking or details on the times of day – other than that they will be at night - of these blasts is provided. The purpose of an EIS is to inform the public of environmental effects, especially adverse ones, which in this case has not been done. This should be remedied in the FEIS.

Section 3.18 Wildlife

It is well known that sea lions are found in the Willamette River. The federal Marine Mammal Protection Act makes it illegal to harm them. Possible impacts on them of this project are ignored in the DEIS. Some people do not like them, but others enjoy seeing them. Deer may venture into the project vicinity. I have seen them on East Island while walking on the Springwater Trail. The bald eagle uses the project area. It is still listed as threatened by the state. There is a federal Bald Eagle Protection Act. Compliance with federal and state mandates for treatment of the species is not mentioned in the DEIS. Further, the public is interested in any detriments to the eagles which might occur despite compliance with the mandates. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service has responded to a recent petition from the Center for Biological Diversity, et al., and agreed to consider the red tree vole for listing under the Endangered Species Act. This creature lives in Douglas fir trees and, according to park personnel, inhabits Tryon Creek State Park. The northern boundary of the park is about a mile from the west end of the Sellwood Bridge. It is possible that the vole can be found in Douglas firs close to or within the project and that it could be listed by the time construction is initiated. If there

2 is any possibility of this situation arising, then the effects of the project on the vole must be treated in the EIS

Section 3.19 Noise.

There are a number of problems with the noise analysis in the main DEIS volume. They appear to have come about from commission of errors and attempts to mislead. In the DEIS (Fig. 3.19-10), traffic noise levels are given at selected locations affected by the project for what is described as existing conditions. They are not for existing conditions. They were computed assuming that the current vehicle weight limit of 10 tons was not in effect. This limit was imposed in 2005. A limit of 32 tons had been set in 1985. The composition of the traffic over the bridge used in the computations included all vehicles licensed for highway use. No mention is made of this fact. One has to happen to come across it in a document [Sellwood Bridge Project Noise Technical Report, CH2MHILL] which is not issued with the DEIS but is only available upon request. The result of this deception is to make the existing conditions appear noisier. The proposed alternatives, by comparison with these fictitious existing conditions, will cause a lesser increase in noise than they really do [Noise levels memorandum, Table 1, Noise Technical Report]. Also given in the DEIS are the predicted levels for the future traffic conditions at these locations for the different alternatives. The noise levels are said to be in units of dBA. This is basically untrue. The implication is that they are fast response measurements which is what the human ear would hear. They are not. They are Leq(h) which is the hourly average of the noise in dBA [Noise Technical Report]. Misrepresenting them in this way leads one to believe of course that the noise, though objectionable, is much less worse than it really is. . I consider these averages very misleading. They are very much favored by groups and organizations which do not want limits placed on it, e.g., aircraft owners, off-roaders, the Federal Aviation Administration, the USDA Forest Service, Federal Highway Administration, etc. Noise levels should be given in environmental documents as it would be measured by rapid response meter settings (0.2 second) as a function of time. Maximum values and those exceeded 0.1%, 1%, 5%,10%, etc. of the time for each hour of the day should be given. If averages are given for some reason, they certainly should not be mislabeled.

Maximum stated values for noise (Fig. 3.19-10) range up to 72 dBA. If they really are in dBA, as the term is ordinarily used, they are much too low. A casual walk along Tacoma St. will show that this value is now constantly exceeded. A low-priced sound meter (may not meet ANSI specifications) indicated that the emissions of most vehicles exceeded 72 dBA and many approached 83, 84 and even 85 dBA. There is even a contradiction in the noise section. Large trucks will be traveling Tacoma St. under the build alternatives. Table 3.19-1 gives the noise of a large truck at a distance of 50 feet as 90 dBA, not 72 dBA. On Tacoma Street, one cannot get 50 feet from passing traffic.

Under the Build Alternatives, the resulting increase in noise from traffic is, for the most part, said to be negligible. There will be 9 times the heavy truck traffic on the bridge with many trucks weighing about 4 times that of those currently allowed on the bridge. The daily number of heavy trucks using the Sellwood Bridge in 2035 is predicted

3 to be 1600. That, on average, is more than one a minute. A good portion of the time these large trucks will be accelerating from a stop. They will certainly be noisy (see Table 3-19.1 of the DEIS) and the increase from present conditions, which are bad, will greatly worsen on the bridge and Tacoma St. In addition to the increased truck traffic, on weekdays there will be 10 bus trips across the bridge every hour.

The claim is made in the DEIS that humans cannot distinguish between noise levels which differ by less than 3 dBA. This may be arguably so. (A chart in a reference on the subject [ Cyril M. Harris, Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control, Acoustical Society of America, 1998, Figure 17.13] would seem to indicate otherwise.) However, humans can certainly distinguish between some Leq(h) which differ by 0 dBA. A constant noise of 60 dBA for an hour is certainly different to the human ear from one which is well above 60 dBA for a few seconds and then silent for the remainder of the hour but which also has an Leq(h) of 60. The noise section seems very confused about the information it is presenting.

Currently, traffic noise from OR 43 can be heard, as is admitted, in Sellwood Riverfront Park. It can also be heard in Sellwood Park and is annoying in both places. This situation will worsen with all the Build Alternatives since they will greatly increase the number of trucks using the route. Noise should be inaudible to humans and wildlife beyond the very local, immediate boundaries of its source. For roads, that would be the right-of-way.

Even if the Oregon exterior Noise Abatement Criterion of 65 dBleq(h) for a residence is met, the noise at that location is still very intrusive and objectionable. Speech interference occurs at a noise level above 60 dBA when people are more than 6 feet apart and they are not speaking loudly ["Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety," EPA/ONAC 550/9-74-004, March, 1974 - other sources give lower levels for speech interference]. Hard-of-hearing individuals have much more difficulty understanding speech in noisy conditions than do those with normal hearing [Hearing Loss, Harvard Health Publications, 2000]. The needs of those so handicapped should be taken into account in any noise analysis. A letter from the Multnomah County Health Department to the Columbia River Crossing Project commenting on its DEIS [dated June 9, 2008; signed Lillian Shirley and Gary Oxman] cites studies showing the harmful effects of noise on health.

Noise impacts from construction equipment such as that from trucks, cranes and other construction equipment is absurdly described as low. Yet, as pointed out above, Table 3.19-1 of the DEIS gives the noise of a heavy truck as 90 dBA and that is at a distance of 50 feet. Drilling of shafts and vibratory compaction are admitted to have high noise levels, but no quantitative data for them are given. Vibration and vibration induced noise are not treated. Mitigations are mentioned in the Noise Technical Report, but are very lacking in detail. Acoustic barriers around stationary equipment is one, but no description of their effectiveness or what the minimum levels would be which would require their use is discussed. Blasting is mentioned briefly in Section 2.3. Noise and

4 shock waves from it and their effects on humans and other creatures are not analyzed. It is common knowledge that many dogs are very disturbed and/or frightened by fireworks. Mine is. The same would be true for blasting. It is reasonable to assume that much wildlife would react similarly. Many nocturnal predators, such as raccoons and owls, have hearing thresholds 10 dB below that of a human with good hearing (threshold 0 dB) [Richard R. Fay, Hearing in Vertebrates, Hill-Fay Associates 1988]. There is a good chance that many animals, both domestic and wild, would be panicked by blast noise.

If noise from trucks, which can emit 90 dBA, is stated to be low, what level is considered high? The DEIS treatment of noise is not only deficient, it is illogical.

Section 3.21 Air Quality

In the determination of the effects of the project on air quality, it was assumed that the traffic levels for all alternatives, including that for the No-build, would be the same. This is perhaps reasonable. However, ignored was the fact that the composition of the traffic differs considerably between the No-build and other alternatives. The number of heavy trucks per day in the latter, projected to be 1600, exceeds the number per day in the former by a factor of 9. The effects of air pollution can be very local. On stagnant air days, when walking on Tacoma St., there is from time to time the smell of exhaust. This exhaust is most likely, and will be for years to come, harmful to those residing on Tacoma St. and immediately adjacent to the bridge. A long study of children living within 500 yards of freeways showed that they suffered impaired lung function [“Freeways’ tainted air harms children’s lungs, experts say”, Los Angeles Times, January 26, 2007]. Traffic levels on the Sellwood Bridge and Tacoma St. are nowhere equal to that on a busy urban freeway. However, those living very close to the bridge and Tacoma St., say within 15 to 25 yards, may very well be harmed by the exhaust gases. It is asserted that stricter emissions controls on motor vehicles will reduce pollution over time. Contrarily, the letter from the Multnomah County Health Department to the Columbia River Crossing Project states that the increasing use of alternative fuels may worsen air pollution. Ethanol will increase acetaldehyde concentrations. Compressed natural gas will raise formaldehyde levels. Both of these chemicals are said to be probable carcinogens [Sellwood Bridge Project Air Quality Technical Report, CH2MHILL, October 2008]. A more complete analysis of air pollution is required.

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

My preferred alternative would be keeping the current bridge and limiting its use to bicyclists and pedestrians. Of the build alternatives offered in the DEIS, I would like to see a version of Alternative 3 built. No matter which alternative is selected, the current weight limit on trucks of 10 tons should be kept. Large trucks are just too burdensome to the Sellwood neighborhood. Buses could be exempted from this limit.

Walking and cycling across the bridge would be much more pleasant if the paths for these modes were separated from motor vehicle traffic and its noise, exhaust fumes

5 and collision danger. This is achieved in Alternative C by putting the pedestrian/bicycle paths on a separate level beneath the one for motorized traffic. One objection to having the non-motorized traffic on this separated path is that its users are not visible to motor- vehicle occupants and, therefore, in more danger and less likely to get timely help if needed. There are portions of the Springwater Trail which are not visible from a roadway over much greater distances than the length of the Sellwood Bridge. This does not seem to be much of a problem for the trail or discourage its use. A second objection is that the path suspended beneath the vehicle roadway would be covered overhead and attract the homeless and pigeons. This is a problem. As stated in the DEIS, the problem of the homeless and criminally intent can be mitigated by video cameras. Frequent patrolling by law enforcement would also help. This costs some money. The project sponsors seem ready to spend money on fancy, but not necessarily attractive, structures to make a statement, e.g., the through-arch bridge. Yet, I think, because better law enforcement costs money, it was not listed as a mitigation. Nowadays, most bridge users have cell phones and can easily notify police should any homeless loitering or camping occur. The pigeon roosting problem may be minimized by not having exposed ledges, girders, etc., suitable for their nests.

Alternative C should be modified by the elimination of the 2nd traffic lane in the west bound direction in the middle of the bridge. Further, the simplest structure compatible with the underneath bicycle-pedestrian path should be selected. The simpler the structure, the less it will degrade the views of the surrounding cityscape and landscape, both of which are attractive. The through-arch design selected for this alternative is expensive, not pretty, and will interfere with other views.

A SE Grand Ave. extension is part of this alternative. The DEIS admits that the extension would increase cut-through traffic in the neighborhood. It therefore should be eliminated from the project.

CONCLUSION

I ask that you remedy the faults of the DEIS. I further request that one of my choices for preferred alternative and its method of operation (no large trucks) be selected. Livability is very important. It is very beneficial economically. Also, there are ethical duties to the environment and domestic and wild creatures.

Truly yours,

6 Appendix J: Copies of Comments on the DEIS

ID FName LName Organization ScannedDocument 191 Claudia Martinez 191_Martinez.pdf

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-47 REVIEW DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

Appendix J: Copies of Comments on the DEIS

ID FName LName Organization ScannedDocument 192 Jerome Partch 192_Partch.pdf and Judith

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-48 REVIEW DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

Appendix J: Copies of Comments on the DEIS

ID FName LName Organization ScannedDocument 193 Wayne Skall 193_Skall.pdf

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-49 REVIEW DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

Appendix J: Copies of Comments on the DEIS

ID FName LName Organization ScannedDocument 194 Dee Poth 194_Poth.pdf

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-50 REVIEW DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

Appendix J: Copies of Comments on the DEIS

ID FName LName Organization ScannedDocument 195 Gerald Fox 195_Fox.pdf

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-51 REVIEW DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

Appendix J: Copies of Comments on the DEIS

ID FName LName Organization ScannedDocument 196 Martha Irvine 196_Irvine.pdf

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-52 REVIEW DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

Appendix J: Copies of Comments on the DEIS

ID FName LName Organization ScannedDocument 197 C. Clark Leone 197_Leone.pdf

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-53 REVIEW DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

Appendix J: Copies of Comments on the DEIS

ID FName LName Organization ScannedDocument 198 G. Livingston 198_Livingston.pdf

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-54 REVIEW DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

Appendix J: Copies of Comments on the DEIS

ID FName LName Organization ScannedDocument 199 Richard Atiyeh 199_Aityeh.pdf

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-55 REVIEW DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

Appendix J: Copies of Comments on the DEIS

ID FName LName Organization ScannedDocument 200 Victor Christiansen 200_Christiansen.pdf

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-56 REVIEW DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

Appendix J: Copies of Comments on the DEIS

ID FName LName Organization ScannedDocument 201 Lois and Coplea 201_Coplea.pdf Marty

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-57 REVIEW DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

Appendix J: Copies of Comments on the DEIS

ID FName LName Organization ScannedDocument 202 Robert Ehni 202_Ehni.pdf

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-58 REVIEW DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

Appendix J: Copies of Comments on the DEIS

ID FName LName Organization ScannedDocument 203 Anne Darrow 203_Darrow.pdf

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-59 REVIEW DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

Appendix J: Copies of Comments on the DEIS

ID FName LName Organization ScannedDocument 204 Mary King 204_King.pdf

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-60 REVIEW DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

Appendix J: Copies of Comments on the DEIS

ID FName LName Organization ScannedDocument 205 Jerry Renfro 205_Renfro.pdf

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-61 REVIEW DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

Appendix J: Copies of Comments on the DEIS

ID FName LName Organization ScannedDocument 206 Donaldina Yim 206_Yim.pdf

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-62 REVIEW DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

Appendix J: Copies of Comments on the DEIS

ID FName LName Organization ScannedDocument 207 Margaret Foster 207_Foster.pdf

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-63 REVIEW DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

Appendix J: Copies of Comments on the DEIS

ID FName LName Organization ScannedDocument 208 Steve and Adkins 208_4291_001.pdf Megan

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-64 REVIEW DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

Appendix J: Copies of Comments on the DEIS

ID FName LName Organization ScannedDocument 209 Marychris Mass 209_DEIS_Written_Public_Comments- 2.pdf

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-65 REVIEW DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

Appendix J: Copies of Comments on the DEIS

ID FName LName Organization ScannedDocument 210 Mary Vaillancourt 210_DEIS_Written_Public_Comments- 2.pdf

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-66 REVIEW DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

Appendix J: Copies of Comments on the DEIS

ID FName LName Organization ScannedDocument 211 Robert Hadlow Oregon Department 211_RobertHadlow.pdf W. of Transportation, Region 1

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-67 REVIEW DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION From: HADLOW Robert W [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tue 12/23/2008 1:17 PM To: PULLEN Mike J Subject: Sellwood Bridge Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation comments

Here are my comments on the Sellwood Bridge Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation

Generally, the document is put together very well. It is straightforward and user-friendly. I only have a few comments. Most are minor. The most important is the last one.

Title page. In the title, "Oregon State Highway 43" should read "Oregon 43." (This road is actually "Oswego Highway No. 3.") Route numbers and highway numbers are often not the same in Oregon. Interestingly, this is handled correctly throughout the document--everywhere but the title page.

Page 4(f)-38. Section 3.2 Avoidance Concept 2. How can one replace the bridge structure (the historic Sellwood Bridge) and not have a Section 4(f) use of the Sellwood Bridge. Am I missing something here?

Page 4(f)-42. Section 4(f) Determination. The language in paragraph 5 is stilted and confusing. Substitute "mentioned previously" for "aforementioned." Also, what does "it is concluded presently that" mean? Some writers use "presently" to mean "at present." "Presently" means "after a short time." Does the writer simply mean "One could conclude that"?

Page 4(f)-44. Section 4(f) Determination. The language in paragraph 5 is stilted and confusing. Substitute "mentioned previously" for "aforementioned." Also, what does "it is concluded presently that" mean? Some writers use "presently" to mean "at present." "Presently" means "after a short time." Does the writer simply mean "One could conclude that"?

Page 4(f)-61. Paragraph 2. The Sellwood Bridge was not the first bridge built in Portland without a moveable span or designed without trolley tracks. The statement is too inclusive. Does the writer mean to limit the statement to bridges in Portland that span the Willamette River?

Pages 4(f)-60 and following. The Section 4(f) Evaluation states that there will be no Section 4(f) use of the Superintendent's House site for several alternatives, even though they would have a Section 106 adverse effect because of realigning or closing of the lower access road and enlarging the west interchange footprint. The rationale for this line of thinking is that none of the alternatives would incorporate property from the Superintendent's House site and that the property's historic significance comes from the House's architectural style. However, the DEIS on 3-125 states that realignment of the access road to the Superintendent's House and the widening of OR 43 would have a Section 106 adverse effect due to a change in physical features within the property's setting.

The big question concerns how the Superintendent's House's property's boundaries were defined. Is the NR-eligible property only the House or is it a larger piece of cemetery land that includes landscaping and other features that are associated with the eligible property? We have a peculiar situation here because the House is within the boundaries of the Cemetery--it is not on its own tax lot, which is the usual default for boundaries.

My worry is that someone could challenge the conclusion that there is no 4(f) use of property associated with the Superintendent's House. The FHWA-Oregon Division environmental specialists should weigh in here.

Thanks,

Bob

Robert W. Hadlow, Ph.D. Senior Historian Oregon Department of Transportation, Region 1 123 NW Flanders Street Portland, OR 97209-4012 (503) 731-8239 phone, (503) 731-8259 fax [email protected]

PS Sorry for the delay in sending this email. I planned to send it yesterday morning, but the snow closure of our offices delayed it a day.

Appendix J: Copies of Comments on the DEIS

ID FName LName Organization ScannedDocument 212 Miguel Estrada Oregon Department 212_Sellwood_DEIS.pdf of Transportation, Region 1

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-68 REVIEW DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

Appendix J: Copies of Comments on the DEIS

ID FName LName Organization ScannedDocument 214 James Larpenteur 214_JamesLarpenteur.pdf

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-69 REVIEW DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION Mr. Mike Pullen 2020 S.W. 4th Ave., Suite 300 Portland, OR 97201

Dear Mr. Pullen:

This isn't a fair fight.

In my opinion, the only Build Alternatives to the Sellwood Bridge redo project that will be seriously considered by the decision makers are the Alternative D and Alternative E alignments. I support a modified Alternative E alignment because Alternative D would require condemnation of our home in the Sellwood Harbor Condominium and deny to the public the benefits that an Alternative E alignment with an Alternative D 64' span width configuration would provide.

It's no secret to anyone closely following the Sellwood Bridge replacement saga that the Multnomah County Project Team is promoting the adoption of the Alternative D alignment. The concept of the Alternative E alignment was created by Sellwood neighborhood residents and active businesses on both sides of the Willamette River to alleviate congestion, disruption and the condemnation of owner occupied homes as well as solve the traffic needs of the local area. Survey recipients should have been given the opportunity to vote for the Alternative E alignment with the Alternative D 64' span width configuration. A strong neighborhood survey vote for Alternative D is every bit a reflection of the neighborhood's objection to a monstrous 75' width span four lane bridge as it is to anything else. Only a fool would ignore the threat of Alternative E as presently configured that at some point in time some government agency will insist on converting Tacoma St. into a four-lane thoroughfare and disembowel the Tacoma St plan Sellwood residents fought so hard for and finally received.

So the survey is fatally flawed for its failure to permit a fair vote on Alternative E with a 64' width span in competition with Alternative D. It's no answer to say that the survey accommodates changes by the voter to the proffered Alternative. The ability to mix and match various elements of the configurations of each of the Alternatives within the Alternatives was an essential ingredient to the approval by the CTF and PAG of the current selection process. While the check-the-box feature for changes to the county's preferred Alternative (but only check one box) was an attempt to incorporate a mix and match element to the survey, it fell far short of being adequate. To add insult to injury, the County offers the survey participant to make written comments on the form but then advises that they won't be considered. Most participants don't have the background on these rather complex choices to make an intelligent decision and, if they do, the survey choices are confusing and unsatisfying. The closest an Alternative E proponent can come to a reduced span width is a reduction to something like the "narrowest width possible". Checking that box suggests just as well that we ignore bike and ped concerns which are well served by Alternative D and opt for something like an Alternative B configuration. Not fair!

The DEIS represents a major body of work and its detail is helpful. Unfortunately, it doesn't go far enough. There is no cost information to provide us with a basis for mix and match analysis which is an essential part of this phase of the project. The public and the decision makers are entitled to know what an Alternative E alignment would cost with an Alternative D 64' span width configuration. That the cost would be substantially less and the time to build reduced is obvious.

Much time is devoted in the DEIS to "key differentiators", some of which are made to look like Alternative E would destroy the quality of life in the Sellwood neighborhood. It's amazing how one decibel of increased noise can so tremendously negatively impact the revenues of SMILE. Certainly, the County engineers and SMILE can work out an accommodation for placement of bridge supports and Oaks Pioneer Church that reasonably satisfies both interests. Put another way, is it reasonable to condemn five owner-occupied homes, two of which belong to elderly widows, in order to spare the inconvenience of a possible minor relocation of the Church.

Although not given such appropriate status in the DEIS, there are several positive key differentiators, in addition to substantial cost savings, that should be considered when utilizing the Alternative E alignment with an Alternative D configuration. Alternative E is the only Build Alternative: (1) that doesn't require condemnation of owner-occupied homes: (2) that permits use of significant right-of-way land for beneficial use such as additional parkland, a transit center, and additional parking, a current serious deficiency, for Oaks Pioneer Church; (3) that offers a smooth uninterrupted bridge crossing during the entire course of construction; and (4) allows for the west end of the bridge and its interchange to be built on known stable ground, the cost of which can be calculated reliably rather than the unstable ground supporting the existing west end of the bridge, the remediation of which is a presently unknown project.

It appears to me that the County has seriously underestimated the right-of-way acquisition costs for the Sellwood Harbor Condominium property it proposes to take for the project under Alternative D. Assuming the County can limit the acquisition of living units to just four, a conclusion we all question, it seems to be taking lightly the acquisition of significant common area including over half of our much needed overflow parking area, and the residual damages to the remaining owners in the complex, particularly the remaining owners in Buildings A and D, by reason of the taking.

Neither the DEIS nor anyone else has come up with a plan for financing the project. The DEIS talks generally of building the bridge in phases. What an obnoxious solution to lay on the Sellwood community and others affected. Failure to have a financing plan in place or, at least, have a realistic path to provide for one illustrates a lack of commitment by the powers that be to this project.

That leads me to my last and most important point that I want to make in this comment letter to you. The owners of Sellwood Harbor Condominiums and River Park Condominiums are being held hostage by this dark cloud of negative uncertainty. Nobody can sell his/her home and at least four owners in Sellwood Harbor have health issues that require them to be living in assisted living facilities. It's absolutely essential that if the County can't raise the funds promptly to construct the Build Alternative of its choosing that the County publicly abandon the rehab/replacement project and proceed with a No Build alternative that meets the current needs of users of the Sellwood Bridge.

Please be fair with us.

Jim Larpenteur ([email protected]) 202 S.E. Spokane St. Portland, OR 97202

Appendix J: Copies of Comments on the DEIS

ID FName LName Organization ScannedDocument 215 Allen and Dobbins 215_Dobbins.pdf Mary Lou

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-70 REVIEW DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

Appendix J: Copies of Comments on the DEIS

ID FName LName Organization ScannedDocument 221 Patty Rueter Portland Office of 221_PattyRueter.pdf Emergency Management

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-71 REVIEW DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION Althen, Kath/BOI

From: Kilber-Kennedy, Donna/PDX Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2008 8:50 PM To: Steffen, Brandy/PDX Subject: FW: Sellwood Bridge Emergency Response comments

To add to comments

-----Original Message----- From: Leclerc, Mauricio [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, December 29, 2008 10:20 AM To: Michael J. Eaton P.E. ([email protected]); [email protected]; Kilber-Kennedy, Donna/PDX; Mike Pullen ([email protected]) Subject: FW: Sellwood Bridge Emergency Response comments

FYI.

Mauricio -----Original Message----- From: Rueter, Patty (POEM) Sent: Friday, December 19, 2008 10:30 AM To: Leclerc, Mauricio Subject: RE: Sellwood Bridge Emergency Response comments

our comments would only be to support the emergency response preferences and to ask if the ne bridge is going to be based on bedrock. The need for our bridges to be on bedrock is due to earthquake risk in the liquefaction zone that is prevalent along the river.

I hope that you are feeling better. I am unsure what else our office can add.

-----Original Message----- From: Leclerc, Mauricio To: Janssens, Erin C-104 (PF&R Email); Rueter, Patty (POEM); Elmore, Vince Sent: 12/18/2008 2:42 PM Subject: Sellwood Bridge Emergency Response comments Importance: High

Hi Erin,

This is the summary of our phone conversation regarding the EIS and the different bridge alternatives. If you want, you can use this as part of your bureau's response. Same for POEM and Police bureau, if it helps.

Issues * Currently emergency response opportunities are reduced, causing significant delay. The EIS understates that need to improve emergency response, particularly to be able to reciprocate in SE and SW Portland. * Presently, not all emergency vehicles can use the bridge (ambulances can, and so can fire truck engines if slowed to 15mph). Given the state of the bridge, this is still taking a chance. Water tenders and other trucks can't use the bridge given the weight restriction. 1 * For Fire response, neighboring companies regularly are asked to help out. In this area of the city, assistance should be coming from SW stations but they are dramatically restricted due to the bridge.

Desired characteristics. * Below are ideal/desired characteristics of an improved Sellwood Bridge * New bridge or rehabilitated bridge is preferred over No build option (existing conditions) * Limit closures as much as possible. From an emergency response perspective, we should like the bridge to be kept open as some alternatives allow (Alt D and E). It is preferable to have limited closures during construction in exchange for a fully operational bridge for the future. * Ideal/desirable curb to curb cross section for emergency vehicles would be 2 lanes in each direction, or 48 ft, plus a bike lanes on both sides (plus sidewalks for pedestrians). 36 ft curb to curb would be approximately a minimum to maneuver an emergency vehicle in mixed traffic.

Thank you very much for your attention.

Mauricio

Mauricio Leclerc Transportation Planner City of Portland Office of Transportation 1120 SW 5th Avenue, Suite 800 Portland Oregon 97204 503.823.7808

2 Appendix J: Copies of Comments on the DEIS

ID FName LName Organization ScannedDocument 222 Joel Grayson Maylie & Grayson 222_Maylie__Grayson_DEIS_letter_12- 18-08.pdf

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-72 REVIEW DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

Appendix J: Copies of Comments on the DEIS

ID FName LName Organization ScannedDocument 223 Douglas R. Allen 223_DouglasAllen.pdf

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-73 REVIEW DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION Douglas R. Allen (sent to [email protected]) 734 SE 47th Ave. Portland, OR 97215 December 20, 2008

Comments on the Sellwood Bridge Draft Environmental Impact Statement

I have attended nearly all the Sellwood Bridge Citizens Task Force (CTF) and Policy Advisory Group (PAG) meetings since September 2006, as a citizen observer.

As we approach the Dec. 22, 2008 deadline for submitting comments on the Sellwood Bridge Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), citizens and policy makers should be aware of the flawed process that has given us only unreasonable and unaffordable options, and what might be a reasonable alternative.

In 2005, Multnomah County commissioned the “Sellwood Bridge Evaluation and Repair Study” from consultants David Evans and Associates, Inc.

That analysis recommended a roughly $20 million (2006 dollars) project, that included $13.1 million for bridge strengthening and $6 million for stabilizing the interchange with Highway 43.

One important result of this recommended rehabilitation would have been that TriMet transit service could resume.

Another important point is that traffic could be maintained on the bridge during the construction period, with occasional short closures plus full night and weekend closures during portions of the 90-day construction duration.

Although the consultants found that “The 10-15 year service life extension period is a minimal, yet warranted approach for this bridge,” regional policy makers chose instead to go for a longer-term solution, with an expectation of federal money paying for most of the cost.

Since then, City, County, and Metro staff, consultants, the PAG, the CTF, and others have been working to develop long-term solutions for the deteriorating condition of the Sellwood Bridge.

The process has followed the federal government’s requirements for analyzing transportation projects, which has a serious flaw. Although the process requires analysis of a “no-build” option, it does not require analysis of the most cost-effective option [Least Cost Planning]. Instead, all parties assumed that as much money as necessary would be provided to meet a broad set of goals that have ended up causing the project to cost between $280 million and $361 million. These goals include: Ability to carry a future streetcar; ability to carry overweight trucks up to 120,000 lbs; ability to accommodate freeway-length trucks; reduction of congestion on Highway 43; extra lanes for transit or future expansion of capacity; expansive sidewalks and bike paths; and full compliance with current seismic standards.

Early on, before the goals were finalized, the PAG and CTF were told that rehabilitating the existing bridge would be more expensive than a new bridge. As a result, the PAG and CTF “knew” that any rehabilitation options existed for only one purpose – to answer the inevitable charge that the bridge should be fixed, not replaced. Rehab was not seriously considered.

There is an obvious rehabilitation option that is somewhat more expensive than the “David Evans” recommendation, but that is potentially much more cost-effective, less disruptive, and easier to finance than the “build” alternatives studied in the DEIS. This option was presented to the CTF, but they ignored it.

The option: Replace the existing concrete deck of the main truss with an “orthotropic steel” deck, which would be lighter and stronger than the existing deck, thereby reducing the load on the trusses, which would allow for construction of a lightweight pedestrian/bike path below the deck, with a width of 18 feet (possibly narrowing to 16 feet for a short stretch at each pier). Replace the west approach structure, stabilizing the ground, keeping the current “trumpet” interchange design but adding a traffic light for cars headed east across the bridge, to better “meter” the flow and reduce congestion on Highway 43. Provide a modest level of seismic upgrading. Repair the concrete east approach spans as recommended in the David Evans report, or replace the east approach deck with an “orthotropic steel” deck. Repaint the bridge. Minimize closures by building a temporary detour structure around the west approach while it is replaced. Replacing the west approach will allow improving the geometry of the northbound 43 to eastbound turn.

I am not an engineer (although I have a degree in Structural Engineering), so there are many specific details that would need to be examined for cost-effectiveness, but the feasibility of this general approach (low cost rehab) has already been demonstrated by the David Evans report, and the analysis already done for the DEIS can provide much of the supporting information.

For example, further analysis might show that a west-end roundabout could be incorporated without pushing the cost too high. It is very unfortunate that the only double-deck alternative studied in the DEIS was not paired with the roundabout, but instead with the (new) trumpet interchange at Highway 43. As a result, no analysis was done of the possible benefit for pedestrians and cyclists of being at a lower level. Eliminating the switchbacks involved with the pedestrian and bicycle connections at the west end would be a significant improvement over other alternatives. For example, a pedestrian/bicycle-actuated signal could allow crossing Highway 43 at the level of the through-lanes (lower level) under the roundabout, avoiding conflicts with the turns. And of course none of the “build” alternatives considered the possibility of retaining the existing “trumpet” intersection at Highway 43, as described above, which could also work well with having pedestrians/bicycles on a lower deck.

At the east end of the bridge, the lower pedestrian/bicycle path would also reduce the grade separation between the bridge and the existing Springwater Trail.

Although there is plenty of room under the main truss for a pedestrian/bicycle path, under the east approach it may be necessary to split the path, for example running a bicycle- only path directly underneath the deck, while running mixed pedestrian/slow-bicycle paths at the same lower level but outside the bridge piers (not directly underneath the deck).

The “orthotropic steel” deck has other advantages besides being lighter. It is pre- fabricated, and can be installed rapidly with no need for concrete curing, thus minimizing any required bridge closure. This type of deck was chosen for the recent rehabilitation of the Golden Gate Bridge, and while it may cost more than concrete for the deck portion of the project, the recent rapid declines in steel costs may make this option much more cost- effective than was thought at the time that it was rejected.

It is even possible that the reduced weight of an “orthotropic steel” deck would allow for widened sidewalks on the motor-vehicle level of the bridge, without requiring truss strengthening, if preferred. Even though there are long stretches of the Springwater Trail that are isolated from highway access, there seems to be an irrational concern with having bike/pedestrian facilities sheltered from spray, weather, and errant vehicles by placing them below the main bridge deck. If this irrational concern is over-riding, then use of an “orthotropic steel” deck may solve that problem without unduly raising costs.

At various points during the development of this project, I raised objections to what I saw as flawed requirements. These are 1) ability to carry a future streetcar; 2) ability to carry overweight trucks up to 120,000 lbs; 3) ability to accommodate freeway-length trucks; 4) reduction of congestion on Highway 43 by expanding lane storage and intersection redesign; 5) extra lanes for transit or future expansion of capacity; 6) expansive sidewalks and bike paths; and 7) full compliance with current seismic standards.

I was told that each one of these assumptions, by itself, would not add a significant cost, but at no time did the project analyze the cost-savings of removing all of these assumptions. Obviously, if making the bridge strong enough for overweight trucks and a streetcar line requires huge additions to the existing trusses, then full compliance with current seismic standards might cost nothing additional. The reverse may also be true. However, analyzing each assumption by using the remaining assumptions to justify why that particular assumption adds little to the cost, is circular or “bootstrap” logic, and is not a valid way to analyze a project.

The correct approach should be to remove all these assumptions, and then add them in singly, to see what they really cost. None of these assumptions is necessary for the basic purpose of the project, which is to permit one-lane of cars per direction, plus restored transit service, use this bridge for the indefinite future. As Clackamas County Commissioner Bill Kennemer said at a PAG meeting, “Why would anyone want to drive a big truck over this bridge – there isn’t any need for it!” He said this after describing how, when he was much younger, he once drove a beer delivery truck over the bridge, and vowed to never do so again.

Multnomah County and Clackamas County Commission chairs Ted Wheeler and Lynn Peterson arrived late on this project, and bear little fault for the flawed course that it has followed, but they are probably in the best position to set the course straight, by calling for analysis of cheaper, more cost-effective, and less disruptive options. Appendix J: Copies of Comments on the DEIS

ID FName LName Organization ScannedDocument 224 Pat Hainley 224_PatHainley.pdf.doc

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-74 REVIEW DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION Mike,

Here are my comments on the DEIS for the Sellwood Bridge.

Table 3.7-1 includes a statement that the Sellwood Riverfront Park has no major events. This would be news to the thousands of people who gather each Monday in July for the Riverfront Classics. This is of considerable importance should Alternative E be selected as the bridge would tower over the event and provide less than suitable accompaniment to the performers on stage as well as being a visual blight from both Spokane St. and the park itself.

The report fails to identify the Sellwood Community Center as an historic structure that lies within a block of Tacoma Street.

Table 3.7-1 refers to the Mayer Boys & Girls Club. Fred would probably like it if his name were properly spelled. Oops! That's right he's dead. OK. His foundation would like it spelled right.

Although the DEIS does an admirable job of describing the current status of Tacoma Street, the Tacoma Main Street plan and the current cut through situation, it fails to address the history of the street and how poorly it functioned as a four lane thoroughfare for transit but how successfully it operated to split this neighborhood. To my mind only the Berlin Wall functioned as effeciently. Meanwhile it was the Main Street plan and the neighborhood's support of it that actually allowed for a greater volume of traffic to negotiate this corridor in a two lane configuration as opposed to a four lane.

This points out in my mind the most glaring failure of the process. By limiting the scope of the project to 6th Street on the east end and 400 feet on either side of the westside terminus, the citizens task force was forced to deliberate as if what each each end of the bridge attached to was of little import. Thus on the east side you wind up with an access road adjacent to the Springwater corridor or an unworkable signalized intersection in order to provide a means to service Oaks Park. On the west end you get "solutions" that involve "parking" cars on a bridge.

For whatever reason it appears that the interchange on the west side has taken on a life and cost of its own. Nevermind that it is not the problem for the morning commuter as they will find themselves queued up soon enough at either Taylors Ferry Road or somewhere along Macadam Avenue. And for the evening commuter there is not an interchange possible that will do anything except speed them to a slow motion dance along Tacoma Street. Why spend $72 million dollars so that you can have two through lanes in each direction on Highway 43? For less than 1% of that amount you could solve a chunk of the evening commute problem. Just shut down the light at the mortuary at 4pm so that there are no signals between Taylors Ferry and Dunthorpe. It is amazing to me the amount of time and effort that has gone into that westside interchange just to find that nothing functions any better than what is already there.

As for the east end, had the CTF had the chance they may have come up with something very elegant such as a bridge that flys over the existing alignment so that no residences or businesses are trashed, allows for 6th Street to be the access road for Oaks Park and eliminates 6th, 7th and 8th Streets as cut through access points to Tacoma. Guess we'll never find out.

Pat Hainley

PS This does not have to be part of the DEIS commentary but I have to tell you how much the sellwoodbridge.org website stinks when it came to trying to make comments on the DEIS. Why should I have to register with another website (Vuzit) to be able to access the ability to make comments and then why should I have to do anything besides just returning to the sellwoodbridge.org website to then make my comments? I consider mysef fairly tech savvy but I wasn't about to sit through a tutorial and learn another program just to basically send an email. But what ticks me off even more is when, evidently, your server sends me some cryptic note about being "read only" when I try to add your email address as a contact to the Yahoo account that I use when I am at home. I had to have John Fyre forward me an email he received from you in order to send this email by the deadline. Appendix J: Copies of Comments on the DEIS

ID FName LName Organization ScannedDocument 225 Joel Fields The UPS Store 225_upsstoresellwoodbridge.doc

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-75 REVIEW DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

The UPS Store 1327 SE Tacoma St. Portland, OR 97202

Attention: Mike Pullen Sellwood Bridge Project 2020 SW 4th Avenue, Suite 300 Portland, OR 97201

RE: Sellwood Bridge EIS comments

Thank you for accepting our comments on the Sellwood Bridge Project. As the owner of The UPS Store located just east of 13th Ave on Tacoma Street I have followed the planning process carefully, have a vested interest in the outcome, and have consistently stressed two points throughout the planning process:

1. The City of Portland Tacoma Main Street Plan and Metro’s South Willamette Crossing Study both call for keeping Tacoma Street and the Sellwood Bridge at two traffic lanes. It makes no sense to have a larger capacity bridge for vehicular traffic when both ends of the bridge can’t handle more. Pedestrian, transit and bicycle uses, however, should be encouraged and addressed.

2. The Sellwood Bridge is the only Willamette River crossing for many miles in either direction. As a result, any closure of the bridge will have a devastating impact to the business communities on both sides of the river over an extensive area.

After reviewing both the EIS Executive Summary, the complete EIS, and the Economic Technical Report I do have several concerns on the alternatives and some of the assumptions used in the reports:

Bridge Closure: Only Alternatives B (with detour bridge, D and E provide for keeping the bridge open during construction. In my opinion this is a fatal flaw for the no-build and other alternatives.

Bridge Cross-Sections: The cross-section used in Alternative E is not consistent with either the South Willamette Crossing Study or the Tacoma Main Street Plan. Of further concern, while the EIS on page 4-23 provides reassurance that the two extra lanes would be dedicated for transit only, it also states on page 4-24 that “wider basic bridge cross-sections (Alternatives C, D & E) would maintain the bridge’s flexibility to address future transportation needs because they would provide opportunities for future rechannelization or reconfiguration of the bridge deck.” Clearly, this portion of the EIS is contradictory, and the Alternative E cross-section should be dropped from consideration. All of the other cross-sections are substantially consistent with both adopted plans and are acceptable.

Economic Impact of Bridge Closure: In reviewing the complete EIS I noted that the East Side Study Area was a very small portion of the greater Sellwood-Westmoreland community. The EIS defines the study area and then applies its economic impacts only on the “study area”- Section 3.6.1 on page 3.71 and notes that further analysis is available in the Economic Technical Report. I obtained that report and quickly discovered that indeed the East and West side study areas were very narrowly defined. The reasoning for this seems to be that since the new bridge will not add additional vehicular capacity there will be only narrow economic changes once an alternative is selected and the bridge is complete. This small study area is illustrated in Figure 4.1 of the Economic Technical Report and in the discussion on page 3-2. The problem is that this line of reasoning is in error when discussing the impacts of the bridge closure because there are no alternative routes across the river for 2.5 miles to the North and 8 miles to the south. This, by definition is a very broad impact area, but in the Technical Economic Report this is ignored because the initial study area is so narrowly defined.

There are two questions regarding the economic impacts of the closure: 1) How big will the impacts be on the affected businesses, and 2) Over what area will the impacts occur? My opinion is that the Technical Economic Report answers the first question correctly as discussed in Table 5-1. Ranges of 15% to 35% declines in gross sales sound frightening, but probable. The second question is too narrowly defined in the study and the results are accordingly understated. On page 4-5 of the Economic report it states that there are 93 businesses in the economic study area employing 859 people. My question is what would those numbers be if the economic study area including all of Sellwood – Westmoreland?; or inner SE Portland from Holgate to upper Milwaukie?

Alternatives that result in a closure of the bridge will be an unmitigated disaster for the business communities on both sides of the Willamette River far in excess of what the EIS and Technical Economic Report project. In my opinion, based upon my known customer base and my involvement with many of the community businesses, the bridge closure will cause economic disruptions that will extend for a mile or more North and South of the Sellwood Bridge on both sides of the River.

I think the Technical Economic Report approach of establishing Tier 1 through Tier 3 businesses is correct; however the area covered should be much, much larger. Stars Antiques, Tilde, Spielworks, American at Heart, Caprial’s Bistro, Haggis McBaggis, Springwater Grill, St. Maine, Justin & Burks, Tres Fabu, Hash, and many other specialty retailers and restaurants draw customers to Sellwood- Westmoreland from the entire Portland metro area. Of the limited list named above, only two are included in the reports established study area.

In my personal experience at my The UPS Store I have neighborhood customers, pass-through customers, and customers who have discovered my services while visiting the Sellwood-Westmoreland shopping area. As a result approximately 20% of my customers are from a zip code that is not 97202.

Finally, many of these businesses have already experienced one bridge closure when the Bybee overpass was rebuilt and remember the severe impacts of that smaller project. For the Bybee crossing alternative crossings of 99E and the railroad tracks were available on Holgate St. and Johnson Creek Rd. In the case of the Sellwood Bridge the alternative crossings of the Willamette River are 2 ½ miles and 8 miles away. This means, under a bridge closure that travel patterns will be widely disrupted over a very large area, with corresponding economic disruptions.

My preferred alternative: My preferred alternative is either Alternative D or a reconfigured Alternative E with a reduced cross- section such as used in Alternatives B, C or D.

Very Truly Yours, Joel H. Fields, Owner

Appendix J: Copies of Comments on the DEIS

ID FName LName Organization ScannedDocument 226 Emily Roth Portland Parks & 226_SBDEI_Comments_122208_final.do Recreation c

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-76 REVIEW DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

Sellwood Bridge Draft EIS Comments December 22, 2008

The following are the comments from the City of Portland, Parks & Recreation Department on the November 2008 Draft EIS for the Sellwood Bridge and draft Section 4(f) Evaluation. If you have questions about any of PP&R’s comments, please contact Ms. Gregg Everhart at 505-823-6009 or by email: [email protected].

Sellwood Bridge Draft EIS (November 2008) Proposed Mitigation General ƒ Portland Parks & Recreation is the proper name for the bureau. Please Comments make consistent throughout the document. ƒ Remove “Undeveloped” from all descriptions of natural area lands. Natural area land is managed for its natural resource functions and values and PP&R does not consider these lands undeveloped. ƒ PP&R is not a typical ROW land owner. PP&R lands are managed for multiple functions and values including active and passive recreation, habitat for wildlife and fish, views, and environmental education. The Draft EIS states that PP&R will be paid cash for the project ROW within parks based on fair market value of the land. PP&R does not consider this appropriate payment. The functions and values of each park must be evaluated and PP&R compensated based on the impacts to these values in additional park land or enhancements that will replace the impacted functions and values, plus the payment for the ROW. ƒ Westside Riparian habitat along the Willamette River has been greatly reduced within the City of Portland. First priority is to avoid impacts to this habitat type. Any unavoidable impacts must be mitigated with in- kind replacement. ƒ Alternatives should avoid or minimize additional fragmentation to wildlife corridors along the river and between the riparian and upland forests. ƒ If proposed crossing location into Willamette Moorage Park is not changed, then include a fish friendly crossing such as a bridge over the

- 1 - Stephens Creek. ƒ Change “non-programmed” to “passive” recreation for all natural area parks or the natural area of a hybrid park. ƒ Global warming should be addressed in the EIS, not just in Cumulative Effects. FHWA does not have any formal standards but the State of California has done some interesting work for SEQA compliance that could be used in the EIS evaluation. Willamette ƒ All alternatives show impacts to Willamette Moorage Park with the Moorage proposed relocated Willamette Moorage Park and Macadam Bay Club Park/Stephens entrance. The draft EIS does not evaluate other alternatives to this Creek entrance. ƒ PP&R suggests that creating a roadway with a bridge crossing of Stephens Creek in the proposed Trolley ROW, on the west side of the rail track, that goes from the present entrance to SW Miles Street be evaluated as a possible alternative. This would eliminate the impacts to Willamette Moorage Park and the recently constructed Stephens Creek Fish Enhancement Project and keep open the possibility of additional creek restoration work upstream in the future. ƒ If the proposed crossing location into Willamette Moorage Park is not changed, then include a fish friendly crossing such as a bridge over Stephens Creek.

Chapter 2.3.2 Land-Based Construction - Construction Storage and Fabrication Areas: 0.5 Construction to 1.0-ac. site will be needed near the proposed bridge construction and Methods 5.0 to 8.0-acre site outside the project area. PP&R understands that the sites Common to will be selected based on land availability during construction. Our All Build preference is for sites not immediately adjacent to PP&R property. Alternatives Chapter 3. 2 Figures 3.2-2, 3.2-4, 3.2-6, 3.2-8, 3.2-10: West-side diagrams should show Bicyclists and the bike/pedestrian facility to which the new construction will connect Pedestrians (cemetery road); East-side diagram should show the existing Springwater Corridor. This will clarify the length of on-street connection needed to reach off-street trail; please confirm whether or not the stairway between SWC and SE Spokane will be replaced. Alternative C: Please note the reduced amount of vertical distance that Mitigate the lack of “eyes on the pedestrians and cyclists have to travel in this option. A flatter route should be street,” noise, pigeon droppings by

- 2 - more attractive to all human-powered users. Are profiles available for the hanging the bike/pedestrian shared bike/pedestrian route of each alternative? path to side of bridge. It could alternate as proposed by Arun Jain, City of Portland, Planning Department or remain on one side. Table 3.2-6: the east intersection in this option would impact bicyclists and Do not build the east-side under- pedestrians by adding more traffic to the bicycle boulevard on SE Spokane. crossing It is a key access point for pedestrians and cyclists using Springwater Corridor and Sellwood Riverfront Park Table 3.2-7 and 3.208: “Signalized intersection improves bicyclist and Either do not signalize the east-side pedestrian crossing of SE Tacoma Street” unless it is a vehicle signal. intersection or make it bicycle and Adding vehicles would make cycling more dangerous on SE Spokane as pedestrian only (subject to PDOT well. recommendation). 3.2.5 Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Bicyclist and Pedestrian Impact – revise per comments above. Add a table that documents the vertical climb from trail on both east and west to high point of bridge (or note length of ramps) [see attached spreadsheet]. For instance, for Alternative B the spiral ramp would contain three loops to get bikes/pedestrians up or down the 1000 feet length needed to ascend or descend from the bridge. This will most likely be a commuting and recreation barrier for most users. Section 3.3 - 3-49 – Impacts and Mitigation Common to all Built Alternatives: ƒ Proposed Alternative for Right of Way ƒ Access to Macadam Bay Club. The draft EIS only evaluates one Macadam Bay Moorage and alternative for relocating the existing access road. Access: Relocation ƒ Willamette Shoreline Trolley and Future Streetcar - The draft EIS does Creation of a roadway with a not evaluate any alternatives other than moving of the trolley ROW into bridge crossing of Stephens Creek Powers Marine and Willamette Moorage natural area parks. in the proposed Trolley ROW, on the west side of the rail track, that goes from the present entrance to SW Miles Street to be evaluated as a possible alternative.

ƒ Proposed Streetcar/Trail Alternatives: Reduce length of double track

- 3 - through the park natural areas (Powers Marine and Willamette Moorage). Establish streetcar ROW in center of Hwy 43. Design multimodal Greenway Trail within existing streetcar ROW, not in the natural area.

3.9 Parks and ƒ General comment: The scale of maps with aerial photo base and no ƒ Mitigation needs to include land Recreation existing edge of pavement makes it difficult to analyze impacts to natural purchase that replaces the areas in Powers Marine Park and Willamette Moorage. Although overall functions and values lost, not acreage is importance, width of the riparian buffer is also significant. just cash payment. PP&R overlaid our west-side natural area parks over Alternatives A-E ƒ Mitigation Measure for Specific West 1C drawings to evaluate impacts. Alternatives (Sellwood ƒ Sellwood Riverfront Park (3-107) – include that the park is used for Riverfront Park) add summer concerts and movies. “Contribute funds for ƒ Powers Marine Park (3-108) – include that the City of Portland, Bureau completion of Springwater of Environmental Services (BES) completed a capital improvement Sellwood Gap (Alternative A) project in the park in 2007. Large woody debris was placed below the ƒ Mitigation Measure for Specific ordinary high water line to increase the habitat value for fish. Also, Alternatives (Powers Marine invasive plant species have been removed and native species planted. Park) add “Redevelop Staff Ongoing revegetation work is currently funded by BES and PP&R Jennings as natural area” through 2010. (Alternative C) OR ƒ Willamette Moorage Park (3-108) please change “hiking” trail to ƒ Mitigation reduction (Powers “shared-use” trail. Marine Park) reduce need for ƒ Willamette Moorage Park, first column, last paragraph (3-108) – include: mitigation by changing west the project also included riparian enhancement, removal of invasive and intersection from trumpet (or planting native species. roundabout) ƒ Springwater Corridor Trail (3-108) please add “downtown Portland to” ƒ Mitigation for impacts to after “connecting” in second sentence of second paragraph Westside Riparian Habitat must ƒ Willamette Greenway Trail (East Bank; 3-109) Add second sentence in be in-kind replacement. second paragraph: …SE Umatilla Street. There is a two-block gap and ƒ ‘Daylight’ and restore the trail continues between SE Tenino and SE Linn. existing perennial creeks that are ƒ Table 3.9-1 (3-110) as noted elsewhere, remove “undeveloped” piped through Powers Marine ƒ Table 3.9-1 (3-110): Area; Functions Impacted column does not address Park. Bridge all trail/ROW creek

- 4 - the functions and values of the park that are impacted by each crossings. alternative. The EIS needs to address the riverine and riparian functions ƒ Remove culverts beneath Hwy impacted by the land conversion. 43. Replace with structures that ƒ Table 3.9-2 (3-110): Area; Functions Impacted column does not allow passage for fish & adequately address the impacts to the functions and values of the riverine wildlife. and riparian habitats impacted by the build alternatives. All alternatives ƒ Remove culvert beneath railroad convert approximately 20% or greater area of the park to transportation ROW and construct a bridge uses. This will have a large impact on the functions and values of the crossing at Stephens Creek natural area. adjacent to Willamette Moorage ƒ 3.9.3 Direct Impacts, Mitigation, Alternative Specific Mitigation (3-110) Park. – revise per suggestions elsewhere for no reduction park/natural area ƒ Regrade, revegetate and restore acreage. Evaluate potential of any land taken from business or Stephens Creek between residential displacement to be re-used as park/natural area under bridge. Macadam Blvd. and recently ƒ Mitigation Coordination at Local Parks call out box (3-111) – the projects completed Stephens Creek Fish have been completed, update box. Enhancement Project. ƒ 3.9.3 Bullet for Powers Marine Park (3-111) – the proposed mitigation is ƒ Acquire bluff and riverbank not appropriate as the invasive species have been removed from the park lands adjacent to existing and the tree canopy is intact. A fish enhancement project has been Willamette Greenway Trail completed at the park. Unsure what a river bank stabilization project (East Bank) ROW. Control would look like at this location. invasives and revegetate with ƒ 3.9.3 Bullet for Oaks Pioneer Park (3-11) – include economic impacts to oak woodland species. SMILE for temporary reductions in revenues from church rentals during ƒ Oaks Pioneer Park – revegetate bridge construction. with native oak woodland ƒ Sellwood Riverfront Park, Alternative A (3-112) – placement of the species. bridge will increase noise in the park, adversely impacting summer ƒ Oaks Pioneer Park – concert and movie programs. Compensate SMILE for any ƒ Sellwood Riverfront Park, Alternative A and E (3-112) – The revenue reductions from church pedestrian/bike alignment will result in removal of some of the existing rentals during construction. black cottonwood riparian forest on the riverbank at the west edge of the ƒ Sellwood Riverfront Park, park. Alternative A – noise mitigation ƒ Willamette Moorage Park (3-112): update mitigation for the park as the should include a noise barrier on Stephens Creek Fish Enhancement Project is complete, including the bridge. riparian plantings. ƒ Sellwood Riverfront Park, ƒ 3.9.3 add last bullet before 3.9.4 Summary (3-114): (or where Alternative A – mitigation appropriate) that indicates the Willamette Greenway Trail (SE Spokane should include planting

- 5 - Street Section) would be impacted by east end interchanges on additional large native trees. Alternative C, D, E) with appropriate mitigation being either existing ƒ Sellwood Riverfront Park, east end intersection or bike/pedestrian only signal [this is park and Alternative A - Remove riprap, recreational impact as greenway trail connection to Springwater, WG control invasives, layback along river and Sellwood Riverfront park] slope and increase width of ƒ Table 3.9-3 cont. Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Park and existing riparian woodlands on Recreation Impact, Willamette Greenway Trail (SE Spokane Street west edge of park. Section): replace “None” on C, D, E with “East-end interchange adds ƒ Sellwood Riverfront Park, vehicles to SE Spokane” Alternative A - Remove 2 acres of the invasive species black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) in north and east sides of park and revegetate with native oak woodland species.

Section 3.11 – Table 3.11-1 Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Visual Visual Resources Impact: Significant east-side visual change? A – change to Resources “yes” as second bridge will make a visual impact. Section 3.16 - ƒ General comment - BES and PP&R have already started revegetation Vegetation work at Powers Marine and Willamette Moorage Parks and have sufficient funding to continue invasive plant removal and native revegetation through 2010. In addition, fish enhancement projects have been completed at each park. Therefore, these stated mitigation measures are not appropriate. ƒ General Comment: the quality and quantity of riparian habitat along the west side of the Willamette River at Powers Marine and Willamette Moorage Parks may be underestimated in the site assessment components of the DEIS. The parks’ riverine wetlands are dominated by Pacific willow with black cottonwood and Columbia River willow growing on the edges. These willow (Salix spp.) vegetation communities have limited distribution within the City limits. The Oregon Natural Heritage Program has identified Pacific willow shrub swamps as a medium priority ecosystem types for conservation in the Willamette Valley. Although both sites have reed canary grass in the understory, they also still contain patches of native stinging nettle and scattered

- 6 - native shrubs. ƒ All alignment alternatives will convert natural area parks to transportation uses. This will result in a loss of functional habitat, vegetation cover, increase impervious surface, and fragmentation of the remaining riparian corridor. ƒ Plant Communities and Noxious Weeds (3-164 & 3-165): Please provide plant surveys and wetland delineation information. Where is the location of the proposed impact to the Westside riparian habitat? [see section 3.16.3] ƒ 3.16.3 Build Alternatives Section Direct Impacts (3-165-167): Update this section to reflect current revegetation work at Powers Marine and Willamette Moorage Parks by the City. Section 3.17 - Update this section as the Stephens Creek Fish Enhancement Project has Wetlands been completed. The creek banks have been laid back and restored. The hydraulic connectivity between the floodplain of Stephens Creek and the Willamette River has been restored. Also, invasive vegetation has been removed and native species planted within the riparian zone. Section 3.18 - ƒ Update this section to reflect current revegetation work at Powers Marine ƒ Wildlife passage culverts Wildlife and Willamette Moorage Parks by the City. underneath HWY 43 to allow a ƒ Include bald eagle, Cooper’s hawk, red-tail hawk and osprey as potentially connection between uplands and affected avian species within the project areas on both the east bank and the river. west bank of the river. ƒ Amphibian surveys are currently underway at Powers Marine and Willamette Moorage natural area parks. ƒ Deer scat has been observed at Powers Marine Park. ƒ Recent sightings of a roosting pair of peregrines on the under structure of the Sellwood Bridge at the east bank. ƒ Update the Wildlife Summary call out box.

3.19 Noise Noise Summary PP&R will need to give input on final determination of reasonableness and feasibility during final design of the project. 3.23 No edits suggested but note that “Mitigation planned…” (near end of fifth Relationship paragraph) will likely be completed as noted above and below. So PP&R is

- 7 - of Short-Term more interested in the use of right-of-way used during construction being Uses of the returned to park or recreational use, as noted in following sentence. Environment and Long- Term Productivity 3.25 3.25.1 Past and Present Actions – 1996 (3-200) Springwater Corridor Trail Cumulative east of SE McLoughlin opened in 1996; the segment of Springwater on the Impacts Willamette that passes under the Sellwood Bridge opened in 2003; add 2007 Willamette River Water Trail established, water trail guide published. 3.25.2 Foreseeable Actions – revise bullet 8: …SE Umatilla Street and SE 19th Avenue at SE Ochoco Street [avoids confusion with only going to SE Ochoco and SE 13th Ave]; revise bullet 15 by adding Sellwood Riverfront Park 3.25.4 Parks and Recreation ƒ 3-206: the portion of Springwater in the study area opened in 2003. ƒ 3-206, first paragraph. This paragraph does not make sense in light of the proposed impacts to the parks from proposed project. How does this address cumulative effects of the proposed project and other projects such as the trolley on the investments/improvements the City of Portland has already completed to improve the ecological health of these parks? ƒ First bullet (3-206) – the paragraphs describing the west side parks does not adequately address cumulative impacts to the area. Both Powers Marine and Willamette Moorage are natural area parks that are managed primarily for their natural area values with limited passive recreation. The potential 30 percent decrease in parkland and tree canopy and increase in impervious surfaces would adversely impact the fish and wildlife functions of the parks. Also increased visibility and use often adversely impacts wildlife use so increasing the recreation use may not be beneficial to the park. This section needs to address the adverse effects from this project and the proposed trolley on the wildlife functions. PP&R does not manage these parks as hybrid parks like Sellwood Riverfront Park and it is not intending to change the management for this or other projects. (Sellwood Riverfront Park is

- 8 - managed as a hybrid park where the developed portion is managed for active recreation such as the dog off leash area, picnicking, movies, etc.) ƒ Third bullet: add Sellwood Riverfront Park in list for on-going restoration. ƒ Add missing bullet that notes that paddling and motorized boating is increasing 3.25.4 Visual Resources – The retaining wall and rock cuts…could [instead of “would”] soften since it not entirely certain that vegetation will succeed, particularly with 30 – 80’ high cuts/walls. 3.25.4 Vegetation ƒ 1st bullet – Off site mitigation for removal of trees within the project areas does not address degradation to the riparian forest within the project area. This section is not addressing cumulative impacts to the riparian system along this side of the river. ƒ 2nd bullet – disagree that magnitude of impact is small when already narrow width of riparian habitat is further decreased. How was 150 acres of Westside Riparian vegetation calculated and where is the vicinity this is mentioned? ƒ 3rd bullet - How does vegetation in the right of way improve wildlife habitat? What species are targeted for this habitat type? Cite studies that show similar right of way plantings that provide habitat and supports native wildlife. ƒ 4th bullet – the project will impact vegetation restoration completed by the City of Portland. This project will adversely impact these restoration projects within the project area. Needs to be addressed in the cumulative effects. ƒ The accumulated impact of walls, wider travel lanes, and new driveways makes a substantial impact on connectivity. This needs to be addressed.

- 9 -

3.25.4 Wetlands ƒ Add Stephens Creek to list of locations ƒ The City has not restored wetlands at Ross Island. The City has removed invasive species on 44-acres that is City owned and managed. 3.25.4 Air Quality 2nd bullet on climate change – does not adequately address the congestion that will be created by an undersized bridge or interchange and the impacts of increased traffic on OR 43 on greenhouse gas emissions within the City of Portland. Chapter 4. Table 4.2-3 Bicyclist and Pedestrian Elements by Build Alternative Comparison ƒ Safety Concerns (row six) for Alternative C could be mitigated by having of separate deck below but to side of vehicles. Alternatives ƒ Link to Springwater Corridor (row 8) for Alternatives D & E – must use side streets with increased vehicle traffic ƒ Add a row that documents the vertical climb from trail on both east and west to high point of bridge (or note length of ramps) [see attached spreadsheet]. Tables 4.2-8 and 9 ƒ PP&R vehicle access to Powers ƒ For Powers Marine and Willamette Moorage parks include the percent of Marine Park will be from the the park impacted by the project, not just the number of acres. improved Greenway Trail to ƒ Include functions, values and activities impacted by the alternatives. avoid additional impacts to the natural area park. Table 4.2-9 Alternative-specific Impacts to Section 4(f) Properties – Add Willamette Greenway (Spokane Street) – it has impacts for C, D, and E unless east interchanges modified. [This is similar to inclusion of Sellwood Bridge Recreational Trail.] Figure 4.3-2 East-side connection - Add existing and proposed Springwater Corridor to diagram so impacts of traffic on bicyclists is more apparent. Table 4.4-2 Summary of Impacts by Alternative - PP&R understands that relative significance of each property is considered but the EIS needs to include summary of activities, functions and values are impacted by each alternative. It is not as simplistic as number of sites and acreage.

- 10 -

Willamette Moorage Park (4-33) – delete significant. The amount of acreage Avoid impacts by taking the bike that would be impacted is significant for all alternatives if percent is used loop out of the natural area. instead of acres. 4-33, 2nd bullet – separate Oaks Pioneer Park from Willamette Moorage and Powers Marine Parks. The natural area parks on the west side of the river are significant natural area parks providing intact riparian vegetation, listed fish habitat and wildlife functions. Chapter 4 – ƒ Page 4-33 Willamette Moorage Park: All alternatives will significantly Comparison of impact the natural area. Remove “significantly “ from the third line and Alternatives just state that there are less impact from these alternatives. ƒ Page 4-34 Factor 4 second bullet – Separate Oaks Pioneer Park from Willamette Moorage Park and Powers Marine Park. The later two parks are managed for their natural area functions. They provide significant fish and wildlife functions and riparian habitat along the Willamette River that is in short supply in this area. Fish enhancement projects have been completed at each natural area. Section 4(f) ƒ The DEIS and Section 4(f) documents do not discuss any roadway access alternatives to adversely impacting Willamette Moorage Park. This needs to be disclosed before a de minimis determination can be made. ƒ See all previous comments on the DEIS sections and incorporate where appropriate. ƒ 4(f)-69, Factor 3 and 4 box, third bullet – at both Willamette Moorage and Powers Marine Parks the City of Portland has completed capital investment projects that significantly increased the habitat value of the parks and needs to be protected from adverse impacts to wildlife.

- 11 - Appendix J: Copies of Comments on the DEIS

ID FName LName Organization ScannedDocument 227 Erin Janssens Portland Fire & 227_ErinJanssens.pdf Rescue

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-77 REVIEW DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION -----Original Message----- From: Janssens, Erin C-104 (PF&R Email) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 6:14 PM To: PULLEN Mike J; CANNON Ian B; EATON Michael J; '[email protected]' Cc: Leclerc, Mauricio Subject: Portland Fire & Rescue Sellwood Bridge

To All,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Sellwood bridge EIS. Below are concerns Portland Fire & Rescue has with the EIS and the bridge proposals. Unfortunately, the EIS understates the impact of the current bridge on emergency response, as well as the options identified. Below are issues of the current problems, with desired characteristics following.

Issues Presently, use by Fire apparatus is greatly limited. While ambulances can utilize the bridge, Fire Engines may use the bridge for emergency response only, with speed restricted to 15mph. Given the state of the bridge, this is still taking a chance, and only permitted during emergency response. Other Fire apparatus, including Fire Trucks (necessary at all residential and commercial type fires) as well as Heavy Squads and Water Tenders, are unable to use the bridge at any time, due to weight restrictions. This limits not only emergency operations, but also effective day to day operations requiring movement of companies. This means significantly longer response times for multiple unit responses, including residential fires, commercial fires, major gas incidents, hazardous materials incidents, and any type of specialty rescue in SE or SW. Due to the above, emergency response times are greatly increased (longer response times negatively affects citizens safety, firefighter safety, property loss, and impact to the environment). This also negatively impacts emergency response on single unit responses when companies in neighboring areas need to cover for first-in Fire apparatus that are already assigned, affecting the safety issues outlined above, as well as response reliability. .

Ideal/desired characteristics of an improved Sellwood Bridge New bridge or rehabilitated bridge is preferred over No build option (existing conditions) Limit closures as much as possible. From an emergency response perspective, ideally, we would like the bridge to be kept open, exercising alternatives (D and E). It is preferable that closures during construction are limited, in exchange for a fully operational bridge in the future. Ideal/desirable curb to curb cross section for emergency vehicles would be 2 lanes in each direction, or 48 ft, plus bike lanes on both sides with sidewalk(s) for pedestrians. This configuration allows: . traffic to provide right of way to emergency vehicles . minimizes high risk accidents on the bridge by separating different types of traffic (vehicular, bicycles, pedestrians) . during an accident on the bridge, ensures higher likelihood of emergency access from either direction . increases maneuverability and reduces risk of accidents due to less congestion . accommodates for increasing density 36 ft curb to curb would be a minimum to maneuver an emergency vehicle in mixed traffic. Due to limited access and water supply issues, request several FDC's to provide water supply on the bridge for response to vehicle fires, hazardous materials or traffic accidents involving pin-ins (high risk/potential of fire during extrication).

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Thank you again,

Erin Janssens Deputy Chief, Special Operations Portland Fire & Rescue 503.823.3049 [email protected]

Appendix J: Copies of Comments on the DEIS

ID FName LName Organization ScannedDocument 228 Janet Bebb Metro 228_metro_parks.DEIScomments.docx

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-78 REVIEW DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

January 7, 2008

Mike Pullen Sellwood Bridge Project 2020 SW 4th Avenue, Suite 300 Portland, Oregon 97201

Re: Sustainability Center review comments on Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Dear Mr. Pullen:

The past year has seen a dramatic shift in the position of regional trails. Through the efforts of Council President Bragdon and the Connecting Green Blue Ribbon Committee on Trails, this topic is now part of an integrated mobility strategy. The regional trail system is viewed as key to the increase in active transportation, bicycling and walking, in association with on-street and transit facilities. Due to gas prices, the desire for healthy activities, and climate change it is anticipated that investment in non-motorized transportation will increase and with it the associated increase in use. Springwater Corridor and the Sellwood Bridge connection to the Willamette Greenway east and west are key to the success of this initiative. We need to envision much higher use of the trails and bridges than are currently documented.

4F Status Metro is the property owner of the Springwater Corridor in this area. The trail is managed by Portland Parks and Recreation so, as suggested in the draft EIS, we both have an interest in the 4F status.

Temporary Closure of Springwater Corridor Because Springwater Corridor is used as a transportation facility as indicated by user counts, as well as a recreation facility, temporary closure is only acceptable with a convenient, alternative route available 100% of the time.

Alternative C Alternative is a desirable alternative from Metro's policy perspective of promoting non-motorized modes of travel. It provides the most direct route to the greenway trails and also provides separation between bicycle and pedestrian travel from vehicles. More design work is needed, however, to make this a successful alternative. The bicycle/pedestrian layer needs to provide a positive travel experience, with light, low noise levels, views out. This alternative will not be successful if it is dark, with high noise levels.

Alternative A Alternative A is potentially an important option in that it represents dedicated bicycle/pedestrian facility. This is in keeping with the vision of world-class active transportation for Portland. However, as currently designed the access is not direct enough (3 spirals on the west side) and impacts Sellwood Riverfront Park. If siting and design modifications are possible, this would be a supportable alternative.

Alternative D Alternative D is an acceptable solution, assuming the “shared sidewalk/path” allows for bicyclists. There must be a grade-separated alternative to keep cyclists from vehicles.

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to options.

Sincerely,

Janet Bebb Principal Regional Planner, Sustainability Center

Cc: Tim Collins, Mary Anne Cassin, Mel Huie

Appendix J: Copies of Comments on the DEIS

ID FName LName Organization ScannedDocument 229 Melissa Whitaker U.S. Environmental 229_SummaryofRatingDefinitions.pdf Protection Agency

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-79 REVIEW DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Rating System for Draft Environmental Impact Statements Definitions and Follow-Up Action*

Environmental Impact of the Action

LO – Lack of Objections The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) review has not identified any potential environmental impacts requiring substantive changes to the proposal. The review may have disclosed opportunities for application of mitigation measures that could be accomplished with no more than minor changes to the proposal.

EC – Environmental Concerns EPA review has identified environmental impacts that should be avoided in order to fully protect the environment. Corrective measures may require changes to the preferred alternative or application of mitigation measures that can reduce these impacts.

EO – Environmental Objections EPA review has identified significant environmental impacts that should be avoided in order to provide adequate protection for the environment. Corrective measures may require substantial changes to the preferred alternative or consideration of some other project alternative (including the no-action alternative or a new alternative). EPA intends to work with the lead agency to reduce these impacts.

EU – Environmentally Unsatisfactory EPA review has identified adverse environmental impacts that are of sufficient magnitude that they are unsatisfactory from the standpoint of public health or welfare or environmental quality. EPA intends to work with the lead agency to reduce these impacts. If the potential unsatisfactory impacts are not corrected at the final EIS stage, this proposal will be recommended for referral to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ).

Adequacy of the Impact Statement

Category 1 – Adequate EPA believes the draft EIS adequately sets forth the environmental impact(s) of the preferred alternative and those of the alternatives reasonably available to the project or action. No further analysis of data collection is necessary, but the reviewer may suggest the addition of clarifying language or information.

Category 2 – Insufficient Information The draft EIS does not contain sufficient information for EPA to fully assess environmental impacts that should be avoided in order to fully protect the environment, or the EPA reviewer has identified new reasonably available alternatives that are within the spectrum of alternatives analyzed in the draft EIS, which could reduce the environmental impacts of the action. The identified additional information, data, analyses or discussion should be included in the final EIS.

Category 3 – Inadequate EPA does not believe that the draft EIS adequately assesses potentially significant environmental impacts of the action, or the EPA reviewer has identified new, reasonably available alternatives that are outside of the spectrum of alternatives analyzed in the draft EIS, which should be analyzed in order to reduce the potentially significant environmental impacts. EPA believes that the identified additional information, data, analyses, or discussions are of such a magnitude that they should have full public review at a draft stage. EPA does not believe that the draft EIS is adequate for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act and or Section 309 review, and thus should be formally revised and made available for public comment in a supplemental or revised draft EIS. On the basis of the potential significant impacts involved, this proposal could be a candidate for referral to the CEQ.

* From EPA Manual 1640 Policy and Procedures for the Review of Federal Actions Impacting the Environment. February, 1987. Appendix J: Copies of Comments on the DEIS

ID FName LName Organization ScannedDocument 246 Jennifer Goodridge Portland Bureau of 246_FW__Sellwood_Bridge_DEIS.msg Environmental Services

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-80 REVIEW DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION Althen, Kath/BOI

From: EATON Michael J [[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2008 3:39 PM To: Steffen, Brandy/PDX Subject: FW: Sellwood Bridge DEIS Attachments: Sellwood Bridge Preliminary DEIS_BES_JG_CS_12 08.doc

More comments.

--Michael

-----Original Message----- From: Goodridge, Jennifer [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2008 3:23 PM To: PULLEN Mike J; CANNON Ian B; EATON Michael J; '[email protected]' Cc: Studebaker, Cindy; Ketcham, Paul; Leclerc, Mauricio; Acock, Kristen Subject: Sellwood Bridge DEIS

Mike, Ian, Micheal, and Donna-

BES supports the need for replacing the Sellwood bridge and we understand that there are multiple interests to be balanced in the selection of the preferred alternative. We have prepared specific comments on the DEIS report (see attached file). In addition to those comments on the report text, we also offer the following general comments as feedback on the selection of bridge alternatives:

1. Minimize in-water structures. We strongly support alternative bridge designs that minimize the number of temporary as well as permanent in-water structures such as piers. It is well documented that non-native fish use the areas surrounding in-water structures to prey on small salmonids and other native fish. In-water structures also result in encroachment in the floodway (ordinary high water level) and adversely impact benthic habitat. We therefore recommend against a separate pedestrian/bike bridge or a detour bridge (during construction). 2. Minimize impacts in the Stephens Creek confluence habitat area. The City of Portland has just completed a $1 million habitat enhancement project in the confluence area of Stephens Creek and all bridge alternatives include revised access to Macadam Bay Club/Willamette Moorage. This revised access includes road construction and Greenway trail modifications within the project area, resulting in 0.1 acre of wetland impact. We support consideration of fish passage improvements at Stephens Creek confluence area as part of mitigation for habitat loss resulting from bridge construction. 3. Minimize impacts to Parklands. In addition to the Stephens Creek Natural Area, we support bridge alternatives that minimize impacts to Powers Marine Park. 4. Minimize forest and riparian habitat impacts. We prefer a bridge intersection on the west end that minimizes overall loss of trees and specifically minimizes the loss of riparian vegetation. To the extent that tree canopy must be removed to accommodate bridge design, we support designs that place a priority on protection of riparian areas. The integrity of the riparian corridor is a priority consideration for us. 5. Ensure adequate mitigation for habitat impacts. We realize that it is premature to identify specific mitigation actions related to bridge impacts until a preferred alternative is chosen and construction design is further advanced. We will strongly support 1 mitigation concepts and sites that improve fish passage and provide benefits to riparian areas. 6. Reports should include graphics that demonstrate the impacts of the alternative bridge designs. Impacts are typically depicted in a hatch pattern overlay on maps that depict existing resources such as the ordinary high water, wetlands, forested areas, and land ownership boundaries. During the selection of the final alternative, please demonstrate how the bridge design avoids and minimizes environmental impacts. When the impacts are clearly mapped and identified, this helps select appropriate mitigation measures to ensure functional replacement for permanent, temporary, indirect, and cumulative impacts.

<>

Jennifer Goodridge Watershed Services Group Bureau of Environmental Services City of Portland 1120 SW 5th Avenue, Room 1000 Portland, Oregon 97204-1912 Phone: (503) 823-4899 Fax (503) 823-5344

2 SELLWOOD BRIDGE PROJECT DOCUMENT COMMENT FORM

Document: To: Draft Environmental Impact Statement Mike Pullen, Ian Cannon, and Michael Eaton, November 2008 Multnomah County Donna Kilber-Kennedy, CH2MHill Reviewer Name: Jennifer Goodridge, Cindy Date Returned: December 22, 2008 Studebaker, Bureau of Environmental Services

Subsection Page Paragraph Line Comment Title No. (specify printed or electronic) 3.18 and The report only addresses the temporary 3.19 noise impacts to wildlife, however, removal of approx. 10 acres of forested vegetation adjacent and contiguous with the Willamette River will have permanent noise impacts to wildlife that need to be stated and mitigated. The discussion of the no build alternative needs to state that it has reduced noise impacts for wildlife since the existing riparian area remains intact. (JG) Section 3.16 3-164- Mitigation The text states that the build alternatives will 165 enhance vegetation by removing invasive plants. BES and Parks are already enhancing vegetation and removing invasive vegetation at the Stephens Creek natural area and at Powers Marine Park. (JG) 3.16, 3.18 3-166 Mitigation should include at least 1:1 acreage and replacement of lost forested riparian areas. Appendix G BMP’s such as stormwater treatment, revegetation of temporary disturbed areas, and enhancement of existing forested areas will not be sufficient mitigation for loss of 10 acres of forest. Mitigation for forested impacts should focus on public acquisition of privately owned riparian forested areas in the South waterfront (acreage and location TBD). 3.13 Water Presumed impact and (theoretical) mitigation Quality and has been sized, but actual mitigation site, size Appendix G and type of stormwater treatment facility has not been identified. Please depict location of stormwater treatment facilities because location of above ground facilities may result in additional natural resource impact that has not yet been identified and feasible locations

BES Comments on Sellwood Bridge November 2008 DEIS December 22, 2008 Page 1 may differ with the different alternatives. Preliminary discussions with BES staff during a 6-10-08 site visit indicated that stormwater treatment facilities may be located in the wetlands near the Stephens Creek confluence. This would be considered additional wetland impact that would need to be mitigated and DEQ typically requires pre- treatment prior to stormwater release to wetland areas; therefore, this site would not be an appropriate location. At 12-10-08 meeting, the project team indicated that stormwater will be treated below ground. Does below ground treatment remove enough pollutants (prior to discharge to an ESA listed waterway) to meet DEQ and NOAA fisheries requirements? (CS and JG) 3.14.3 Build 3-164 Mitigation Entir The list of potential mitigation measures Alternatives thru 3- Section e include 1) actions that would be considered in Environmen 165 Sect project design (bullet 4-7), 2) actions that tal ion would occur to acquire local, state and federal Consequen permits for in-water-work activity in ESA-listed ces waters (bullet 8-11) and 3) best management practices or conservation measures to avoid and minimize “take” or adverse impacts during construction activities – Note, these are typically prescribed non-discretionary conservation measures that must be met during agency consultation and construction and therefore are not considered mitigation for impacts. BES requests that additional mitigation be identified to mitigate (or compensate) for permanent adverse impacts associated with increased impervious surface area, removal of mature trees and understory vegetation and impacts to ESA listed species and the critical habitat in which they reside. (CS). Recommend identification of “replacement habitat” within or near the project area that would adequately compensate for permanent, indirect, temporary and cumulative affects. Appendix G G-8 thru All Entir See comment above for 3.14.3 Build G-9 e Alternatives Environmental Consequences Sect (CS) ion 3.15.1 3-168 1st paragraph Bull Add Willamette Fish Study (ODFW 2005) to Aquatic et resources used to identify aquatic resources Resources - List in the project area. Complete report and Affected summary documents can be found at Environ- http://www.portlandonline.com/bes/fish/index. ment cfm?&a=76759&c=34287 BES Comments on Sellwood Bridge November 2008 DEIS December 22, 2008 Page 2

Add Willamette Subbasin Plan (WRI 2004) to resources used to identify aquatic resources in the project area. Complete report and summary documents can be found at http://www.nwcouncil.org/fw/subbasinplanning /willamette/plan/ (CS)

Willamette Fish Study is cited, but misrepresents key findings; the study did not conclude evidenced spawning, rather it reported presence and growth of juvenile salmonids in the lower Willamette River, specifically along nearshore areas, during all months of the year. Relevance of these findings and impacts of alternative designs should be accounted for and described in section 3.15.1. 3.15.1 3-168 1st paragraph last Statement that “…habitat in the lower Aquatic sent Willamette River is not assisting in the Resources enc recovery of depleted salmonid stocks” is Habitat in e incorrect. See Willamette Fish Study Project Findings (ODFW 2005): “The study’s key Vicinity finding is that the lower Willamette River is no longer appropriately considered simply a migration corridor. The presence of naturally spawned Chinook from November through July, as well as significant evidence of fish growth, contradicts a longstanding assumption that spring Chinook primarily reared in their natal streams over the winter and migrated out of the Willamette River during the spring, and therefore, Chinook were not thought to be present in the lower river outside of the spring migration period”.

In addition to these findings, the lower Willamette River has been designated as critical habitat for steelhead and Chinook and it has been included in LCR recovery planning efforts by NOAA Fisheries and ODFW. These facts confirm that habitat in the lower Willamette River assists in the recovery of listed coho, Chinook and steelhead. (CS)

Omission of these findings is a key data gap that results in an undervaluation of the lower Willamette River and its contribution to life history expression and diversity, and recovery of ESA listed salmon and steelhead. 3.15.1 3-168 1st paragraph Entir Description presented in this section does not

BES Comments on Sellwood Bridge November 2008 DEIS December 22, 2008 Page 3 Aquatic e accurately or completely characterize aquatic Resources para habitat conditions in project action area. Habitat in grap Project h Request that this section include a description Vicinity of east and west river bank and floodplain conditions and riverine conditions to effectively assess project impacts to the aquatic environment and to aquatic species. (CS) Not Addressed. 1) Show state, federal and local regulatory boundaries (OHW, FEMA Floodway, delineated wetlands, etc,). 2) Graphically show, and quantify (acres, cubic yards of fill, the different habitat types (riverine for in-water structures, wetlands, riparian forest, upland, etc) affected by each alternative. 3) Describe the vertical footprint of these impacts (e.g, retaining wall or open bridge piers) to better assess wildlife connectivity, gaps, landscape fragmentation, likelihood of native plant communities surviving, etc.

3.15.1 3-169 Entire Section Entir This section summarizes categories of fish Aquatic thru 3- e using the lower Willamette River; but does not Resources 170 Sect characterize fish use (or likelihood of Willamette ion occurring) within the project action area – River Fish which is the stated purpose of this section. Species Request that this section include a description of anticipated fish use in the project area. (CS)

Not Addressed. Request a description of species (and life stages) likely to use aquatic resources in the project area. 3.15.3 3-171 Mitigation Entir Mitigation suggests that BMPs will be Aquatic 3-173 e implemented to minimize for temporary Resources Sect impacts – It is expected that these BMPs – Build ion would be incorporated into design and Alternatives construction specifications to meet required Environmen local, state and federal permits to avoid and tal minimize take. Consequen ces Remaining mitigation measures do not substantively or completely account for direct impacts (temporary and permanent) or indirect impacts to aquatic resources and species. Example, permanent direct impacts include (pg 3-170) direct removal of instream habitat, loss of riparian vegetation, increase in impermeable surface area and increase in the

BES Comments on Sellwood Bridge November 2008 DEIS December 22, 2008 Page 4 quantity of stormwater; however, proposed mitigation only identifies site restoration (which would be expected for any ground disturbing activity) and does not include additional actions to substantively address identified permanent impacts.

Request that additional mitigation be identified to mitigate (or compensate) for permanent adverse impacts, including impacts to ESA listed species and critical habitat in which they reside. Without this information, it is not possible to identify cumulative impacts with any acceptable degree of certainty (CS)

Not Addressed. Only “permit” related measures have been identified – Note, these are non-discretionary measures required under existing city, state and federal law. Request that more robust strategies and actions be identified that consider how to avoid resource impacts for each alternative bridge design. After this analysis is complete, identify appropriate measures that will be pursued to minimize impacts, and finally what could be done to mitigate (e.g, functional replacement) for permanent, temporary, indirect, and cumulative impacts. Appendix G G-9 All secti See comment above for 3.15.3 (CS) on 3.15.3 3-171 Alternative Entir Section summarizes the sensitivity analysis Aquatic thru 3- Specific e documented in the Biological Resources Resources 173 Environmental Sect Technical Report. – Build Consequences ion ƒ Aquatic habitat conditions (and species Alternatives and Mitigation use) have not been fully characterized for Environmen the project action area (refer to comments tal for 3.15.1) leaving it difficult to surmise Consequen whether the sensitivity analysis accurately ces accounts for alternative-specific environmental impacts. ƒ Sensitivity analysis only accounted for permanent impacts of each respective alternative. Would be informative to assess temporary impacts between the different alternatives. ƒ Sensitivity analysis considered four primary impacts 1) loss of shallow water habitat, 2) instream habitat impact, 3) loss of riparian vegetation and 4) increase in impervious surface. Pg 3-171 notes that increases in impervious surface and BES Comments on Sellwood Bridge November 2008 DEIS December 22, 2008 Page 5 impacts to hydrology, stormwater quality and quantity would have not been measurable. This assumption is not consistent with direct impacts of increased in dissolved metals that is reported in the Biological Resources Technical Report in Section 3.13.3 of the Draft EIS specifically “…dissolved copper and zinc annual loads would increase approximately 44 to 60 percent” (pg 3-160). Request that this impact be accounted for and the inconsistency resolved. ƒ Sensitivity analysis is not a comprehensive assessment of relevant impacts to aquatic resources and native species. Example, omission of the number of piers per alternative and direct impact of creating predator-preferred habitat. (CS)

Not Addressed. Absence of this information makes it difficult to evaluate alternative bridge designs. 3.16 3-164 Text states that the riparian corridor is Vegetation fragmented into narrow remnants. This description does not adequately characterize the project area since PP&R owns 7000 linear feet (35 acres) of riparian area along the west bank of the river. PP&R also owns much of the east bank of the River in S. waterfront with Oaks Bottom Park. Therefore, within S. waterfront, much of the riparian area is in public ownership and consists of forested riparian corridors. This project will impact approximately 30% of forested riparian parks on the west bank. (JG) 3.17 3-169 Text states that there is a small area of Wetlands Pacific Willow shrub swamp habitat. The wetland adjacent to Stephens Creek is over 4 acres making it one of the largest riparian wetlands within City limits. (JG) (JG) 3.17 3-170 Mitigation Remove the descriptions of mitigation Wetlands opportunities on the Stephens Creek site. and These actions have been implemented and Appendix G will not be a mitigation option for the Sellwood bridge project. (JG)

BES Comments on Sellwood Bridge November 2008 DEIS December 22, 2008 Page 6 Biological 4-22 Riparian Please clarify the width used to define the Resources vegetation riparian area in order calculate the impact Tech Memo removal acreages provided in Table 4-6. All forested areas contiguous with and adjacent to the river might be considered riparian depending upon the definition used to develop the width of the riparian area. (JG) Biological 3.1.3 There are several small streams (drainages) Resources Investig that flow east into the Willamette River Tech Memo ation through Powers Marine Park. The location results should be mapped to determine if any of them are located within the project corridor. If they are within the project area, then impacts to these features should be avoided, minimized, and mitigated. (JG)

BES Comments on Sellwood Bridge November 2008 DEIS December 22, 2008 Page 7 Appendix J: Copies of Comments on the DEIS

ID FName LName Organization ScannedDocument 247 Cherri Warnke Portland Water 247_DEIS_Review_Comments_16Dec08 Bureau .xls

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement J-81 REVIEW DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

Portland Water Bureau, DEIS Review Comments, December 2008

INTERAGENCY PROJECT REVIEW COMMENT FORM

Project: Sellwood Bridge Project #: PWB #1161 Agency/Contact: Mike Pullen, Sellwood Bridge Project Review Type: DEIS Review Comments PWB Reviewer: Cherri Warnke

Comment Chapter # Section Page # Comment

Relocation of the Willamette Shoreline Trolley further east could impact the 2-16 to 2- existing 30" Steel Southeast Supply Water Line, and vault for the 30" water 1 2.2.2 17 meter currently located at the west end of SW Sellwood Ferry Rd. 217to22-17 to 2- TheThe f followingollowing tenten commentscomments listlist potentialpotential WestWest-s sideide InterchangeInterchange impactsimpacts ofof 2 2.2.2 21 Alternative A.

Depending upon the resulting grade cuts, excavation for the proposed 2-17 to 2- underpass access to Staff Jennings and Powers Marine Park could impact the 2a 2.2.2 21 existing 24" DI water main where it is crossed on the east side of OR 43. Support structures for the northbound bridge on-ramp, and interchange roundabout could impactpg the existing 24" DI water main located alongg the east 2-17 to 2- side of OR 43, depending upon their placement overtop of or adjacent to the 2b 2.2.2 21 water main. It appears the fire hydrant located just north of the existing bridge structure 2-17 to 2- and west of the south bound off-ramp lane, would end up located within the 2c 2.2.2 21 travel lane of the newly aligned northbound lane of OR 43. Support structures for the southbound off-ramp could impact the existing water 2-17 to 2- service for 8421 SW Macadam Ave depending upon their placement overtop 2d 2.2.2 21 of or adjacent to that water service line. The required fill and retaining walls for the access road to the proposed underpass to Staff Jennings, could negatively impact the existing water service 2-17 to 2- for 8421 SW Macadam Ave. That service line will need to be sleeved 2e 2.2.2 21 underneath any retaining wall structures. Support structures for the northbound bridge off-ramp could impact the existing 30" Steel Southeast Supply Water Line and the vault for the existing 3030"" water meter located at the west end of SW Sellwood Ferry Rd, and/or the existing 36" Steel Southeast Supply Water Line extending north along the access road for Staff Jennings. Any required fill and retaining wall to support 2-17 to 2- the northbound bridge off-ramp could also negatively impact the 36" Steel 2f 2.2.2 21 water main.

The fill, retaining wall and bridge structure required for the realignment of the Willamette Shoreline TrolleTrolleyy tracks could nenegativelygatively impactimpact the existingexisting 3030" Steel Southeast Supply Line, and/or the existing 30" meter located in SW Sellwood Ferry Rd. The 30" Steel water line would need to be cased where it 2-17 to 2- crosses under the realigned trolley tracks. The new trolley track location may 2g 2.2.2 21 also require relocation of the existing 30" meter. It appears the existing fire hydrant currently located on the east side of OR 43 2-17 to 2- north of the access road to Staff Jennings would end up located in the travel 2h 2.2.2 21 lane of the proposed northbound bridge off-ramp.

Page 1 of 8 Portland Water Bureau, DEIS Review Comments, December 2008

The required fill and retaining wall for the north end of the northbound off-ramp 2-17 to 2- could negatively impact the existing 36" Steel Southeast Supply Line located 2i 2.2.2 21 along the east side of OR 43. The required fill and retaining wall for the proposed relocated Willamette Moorage Park and Macadam Bay Club entrance could negatively impact the 2-17 to 2- existing 2" domestic service for 7720 SW Macadam Ave. That service line will 2j 2.2.2 21 need to be sleeved underneath any retaining wall structures. 217to22-17 to 2- TheThe f followingollowing twotwo commentscomments listlist potentialpotential impactsimpacts ofof thethe separateseparate 3 2.2.2 21 Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge in Alternative A.

The placement of bridge support structures for the separate Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge could negatively impact the existing 16" CI water main on the west side 2-17 to 2- of OR 43, and the existing 36" Steel Southeast Supply Water Line on the east 3a 2.2.2 21 side of OR 43 if they are installed overtop of or adjacent to those water mains. The placement of bridge support structures for the separate Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge could negatively impact the existing 4" DI water main located west of SE Oaks Park Way, and the domestic and irrigation services to Sellwood Park, 2-17 to 2- if they are installed overtop of or adjacent to this water main and those water 3b 2.2.2 21 services. 2-21 to 2- The following 11 comments list potential West-side Interchange impacts of 4 2.2.2 25 Alternative B.

Depending upon the resulting grade cuts, excavation for the proposed 2-21 to 2- underpass access to Staff Jennings and Powers Marine Park could impact the 4a 2.2.2 25 existing 24" DI water main where it is crossed on the east side of OR 43. The required fill and retaining walls for the access road to the proposed underpass to Staff Jennings, could negatively impact the existing water service 2-17 to 2- for 8421 SW Macadam Ave. That service line will need to be sleeved 4b 2.2.2 21 underneath any retaining wall structures. SupportSupport structuresstructures forfor thethe southboundsouthbound offoff-ramp ramp couldcould impactimpact thethe existingexisting waterwater 2-21 to 2- service for 8421 SW Macadam Ave depending upon their placement overtop 4c 2.2.2 25 of or adjacent to that water service line. Support structures for the northbound bridge on-ramp, and interchange roundabout could impact the existing 24" DI water main located along the east 2-21 to 2- side of OR 43, depending upon their placement overtop of or adjacent to the 4d 2.2.2 25 water main. It appears the fire hydrant located just north of the existing bridge structure 2-21 to 2- and west of the south bound off-ramp lane, will be end up within the travel lane 4e 2.2.2 25 of the newly aligned north bound lane of OR 43. Support structures for the northbound bridge off-ramp could impact the existing 30" Steel Southeast Supply Water Line, and the vault for the existing 30" water meter located at the west end of SW Sellwood Ferry Rd, and/or the existing 36" Steel Southeast Supply Water Line extending north along the access road for Staff Jennings.gyq Any required fill and retainingg wall to support pp 2-21 to 2- the northbound bridge off-ramp could also negatively impact the 36" Steel 4f 2.2.2 25 water main.

Page 2 of 8 Portland Water Bureau, DEIS Review Comments, December 2008

The fill, retaining wall and bridge structure required for the realignment of the Willamette Shoreline Trolley tracks could negatively impact the existing 30" Steel Southeast Supply Line, and/or the existing 30" meter located in SW Sellwood Ferry Rd. The 30" Steel water line would need to be cased where it 2-17 to 2- crosses under the realigned trolley tracks. The new trolley track location may 4g 2.2.2 21 also require relocation of the existing 30" meter. ThThe existing i ti fifire hhydrant d t currently tl llocated t d on ththe east t side id of f OR 43 north th of f 2-21 to 2- the access road to Staff Jennings may be located in the travel lane of the east 4h 2.2.2 25 side of the northbound bridge off-ramp. The support structures for the bike/pedestrian spiral ramps to the Willamette 2-21 to 2- Greenway Trail will impact the existing 30" Steel Southeast Supply Water Line 4i 2.2.2 25 if they are installed overtop of or adjacent to that water main. The required fill and retaining wall for the north end of the northbound off-ramp 221to22-21 to 2- couldcould negativelynegatively impactimpact thethe existingexisting 3636"" SteelSteel SoutheastSoutheast SupplySupply WaterWater LineLine 4j 2.2.2 25 located along the east side of OR 43. The required fill and retaining wall for the proposed relocated Willamette Moorage Park and Macadam Bay Club entrance could negatively impact the 2-21 to 2- existing 2" domestic service for 7720 SW Macadam Ave. That service line will 4k 2.2.2 25 need to be sleeved underneath any retaining wall structures. The proposed temporary Detour Bridge appears to be located directly overtop of the submerged 30" CI Southeast Supply Water Line. Although the river crossing portion of the Southeast Supply Water Line is buried approximately five feet under the river bottom, if the Detour Bridge is built in the proposed location, the Portland Water Bureau (PWB) would be required to re-install this main at a different location and abandon the existing line. Relocation of this 2-16, 2-22 pipeline would not only require a lengthy permit approval process, but would 5 2.2.2 to 2-25 also add significant cost to the Sellwood Bridge Project. 2-25 to 2- The following 13 comments list potential West-side Interchange impacts of 6 2.2.2 29 Alternative C. Any grade cuts required to install the proposed Bike/Pedestrian underpass south of the west side interchange which will cross the existing 24" DI water 2-25 to 2- main located along the east side of OR 43 may impact the water line and 6a 2.2.2 29 require it to be lowered. Support structures for the elevated trumpet interchange could impact the 2-25 to 2- existing 24" DI water main located along the east side of OR 43, if they are 6b 2.2.2 29 placed on top of, or adjacent to the water line. It appears the fire hydrant located just north of the existing bridge structure and west of the existing south bound off-ramp lane, could be impacted by support structures for the proposed elevated trumpet interchange. It also 2-25 to 2- appears that the present location of the hydrant barrel may end up in either the 6c 2.2.2 29 south bound OR 43 on-ramp or off-ramp. Support structures for the southbound bridge off-ramp along the north side of ththe ttrumpet t iinterchange t h could ld impact i t the th existing i ti 24" DI and d 16" CI water t mains, as well as the water service connections for 8240 and 8260 SW 2-25 to 2- Macadam Ave (Staff Jennings), if they are installed overtop of or adjacent to 6d 2.2.2 29 these water facilities. Support structures for the east side of the southbound bridge off-ramp will 2-25 to 2- impact the existing 36" Steel Southeast Supply Water Line if they are installed 6e 2.2.2 29 overtop of or adjacent to that water line.

Page 3 of 8 Portland Water Bureau, DEIS Review Comments, December 2008

It appears the existing fire hydrant currently located on the east side of OR 43 2-25 to 2- north of the access road to Staff Jennings would need to relocated so that it is 6f 2.2.2 29 accessible from the newly aligned OR 43. Depending upon where the southbound lane feeding the eastbound on-ramp to the bridge changes from an on grade travel lane to the elevated on-ramp structure, the support structures for the elevated on-ramp could impact the 2-25 to 2- existing 16" CI water main if they are installed overtop of or adjacent to that 6g6 2.2.2222 29 watertli line. Support structures for the northbound bridge off-ramp could impact the 2-25 to 2- existing 30" Steel Southeast Supply Water Line in SW Sellwood Ferry Rd if 6h 2.2.2 29 they are installed overtop of or adjacent to that water line. The required fill and retaining wall for the north end of the northbound off-ramp 2-21 to 2- could negatively impact the existing 36" Steel Southeast Supply Water Line 6i 2.2.2 25 located along the east side of OR 43. TheThe requ requiredired fill andand retainingretaining wallwall forfor thethe easteast sideside ofof OR 43 northnorth ofof thisthis proposed Sellwood Bridge alignment could negatively impact the existing 30" 2-25 to 2- Steel Southeast Supply Water Line and/or the existing 30" meter in SW 6j 2.2.2 29 Sellwood Ferry Rd. Support structures for the proposed Willamette Shoreline Trolley bridge could negatively impact the existing 30" Steel Southeast Supply Water Line. Any at 2-17 to 2- grade crossing with the trolley by this 30" Steel water line would need to be 6k 2.2.2 21 cased where it crosses under the realignedgy trolley tracks. Support structures for the northbound Bike/Pedestrian bridge off-ramp could 2-25 to 2- impact the existing 30" Steel Southeast Supply Water Line in SW Sellwood 6l 2.2.2 29 Ferry Rd if they are installed overtop of or adjacent to that water line. The required fill and retaining wall for the proposed relocated Willamette Moorage Park and Macadam Bay Club entrance could negatively impact the 2-21 to 2- existing 2" domestic service for 7720 SW Macadam Ave. That service line will 6m 2.2.2 25 need to be sleeved underneath any retaining wall structures. 225to22-25 to 2- 7 2.2.2 29 The following two comments list potential East-side impacts of Alternative C. The proposed lowering of SE Grand Ave could expose the existing 6" CI main which crosses the intersection of SE Tacoma St and SE Grand Ave. This 2-25 to 2- section of water line may need to be lowered to accommodate the required 7a 2.2.2 29 cuts in the finish grade of SE Grand Ave. Support structures for the west side of the East-side connection Bike/Pedestrian sspiralpiral ramrampp to the lower deck of the bridbridgege maymay impactimpact the 2-25 to 2- existing 6" DI main located in a 30' easement west of SE Oaks Park Way 7b 2.2.2 29 extended, if they are installed overtop of or adjacent to that water line. 2-29 to 2- The following 10 comments list potential West-side Interchange impacts of 8 2.2.2 33 Alternative D.

Depending upon the resulting grade cuts, excavation for the proposed 2-29 to 2- underpass access to Staff Jennings and Powers Marine Park could impact the 8a8a 2222.2.2 33 existingexisting 2424"" DI wa waterter ma mainin wherewhere it isis crossedcrossed on thethe easteast sideside ofof OR 43. The required fill and retaining walls for the access road to the proposed underpass to Staff Jennings, could negatively impact the existing water service 2-29 to 2- for 8421 SW Macadam Ave. That service line will need to be sleeved 8b 2.2.2 33 underneath any retaining wall structures.

Page 4 of 8 Portland Water Bureau, DEIS Review Comments, December 2008

Support structures for the northbound on-ramp to the bridge could impact the 2-29 to 2- existing 24" CI water main located along the east side of OR 43, if they are 8c 2.2.2 33 installed overtop of or adjacent to that water line. It appears the fire hydrant located just north of the existing bridge structure and west of the existing south bound off-ramp lane, could be impacted by support structures for the proposed upper level for the west-side interchange. 2-29 to 2- It also appears that the present location of the hydrant barrel may end up in 8d 2.2.2 33 the north bound lane of the realigned OR 43. Any required fill, retaining wall, and support structures for the northbound bridge off-ramp and far north merge lane could impact the existing 36" Steel 2-29 to 2- Southeast Supply Water Line located on the east side of OR 43 if they are 8e 2.2.2 33 installed overtop of or adjacent to that water line. It appears the hydrant barrel of the existing fire hydrant currently located on the east side of OR 43 north of the access road to Staff Jenningsgp will end up in 2-29 to 2- the northbound off-ramp merging lane to OR 43, and would need to be 8f 2.2.2 33 relocated. The existing 30" Steel Southeast Supply Water Line located at the west end of SW Sellwood Ferry Rd could be impacted if cuts in the existing grade are 2-29 to 2- required to connect the proposed underpass access to Staff Jennings with SW 8g 2.2.2 33 Sellwood Ferry Rd. The fill,,g retaining wall and bridge g structure for realignment g of the Willamette Shoreline Trolley tracks could negatively impact the existing 30" Steel Southeast Supply Water Line, and/or the existing 30" water meter located in SW Sellwood Ferry Rd. The 30" Steel water line wound need to be cased where it crosses under any at grade crossing of the realigned trolley tracks. 2-29 to 2- The new trolley track location may also require relocation of the existing 30" 8h 2.2.2 33 meter. Support structures for the bike/pedestrian spiral ramp to the Willamette Greenway Trail on the north side of the Sellwood Bridge will impact the 2-29 to 2- existing 30" Steel Southeast Supply Water Line if they are installed overtop of 8i 2.2.2 33 or adjacent to that water main. The required fill and retaining wall for the proposed relocated Willamette Moorage Park and Macadam Bay Club entrance could negatively impact the 2-29 to 2- existing 2" domestic service for 7720 SW Macadam Ave. That service line will 8j 2.2.2 33 need to be sleeved underneath any retaining wall structures. 229t2-29 to 22- 9 2.2.2 33 The following four comments list potential East-side impacts of Alternative D. Support structures for the SE Tacoma St bridge structure may impact the 2-29 to 2- existing 6" DI main installed in a 30' wide easement parallel to and south of the 9a 2.2.2 33 southline of SE Tacoma St and west of SE Oaks Park Way extended. The existing two fire hydrants currently located on the south side of SE Tacoma St west of SE Oaks Park Way extended may be impacted by support strstructures ct res f foror t thehe SE T Tacomaacoma S Stt b bridgeridge structure, str ct re or may ma no l longeronger bebe 2-29 to 2- accessible to fire emergency vehicles due to the widening of SE Tacoma St at 9b 2.2.2 33 that location, and may require relocation. If the SE Tacoma St roadway will be widened at the east end of the bridge structure, the existing fire hydrant on the north side of SE Tacoma St east of 2-29 to 2- SE Grand Ave, may need to be relocated to remain outside of the travel 9c 2.2.2 33 roadway.

Page 5 of 8 Portland Water Bureau, DEIS Review Comments, December 2008

Support structures at the east end of the bridge structure may impact the 2-29 to 2- existing 6" CI water main in SE Tacoma St crossing SE Grand Ave if they are 9d 2.2.2 33 installed overtop of or adjacent to that water main. 2-33 to 2- The following nine comments list potential West-side Interchange impacts of 10 2.2.2 37 Alternative E.

Dependingpgp upon the resulting gg grade cuts, excavation for the proposedpp 2-33 to 2- underpass access to Staff Jennings and Powers Marine Park could impact the 10a 2.2.2 37 existing 24" DI water main where it is crossed on the east side of OR 43. The required fill and retaining walls for the access road to the proposed underpass to Staff Jennings, could negatively impact the existing water service 2-33 to 2- for 8421 SW Macadam Ave. That service line will need to be sleeved 10b 2.2.2 37 underneath any retaining wall structures. Support structures for the northbound bridge on-ramp could impact the existingi ti 24" DI water t main i currently tl llocated t d on ththe east t side id of f OR 4343, ththe fifire hydrant located just north of the existing bridge structure and west of the existing south bound off-ramp lane, and the existing water service connections 2-33 to 2- for 8240 and 8260 SW Macadam Ave (Staff Jennings), if they are installed 10c 2.2.2 37 overtop of or adjacent to these water facilities. It appears that the present location of the hydrant barrel of the fire hydrant located just north of the existing bridge structure and west of the existing south bound off-rampoff-ramp lane, may end up in between the northbound travel lane of OR 2-33 to 2- 43, and the northbound bridge on-ramp, which may make it inaccessible to 10d 2.2.2 37 emergency vehicles. Support structures for the northbound bridge off-ramp, including any fill and retaining wall required at the north side of the upper interchange, could negatively impact the existing 36" Steel Southeast Water Supply Line currently 2-33 to 2- located in the access road to Staff Jennings if they are installed overtop of or 10e 2.2.2 37 adjacentadjacent to that water line. Support structures for the upper level of the westside interchange could impact the existing 16" CI and 36" Steel Southeast Water Supply Line water mains, currently located in the northbound lane of OR 43 and in the access road to 2-33 to 2- Staff Jennings respectively, if they are installed overtop of or adjacent to these 10f 2.2.2 37 water facilities. Support structures for the upper level of the westside interchange could impact the hydrant run for the existing fire hydrant currently located on the east side of OR 43 north of the access road to Staff Jennings. It also appears that the 2-33 to 2- hydrant barrel will end up underneath the northbound bridge off-ramp, which 10g 2.2.2 37 may make it inaccessible to emergency vehicles. Depending upon where the northbound off-ramp no longer requires support structures as it parallels and merges with OR 43, any required support structures, including any required fill and retaining walls, could impact the existing 16" CI and 36" Steel Southeast Water Supply Line water mains, 233t2-33 to 22- currentlytl llocated t di in ththe northbound thb dl lane of fOR43 OR 43, ifthif they are iinstalled t lld overtop t 10h 2.2.2 37 of or adjacent to these water mains. The required fill and retaining wall for the proposed relocated Willamette Moorage Park and Macadam Bay Club entrance could negatively impact the 2-33 to 2- existing 2" domestic service for 7720 SW Macadam Ave. That service line will 10i 2.2.2 37 need to be sleeved underneath any retaining wall structures.

Page 6 of 8 Portland Water Bureau, DEIS Review Comments, December 2008

2-33 to 2- 11 2.2.2 37 The following four comments list potential East-side impacts of Alternative E. Support structures for the East-side bridge could impact the existing 4" DI 2-33 to 2- water main located west of SE Oaks Park Way north of SE Spokane St, if they 11a 2.2.2 37 are installed overtop of or adjacent to this water main. Support structures for the East-side bridge could impact the existing 6" CI water main and 36" Southeast Supplypp y Water Line located in SE Spokanep St 2-33 to 2- between SE Grand Ave and SE Oaks Park Way, if they are installed overtop of 11b 2.2.2 37 or adjacent to these water lines. Support structures for the East-side bridge could impact the existing fire hydrant currently located on the south side of SE Spokane St at 82' west of the 2-33 to 2- westline of SE Grand Ave, if they are installed overtop of or adjacent to this 11c 2.2.2 37 water facility. Depending upon any required support structures, or depth of excavation requiredrequired toto completecomplete thethe EastEast-s sideide connectionconnection withwith SE TacomaTacoma St, thethe existingexisting 6" CI water main in SE Tacoma St could be impacted if support structures are 2-33 to 2- installed overtop of or adjacent to this water lines, or if the water main has less 11d 2.2.2 37 than 2' of cover at any point during roadway reconstruction. Both the use of bridge structures or standard fill could negatively impact existing water facilities depending upon whether they are installed overtop of or adjacent to an existing water main, water service line or fire hydrant, and 12 2.3.13 2-37 depedependin d g upoupon tthe e deptdepth oof tthe e pro oposedposed stastandard da d fill.

A PWB crew would need to be on site during any blasting activity along the west bank hillside to monitor the status and safety of the existing 24" DI and 13 2.3.1 2-37 16" CI water mains, and 36" Steel Southeast Supply Water Line.

A PWB crew would need to be on site during any drilling or pile driving activity for the bridge foundation in the Willamette River in order to monitor the status 14 2.3.1 2-38 and safety of the submerged 30" CI Southeast Supply Water Line. The PWB would like to be kept in the information loop regarding where temporary roadway and retaining walls will be required during construction of the new west-side interchange to determine what, if any, impact they will have on the existing water facilities, and what mitigation work will be needed to 15 2.3.1 2-38 maintain the existing water system facilities. The proposed location of the temporary detour bridge will be directly overtop of the submerged 30" CICS Southeast Supply S Water Line. Although the river crossing portion of the Southeast Supply Water Line is buried approximately five feet under the river bottom, if the Detour Bridge is built in the proposed location, the PWB would be required to re-install this main at a different location and abandon the existing line. Relocation of this pipeline would not only require a lengthy permit approval process, but would also add significant 16 2.3.3 2-39 cost to the Sellwood Bridge Project.

Page 7 of 8 Portland Water Bureau, DEIS Review Comments, December 2008

The PWB would like to be kept in the information loop regarding any required temporary false-work and/or temporary widening of OR 43 in order to determine what, if any, impacts these temporary installations will have on the submerged 30" CI Southeast Supply Water Line, and the two existing fire hydrant currently located just north of the existing bridge structure and west of the existingexisting south bound off-ramoff rampp lane, and on the east side of OR 43 north of 17 2.3.4 2-40 the access road to Staff Jennings, respectively. The PWB would like to be kept in the information loop regarding any required temporary false-work in order to determine what, if any, impacts these temporary installations will have on the submerged 30" CI Southeast Supply 18 2.3.5 2-40 Water Line.

Dependingpgp upon where a street car station will be located at the west end interchange area of the Sellwood Bridge, that structure could significantly impact the existing water main located in the north bound lanes of OR 43, and/or the existing 30" Steel Southeast Supply Water Line located at the west 19 3.1.1 3-6 end of SW Sellwood Ferry Rd and in the access road to Staff Jennings. 380 SE Tacoma St, the Sellwood Building, is identified as an East-side impact displaced building in Figure 3.3-3, Figure 3.3-4, Figure 3.3-5, Figure 3.3-6, and 3-52 to 3- Figure 3.3-7, but there is no commentary offered regarding this displaced 20 3.3.3 59 building. In the second sentence of the second bulleted item in the first column of this page, the size of one of the existing water lines parallel to OR 43 is listed as 21 3.4.1 3-61 32 inches. The correct number is "36" inches. In the "Mitigation" paragraph, it is stated that "Impacted Utilities would be replaced, reconstructed, or realigned." It should also be stated that the Sellwood Bridge Project will bear the cost for all required public water facility 22 3433.4.3 3613-61 relocation and mitigation. The PWB would be interested in seeing a breakdown of the estimated costs listed by impacted utility. For example, what percentage of the $2.87 million 3-61 to 3- estimated for utility relocation in Alternative A is identified as being required for 23 3.4.3 62 water system mitigation?

The PWB is concerned about the potential for damage to the existing 24" DI water main,main, 16" CI water main and 36" steel Southeast Supply Water Line as a result of cut-and-fill slope activity, the installation of retaining walls and other structures within the existing Sellwood Slide area. Destabilization of the soil supporting these water facilities could result in pipe failure. The PWB would like to be kept in the information loop as the exact cut requirements are 24 3.12.3 3-143 identified and slide mitigation is developed. The PWB wants to participate in the review of proposed water system Appendixpp mitigationgp as the preferred alternative designgpg progresses and as more detailed 25 G G-3 design information becomes available.

Page 8 of 8

Appendix K. Index

Appendix K. Index

access management, 3-6, 3-12, 4-17 parks and recreation, 3-126 actions required, S-8, 5-20 right-of-way and relocation, 3-62 agency coordination, 5-11, 5-17 social elements, 3-104 Collaborative Environmental and transportation, 3-19 Transportation Agreement for Streamlining utilities, 3-72 Process, 5-11 vegetation, 3-191 participating agencies, S-5, 5-12 visual resources, 3-153 project groups, S-2, 5-2 water quality, 3-171 air quality, 3-214 wetlands, 3-196 conformity determination, 3-215 wildlife, 3-202 local context, 3-216 Alternative C, 2-26 Alternative A, 2-18 aquatic resources, 3-185 aquatic resources, 3-184 archaeological and historic resources, 3-143 archaeological and historic resources, 3-141 bicyclists and pedestrians, 3-44 bicyclists and pedestrians, 3-39 construction activities, 2-41 construction activities, 2-40 economic, 3-88 economic, 3-86 environmental justice, 3-115 environmental justice, 3-114 geology, 3-164 geology, 3-164 hazardous materials, 3-224 hazardous materials, 3-224 hydraulics, 3-174 hydraulics, 3-174 land use, 3-80 land use, 3-79 noise, 3-210 noise, 3-209 parks and recreation, 3-126 parks and recreation, 3-125 right-of-way and relocation, 3-64 right-of-way and relocation, 3-60 social elements, 3-105 social elements, 3-103 transportation, 3-21 transportation, 3-17 utilities, 3-73 utilities, 3-72 vegetation, 3-191 vegetation, 3-191 visual resources, 3-153 visual resources, 3-151 water quality, 3-171 water quality, 3-171 wetlands, 3-196 wetlands, 3-195 wildlife, 3-202 wildlife, 3-202 Alternative D, 2-29 Alternative B, 2-22 aquatic resources, 3-185 aquatic resources, 3-185 archaeological and historic resources, 3-144 archaeological and historic resources, 3-143 bicyclists and pedestrians, 3-46 bicyclists and pedestrians, 3-40 construction activities, 2-41 construction activities, 2-40 economic, 3-89 economic, 3-87 environmental justice, 3-115 environmental justice, 3-114 geology, 3-165 geology, 3-164 hazardous materials, 3-225 hazardous materials, 3-224 hydraulics, 3-174 hydraulics, 3-174 land use, 3-80 land use, 3-79 noise, 3-210 noise, 3-209 parks and recreation, 3-127

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement K-1 Appendix K: Index

right-of-way and relocation, 3-65 economic, 3-90 social elements, 3-105 environmental justice, 3-115 transportation, 3-22 geology, 3-165 utilities, 3-73 hazardous materials, 3-225 vegetation, 3-191 hydraulics, 3-174 visual resources, 3-155 land use, 3-80 water quality, 3-171 noise, 3-210 wetlands, 3-196 parks and recreation, 3-127 wildlife, 3-202 right-of-way and relocation, 3-67 Alternative D Refined, S-6, 2-42, 5-17, 5-20 social elements, 3-105 access to properties, 2-51 transportation, 3-26 access to River View Cemetery, Powers utilities, 3-73 Marine Park, and the Staff Jennings vegetation, 3-191 property, 2-53 visual resources, 3-155 access to Willamette Moorage Park and the water quality, 3-171 Macadam Bay Club, 2-51 wetlands, 3-196 aquatic resources, 3-186 wildlife, 3-202 archaeological and historic resources, 3-145 aquatic resources, 3-176 bicyclists and pedestrians, 3-50 fish species, 3-177 construction activities, 2-55 habitat, 3-176 cross-section, 2-49 archaeological and historic resources, 3-133 description, 2-43 archaeological resources, 3-133 east-side connection, 2-51 historic properties, 3-134 economic, 3-90 bicyclists and pedestrians, 1-7, 3-14, 3-34, environmental justice, 3-115 3-118, 4-2, 4-9, 4-23, 4-25 geology, 3-165 demand, 3-36 hazardous materials, 3-225 east-side, 3-35 hydraulics, 3-174 Biological Opinion, 3-187 in-water construction, 2-58 bridge land use, 3-80 bicycle/pedestrian, 2-21, 2-40 land-based construction, 2-57 cable-stayed, 3-152 mitigation, 2-55 closure, 4-4 noise, 3-211 closures, 3-14 parks and recreation, 3-127 cross-sections, 2-11, 2-17, 4-24, 4-26 replacement bridge, 2-50 deck-arch, 3-156 right-of-way and relocation, 3-68 historic property, 3-136 social elements, 3-107 rehabilitation, 4-29 transportation, 3-28 replacement, 4-29 utilities, 3-73 structural integrity, 1-6, 4-1 vegetation, 3-191 through-arch, 3-157 visual resources, 3-158 bridge design, 2-11 water quality, 3-171 box-girder, 2-42 west-side interchange, 2-50 cable-stayed, 2-22 wetlands, 3-196 deck-arch, 2-42, 2-57 wildlife, 3-203 delta-frame, 2-41, 2-57 Alternative E, 2-34 through-arch, 2-42 aquatic resources, 3-186 Brinsfield Boat Basin, 3-57 archaeological and historic resources, 3-145 Build alternatives, S-6, 2-1, 2-13, 4-1, 4-4, 4-20 bicyclists and pedestrians, 3-48 air quality, 3-216 construction activities, 2-42 aquatic resources, 3-182

K-2 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix K: Index

archaeological and historic resources, 3-139 piers, 2-39, 2-58 bicyclists and pedestrians, 3-39 rock excavation, 2-38, 2-57 economic, 3-85 storage and fabrication areas, 2-38, 2-57 energy, 3-212 west-side interchange reconstruction, 2-38, environmental justice, 3-114, 3-117 2-57 geology, 3-162 construction cost, 4-5 hazardous materials, 3-221 Alternative A, 2-22 hydraulics, 3-173 Alternative B, 2-26 irreversible and irretrievable commitment of Alternative C, 2-29 resources, 3-228 Alternative D, 2-34 land use, 3-77 Alternative D Refined, 2-55 noise, 3-206 Alternative E, 2-38 parks and recreation, 3-122 cumulative impacts, S-38, 3-230 right-of-way and relocation, 3-58 air quality, 3-245 short-term uses of the environment and aquatic resources, 3-242 long-term productivity, 3-226 archaeological and historic resources, 3-240 social elements, 3-101 bicyclists and pedestrians, 3-236 transportation, 3-10 economic, 3-238 utilities, 3-72 energy, 3-245 vegetation, 3-189 environmental justice, 3-239 visual resources, 3-150 foreseeable actions, 3-233 water quality, 3-168 geology, 3-241 wetlands, 3-195 hazardous materials, 3-246 wildlife, 3-200 hydraulics, 3-242 Clean Air Act, 3-215 land use, 3-237 Collaborative Environmental and noise, 3-244 Transportation Agreement for Streamlining parks and recreation, 3-239 Process, 5-11 right-of-way and relocation, 3-237 construction activities, 2-38 social elements, 3-238 Alternative A, 2-40 utilities, 3-237 Alternative B, 2-40 vegetation, 3-243 Alternative C, 2-41 visual resources, 3-241 Alternative D, 2-41 water quality, 3-241 Alternative D Refined, 2-55 wetlands, 3-243 Alternative E, 2-42 wildlife, 3-244 bridge foundation, 2-58 decision points, S-3, 2-2, 5-4 cofferdam method, 2-59 1 Establish decision process and structure, dredging, 2-39, 2-59 2-3, 5-4 duration, 2-39, 2-59 2 Define purpose and need, 2-3, 5-5 foundation, 2-39 3 Establish evaluation framework, 2-3, 5-5 in-water, 2-39 4 Develop alternatives, 2-4, 5-5 land-based, 2-38 5 Screen alternatives, 2-10, 5-6 perched method, 2-59 6 Identify preferred alternative, 2-12, 2-42, phasing, 4-6 5-6, 5-15 phasing, 3-Alternative A, 2-22 decision structure, S-2, 5-1 phasing, 3-Alternative B, 2-26 direct impacts, S-7 phasing, 3-Alternative C, 2-29 air quality, 3-216 phasing, 3-Alternative D, 2-31 aquatic resources, 3-182 phasing, 3-Alternative D Refined, 2-39, 2-59 archaeological and historic resources, 3-140 phasing, 3-Alternative E, 2-38 bicyclists and pedestrians, 3-39

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement K-3 Appendix K: Index

economic, 3-85 land use, 3-78 energy, 3-212 noise, 3-207 environmental justice, 3-114 parks and recreation, 3-124 geology, 3-162 right-of-way and relocation, 3-59 hazardous materials, 3-221 social elements, 3-102 hydraulics, 3-173 transportation, 3-16 land use, 3-77 utilities, 3-72 noise, 3-207 vegetation, 3-190 parks and recreation, 3-122 visual resources, 3-151 right-of-way and relocation, 3-58 water quality, 3-169 social elements, 3-101 wildlife, 3-201 transportation, 3-10 Interchange Area Management Plan (IAMP), 3-6, utilities, 3-72 5-18 vegetation, 3-189 interchange design, 2-6, 2-10 visual resources, 3-150 roundabout, 3-152, 4-21 water quality, 3-168 signalized, 3-157, 4-23 wildlife, 3-201 trumpet, 3-154, 4-21 displacements irreversible and irretrievable commitment of business, 3-116, 4-11 resources, 3-228 residential, 3-115, 4-11, 4-25 land use, 3-74 economic, 3-82 plans, 3-policies, 3-and regulations, 3-74, 4-24 energy, 3-212 reviews, 3-78 environmental justice, 3-109 least harm analysis, 4-31 low-income populations, 3-112 Macadam Bay Club, 2-17, 3-57 minority populations, 3-111 maintenance activities, 2-12 regulations, 3-109 bridge closure, 4-4 evaluation framework, 5-5 mitigation floodway. See hydraulics, 3-floodway air quality, 3-217 freight, 4-2 Alternative D Refined, 2-55 geology, 3-160 aquatic resources, 3-184 geologic hazards, 3-163 archaeological and historic resources, 3-140 Grand Place, 3-56, 3-57, 3-117 bicyclists and pedestrians, 3-39 greenhouse gases, 3-218 economic, 3-91 hazardous materials, 3-221 energy, 3-213 contaminants of environmental concern, geology, 3-163 3-221 hazardous materials, 3-223 hydraulics, 3-172 hydraulics, 3-173 floodplain finding, 3-174 land use, 3-79 floodway, 4-19 noise, 3-207 impervious surfaces, 3-170 parks and recreation, 3-124, 3-125, 3-127 indirect impacts, 3-162 right-of-way and relocation, 3-59 air quality, 3-217 social elements, 3-103 aquatic resources, 3-183 transportation, 3-10, 3-15 archaeological and historic resources, 3-140 utilities, 3-72 bicyclists and pedestrians, 3-39 vegetation, 3-190 economic, 3-85 visual resources, 3-151 energy, 3-213 water quality, 3-169 environmental justice, 3-114 wildlife, 3-201 hazardous materials, 3-222 National Ambient Air Quality Standards air hydraulics, 3-173 pollutants, 3-215

K-4 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix K: Index

No Build Alternative, S-6, 2-12, 4-1, 4-29 public involvement, S-3, 5-1 air quality, 3-216 activities completed after distribution of the aquatic resources, 3-182 DEIS, 5-15 archaeological and historic resources, 3-139 briefings, 3-hearing, 3-and open house, 5-14 bicyclists and pedestrians, 3-38 comments on the DEIS, S-7, 5-14 economic, 3-84 key issues and themes, S-7, 5-6 energy, 3-212 process, 5-1 geology, 3-160 railroad, 3-7, 3-14 hazardous materials, 3-221 Record of Decision, S-1, 5-21 hydraulics, 3-172 right-of-way and relocation, 3-56 irreversible and irretrievable commitment of river resources, 3-228 navigation, 3-7, 3-15 land use, 3-77 River Park, 3-56 noise, 3-205 River Park Center, 3-57, 3-117 parks and recreation, 3-122 River View Cemetery, 3-57, 3-99, 3-137 right-of-way and relocation, 3-58 Superintendent's House, 3-138 short-term uses of the environment and Riverside Corral, 3-57, 3-117 long-term productivity, 3-226 roadways, 3-2 social elements, 3-101 alignments, 2-4, 2-10, 4-20 transportation, 3-8 east-side intersection, 3-13 utilities, 3-72 interchange types, 2-6 vegetation, 3-189 OR 43, 3-3, 4-2 visual resources, 3-150 other, 3-4 water quality, 3-168 performance, 3-4 wetlands, 3-195 SE Tacoma Street, 3-4 wildlife, 3-199 Sellwood Bridge, 3-2 noise, 3-204 substandard and unsafe, 1-7, 4-1, 4-24 dBA, 3-204 west-side interchange, 3-13, 4-21 Leq, 3-204 Section 303(d) list of impaired waters, 3-168 regulations, 3-206 Section 4(f) evaluation, S-36, 4-17, 5-21 Oaks Pioneer Church, 3-98, 3-134 least harm analysis, 4-31 Oaks Pioneer Park, 3-120 parks and recreational resources, 3-119 Oregon Pacific Railroad, 3-57 Section 6(f), S-36, 3-132, 5-21 parks and recreation, 3-119, 4-17 Sellwood Bridge, 3-136 Powers Marine Park, 3-120 Sellwood Bridge Recreational Trail, 3-122 project, 1-1 Sellwood Building, 3-57, 3-116 alternatives, 2-9, 2-12 Sellwood Harbor, 3-56 description, S-1 Sellwood Riverfront Park, 3-119 financing, 3-92 Sellwood Slide, 3-163 funding, S-7 Sellwood-Moreland neighborhood, 3-96 goals, 1-8 short-term uses of the environment and history, 1-2 long-term productivity, 3-226 location, 1-1 social elements, 3-94 need, 1-5, 1-9 community cohesion, 3-95 other concepts, 2-9, 2-11 community features and events, 3-97 process, S-2, 2-2 demographics, 3-94 purpose, 1-5, 1-9 disabled individuals, 3-94 requirement, 1-9 emergency and medical services, 3-97, 4-25 setting, 1-2 medical facilities, 3-101 structural integrity, 1-6 neighborhoods, 3-95

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement K-5 Appendix K: Index

South Portland neighborhood, 3-97 mix, 3-13 Springwater Corridor Trail, 3-120 safety, 1-4, 3-6, 4-1 Staff Jennings property, 3-57, 3-117 transit, 3-5, 3-117, 4-2, 4-9, 4-26 Stephens Creek, 3-195 transportation, 3-1 streetcar, 2-13, 3-7, 3-14, 3-57 Troutdale formation, 3-164 temporary detour bridge, 2-13, 2-25, 4-4 utilities, 3-71 aquatic resources, 3-183 vegetation, 3-188, 3-197 archaeological and historic resources, 3-143 noxious weeds, 3-189 economic, 3-88 plant communities, 3-188 hazardous materials, 3-224 rare plants, 3-189 hydraulics, 3-174 riparian communities, 3-188, 3-197, 3-198 noise, 3-209 visual resources, 3-149, 4-4 parks and recreation, 3-126 water quality, 3-168 right-of-way and relocation, 3-64 wetlands, 3-193 social elements, 3-104 classification, 3-193 transportation, 3-21 wildlife, 3-197 utilities, 3-73 habitat, 3-197 vegetation, 3-191 species, 3-198 visual resources, 3-153 Willamette Greenway Trail wildlife, 3-202 East Bank, 3-121 traffic, 4-21 SE Spokane Street section, 3-121 capacity, 1-8, 3-10 West Bank, 2-13, 3-122 cut-through traffic, 3-6, 4-26 Willamette Moorage Park, 2-17, 3-120 flow, 4-2 Willamette River Greenway Program, 3-149 level of service, 3-5, 3-12 Willamette Shoreline Trolley, S-37, 2-13, 3-7, levels, 3-4 3-57, 3-138

K-6 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement