Section 4. Section 4(f) Resources, Uses, and Measures to Minimize Harm

4.1 Parks and Recreational Section 4(f) Resources The Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation process for parks, recreation areas, and wildlife or waterfowl refuges involves the following steps: 1. Identifying publicly owned lands in the project area of potential effect (APE) that may be protected by Section 4(f) as parks, recreation areas, or wildlife or waterfowl refuges. 2. Evaluating the applicability of Section 4(f) to those lands. 3. Determining whether any of the alternatives would result in a “use” of Section 4(f) resources. 4. Evaluating avoidance alternatives and minimization/mitigation measures for any resources where a Section 4(f) use would occur. (Avoidance alternatives were discussed in Section 3.) Section 4(f) park and recreational resources inside the Sellwood Bridge Project APE are depicted on Figure 1.6-1. The ensuing subsections provide the following information about each of these resources: • Description • Section 4(f) Use Determination • Build Alternatives that Avoid Section 4(f) Use • Measures to Minimize Harm The No Build Alternative would have no impact on Section 4(f) resources.

4.1.1 Springwater Corridor Trail Description The Springwater Corridor Trail is a shared-use trail on a former rail line in southeast Portland. The paved surface is generally 12 feet wide with soft shoulders. The trail accommodates walkers, joggers, hikers, bicyclists, those in wheelchairs, and strollers. Inside the vicinity of the Sellwood Bridge Project, the trail is adjacent to an active (but lightly used) rail line, goes under the Sellwood Bridge, and terminates at SE Umatilla Street, where a gap in the trail exists. The Springwater Corridor Trail is the major southeast segment of the Portland Metro area’s 40- Mile Loop trail system. The trail itself extends far beyond the boundaries of the Sellwood Bridge project area, connecting several parks and open spaces, including Tideman Johnson Natural Area, Beggars-Tick Wildlife Refuge, the I-205 Bike Path, Leach Botanical Garden, Powell Butte Nature Park, and Gresham’s Main City Park.

Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-41 Parks and Recreational Section 4(f) Resources Section 4. Section 4(f) Resources, Uses, and Measures to Minimize Harm

Springwater Corridor Trail.

Section 4(f) Use Determination All Build alternatives would result in a similar Section 4(f) use of this resource because of temporary occupation of the trail associated with construction. Under all Build alternatives, parts of the trail would close during rehabilitation of the main bridge and installation of the bicycle/pedestrian bridge structure that would go over the trail. The estimated duration for constructing the Build alternatives is 3 to 4 years. Sections of trail underneath the main bridge and the bicycle/pedestrian bridge would be closed for brief periods at sporadic times during the project when overhead construction was occurring. Although this impact would be temporary, it would constitute a Section 4(f) use because project actions (under all the Build alternatives) currently do not meet the Section 4(f) statute’s fifth temporary occupation exception criterion (23 CFR 774.13[d]): There must be documented agreement of the appropriate Federal, State, or local officials having jurisdiction over the resource regarding the above conditions [a reference to the first four Section 4(f) temporary occupation exception criteria]. To satisfy this fifth criterion, the project would need to have documented agreement from Portland Parks and Recreation (PP&R) and Metro, the two public agencies that co-administer the Springwater Corridor Trail. To this end, communication has been initiated between the Sellwood Bridge project team, PP&R, and Metro regarding the issue of whether Build alternative impacts to the Springwater Corridor Trail are minor enough to meet the Section 4(f) temporary occupation exception criteria. Thus far, although neither PP&R nor Metro has determined that Build alternative impacts meet the temporary occupation exception criteria, they are open to future dialogue on this matter pending further project design details. Therefore, absent the aforementioned documented agreement, it is concluded presently that a Section 4(f) use of the Springwater Corridor Trail would occur under all Build alternatives. If PP&R and Metro concur at a later time that Build alternative impacts are minor enough to meet the temporary occupation exception criteria, there would be no Section 4(f) use at the Springwater Corridor Trail as a result of any Build alternative actions.

Build Alternatives that Avoid Section 4(f) Use None. All Build alternatives would result in a Section 4(f) use of this resource.

4(f)-42 Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation Parks and Recreational Section 4(f) Resources Section 4. Section 4(f) Resources, Uses, and Measures to Minimize Harm

Measures to Minimize Harm Measures to minimize harm to the Springwater Corridor Trail under all Build alternatives would include, but would not be limited to, the following: • Installing overhead containment structures over the Springwater Corridor Trail in the vicinity of bridge construction • Preparing a detour plan in coordination with PP&R and Metro to address the manner in which Springwater Corridor Trail users would be rerouted during times of trail closure • Providing a temporary detour for the Springwater Corridor Trail, to include the following elements, as necessary: − Surfacing − Signage − Pavement markings

4.1.2 Willamette Greenway Trail (East Bank) Description In 1988, the City of Portland adopted the Willamette Greenway Plan, whose stated goal was “to protect, conserve, maintain, and enhance the scenic, natural, historical, economic, and recreational qualities of lands along the Willamette River.” The Willamette Greenway Plan fulfilled the intentions of Oregon Planning Goal 15 (Willamette River Greenway). A primary objective of the Willamette Greenway Plan was “to create a continuous recreational trail extending the full length on both sides of the Willamette River but not necessarily adjacent to the river for the entire length.” As of 2007, a continuous Willamette Greenway Trail does not exist, but sections of the trail are in place, including sections located inside the project area. On the east side of the river inside the project area, a designated section of the Willamette Greenway Trail (East Bank) extends south from Sellwood Riverfront Park, passes under the

Two views of the Willamette Greenway Trail (East Bank).

Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-43 Parks and Recreational Section 4(f) Resources Section 4. Section 4(f) Resources, Uses, and Measures to Minimize Harm

Sellwood Bridge, and terminates at SE Umatilla Street. While the sections of the trail south of SE Spokane Street are on private property, they are still a public recreational resource. The City of Portland has a trail easement to this section of trail and manages this section of trail as part of the overall public trail system. The Willamette Greenway Trail (East Bank)’s primary use is as a recreational trail for walking and biking. Aside from the paved trail itself, the only trail-related improvements are the disabled-access public restrooms located in Sellwood Riverfront Park.

Section 4(f) Use Determination All Build alternatives would result in a similar Section 4(f) use of this resource because of temporary occupation of the trail associated with construction. Under all Build alternatives, parts of the trail would close during rehabilitation of the main bridge and installation of the bicycle/pedestrian bridge structure that would go over the trail. The estimated duration for constructing the Build alternatives is 3 to 4 years. Sections of trail underneath the main bridge and the bicycle/pedestrian bridge would be closed for brief periods at sporadic times during the project when overhead construction was occurring. Although this impact would be temporary, it would constitute a Section 4(f) use because project actions (under all the Build alternatives) currently do not meet the Section 4(f) statute’s fifth temporary occupation exception criterion (23 CFR 774.13[d]): There must be documented agreement of the appropriate Federal, State, or local officials having jurisdiction over the resource regarding the above conditions [a reference to the first four Section 4(f) temporary occupation exception criteria]. To satisfy this fifth criterion, the project would need to have documented agreement from Portland Parks and Recreation (PP&R), the agency that administers the Willamette Greenway Trail (East Bank). To this end, communication has been initiated between the Sellwood Bridge project team and PP&R regarding the issue of whether Build alternative impacts to the Willamette Greenway Trail (East Bank) are minor enough to meet the Section 4(f) temporary occupation exception criteria. Thus far, although PP&R has not determined that Build alternative impacts meet the temporary occupation exception criteria, it is open to future dialogue on this matter pending further project design details. Therefore, absent the aforementioned documented agreement, it is concluded presently that a Section 4(f) use of the Willamette Greenway Trail (East Bank) would occur under all Build alternatives. If PP&R concurs at a later time that Build alternative impacts are minor enough to meet the temporary occupation exception criteria, there would be no Section 4(f) use at the Willamette Greenway Trail (East Bank) as a result of any Build alternative actions.

Build Alternatives that Avoid Section 4(f) Use None. All Build alternatives would result in a Section 4(f) use of this resource.

Measures to Minimize Harm Measures to minimize harm to the Willamette Greenway Trail (East Bank) under all Build alternatives would include, but would not be limited to, the following: • Installing overhead containment structures over the Willamette Greenway Trail (East Bank) in the vicinity of bridge construction

4(f)-44 Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation Parks and Recreational Section 4(f) Resources Section 4. Section 4(f) Resources, Uses, and Measures to Minimize Harm

• Preparing a detour plan in coordination with PP&R to address the manner in which Willamette Greenway Trail (East Bank) users would be rerouted during times of trail closure • Providing a temporary detour for the Willamette Greenway Trail (East Bank), to include the following elements, as necessary: − Surfacing − Signage − Pavement markings

4.1.3 Willamette Greenway Trail (SE Spokane Street Section) Description SE Spokane Street from SE 17th Avenue to the Willamette River is designated as a Primary Greenway Trail on the City of Portland’s Willamette Greenway Plan and as an Adopted Greenway in the Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan. This is an on-street section of the Willamette Greenway Trail with no improvements aside from standard sidewalks and a paved travel lane. The function of this section of the Willamette Greenway Trail is to provide a bicycle- and pedestrian-friendly connection to the main Willamette Greenway Trail (East Bank).

Section 4(f) Use Determination No Section 4(f) use of the Willamette Greenway Trail (SE Spokane Street Section) would result from any Build alternative. No permanent incorporation of the Willamette Greenway Trail (SE Spokane Street Section) would result from any Build alternative. However, actions associated with Alternative B (with temporary detour bridge) would warrant further discussion. Under Alternative B, the detour bridge elevated structure would be located above a segment of SE Spokane Street between SE Grand Avenue and the Willamette River. Under Alternative E, a new Sellwood Bridge elevated structure would cross over a section of SE Spokane Street immediately west of SE Grand Avenue. During construction of both the Alternative B temporary detour bridge and the Alternative E bridge, users of the SE Spokane Street section of the Willamette Greenway Trail would be provided with an alternate route of travel outside, but adjacent to, the SE Spokane Street right-of-way. After completion of the temporary detour bridge, and for the time period the detour bridge was in use, bicyclists and pedestrians would be able to use the SE Spokane Street section of the Willamette Greenway Trail as they do currently. The SE Spokane Street section of the Willamette Greenway Trail would be closed a second time when the detour bridge was disassembled. During that time, users would again be provided with an alternate route outside, but adjacent to, the SE Spokane Street right-of-way. According to the following FHWA Section 4(f) Policy Paper (2005) guidance, the question of whether a Section 4(f) use was occurring at this resource because of the temporary occupancy noted previously would be based on the ability of the Build alternative to reasonably accommodate the continuity of the recreational trail in some other portion of the right-of-way or in another right-of- way. Question C: Are trails on highway rights-of-way, which are designated as scenic or recreational trails, subject to the requirements of Section 4(f)? Answer C: If the trail is simply described as occupying the rights-of-way of the highway and is not limited to any specific location within the right-of-way, a use of land would not occur

Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-45 Parks and Recreational Section 4(f) Resources Section 4. Section 4(f) Resources, Uses, and Measures to Minimize Harm

provided that adjustments or changes in the alignment of the highway or the trail would not substantially impair the continuity of the trail. In this regard, it would be helpful if all future designations including those made under the National Trails System Act describe the location of the trail only as generally in the right-of-way.” (p.20) Because the continuity of bicycle and pedestrian movements along SE Spokane Street would be maintained throughout construction, it is concluded that a Section 4(f) use would not occur at the SE Spokane Street section of the Willamette Greenway Trail based on actions associated with the Alternative B temporary detour bridge or the Alternative E bridge.

Build Alternatives that Avoid Section 4(f) Use All of the alternatives would avoid a Section 4(f) use of this resource.

Measures to Minimize Harm Not applicable. All of the alternatives would avoid a Section 4(f) use of this resource.

4.1.4 Sellwood Riverfront Park Description Sellwood Riverfront Park is an 8.75-acre park located at SE Spokane St and SE Oaks Park Way, just north of the Sellwood Bridge on the east bank of the Willamette River. Existing park facilities include a boat dock to the Willamette River, a disabled-access restroom, a dog off-leash area, paved walking paths (including the Willamette Greenway Trail [East Bank]), unpaved trails, picnic tables, a parking lot, and an outdoor stage used for summer concerts.

Sellwood Riverfront Park (looking south toward Sellwood Bridge). Sellwood Riverfront Park is a hybrid park with both an open lawn and manicured section and a similarly sized natural area with a wooded section, pond, and trails. Sellwood Riverfront Park also

4(f)-46 Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation Parks and Recreational Section 4(f) Resources Section 4. Section 4(f) Resources, Uses, and Measures to Minimize Harm contains important visual resources, with expansive views to the river, west hills, and downtown skyline.

Section 4(f) Use Determination Alternative A would result in a Section 4(f) use of Sellwood Riverfront Park. Approximately 10 of the park’s parking stalls would be incorporated by the project to provide adequate space for the placement of bicycle/pedestrian bridge piers. Approximately two trees would also be removed.

Build Alternatives that Avoid Section 4(f) Use Alternatives B, B (with temporary detour bridge), C, D, and E would avoid a Section 4(f) use of Sellwood Riverfront Park. Alternative E would install a new bridge structure immediately south of the Sellwood Riverfront Park property line. Although visual and noise impacts would exist at Sellwood Riverfront Park associated with Alternative E, these were not found to substantially impair the features, functions, or attributes of the park in accordance with the Section 4(f) statute. Therefore, these impacts were not considered a constructive use of the park.

Measures to Minimize Harm Measures to minimize harm to Sellwood Riverfront Park under Alternative A would include, but would not be limited to, the following: • Purchasing right-of-way; Multnomah County real estate specialists would coordinate with PP&R to determine property needs and just compensation based on the fair market value • Replacing parking spaces in the immediate vicinity of the park • Assisting in re-vegetating the riparian zone with cottonwood trees (from the water line to the Willamette Greenway Trail [East Bank])

4.1.5 Oaks Pioneer Park Description Oaks Pioneer Park is a 3.85-acre park located at 455 SE Spokane Street. The park is the setting for Oaks Pioneer Church, which serves as an important location for weddings and other ceremonies. A large lawn area with mature trees and shrubs surround the church and a rental property to the north. The quiet setting for the church plays a pivotal role in its value as a popular wedding location. Weddings occur most often in the summer, although ceremonies take place at the church year- round. Recreational improvements are limited to paved walking paths. The primary function of the park is to provide a peaceful setting behind the Oaks Pioneer Church.

Section 4(f) Use Determination Alternatives A and B (with temporary detour bridge) would result in a Section 4(f) use of Oaks Pioneer Park. Under Alternative A, approximately 0.12 acre of parkland would be converted to transportation use to accommodate right-of-way requirements associated with the installation of the bicycle/pedestrian

Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-47 Parks and Recreational Section 4(f) Resources Section 4. Section 4(f) Resources, Uses, and Measures to Minimize Harm bridge. PP&R’s maintenance access road at the park would be realigned and approximately two trees would be removed.

Oaks Pioneer Church at Oaks Pioneer Park.

Under Alternative B (with temporary detour bridge), park property would not be incorporated, but noise-related proximity impacts associated with the elevated detour bridge structure would result in a Section 4(f) use. This determination is based on analysis of relevant Section 4(f) statute sections2 and is described in detail in the Sellwood Bridge Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Multnomah County, Oregon, Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation Technical Report (CH2M HILL, 2008a). Noise levels at Oaks Pioneer Church (with open doors and windows) are projected to be 54 decibels on an A- weighted scale (dBA), which would exceed the applicable FHWA noise abatement criterion (NAC) of 52 decibels. Because this increase in projected noise level would be 4 decibels greater than the projected 50-decibel noise level inside the church (with open windows and doors) associated with the No Build Alternative, it is considered a “perceptible” increase. This perceptible increase is relevant because, according to Oaks Pioneer Church staff, church ceremonies frequently operate with the windows and front doors open. As noted in the description of this resource, Oaks Pioneer Church is a chief amenity of the park. The activities at the church, and in the park space behind the church, require an aesthetic setting that includes a level of quietude suitable for weddings and other similar formal ceremonies. The perceptible increase in noise associated with the temporary detour bridge would be a constructive use because it would substantially diminish the activities of the church. It is concluded, therefore, that a Section 4(f) use of Oaks Pioneer Park would occur under Alternative B (with temporary detour bridge).

2 See 23 CFR 774.15(e)(1)(iv); 774.15(f)(2) and (3)

4(f)-48 Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation Parks and Recreational Section 4(f) Resources Section 4. Section 4(f) Resources, Uses, and Measures to Minimize Harm

Build Alternatives that Avoid Section 4(f) Use Alternatives B, C, D, and E would avoid a Section 4(f) use of Oaks Pioneer Park. All Build alternatives would be the same as or increase noise levels compared to existing conditions. However, under Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E, this noise impact was not found to substantially impair the features, functions, or attributes of the park in accordance with the Section 4(f) statute. Therefore, the noise impact was not considered a constructive use of the park. Alternative E would install a new bridge structure immediately southwest of Oaks Pioneer Church. This would cause visual and noise impacts (with noise impacts greater than under Alternatives A, B, C, and D). Unlike Alternative B (with temporary detour bridge), these impacts were not found to substantially impair the features, functions, or attributes of the park in accordance with the Section 4(f) statute. Therefore, the visual and noise impacts were not considered a constructive use of the park.

Measures to Minimize Harm Measures to minimize harm to Oaks Pioneer Park under Alternative A would include, but would not be limited to, the following: • Purchasing right-of-way; Multnomah County real estate specialists would coordinate with PP&R to determine property needs and just compensation based on the fair market value • Planting trees and vegetation around the bridge structure and elsewhere in the park Measures to minimize harm to Oaks Pioneer Park under Alternative B (with temporary detour bridge) would include, but would not be limited to, the following: • Relocating Oaks Pioneer Church to a new PP&R location or within Oaks Pioneer Park

4.1.6 Sellwood Bridge Recreational Trail Description The Sellwood Bridge is designated as a recreational trail and is part of the Portland metropolitan area’s 40-Mile Loop trail system. Recreational facilities are limited to a narrow (4-foot-wide) paved, raised sidewalk along the westbound travel lane of the bridge and a switchback bicycle/pedestrian ramp on the west side of the bridge. This resource serves as both a bikeway and a pedestrian path.

Section 4(f) Use Determination Alternatives A, B, and C would result in a similar Section 4(f) use of this resource. Each of these three Build alternatives would close the existing bridge for 3 to 4 years during construction. According to the FHWA Section 4(f) Policy Paper (2005, p.20) guidance cited earlier in this Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation regarding trails on highway rights-of-way, the question of whether a Section 4(f) use is occurring at the Sellwood Bridge is based on the ability of the Build alternative to reasonably accommodate the continuity of the recreational trail in some other portion of the right- of-way or in another right-of-way. Alternatives A, B, and C would not provide right-of-way to accommodate the continuity of the Sellwood Bridge as a recreational trail during the construction period. This would leave a 3 to 4 year span in which this trail would have no river crossing continuity.

Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-49 Parks and Recreational Section 4(f) Resources Section 4. Section 4(f) Resources, Uses, and Measures to Minimize Harm

Although this impact would be temporary, it would constitute a Section 4(f) use because the project actions (of Alternatives A, B, and C) would not meet the Section 4(f) statute’s third temporary occupation exception criterion (23 CFR 774.13[d][3]): …nor will there be interference with the activities or purpose of the resource, on either a temporary or permanent basis. Closing the bridge without providing an alternate crossing for bicycles and pedestrians would interfere with the activities of the recreational trail. Therefore, it would be a Section 4(f) use (under Alternatives A, B, and C). In regard to Alternative A, the option of building the bicycle/pedestrian bridge before closing the Sellwood Bridge for construction (to provide a continuous bicyclist and pedestrian connection across the Willamette River) was considered during project planning. This scheme was determined to be inefficient, from both a cost and time perspective, because it would entail engaging in two separate periods of construction. Considering that, notwithstanding the Sellwood Bridge Recreation Trail, Alternative A would still impact many Section 4(f) resources and would therefore not be an avoidance alternative under Section 4(f) anyway, a determination was made not to pursue this option.

Build Alternatives that Avoid Section 4(f) Use Alternatives B (with temporary detour bridge), D, and E would avoid a Section 4(f) use of this resource by providing continued bicycle/pedestrian connectivity over the Willamette River during bridge construction, according to the discussion regarding FHWA guidance (2005). • Alternative B (with temporary detour bridge) would provide bicycle/pedestrian accommodations on the detour bridge. • Alternative D would provide bicycle/pedestrian accommodations on the existing bridge through the first half of the construction period, and then on the first half of the new bridge structure during construction of the second half. • Alternative E would continue to provide bicycle/pedestrian accommodations as they exist currently on the Sellwood Bridge while the new bridge was being constructed. Alternatives B (with temporary detour bridge), D, and E would each avoid a use of the Sellwood Bridge Recreational Trail under Section 4(f). However, Alternative E would have the least overall impact because it would not require bicyclists and pedestrians to use detours (from current travel patterns) or to travel through a construction zone.

Measures to Minimize Harm Measures to minimize harm to the Sellwood Bridge Recreational Trail under Alternatives A, B, and C would include, but would not be limited to, the following: • Providing detour signage for bicyclists indicating the closest Willamette River crossing with bicycle accommodations

4.1.7 Powers Marine Park Description Powers Marine Park is a 13.07-acre linear park located in southwest Portland between OR 43 and the Willamette River for approximately 0.85 mile.

4(f)-50 Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation Parks and Recreational Section 4(f) Resources Section 4. Section 4(f) Resources, Uses, and Measures to Minimize Harm

Powers Marine Park provides important natural resources and non-programmed recreational opportunities. The park is highly valued as a natural area. The South Portland Riverbank Project (a partnership of City of Portland and community organizations) is actively engaged in restoring riverbank conditions and enhancing the banks of the Willamette River at the park.

Powers Marine Park (looking south).

Section 4(f) Use Determination All Build alternatives would result in a Section 4(f) use of Powers Marine Park. As shown in Table 4.1-1, all Build alternatives would convert parkland to transportation use because of the installation/modification of Sellwood Bridge ramps and roadway connections and the modification of the interchange at OR 43. Alternatives A, B, D, and E would relocate the vehicular access to the park. Alternative C would close the vehicular access to the park (and adjacent boat ramp).

TABLE 4.1-1 Summary of Impact at Powers Marine Park Parkland Parkland Incorpora Incorporate ted d (percent Alternative (acres) of total) Area/Functions Impacted

A 1.57 12.01 Natural area land incorporated into project; relocation of vehicular access from OR 43

B 2.15 16.45 Natural area land incorporated into project; relocation of vehicular access from OR 43

B/TDB 2.15 16.45 Natural area land incorporated into project; relocation of vehicular access from OR 43

C 1.46 11.17 Natural area land incorporated into project; closure of existing boat launch adjacent to park; closure of vehicular access from OR 43

D 2.11 16.14 Natural area land incorporated into project; relocation of vehicular access from OR 43

E 0.76 5.81 Natural area land incorporated into project; relocation of vehicular access from OR 43 B/TDB = Alternative B with temporary detour bridge

Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-51 Parks and Recreational Section 4(f) Resources Section 4. Section 4(f) Resources, Uses, and Measures to Minimize Harm

Build Alternatives that Avoid Section 4(f) Use None. All Build alternatives would result in a Section 4(f) use of this resource.

Measures to Minimize Harm Measures to minimize harm to Powers Marine Park under all the Build alternatives would include, but would not be limited to, the following: • Purchasing right-of-way; Multnomah County real estate specialists would coordinate with PP&R to determine property needs and just compensation based on the fair market value • Restoring fish habitat • Stabilizing the river bank • Removing invasive plants/planting native species Additional measures to minimize harm to Powers Marine Park under Alternative C would include, but would not be limited to, the following: • Assisting with the construction of a non-motorized boat launch in the vicinity of Sellwood Riverfront Park

4.1.8 Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank) Description The Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank) is a narrow, paved, shared-use path that follows the west bank of the Willamette River. Within the project area, the trail extends southward through Willamette Moorage Park; becomes a narrow paved sidewalk adjacent to OR 43 (separated by jersey barriers and a chain-link fence); connects to the northern end of Powers Marine Park through the parking lot adjacent to the Staff Jennings driveway; passes under the Sellwood Bridge; and eventually becomes a semi-improved trail (gravel/dirt) as it passes through Powers Marine Park. The primary use of the Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank) is as an active recreational bikeway and pedestrian trail. The trail also provides users access to natural areas along the Willamette River and recreation sites to the north and south.

4(f)-52 Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation Parks and Recreational Section 4(f) Resources Section 4. Section 4(f) Resources, Uses, and Measures to Minimize Harm

Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank).

Section 4(f) Use Determination All Build alternatives would result in a similar Section 4(f) use of the Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank). All alternatives would convert approximately 0.30 linear miles of the trail to transportation use because of the wider interchange footprint.

Build Alternatives that Avoid Section 4(f) Use None. All Build alternatives would result in a Section 4(f) use of this resource.

Measures to Minimize Harm Measures to minimize harm to the Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank) would include, but would not be limited to, the following: • Constructing a new trail segment along side the reconstructed Willamette Shoreline Trolley track system

4.1.9 Willamette Moorage Park Description Willamette Moorage Park is an 8.92-acre park that is bordered by the Willamette River on the east, OR 43 on the west, Butterfly Park on the north, and the Staff Jennings marina property on the south. Willamette Moorage Park functions primarily as an open natural area intended to bolster the health of the Willamette River ecosystem. The park is the location of the Stephens Creek Confluence Habitat Enhancement Project—a partnership effort between the City of Portland and community groups to restore habitat for fish listed as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act. This linear park provides some non-programmed recreational opportunities along with river access and some beach recreation. Existing park facilities include a boat dock (a public transient dock shared with the Macadam Bay Club), a parking lot, and a hiking trail (the Willamette Greenway Trail [West Bank]).

Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-53 Parks and Recreational Section 4(f) Resources Section 4. Section 4(f) Resources, Uses, and Measures to Minimize Harm

Willamette Moorage Park (looking north).

Section 4(f) Use Determination All Build alternatives would result in a Section 4(f) use of Willamette Moorage Park. As shown in Table 4.1-2, all Build alternatives would convert parkland to transportation use because of the installation/modification of Sellwood Bridge ramps and roadway connections and the modification of the interchange at OR 43. All Build alternatives would relocate the vehicular access to the park and impact wetlands.

TABLE 4.1-2 Summary of Impact at Willamette Moorage Park Parkland Parkland Incorporated Incorporated Alternative (acres) (percent of total) Area/Functions Impacted

A 2.22 24.89 Natural area land incorporated into project; relocation of existing vehicular access from OR 43; wetland impact

B 1.75 19.62 Natural area land incorporated into project; relocation of existing vehicular access from OR 43; wetland impact

B/TDB 1.75 19.62 Natural area land incorporated into project; relocation of existing vehicular access from OR 43; wetland impact

C 2.86 32.06 Undeveloped natural area land incorporated into project; relocation of existing vehicular from OR 43; wetland area impact

4(f)-54 Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation Historic and Archaeological Resources Section 4. Section 4(f) Resources, Uses, and Measures to Minimize Harm

TABLE 4.1-2 Summary of Impact at Willamette Moorage Park Parkland Parkland Incorporated Incorporated Alternative (acres) (percent of total) Area/Functions Impacted

D 1.75 19.62 Natural area land incorporated into project; relocation of existing vehicular access from OR 43; wetland impact

E 3.05 34.19 Natural area land incorporated into project; relocation of existing vehicular access from OR 43; wetland impact B/TDB = Alternative B with temporary detour bridge

Build Alternatives that Avoid Section 4(f) Use None. All Build alternatives would result in a Section 4(f) use of this resource.

Measures to Minimize Harm Measures to minimize harm to Willamette Moorage Park under all Build alternatives would include, but would not be limited to, the following: • Purchasing right-of-way; Multnomah County real estate specialists would coordinate with PP&R to determine property needs and just compensation based on the fair market value • Restoring fish habitat • Enhancing wetlands • Removing invasive plants/planting native species

4.2 Historic and Archaeological Resources Section 4(f) applies to historic properties and archaeological sites that are listed in or are eligible for listing on the National Register. Section 106 is the process that identifies listed and eligible historic and archaeological resources. Section 4(f) applies to listed or eligible sites if preservation in place is warranted. For this project, efforts were made to avoid or minimize use of Section 4(f) historic resources. Currently, no archaeological sites are known to exist in the project APE. Therefore, it was not possible to assess specific archaeological impacts under Section 106. Alternative E, because it would be constructed on a footprint not already deeply disturbed by previous bridge construction, is marginally the most likely to affect currently undetected archaeological deposits. Subsurface archaeological investigations would be conducted after selection of the preferred alternative to determine if such deposits exist. If archaeological deposits exist, potential impacts would be assessed and, if necessary, a mitigation plan would be developed. Section 4(f) does not apply to those archaeological sites that are determined to be important chiefly because of what can be learned by data recovery and have minimal value for preservation in place. Within the APE of this project, one property is already listed on the National Register and four properties are eligible for the National Register. The Oregon State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) was consulted and, on July 31, 2008, concurred with these conclusions. These resources are

Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-55 Historic and Archaeological Resources Section 4. Section 4(f) Resources, Uses, and Measures to Minimize Harm protected by Section 4(f). A detailed discussion of each of these historic properties is included in Chapter 3 of the Sellwood Bridge Project DEIS. Section 4(f) historic resources inside the Sellwood Bridge Project APE are depicted on Figure 1.6-1. The ensuing subsections provide the following information about each of these resources: • Description • Section 4(f) Use Determination • Build Alternatives that Avoid Section 4(f) Use • Measures to Minimize Harm The No Build Alternative would have no impact on these historic resources.

4.2.1 Oaks Pioneer Church Description The Oaks Pioneer Church, formerly St. John’s Episcopal Church, was listed on the National Register in 1974. St. John’s Church is the first Episcopal church in the Oregon country and is one of the oldest intact church buildings in Oregon. In 1851, when Lot Whitcomb (a pioneer operator of steamboats on the Willamette River) donated the property, it was a partially completed double house outside the town of Milwaukie. (Whitcomb had founded Milwaukie in the 1840s as a cooperative colony, but it had largely dissolved with the general exodus of the colonists to the California gold fields in 1849.) Appropriate alterations were made and the building was completed as a church. According to the National Register nomination, the areas of significance are for architecture and religion/philosophy. Under Criterion A, the period of significance would span 1851 (founding of the church) to 1961 (end of era as St. John’s Episcopal Church). The church is important for its association with events relating to the establishment of the Episcopal Church in western Oregon. Originally located in Milwaukie, it served as a house of worship, as well as being used as the cathedral seat for the Episcopal Diocese of Oregon for a while. It should be noted that the building is no longer in use as an Episcopal Church, and no longer owned by the Episcopal Church or any other religious organization. It is a community facility where hundreds of weddings occur each year. It is operated by the Sellwood Moreland Improvement League (SMILE), the local neighborhood association, and located at the Oaks Pioneer Church & Park, which is administered by the City of Portland Parks & Recreation Bureau. The church’s period of significance is between 1883 (Neo-Gothic architectural style) and 1928 (new foundation and basement). The church is an excellent example of this style of architecture. The building has suffered some loss of integrity because of changes it has experienced over time, though these changes occurred before the building was listed on the National Register. The Section 106 Determination of Eligibility (DOE) Form for Oaks Pioneer Church is provided in Attachment 1 of this Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation.

Section 4(f) Use Determination No Section 4(f) use of Oaks Pioneer Church would result from any Build alternative. None of the alternatives would incorporate property from this site. The Section 106 process for all the Build alternatives concluded with an effect finding of “no adverse effect” for this property. Constructive use does not occur when the Section 106 effect finding is “no

4(f)-56 Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation Historic and Archaeological Resources Section 4. Section 4(f) Resources, Uses, and Measures to Minimize Harm adverse effect” (23 CFR 774.15[f][1]). Although noise would impact the Oaks Pioneer Church under the Build alternatives, the Section 106 analysis found that this impact would not affect the status derived from its architectural and historical significance.

Build Alternatives that Avoid Section 4(f) Use All of the alternatives would avoid a Section 4(f) use of this resource.

Measures to Minimize Harm Not applicable. All of the alternatives would avoid a Section 4(f) use of this resource.

4.2.2 River View Cemetery Description River View Cemetery is located on the west side of the Willamette River, approximately 3 miles south of downtown Portland. The cemetery is roughly 310 acres in size and is bounded on the north by SW Taylors Ferry Road and on the east by OR 43. The cemetery has three entrances— one located off OR 43, just a few feet from the western end of the Sellwood Bridge, another on SW Taylors Ferry Road, and a third access off SW Palatine Hill Road. The cemetery, established in 1882, is situated on the eastern face of the hill. The cemetery exhibits elements of late-19th-century rural cemetery design, as suggested by the narrow road system that ascends gradually, following the natural ridges and curves of the land; the variety of large and small trees and shrubs, which may have been selectively planted; and the use of its location to provide views across the river towards Sellwood and neighboring communities. Most of the burials are located on the hillside above OR 43, with the oldest ones located towards the center of the cemetery, near the mausoleum. A Spanish-American War memorial is located in a section near the SW Taylors Ferry Road entrance. The cemetery, which is considered locally significant, was entered into the City of Portland Historic Resource Inventory (HRI) circa 1982. It was given a Rank III code that, according to the City of Portland Historic Resource Protection Overlay Zone ordinance (33.445.030), signifies that the resource may be eligible for listing on the National Register as part of a Historic District. The HRI entry identifies the areas of significance as “Social” and “Landscape Architecture.” According to the inventory form, “Members of many of Portland’s leading families were buried in River View Cemetery. This cemetery was among those developed during the rural cemetery movement for which landscaping was very important.” The cemetery is eligible for the National Register under Criteria A and C. The DOE form for River View Cemetery is provided in Attachment 1 of this Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation.

Section 4(f) Use Determination All Build alternatives would result in a Section 4(f) use of River View Cemetery. As shown in Table 4.2-1, all Build alternatives would convert property from the site to transportation use because of the modification of the interchange at OR 43.

Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-57 Historic and Archaeological Resources Section 4. Section 4(f) Resources, Uses, and Measures to Minimize Harm

TABLE 4.2-1 Summary of Land Incorporated at River View Cemetery Cemetery Incorporated Cemetery Incorporated Alternative (acres) (percent of total) A 3.58 1.15

B 3.58 1.15

C 2.07 0.67

D 3.60 1.16

E 3.43 1.11

Build alternatives would have other impacts in addition to the Section 4(f) use of River View Cemetery property. Additional impacts under Alternatives A, B, D, and E are as follows: • Incorporation of 8 parking spaces (out of the existing 12) • Relocation of the cemetery gates • Realignment of the access road from OR 43 to the Superintendent’s House Additional impacts under Alternative C are as follows: • Relocation of the cemetery gates • Closure of the access road from OR 43 to the cemetery and Superintendent’s House FHWA Section 4(f) Policy Paper (2005) guidance relevant to the determination of Section 4(f) use at River View Cemetery reads as follows: When a project permanently incorporates land of an historic site, with or without an adverse effect [under Section 106], Section 4(f) applies. (p.15) Based on this FHWA guidance, it is concluded that a Section 4(f) use of the River View Cemetery would result from all Build alternatives.

Build Alternatives that Avoid Section 4(f) Use None. All Build alternatives would result in a Section 4(f) use of this resource.

Measures to Minimize Harm Measures to minimize harm to the River View Cemetery under all Build alternatives would include, but would not be limited to, the following: • Constructing retaining walls adjacent to OR 43 in the interchange area to minimize the amount of right-of-way needed for transportation improvements • Purchasing right-of-way; Multnomah County real estate specialists would coordinate with PP&R to determine property needs and just compensation based on the fair market value • Following Historic American Building Survey/Historic American Engineering Record (HABS/HAER) Level III documentation standards for River View Cemetery

4(f)-58 Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation Historic and Archaeological Resources Section 4. Section 4(f) Resources, Uses, and Measures to Minimize Harm

4.2.3 River View Cemetery Superintendent’s House Description The River View Cemetery Superintendent’s House (or Caretaker’s Cottage), located at 8421 SW Macadam Avenue, was designed by Ellis F. Lawrence and constructed in 1914. The Neo-Georgian- style structure replaced a 19th century building in the Gothic Revival style. The Superintendent’s House was designed by Ellis F. Lawrence, a prominent and prolific architect from Eugene, Oregon, who practiced his craft in Portland in the early decades of the 20th century. The Superintendent’s House is considered locally significant and is eligible for the National Register under Criterion C as representing a stylistic achievement by Lawrence. The Superintendent’s House also is considered a contributing feature of National Register-eligible River View Cemetery. The DOE form for the River View Cemetery Superintendent’s House is provided in Attachment 1 of this Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation.

Section 4(f) Use Determination No Section 4(f) use of the River View Cemetery Superintendent’s House would result from any Build alternative. Alternatives A, B, D, and E would result in a realignment of the access road to the Superintendent’s House from OR 43 as well as the widening of the OR 43 interchange footprint, which would bring the road closer to the historic property. Under Section 106, these actions would have an adverse effect because of a change in physical features within the property’s setting that contribute to its historic significance. Alternative C would eliminate the cemetery’s entrance road from OR 43 leading to the Superintendent’s House. Under Section 106, this would be an adverse effect as it would change physical features within the property’s setting, such as the location of the entrance columns and the road itself, that contribute to the historic significance of the Superintendent’s House.

River View Cemetery (Superintendent's House on right).

Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-59 Historic and Archaeological Resources Section 4. Section 4(f) Resources, Uses, and Measures to Minimize Harm

FHWA Section 4(f) Policy Paper (2005) guidance relevant to the determination of Section 4(f) use at the River View Cemetery Superintendent’s House reads as follows: Answer B: FHWA's determination of adverse effect under 36 CFR 800.5 (www.achp.gov/work106.html) does not mean that Section 4(f) automatically applies, nor should it be presumed that the lack of an adverse effect finding (no historic properties adversely affected) means that Section 4(f) will not apply. When a project permanently incorporates land of an historic site, with or without an adverse affect, Section 4(f) applies. However, if a project does not physically take (permanently incorporate) historic property but causes an adverse effect, one must assess the proximity impacts of the project in terms of the potential for constructive use (see also Question 1 B). This analysis must determine if the proximity impact(s) will substantially impair the features or attributes that contribute to the National Register eligibility of the historic site or district. If there is no substantial impairment, notwithstanding an adverse effect determination, there is no constructive use and Section 4(f) requirements do not apply. Substantial impairment should be determined in consultation with the SHPO and/or THPO and thoroughly documented in the project record. The determination of Section 4(f) applicability is ultimately FHWA’s decision. (p.15) Because none of the alternatives would incorporate property from the Superintendent’s House site, a determination of Section 4(f) use is based on whether the proximity of respective alternative actions would result in a substantial impairment of the features or attributes that qualify the Superintendent’s House for protection under Section 4(f), notwithstanding the Section 106 preliminary finding of adverse effect already noted. As referenced in Chapter 3 of the Sellwood Bridge Project DEIS, the historical significance of the Superintendent’s House is based on its architectural style. The realignment of the access road leading to the Superintendent’s House and the closer proximity of OR 43 to the house associated with Alternatives A, B, D, and E would not substantially diminish, under Section 4(f), the architectural properties of the structure. Public access to the historic resource would be maintained. Therefore, it is concluded that there is no Section 4(f) use of the River View Cemetery Superintendent’s House resulting from Alternative A, B, D, or E actions. In regard to Alternative C, the closure of the access road leading to the Superintendent’s House from OR 43, and the closer proximity of OR 43 to the house associated with Alternative C actions would also not substantially diminish the architectural properties of the structure. Public access to the historic resource would still be available via the cemetery’s main entrance on SW Taylors Ferry Road. Therefore, it is concluded that there is no Section 4(f) use of the River View Cemetery Superintendent’s House resulting from Alternative C actions.

Build Alternatives that Avoid Section 4(f) Use All of the alternatives would avoid a Section 4(f) use of this resource.

Measures to Minimize Harm Not applicable. All of the alternatives would avoid a Section 4(f) use of this resource.

4(f)-60 Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation Historic and Archaeological Resources Section 4. Section 4(f) Resources, Uses, and Measures to Minimize Harm

4.2.4 Sellwood Bridge Description The Sellwood Bridge (Bridge No. 6879), designed by Gustav Lindenthal, is located at river mile 16.5 on the Willamette River. The Sellwood Bridge was officially dedicated on December 15, 1925. The bridge was the first built in Portland without a moveable span and was also the first bridge in Portland to be designed without trolley tracks. The bridge was originally designed to carry 15,000 cars per day; however, it did not reach that capacity until the 1960s. Current average daily traffic counts are 30,500 cars (Wortman, 2006). The Sellwood Bridge is eligible for listing on the National Register under Criterion C because it is a rare bridge type both at the local level and within the state. It is the only four–span continuous-deck truss in Oregon, as well as one of just a handful of continuous deck trusses in the state. The other four bridges in Oregon are either two- or three-span continuous through trusses, which makes the Sellwood Bridge significant amongst this type of bridge design. Additionally, the other continuous- truss bridges were built between 1929 and 1950, making the Sellwood Bridge the oldest of this type of construction. It demonstrates the application of a common bridge type in an unusual way, increasing the number of spans from two or three to four, to achieve an artistic effect. The Sellwood Bridge is also eligible for listing under National Register Criterion C as a work of a master, Gustav Lindenthal. The legacy of Lindenthal as one of the most significant bridge engineers of the late 19th and early 20th centuries has been established. The Sellwood Bridge was designed less than 10 years after Lindenthal erected the Sciotoville Bridge in Ohio, his first continuous-span bridge. He prepared design plans for five Portland-area bridges in less than 5 years. However, the Sellwood Bridge was his first, and it is the longest and the only four-span truss bridge he designed in Portland. The DOE form for the Sellwood Bridge is provided in Attachment 1 of this Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation.

Section 4(f) Use Determination All Build alternatives would result in a Section 4(f) use of this historical resource. Alternatives C, D, and E would demolish the existing bridge; this is an adverse effect under Section 106 because it would cause the physical destruction of a historic property. FHWA Section 4(f) Policy Paper (2005) guidance related to historic bridges notes the following: FHWA…determined that Section 4(f) would apply only when an historic bridge or highway is demolished, or if the historic quality for which the facility was determined to be eligible for the National Register is adversely affected by the proposed improvement. The determination of adverse effect under 36 CFR 800.5 is made by FHWA in consultation with the SHPO and/or THPO. Where FHWA determines that the facility will not be adversely affected, the SHPO/THPO must concur with the determination or FHWA must seek further input from the ACHP. (p.15) Based on this FHWA guidance and the Section 106 findings, it is concluded that there would be a Section 4(f) use of the Sellwood Bridge historic resource under Alternatives C, D, and E. Alternatives A, B, and B (with temporary detour bridge) would rehabilitate the existing bridge. The rehabilitation would require replacing the deck with a widened deck and deck support, adding two shadow trusses, adding to the size of the piers to support the additional trusses, and adding new

Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-61 Historic and Archaeological Resources Section 4. Section 4(f) Resources, Uses, and Measures to Minimize Harm approach spans. This would be an adverse effect under Section 106 because the changes are so extensive that it would result in the physical destruction of a historic property in a manner inconsistent with The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (36 CFR part 68). A preliminary engineering analysis of the standards indicates that the rehabilitation associated with Alternatives A and B could not be done in accordance with The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties numbered 1, 2, and 6. Therefore, Alternatives A and B would have an adverse effect under Section 106. Based on FHWA guidance and the Section 106 findings of adverse effect, it is concluded that there would be a Section 4(f) use of the Sellwood Bridge historic resource under Alternatives A, B, and B (with temporary detour bridge).

Build Alternatives that Avoid Section 4(f) Use None. All Build alternatives would result in a Section 4(f) use of this resource.

Measures to Minimize Harm Measures to minimize harm to the Sellwood Bridge historical site under all Build alternatives would include, but would not be limited to, the following: • Salvaging materials from the Sellwood Bridge and preserving dedication plaques for reinstallation at a later time

4.2.5 Willamette Shoreline Trolley Description The Southern Pacific Railroad Red Electric Eastside Line (also known as the Jefferson Street Line) is part of a railroad corridor in the Willamette Valley, located between Portland and St. Joseph. It comprises the east side of a loop that ran on the west bank of the Willamette River from Union Station in downtown Portland and south along SW 4th Avenue before heading east on SW Jefferson Street to a levee at the Willamette River. From there, it ran south to Oswego (now known as Lake Oswego). Then, the line turned west towards Newberg and on to the communities of St. Joseph and McMinnville. The line returned to Portland on the “west side,” traveling north toward Forest Grove before turning east to Hillsboro, Beaverton, and Bertha (now Hillsdale), before arriving back at Portland Union Station.

Two views of Willamette Shoreline Trolley Line.

The extant portion of the old Jefferson Street Line still lies between OR 43 and the Willamette River in the mixed commercial/residential neighborhood of southwest Portland. When it leaves the

4(f)-62 Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation Section 4(f) Assessment Summary Section 4. Section 4(f) Resources, Uses, and Measures to Minimize Harm city, the route enters Dunthorpe, a primarily affluent residential area of unincorporated Multnomah County. Then it arrives at the north end of the city of Lake Oswego. Two important contributing features in this segment, the Elk Rock Tunnel and the Riverwood Trestle, remain intact. Both of these are outside the APE for this project. None of the stations within the APE are extant or identified. The line has the ballast, ties, and rails, and related equipment and structures, necessary to handle rail traffic. However, the line is no longer electrified; all overhead power lines are gone. Passenger stations no longer exist. One electrical substation associated with the Southern Pacific Railroad Red Electric Eastside Line is east of the southern terminus. Nevertheless, the Eastside Line retains integrity of location, design, setting, feeling, and association for the period of significance, 1914 to 1929. It appears eligible for the National Register under Criterion A because it was part of an important transportation network that connected Portland with its hinterland, and was a vital link in connecting the larger communities of Portland, Eugene, and Corvallis with smaller towns in the Willamette Valley. The interurban was a strong influence in the growth and development (and the physical shaping) of the outer suburbs south and west of Portland (like Tigard, Hillsboro, and Beaverton) because the construction of roads and highways to and around those communities followed the existing railroad alignments. The DOE form for the Willamette Shoreline Trolley is provided in Attachment 1 of this Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation.

Section 4(f) Use Determination No Section 4(f) use of the Willamette Shoreline Trolley historical resource would result from any Build alternative. No permanent incorporation of property from the site would result from any Build alternative. The Section 106 process for all Build alternatives concluded with an effect finding of “no adverse effect” for this property. Constructive use does not occur when the Section 106 effect finding is “no adverse effect” (23 CFR 774.15[f][1]).

Build Alternatives that Avoid Section 4(f) Use All of the alternatives would avoid a Section 4(f) use of this resource.

Measures to Minimize Harm Not applicable. All of the alternatives would avoid a Section 4(f) use of this resource.

4.3 Section 4(f) Assessment Summary According to 23 CFR 774.3(c), because there is no feasible and prudent avoidance alternative, FHWA may approve only the alternative that causes the least overall harm based on an assessment of the seven factors listed in 23 CFR 774.3(c)(1): 1) The ability of the alternative to mitigate adverse impacts to each Section 4(f) property (including any measures that result in benefits to the property) 2) The relative severity of the remaining harm, after mitigation, to the protected activities, attributes, or features that qualify each Section 4(f) property for protection 3) The relative significance of each Section 4(f) property

Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-63 Section 4(f) Assessment Summary Section 4. Section 4(f) Resources, Uses, and Measures to Minimize Harm

4) The views of the official(s) with jurisdiction over each Section 4(f) property 5) The degree to which each alternative meets the purpose and need for the project 6) After reasonable mitigation, the magnitude of any adverse impacts to resources not protected by Section 4(f) 7) Substantial differences in costs among the alternatives The Final Section 4(f) Evaluation will address each of the above factors for the preferred alternative, which will be selected in accordance with these factors. Table 4.3-1 provides a preliminary least harm analysis for each Section 4(f) resource (at which a use would occur from one or more Build alternative). Table 4.3-2 provides a quantitative assessment for each Build alternative of the total number of Section 4(f) resources that would be used and the acres of land that would be incorporated.

TABLE 4.3-1 Preliminary Least Harm Analysis by Section 4(f) Resource Section 4(f) Section Relative Net Harm to Section 4(f) Resource after Resource Alternative 4(f) Use? Measures to Minimize Harm Springwater A Yes Equal to all Build alternatives Corridor Trail B Yes Equal to all Build alternatives B/TDB Yes Equal to all Build alternatives C Yes Equal to all Build alternatives D Yes Equal to all Build alternatives E Yes Equal to all Build alternatives

Willamette A Yes Equal to all Build alternatives Greenway Trail (East Bank) B Yes Equal to all Build alternatives B/TDB Yes Equal to all Build alternatives C Yes Equal to all Build alternatives D Yes Equal to all Build alternatives E Yes Equal to all Build alternatives

Sellwood A Yes Greater than the other Build alternatives Riverfront Park B No None B/TDB No None C No None D No None E No Not a Section 4(f) use; overall impacts greater than Alternatives B, B (with temporary detour bridge), C, and D, but less than A

4(f)-64 Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation Section 4(f) Assessment Summary Section 4. Section 4(f) Resources, Uses, and Measures to Minimize Harm

TABLE 4.3-1 Preliminary Least Harm Analysis by Section 4(f) Resource Section 4(f) Section Relative Net Harm to Section 4(f) Resource after Resource Alternative 4(f) Use? Measures to Minimize Harm Oaks Pioneer A Yes Greater than the other Build alternatives Park B No Not a Section 4(f) use; overall impacts equal to Alternatives C and D, but less than Alternatives A, B (with temporary detour bridge), and E B/TDB Yes Less than Alternative A, but greater than Alternatives B, C, D, and E C No Not a Section 4(f) use; overall impacts equal to Alternatives B and D, but less than Alternatives A, B (with temporary detour bridge), and E D No Not a Section 4(f) use; overall impacts equal to Alternatives B and C, but less than Alternatives A, B (with temporary detour bridge), and E E No Not a Section 4(f) use; overall impacts greater than Alternatives B, C, and D, but less than Alternatives A and B (with temporary detour bridge)

Sellwood Bridge A Yes Equal to Alternatives B and C, but greater than B Recreational Trail (with temporary detour bridge), D, and E B Yes Equal to Alternatives A and C, but greater than B (with temporary detour bridge), D, and E B/TDB No Not a Section 4(f) use; overall impacts equal to Alternative D, less than A and B, but greater than E C Yes Equal to Alternatives A and B, but greater than B (with temporary detour bridge), D, and E D No Not a Section 4(f) use; overall impacts equal to Alternative B (with temporary detour bridge), less than A and B, but greater than E E No Not a Section 4(f) use; overall impacts less than all Build alternatives

Powers Marine A Yes Equal to Alternatives B, B (with temporary detour Park bridge), and D; less than C, but greater than E B Yes Equal to Alternatives A, B (with temporary detour bridge), and D; less than C, but greater than E B/TDB Yes Equal to Alternatives A, B, and D; less than C, but greater than E C Yes Greater than the other Build alternatives D Yes Equal to Alternatives A, B, and B (with temporary detour bridge); less than C, but greater than E

Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-65 Section 4(f) Assessment Summary Section 4. Section 4(f) Resources, Uses, and Measures to Minimize Harm

TABLE 4.3-1 Preliminary Least Harm Analysis by Section 4(f) Resource Section 4(f) Section Relative Net Harm to Section 4(f) Resource after Resource Alternative 4(f) Use? Measures to Minimize Harm E Yes Less than the other Build alternatives

Willamette A Yes Equal to all Build alternatives Greenway Trail (West Bank) B Yes Equal to all Build alternatives B/TDB Yes Equal to all Build alternatives C Yes Equal to all Build alternatives D Yes Equal to all Build alternatives E Yes Equal to all Build alternatives

Willamette A Yes Greater than Alternatives B, B (with temporary Moorage Park detour bridge),and D, but less than C and D B Yes Equal to Alternatives B (with temporary detour bridge) and D, but less than A, C, and E B/TDB Yes Equal to Alternatives B and D, but less than A, C, and E C Yes Equal to Alternative E, but greater than A, B, B (with temporary detour bridge), and D D Yes Equal to Alternatives B and B (with temporary detour bridge), but less than A, C, and E E Yes Equal to Alternative C, but greater than A, B, B (with temporary detour bridge), and D

River View A Yes Equal to Alternatives B, B (with temporary detour Cemetery bridge), D, and E, but less than C B Yes Equal to Alternatives A, B (with temporary detour bridge), D, and E, but less than C B/TDB Yes Equal to Alternatives A, B, D, and E, but less than C C Yes Greater than the other Build alternatives D Yes Equal to Alternatives A, B, B (with temporary detour bridge), and E, but less than C E Yes Equal to Alternatives A, B, B (with temporary detour bridge), and D, but less than C

Sellwood Bridge A Yes Equal to all Build alternatives (Historical Site) B Yes Equal to all Build alternatives B/TDB Yes Equal to all Build alternatives C Yes Equal to all Build alternatives

4(f)-66 Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation Section 4(f) Assessment Summary Section 4. Section 4(f) Resources, Uses, and Measures to Minimize Harm

TABLE 4.3-1 Preliminary Least Harm Analysis by Section 4(f) Resource Section 4(f) Section Relative Net Harm to Section 4(f) Resource after Resource Alternative 4(f) Use? Measures to Minimize Harm D Yes Equal to all Build alternatives E Yes Equal to all Build alternatives B/TDB = Alternative B with temporary detour bridge

TABLE 4.3-2 Summary of Impacts by Alternative Number of Section 4(f) Total Section 4(f) Land Incorporated Alternative Resources Used (acres) A 10 7.87 B 8 7.48 B/TDB 8 7.48 C 9 6.39 D 7 7.46 E 7 7.24 B/TDB = Alternative B with temporary detour bridge

The narrative analysis provided thus far in Sections 4.1 and 4.2, along with the comparative analysis provided in Tables 4.3-1 and 4.3-2, provide the substantive information needed to preliminarily address the 23 CFR 774.3(c)(3) “least harm analysis factors” provided in the modified Section 4(f) statute published earlier this year. This discussion is provided in Table 4.3-3.

TABLE 4.3-3 Preliminary Least Harm Analysis by 23 CFR 774 Factorsa Factor 1: “The ability to mitigate adverse impacts to each Section 4(f) property (including any measures that result in benefits to the property)”; and

Factor 2: “The relative severity of the remaining harm, after mitigation, to the protected activities, attributes, or features that qualify each Section 4(f) property for protection” Discussion: There is no differentiation between Build alternatives in regard to Factors 1 and 2 for the following Section 4(f) resources:

• Springwater Corridor Trail. All Build alternatives would entail similar temporary closures of the trail that would be mitigated through the provision of similar detour accommodations during construction

• Willamette Greenway Trail (East Bank). All Build alternatives would entail similar temporary closures of the trail that would be mitigated through the provision of similar detour accommodations during construction

• Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank). All Build alternatives would entail incorporating a

Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-67 Section 4(f) Assessment Summary Section 4. Section 4(f) Resources, Uses, and Measures to Minimize Harm

TABLE 4.3-3 Preliminary Least Harm Analysis by 23 CFR 774 Factorsa similar amount of the existing trail and mitigating this impact through the same provision of an improved trail segment through the project study area

• Sellwood Bridge (Historical). All Build alternatives would result in a Section 4(f) use at the existing site that could not be feasibly mitigated for to avoid such a Section 4(f) use of this historic structure At Sellwood Riverfront Park, Alternatives B, B (with temporary detour bridge), C, and D would have no Section 4(f) use or other impacts. Therefore, these four alternatives would have an equal least harm impact to the park in respect to Factors 1 and 2. At Oaks Pioneer Park, Alternatives B, C, and D would have no Section 4(f) use or other impacts. Therefore, these three alternatives would have an equal least harm impact to the park in respect to Factors 1 and 2. (Alternatives B [with temporary detour bridge] and E would not have a Section 4[f] use, but would result in proximity impacts due to the associated structures of each.) At Sellwood Bridge Recreation Trail, Alternative E would cause the least overall harm because it would allow bicyclists and pedestrians to continue to use the existing trail across the river while the new bridge was being constructed. Therefore, it would not subject users of the trail to using detours or traversing through a construction zone. Alternatives B (with temporary detour bridge) and D, although they both would provide river-crossing accommodations for bicyclists and pedestrians, would subject users to using detours and traversing through construction zones (with potential associated temporary trail closures, etc.). At Powers Marine Park, Alternative E would have the least overall harm in respect to Factors 1 and 2 because it would convert significantly less natural area land to transportation use (see Table 4.1-1), thereby allowing the most remaining natural area land to be used for mitigation and enhancement activities. At Willamette Moorage Park, Alternatives B, B (with temporary detour bridge), and D would equally cause the least harm in respect to Factors 1 and 2 because they each would convert a similar amount of natural area land that would be significantly less than with the other Build alternatives (see Table 4.1-2). This would thereby allow the most remaining natural area land to be used for mitigation and enhancement activities. At River View Cemetery, all Build alternatives (aside from Alternative C) would equally cause the least harm in respect to Factors 1 and 2 because they would have very similar impacts to the property, both in terms of property functions impacted and total area of property incorporated into the project. Conclusion: The preceding discussion suggests that Alternatives D and E would be roughly equal in regard to a consideration of “least harm” as it relates to Factors 1 and 2:

• Both alternatives would be equal in the total amount of uses of Section 4(f) resources (see Table 4.3-2).

• Both alternatives would allow for mitigation potential at similar levels to other alternatives (where a use of a Section 4(f) resource would be taking place)

• Alternative E would convert 1.30 more acres of natural area to transportation use at Willamette Moorage Park than Alternative D would; Alternative D would convert 1.35 more acres of natural area to transportation use at Powers Marine Park than Alternative E would

• At the six Section 4(f) resources where a least harm differentiation comparison can be made, Alternative D is tied for having the least overall harm at four of those resources, while Alternative E is tied for having the least overall harm at one of them, but is by itself as the alternative causing the least overall harm at two of them

4(f)-68 Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation Section 4(f) Assessment Summary Section 4. Section 4(f) Resources, Uses, and Measures to Minimize Harm

TABLE 4.3-3 Preliminary Least Harm Analysis by 23 CFR 774 Factorsa • Overall, Alternative E would use 0.22 acre less of land from Section 4(f) resources than Alternative D would

Factor 3: “The relative significance of each Section 4(f) property”; and Factor 4: “The views of the official(s) with jurisdiction over each Section 4(f) property” Discussion: Of the five publicb Section 4(f) resources where a least harm differentiation comparison can be made, the following categorization can be made in regard to the “significance” of those resources based on the views of agency officials with jurisdiction over the respective Section 4(f) resources. This categorization is based on discussions with jurisdictional agency officials while conducting coordination activities over the course of the Sellwood Bridge project, not on explicit responses agency officials made related to Factors 3 and 4:

• Sellwood Riverfront Park. This park receives a very high number of visitors and is the site of various community and non-profit events

• Sellwood Bridge Recreation Trail. The bridge trail is an integral link in the City of Portland’s well-used bicycle recreational trail system

• Oaks Pioneer Park, Willamette Moorage Park, and Powers Marine Park. Based on various discussions with different jurisdictional officials, there is not enough information to label any of these three parks as more “significant” than the other parks Conclusion: The preceding discussion suggests that Alternative D would have the “least harm” as it relates to Factors 3 and 4. Alternative D would have no Section 4(f) use at the following aforementioned significant Section 4(f) resource sites—Sellwood Riverfront Park, Sellwood Bridge Recreation Trail, and Oaks Pioneer Park. Alternative D would have no impact of any kind at Sellwood Riverfront Park or Oaks Pioneer Park and would provide bicycle/pedestrian bridge-crossing accommodations during construction. Only Alternative B (with temporary detour bridge) would be somewhat similar in this regard, but the temporary detour bridge structure would have substantial non-Section 4(f) use proximity impacts at Oaks Pioneer Park.

Factor 5: “The degree to which each alternative meets the purpose and need for the project” Discussion: The purpose of the Sellwood Bridge Project is to: “rehabilitate or replace the Sellwood Bridge within its existing east-west corridor to provide a structurally safe bridge and connections that accommodate multi- modal mobility needs.” The four major issues that define the needs of the project are:

• Inadequate structural integrity to safely accommodate various vehicle types (including transit vehicles, trucks, and emergency vehicles) and to withstand moderate seismic events

• Substandard and unsafe roadway design

• Substandard pedestrian and bicycle facilities across the river

• Existing and future travel demands between origins and destinations served by the Sellwood Bridge exceed available capacity All of the Build alternatives would provide a structurally safe bridge to replace the existing bridge and would

Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-69 Section 4(f) Assessment Summary Section 4. Section 4(f) Resources, Uses, and Measures to Minimize Harm

TABLE 4.3-3 Preliminary Least Harm Analysis by 23 CFR 774 Factorsa meet the above four major needs. The “degree” to which the respective Build alternatives would do this is a consideration that must include a comprehensive determination of all subject areas assessed in the Sellwood Bridge Project DEIS, which is being prepared in tandem with this Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation. Therefore, the response to Factor 5 relies upon the aforementioned consideration/determination process, which has not yet taken place, given that a preferred alternative is not being proffered by the Sellwood Bridge Project DEIS. (A preferred alternative will be specified in the project’s Final Environmental Impact Statement.) Conclusion: Decision-makers will need to incorporate their determination on which Build alternative best meets the purpose and need for the Sellwood Bridge Project DEIS as a whole (after considering all DEIS discipline reports) and apply it to Factor 5 in concert with the analysis of Build alternatives provided in this Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation.

Factor 6: “After reasonable mitigation, the magnitude of any adverse impacts to resources not protected by Section 4(f)” Discussion: A response to address the “magnitude of any adverse impacts to resources not protected by Section 4(f)” requires a totality of impacts consideration that takes into account the entire spectrum of natural and human resources addressed in the Sellwood Bridge Project DEIS. This consideration is the task of decision-makers examining the various technical reports contained in the DEIS. As noted in the discussion under Factor 5, this consideration/determination process has not yet taken place, given that the preferred alternative is not being proffered in the Sellwood Bridge Project DEIS. Conclusion: Decision-makers will need to incorporate the overall Sellwood Bridge Project DEIS determination regarding the respective post-mitigation impacts of all Build alternatives and apply it to a consideration of this least harm factor. In this way, impacts to non-Section 4(f) resources will play a substantial part (alongside impacts to resources protected by Section 4[f] that have been discussed in this report) in identifying the Build alternative that has the “least overall harm” in light of the Section 4(f) statute.

Factor 7: “Substantial differences in costs among the alternatives” Discussion: Respective Build alternative construction cost estimates (including right-of-way acquisition costs) are as follows:c

• Alternative A: $331–$337 million • Alternative B: $326 –$356 million • Alternative C: $280 million • Alternative D: $293 –$311 million • Alternative E: $281–$361 million Conclusion: Alternative C clearly would be the least costly Build alternative. Whether the difference in cost between Alternative C and another Build alternative could be considered “substantial” in terms of percentages depends on the bridge type chosen within the alternative.

4(f)-70 Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation Section 4(f) Assessment Summary Section 4. Section 4(f) Resources, Uses, and Measures to Minimize Harm

TABLE 4.3-3 Preliminary Least Harm Analysis by 23 CFR 774 Factorsa Notes: a The seven factors listed in this table correspond with 23 CFR 774.3(c)(1)(i) through (vii). b River View Cemetery is not publicly owned and, therefore, is not included in the discussion of Factors 3 and 4. c Cost ranges are provided where construction costs would differ according to the bridge type selected.

The Final Section 4(f) Evaluation, which will be prepared in conjunction with the Final Sellwood Bridge Project Environmental Impact Statement, will include a more detailed evaluation of the Section 4(f) resources associated with the preferred alternative. The detailed evaluation will explain more specifically the problems associated with avoiding each Section 4(f) resource, will specifically discuss measures proposed to minimize harm to each Section 4(f) resource, and, as noted, will discuss the rationale used to decide that the preferred alternative is the alternative that would result in the least overall harm according to the seven factors listed in 23 CFR 774.3(c)(1).

Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-71