Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation

Contents

Section Page

1. Introduction...... 4(f)-1 1.1 What is Section 4(f)? ...... 4(f)-1 1.1.1 Test of Prudence and Feasibility...... 4(f)-2 1.2 Why are We Considering the Sellwood Bridge Project?...... 4(f)-2 1.3 Where is the Project Located? ...... 4(f)-2 1.4 What is the Purpose of the Project? ...... 4(f)-3 1.5 Why is the Project Needed? ...... 4(f)-3 1.5.1 Inadequate Structural Integrity ...... 4(f)-4 1.5.2 Substandard and Unsafe Roadway Design...... 4(f)-6 1.5.3 Substandard Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities across the River ...... 4(f)-6 1.5.4 Travel Demands Exceed Available Capacity...... 4(f)-7 1.6 Section 4(f) Resources in the Area of Potential Effect...... 4(f)-7 2. Proposed Actions ...... 4(f)-9 2.1 What are the proposed actions?...... 4(f)-9 2.2 Build Alternatives ...... 4(f)-9 2.2.1 Alternative A: Rehabilitation of Bridge with Separate Bicycle/ Pedestrian Bridge ...... 4(f)-13 2.2.2 Alternative B: Rehabilitation of Bridge with Temporary Detour Bridge.. 4(f)-17 2.2.3 Alternative C: Replacement Bridge on Existing Alignment...... 4(f)-21 2.2.4 Alternative D: Replacement Bridge, Widened to the South ...... 4(f)-25 2.2.5 Alternative E: Replacement Bridge Relocated to the North with Transit Lanes ...... 4(f)-28 2.3 Construction Activities...... 4(f)-32 2.3.1 Construction Methods Common to All Build Alternatives...... 4(f)-32 2.3.2 Alternative A Construction Activities...... 4(f)-34 2.3.3 Alternative B Construction Activities ...... 4(f)-35 2.3.4 Alternative C Construction Activities ...... 4(f)-35 2.3.5 Alternative D Construction Activities ...... 4(f)-35 2.3.6 Alternative E Construction Activities ...... 4(f)-36 3. Avoidance Alternatives ...... 4(f)-37 3.1 Avoidance Concept 1: No Build Alternative...... 4(f)-37 3.2 Avoidance Concept 2: Improve the Transportation Facility without the Use of Section 4(f) Property ...... 4(f)-38 3.3 Avoidance Concept 3: Build New Bridge Facility at a New Location without Use of Section 4(f) Resource ...... 4(f)-38 3.4 Avoidance Concept 4: Tunnel Alignment ...... 4(f)-40 4. Section 4(f) Resources, Uses, and Measures to Minimize Harm...... 4(f)-41 4.1 Parks and Recreational Section 4(f) Resources ...... 4(f)-41 4.1.1 Springwater Corridor Trail...... 4(f)-41 4.1.2 Willamette Greenway Trail (East Bank)...... 4(f)-43 4.1.3 Willamette Greenway Trail (SE Spokane Street Section)...... 4(f)-45 4.1.4 Sellwood Riverfront Park...... 4(f)-46 4.1.5 Oaks Pioneer Park ...... 4(f)-47

Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-iii Contents, continued

Section Page

4.1.6 Sellwood Bridge Recreational Trail...... 4(f)-49 4.1.7 Powers Marine Park...... 4(f)-50 4.1.8 Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank)...... 4(f)-52 4.1.9 Willamette Moorage Park...... 4(f)-53 4.2 Historic and Archaeological Resources ...... 4(f)-55 4.2.1 Oaks Pioneer Church...... 4(f)-56 4.2.2 River View Cemetery ...... 4(f)-57 4.2.3 River View Cemetery Superintendent’s House ...... 4(f)-59 4.2.4 Sellwood Bridge ...... 4(f)-61 4.2.5 Willamette Shoreline Trolley ...... 4(f)-62 4.3 Section 4(f) Assessment Summary...... 4(f)-63 5. Coordination...... 4(f)-73

Attachment 1 Determination of Eligibility (DOE) Forms

List of Figures 1.3-1 Project Vicinity ...... 4(f)-3 1.6-1 Section 4(f) Resources in Impact Area of Build Alternatives...... 4(f)-8

2.2-1 Alternative A: Right-of Way Footprint on Section 4(f) Resources ...... 4(f)-14 2.2-2 Alternative A Bridge Configuration...... 4(f)-15 2.2-3 Rehabilitated Bridge Cross-section ...... 4(f)-16 2.2-4 Alternative B: Right-of Way Footprint on Section 4(f) Resources...... 4(f)-18 2.2-5 Alternative B Bridge Configuration...... 4(f)-19 2.2-6 Temporary Detour Bridge Cross-section ...... 4(f)-21 2.2-7 Alternative C: Right-of Way Footprint on Section 4(f) Resources ...... 4(f)-22 2.2-8 Alternative C Bridge Configuration ...... 4(f)-23 2.2-9 Through-arch Bridge...... 4(f)-24 2.2-10 Alternative D: Right-of Way Footprint on Section 4(f) Resources...... 4(f)-25 2.2-11 Alternative D Bridge Configuration ...... 4(f)-26 2.2-12 Delta-frame Bridge ...... 4(f)-27 2.2-13 Deck-arch Bridge...... 4(f)-27 2.2-14 Alternative E: Right-of Way Footprint on Section 4(f) Resources ...... 4(f)-29 2.2-15 Alternative E Bridge Configuration ...... 4(f)-30 2.2-16 Box-girder Bridge ...... 4(f)-31 2.2-17 Through-arch Bridge...... 4(f)-31

3.4-1 Bridge Alignment Concepts Evaluated...... 4(f)-39 3.4-2 Tunnel Alignment...... 4(f)-40

4(f)-iv Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation Contents, continued

Page

List of Tables 2.2-1 Build Alternative Characteristics...... 4(f)-9

4.1-1 Summary of Impact at Powers Marine Park ...... 4(f)-51 4.1-2 Summary of Impact at Willamette Moorage Park...... 4(f)-54 4.2-1 Summary of Land Incorporated at River View Cemetery...... 4(f)-58 4.3-1 Preliminary Least Harm Analysis by Section 4(f) Resource...... 4(f)-64 4.3-2 Summary of Impacts by Alternative...... 4(f)-67 4.3-3 Preliminary Least Harm Analysis by 23 CFR 774 Factors...... 4(f)-67

5.1-1 Section 4(f) Coordination Meetings...... 4(f)-73

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

Section 1. Introduction

This report evaluates the potential uses of parks, recreational areas, wildlife refuges, and cultural resources protected under Section 4(f) regulations from Sellwood Bridge project Build alternatives. As this is a draft evaluation document, it does not identify the preferred project alternative. Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) Act of 1966 (49 United States Code [USC] 303[c]) applies to this project because eligible recreational resources and historic properties are present near the proposed project. Existing Section 4(f) regulations were amended in March 2008 with the publication of the Section 4(f) Final Rule. This Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation is written in accordance with these new regulations.

1.1 What is Section 4(f)? Section 4(f) requires that particular attention be given to the proposed use of any land from a significant publicly owned park or recreation area; wildlife and waterfowl refuge; or historic site that is on or considered eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP or National Register). Project actions requiring the use of such resources must document that no feasible and prudent alternatives to their use exist, and must fully consider measures to minimize harm to those resources. Section 4(f) specifies that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) may only approve a transportation project or program requiring the use of a publicly owned park, recreational area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, state, or local significance, or land of a historic site of national, state, or local significance (as determined by the federal, state, or local officials having jurisdiction over the park, area, refuge, or site) if: 1. There is no prudent and feasible alternative to using that land; and 2. The program or project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the park, recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic site resulting from the use; or 3. The program or project is determined to have a de minimis impact Section 4(f) further requires consultation with the U.S. Department of the Interior and, as appropriate, the offices of the U.S. departments of Agriculture and Housing and Urban Development, when developing transportation projects and programs that use resources protected by Section 4(f). “Use” of a Section 4(f) resource, defined in Section 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 774.17, occurs in the following circumstances: 1. When land is permanently incorporated into a transportation facility; 2. When there is a temporary occupancy of Section 4(f) property that is adverse in terms of the statute’s preservationist purpose; or 3. When there is a constructive use of land, which occurs when the transportation project does not incorporate land, but its proximity substantially impairs the activities, features, or attributes that qualify a resource for protection under Section 4(f). A determination of constructive use is based on the criteria in 23 CFR 774.15.

Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-1 Why are We Considering the Sellwood Bridge Project? Section 1. Introduction

1.1.1 Test of Prudence and Feasibility From a Section 4(f) perspective, an alternative that avoids use of a Section 4(f) resource must be selected if it is determined to be feasible and prudent according to 23 CFR 774.17. A feasible alternative is one that could be built based on sound engineering judgment. A determination of prudence requires weighing numerous factors, such as: social, economic, environmental justice and environmental impacts; community disruption; extraordinary construction, maintenance, or operational costs; unique problems; or a combination of these factors.

1.2 Why are We Considering the Sellwood Bridge Project? After 80 years, the Sellwood Bridge has reached the end of its useful service life. The purpose of the Sellwood Bridge project is to rehabilitate or replace the bridge to make it structurally safe. Additionally, the project would improve connections, operations, and safety for vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians. The bridge carries more than 30,000 vehicles per day, making it Oregon’s busiest two-lane bridge. Congested conditions and slow travel speeds occur because the travel demand served by the Sellwood Bridge exceeds the available capacity for several hours each day, primarily the morning and evening peak hours. Multnomah County, which owns and maintains the bridge, has been working with the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), the City of Portland, and Metro (the Portland area metropolitan planning organization) to find a solution.

1.3 Where is the Project Located? The bridge crosses the Willamette River in Portland, Oregon. It connects Oregon 43 (OR 43) on the west side of the river with Oregon 99E (OR 99E) by way of SE Tacoma Street on the east side of the river. OR 43 runs north-south between the cities of Portland and Oregon City, traveling through Lake Oswego and West Linn. OR 43 is referred to as SW Macadam Avenue within the city limits of Portland. On the east side of the river, the bridge transitions into SE Tacoma Street. At its east end, SE Tacoma Street connects with OR 99E (SE McLoughlin Boulevard). The next closest crossings over the Willamette River are about 2.5 miles north at the Ross Island Bridge and about 8 miles south at the Interstate-205 (I-205) crossing. The Sellwood Bridge links the Sellwood, Westmoreland, and Milwaukie areas with OR 43 and southwest Portland, downtown Portland, and Lake Oswego. Figure 1.3-1, Project Vicinity, shows the location of the project.

4(f)-2 Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation What is the Purpose of the Project? Section 1. Introduction

FIGURE 1.3-1 Project Vicinity

1.4 What is the Purpose of the Project? The purpose of the project, as approved by the project’s Policy Advisory Group, 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.”

1.5 Why is the Project Needed? The following four major issues define the need for the Sellwood Bridge project: • Inadequate structural integrity to safely accommodate various vehicle types (including transit vehicles, trucks, and emergency vehicles) and to withstand moderate seismic events • Substandard and unsafe roadway design • Substandard pedestrian and bicycle facilities across the river • Existing and future travel demands between origins and destinations served by the Sellwood Bridge exceed available capacity The following subsections provide further descriptions of these issues.

Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-3 Why is the Project Needed? Section 1. Introduction

1.5.1 Inadequate Structural Integrity The bridge has inadequate structural integrity to safely accommodate various types of heavy vehicles (including transit vehicles, trucks, and emergency vehicles) and to withstand moderate seismic events. The bridge continues to deteriorate and cannot adequately accommodate today’s traffic needs because of its structural condition. Load restrictions have eliminated bus service, restricted freight loads, and prohibited large emergency vehicles from using the bridge. The bridge does not meet current seismic standards.

The yellow line indicates a sag in the southern bridge railing.

The bridge is no longer adequate to sufficiently accommodate traffic because of its structural and geometric deficiencies. Its sufficiency rating (a measure based on bridge inspection reports that indicates a bridge’s ability to provide service) is only 2 on a scale of 0 to 100. The sufficiency rating measures both the physical condition of a bridge and the ability of the bridge to perform operationally. The bridge’s lightweight deck system is inadequate to handle current vehicular demands. Concrete is falling off the bridge because the reinforcing steel is corroded and expansion joints are weakening. The existing lead-based paint coating has largely failed and widespread corrosion is attacking the steel truss.

4(f)-4 Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation Why is the Project Needed? Section 1. Introduction

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

The bridge was opened to traffic in 1925. However, the steel girders of the bridge approaches are actually more than 100 years old because steel girders from the Burnside Bridge (circa 1894) were reused on this bridge. Cracks developed in the west approach concrete girders, caused by earth movement. Vehicle loads were restricted to a maximum of 32 tons in 1985 after calculations showed that higher weights would overstress critical bridge elements. Further weight restrictions were imposed in 2005, when large cracks were discovered in the concrete girders. Vehicle weight was limited to 10 tons and buses and large emergency vehicles and trucks were prohibited from using the bridge.

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

Portland’s Freight Master Plan (2006) designates the bridge as a Truck Access Street in recognition of its service as an access and circulation route for the delivery of goods and services to neighborhood-

Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-5 Why is the Project Needed? Section 1. Introduction serving commercial and employment land uses. This includes truck trips between Sellwood, Westmoreland, and Milwaukie on the east side of the Willamette River and the southwest Portland area on the west side, via OR 43. However, because of current load restrictions and the physical geometry of the bridge’s interchange with OR 43 (west-side interchange), large trucks must avoid the bridge, thereby substantially impeding freight movement between these areas. This out-of- direction travel for businesses located in the commercial districts on both sides of the river has resulted in increased freight costs and delays. Freight mobility and reliability, currently affected by load limits on the bridge, will be further impacted as travel demands continue to rise. Transit service has been discontinued across the bridge because of the structural deficiencies. Before the weight restriction was imposed in 2005, bus usage across the bridge was substantial (SE Tacoma Street is a Major Transit Street in the City of Portland’s Transportation System Plan [updated in 2007]). Bus routes that previously crossed the bridge served many travel markets, including those between the Sellwood, Westmoreland, and Milwaukie areas and southwest Portland and the city center. Since the weight restriction, the bus routes have been rerouted, making use of public transportation unattractive between key markets. Transit use in the bridge corridor (which is expected to rise substantially by 2035) and increased traffic levels could affect the reliability and mobility of public transportation service. Finally, the bridge is located in a seismically active zone, does not meet current seismic standards, and is vulnerable to failure in the event of an earthquake.

1.5.2 Substandard and Unsafe Roadway Design The bridge has two 12-foot-wide lanes with no shoulders to provide access for emergency vehicles, accommodate vehicular breakdowns, or facilitate maintenance. In addition, the bridge’s vertical curve limits motorist sight distance. The interchange of the bridge and OR 43 has many substandard features, including horizontal and vertical alignments that limit motorist sight distance and prohibit the ability of longer trucks to turn safely. Ramp connections also do not provide sufficient vertical clearances (16.25 feet on the southbound loop ramp from the Sellwood Bridge to OR 43 southbound when the ODOT minimum is 17 feet), sight distances, or shoulders.

1.5.3 Substandard Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities across the River The bridge’s only sidewalk, on the structure’s north side, is just 4 feet 3 inches wide. This leaves only a 3-foot passage for two-way traffic next to each of its 22 light poles. The sidewalk width is not safe for bicyclists and pedestrians, and the sidewalk cannot accommodate some disabled users. The existing sidewalk and connections at either end of the bridge do not meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. There is no sidewalk on the south side. The bridge does not provide designated bicycle facilities, and some bicyclists try to use the sidewalk; others intermingle with traffic. The bridge could provide bicyclists and pedestrians with a critical link between the west and east sides of the Willamette River and with established shared-use paths. However, the bridge’s connections with shared-use paths are deficient, unsafe, and often avoided. There are no sidewalks, crosswalks, or bicycle lanes on OR 43 in the bridge interchange. Pedestrian and bicyclist connections between the highway and the bridge are circuitous, unpaved, and, in some areas, force users to mix with vehicle traffic. Most of these facilities do not comply with ADA guidelines. In addition, the bridge’s connection to the Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank) is

4(f)-6 Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation Section 4(f) Resources in the Area of Potential Effect Section 1. Introduction narrow; has deficient horizontal curves and limited sight distances; and does not meet ADA standards.

1.5.4 Travel Demands Exceed Available Capacity Capacity is defined as the number of vehicles over a given time period that can be served by a section of roadway. Capacity is a function of the facility’s lane capacity, travel speeds, and operations of intersections, as well as those of upstream and downstream facilities. The existing and future travel demands served by the Sellwood Bridge exceed the bridge’s available capacity as well as the capacity of its west-side interchange with OR 43. The bridge provides a direct connection across the Willamette River for several key travel origins and destinations. Travel demands are expected to increase in the future, leading to decreased accessibility for motorized vehicles. The bridge’s closest alternative crossings over the Willamette River are about 2.5 miles north at the Ross Island Bridge and about 8 miles south at the I-205 crossing. Travel demands at the bridge and west-side interchange exceed the available capacity for several hours each day, resulting in congested conditions, slow travel speeds, and travel delays. During peak conditions, particularly during the afternoon, vehicles waiting to get on the bridge and go eastbound often extend onto OR 43 beyond the SW Taylors Ferry Road intersection. Daily traffic demand will increase substantially in the future, leading to increased durations of congestion along approach roadways, including both directions of OR 43, SW Taylors Ferry Road, and SE Tacoma Street. Increased congestion levels will affect emergency service accessibility, transit service, freight movements, and general vehicular traffic. The two key facilities affecting Sellwood Bridge operations are the OR 43 interchange and SE Tacoma Street. Both create bottlenecks that increased capacity or operational improvements on the bridge itself cannot relieve. For example, on the east side, SE Tacoma Street is controlled by a single through lane in each direction and the capacity-constraining traffic signals at SE 13th and SE 17th avenues. It is the intention of the City of Portland’s land use and transportation plans, as expressed in the adopted Tacoma Main Street Plan (2001) that the Sellwood area maintain SE Tacoma Street as a two-lane facility, with a turning lane, but improve the operations of the signalized intersections on SE Tacoma Street to improve the operating capacity of the corridor. The slow-speed on-ramps to the bridge from OR 43 both merge into a single lane on the bridge, leading to congestion on OR 43. This interchange is not addressed in a plan except as part of the bridge project.

1.6 Section 4(f) Resources in the Area of Potential Effect Figure 1.6-1 shows all Section 4(f) resources inside the Sellwood Bridge project area of potential effect (APE). All resources discussed in this Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation were deemed eligible for protection under Section 4(f), as described in Section 3 of the Sellwood Bridge Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Multnomah County, Oregon, Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation Technical Report (CH2M HILL, 2008a). The following are Section 4(f) park and recreational resources in the Sellwood Bridge Project APE: • Springwater Corridor Trail • Willamette Greenway Trail (East Bank) • Willamette Greenway Trail (SE Spokane Street Section) • Sellwood Riverfront Park • Oaks Pioneer Park • Sellwood Bridge Recreational Trail

Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-7 Section 4(f) Resources in the Area of Potential Effect Section 1. Introduction

• Powers Marine Park • Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank) • Willamette Moorage Park Section 4(f) historic resources in the Sellwood Bridge Project APE are as follows: • Oaks Pioneer Church • River View Cemetery • River View Cemetery Superintendent’s House • Sellwood Bridge • Willamette Shoreline Trolley

FIGURE 1.6-1 Section 4(f) Resources in Impact Area of Build Alternatives

4(f)-8 Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation

Section 2. Proposed Actions

2.1 What are the proposed actions? Five Build alternatives are being proposed for consideration in the Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). This section describes these alternatives. Chapter 2 of the DEIS provides additional details. Four of the Build alternatives entail rehabilitating or replacing the bridge on its existing alignment, while one Build alternative proposes replacing the bridge on an alignment north of the existing alignment. Each of the Build alternatives includes modernization of the interchange at OR 43 on the west side of the bridge, which would incorporate additional right-of-way. Each of the Build alternatives would result in use of a Section 4(f) resource.

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

TABLE 2.2-1 Build Alternative Characteristics Alternative A B C D E Rehabilitation Rehabilitation Rehabilitation Replacement Replacement Replacement or Replacement

Alignment • Existing • Existing • Existing • Existing • North of existing bridge

Bridge Cross- • 39 feet wide • 57 feet wide • 45 feet wide • 64 feet wide • 75 feet wide section • Two 12-foot-wide • Two 11-foot- • Three 12-foot- • Two 12-foot-wide • Two 12-foot-wide travel lanes wide travel lanes wide travel lanes travel lanes travel lanes for • Two 6-foot-wide • Two 5-foot-wide • Two 3-foot-wide • Two 6.5-foot-wide traffic shoulders shoulders/ bike shoulders shoulders/ bike • Two 12-foot-wide • Two 1.5-foot-wide lanes • Two 1.5-foot-wide lanes travel lanes for railings • Two 1.5-foot- railings • Two 12-foot-wide transit wide railings shared-use • 16-foot and 8-foot- • Two 10-foot- sidewalks wide shared-use wide sidewalks • Two 1.5-foot-wide sidewalks • Two 1-foot-wide railings • Two 1.5-foot-wide outer railings railings

Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-9 Build Alternatives Section 2. Proposed Actions

TABLE 2.2-1 Build Alternative Characteristics Alternative A B C D E

Other • Separate 20-foot- • Seismic retrofit • Double-deck • Meets seismic • Meets seismic Features wide bike/ equivalent to bridge standards standards pedestrian bridge Phase II a • 20-foot-wide with two 1.5-foot- • Meets seismic shared-use path on wide railings (total standards lower deck with width of 23 feet) two 1.5-foot-wide • Seismic retrofit railings (total equivalent to Phase width of 23 feet) II a • Meets seismic • Meets seismic standards standards

West-side • Roundabout on • Roundabout on • Trumpet (free- • Signalized • Signalized Interchange upper level upper level flow) interchange intersection on intersection on • Free-flow OR 43 on • Free flow OR 43 • Free-flow OR 43 upper level upper level lower level of two- on lower level of on lower level of • Free-flow OR 43 • Free-flow OR 43 level interchange two-level two-level on lower level of on lower level of interchange interchange two-level two-level • Relocates interchange interchange approximately 900 • Relocates • Relocates linear feet of railway approximately approximately • Relocates • Relocates right-of-way 900 linear feet of 1,700 linear feet of approximately approximately 800 railway right-of- railway right-of- 1,000 linear feet of linear feet of way way railway right-of- railway right-of- way way

East-side • Same as existing • Same as existing • Eastbound left turn • Signal at SE • Signal at SE Intersection (eastbound left turn (eastbound left to SE 6th Avenue Tacoma Street/SE Tacoma Street/SE permitted at SE 6th turn permitted at restricted 6th Avenue 6th Avenue Avenue) SE 6th Avenue) • Right turn to loop intersection intersection under bridge

Potential • Retain existing • Retain existing • Through-arch • Delta-frame or • Box-girder or Bridge Typeb bridge (i.e., bridge (i.e., deck-arch through-arch continuous truss continuous truss span) span) • Stress-ribbon or cable-stayed for bike/pedestrian bridge

Property • New roadway to • New roadway to • No motor vehicle • New roadway to • New roadway to Access provide access to provide access to access from OR 43 provide access to provide access to River View River View to River View River View River View Cemetery, Staff Cemetery, Staff Cemetery or Cemetery, Staff Cemetery, Staff Jennings, and Powers Jennings, and Powers Marine Jennings, and Jennings, and Marine Park Powers Marine Park Powers Marine Powers Marine • Relocated access to Park • Relocated access Park Park Willamette Moorage • Relocated access to Willamette • Relocated access • Relocated access Park and Macadam to Willamette Moorage Park and to Willamette to Willamette Bay Club Moorage Park Macadam Bay Moorage Park and Moorage Park and and Macadam Bay Club. Macadam Bay Club Macadam Bay Club Club • Powers Marine Park accessed by footpath from Willamette Moorage Park

4(f)-10 Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation Build Alternatives Section 2. Proposed Actions

TABLE 2.2-1 Build Alternative Characteristics Alternative A B C D E

Traffic Access • No traffic access • Temporary • No traffic access • Bridge • Traffic access during during construction detour bridge during construction maintained on • Traffic diverted to option to construction staged to maintain existing bridge Construction other existing maintain traffic • Traffic diverted to traffic access during bridges access other existing during construction of the bridges construction new bridge

Construction • $331 million (stress- • $326 million • $280 million • $293 million • $281 million (box- Cost (in 2012 ribbon • $356 million • Right-of-way cost (delta-frame girder bridge) c bike/pedestrian (including of $14.3 million bridge) • $361 million dollars) bridge) temporary (included in total • $311 million (through-arch • $337 million (cable- detour bridge) construction cost) (deck-arch bridge) bridge) stayed • Right-of-way cost • Right-of-way cost • Right-of-way cost bike/pedestrian of $10.5 million; of $17.7 million of $24.6 million bridge) $11.7 million (included in total (included in total • Right-of-way cost of including construction cost) construction cost) $10.8 million temporary (included in total detour bridge construction cost) (included in total construction cost)

Construction • Rehabilitated vehicle • Rehabilitated • Replacement • Replacement • Replacement Cost bridge: $185 million vehicle bridge: bridge: bridge: bridge: • Bike/pedestrian $222 million $185 million $202 million $189 million (box- Breakdown bridge: • Temporary • West-side (delta-frame); girder; (in 2012 $52 million (stress- detour bridge: interchange: $90 $220 million $269 million dollars)c ribbon); $30 million million (deck-arch) (through-arch) $58 million (cable- • West-side • East-side • West-side • West-side stayed) interchange: intersection: interchange: interchange: • West-side $102 million $5.4 million $89 million $88 million interchange: • East-side • East-side • East-side $93 million intersection: $1.6 intersection: intersection: • East-side million $1.9 million $3.9 million intersection: $1.6 million a Initially it was planned to include an option for rehabilitation of the existing bridge with Phase I seismic retrofit only, and a separate option for rehabilitation of the existing bridge with both Phase I and Phase II seismic retrofits. During development of the rehabilitation alternative design for the DEIS, it was determined the most cost-effective rehabilitation approach incorporated the equivalent of both Phase I and Phase II seismic retrofits. There is no way to separate the various elements that provide earthquake resistance from the elements required to strengthen the structure. b Bridge design types are specified in the DEIS for analysis purposes only to identify impacts and estimate costs and construction activities. c These estimates are based on conceptual design level data to provide a basis for cost comparisons between alternatives. More detailed cost data will be available following the preliminary design of the preferred alternative.

The following sections describe elements common to all Build alternatives.

Willamette Shoreline Trolley, Future Streetcar, and the Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank) Currently, the Willamette Shoreline Trolley operates on tracks that are immediately east of the existing west-side interchange and parallel to OR 43. In 1988, local governments formed the

Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-11 Build Alternatives Section 2. Proposed Actions

Willamette Shoreline Consortium, which purchased from Southern Pacific Railroad the railroad right-of-way on which the trolley operates. The consortium (comprised of ODOT, Metro, the cities of Portland and Lake Oswego, Clackamas and Multnomah counties, and TriMet) manages the 7-mile right-of-way between River Place in downtown Portland and Lake Oswego. The Oregon Electric Railroad Historical Society operates an excursion trolley service on the rail line. The Willamette Shoreline Consortium maintains and manages the right-of-way. TriMet holds the title to the right-of- way on behalf of the consortium and the City of Lake Oswego maintains the operations of the 7-mile right-of-way between River Place and Lake Oswego. The right-of-way was purchased to prevent the abandonment of the line and to preserve it for future passenger rail service. Since 1990, the Oregon Electric Railroad Historical Society has operated an excursion trolley service on the rail line during the spring, summer, and fall months on a limited schedule. Continuing the trolley operation is a viable means of preserving the corridor. The Willamette Shoreline Trolley consists of a single railroad track on the west bank of the Willamette River beneath the Sellwood Bridge, just east of OR 43. In this area, the right-of-way ranges from approximately 30 to 40 feet (or more) in width. All Build alternatives would require moving the railway right-of-way eastward into what is now Powers Marine Park and Staff Jennings (a commercial boat business north of the existing bridge). The existing rail facility is a single track; however current planning is for a streetcar with a second track in this area, and space for the Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank) along the tracks. The replacement right-of-way and design presented in the Sellwood Bridge Project DEIS would be sufficient for two tracks for a streetcar and a paved Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank). The ground level slopes steeply down to the river east of OR 43. Therefore, moving the rail tracks to the east would require placing them on fill or structure and building a retaining wall to support the fill and minimize encroachment into the park. The cost included in this project is for the replacement of existing right-of-way and additional right-of-way required for a realigned double track; the track replacement; any fill or structure required; and the construction of any necessary retaining walls.

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

Access to Willamette Moorage Park and Macadam Bay Club The existing access to Willamette Moorage Park and the Macadam Bay Club would be moved approximately 250 feet to the north to increase spacing between this access point and the northbound ramp from the west-side interchange. An access spacing exception from ODOT would be required because the distance between this access point and the end of the ramp from the west- side interchange would not meet standards. Some turning movements might be restricted, such as limiting the access to right in, right out only. Details of this access would be developed following the

4(f)-12 Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation Build Alternatives Section 2. Proposed Actions identification of a preferred alternative, during the development of an Interchange Area Management Plan and Access Management Plan.

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

2.2.1 Alternative A: Rehabilitation of Bridge with Separate Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge Alternative A would rehabilitate the existing bridge for motorized vehicles and would add a separate bicycle/pedestrian bridge 300 feet north of the existing bridge (Figure 2.2-1). Alternative A would not include a temporary detour bridge. Rehabilitation would include replacing the deck and deck-support system with a new and wider deck and deck-support system; repairing and painting the trusses; adding new trusses outside the existing trusses (shadow trusses) to support the added width of the deck; and widening the existing pier columns and footings to support the added trusses. The widened pier columns and footings would be designed to the current seismic code and would support both the existing and new trusses by adding width at each end. Drilled shafts would be added to support the additional width of the piers. The existing concrete approach spans on each side of the truss spans over the river would be replaced. Figure 2.2-1 shows the right-of-way footprint of Alternative A in conjunction with existing Section 4(f) resources.

Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-13 Build Alternatives Section 2. Proposed Actions

FIGURE 2.2-1 Alternative A: Right-of Way Footprint on Section 4(f) Resources

Basic Bridge Cross-section Figure 2.2-2 shows the motorized vehicle bridge configuration and cross-sections for Alternative A. The basic motorized vehicle bridge cross-section, which would be 39 feet wide, would include two 12-foot-wide travel lanes, two 6-foot-wide shoulders to allow emergency vehicles to pass, and 1.5- foot-wide railings on both sides of the bridge. However, on each end of the bridge, the number of travel lanes would be different than this basic cross-section: • West end. The bridge would include two 12-foot-wide travel lanes eastbound to facilitate movements from the west-side roundabout, which would merge into one travel lane eastbound. Likewise, one travel lane westbound on the bridge would widen to two 12-foot-wide travel lanes approaching the west-side roundabout to separate northbound and southbound movements and to provide for queuing. • East end. There would be one travel lane in both directions. An eastbound left-turn lane would be provided at the intersection of SE 6th Avenue with SE Tacoma Street. East of SE 6th Avenue, SE Tacoma Street would be one travel lane in both directions with a center-turn lane (the same as the existing conditions).

4(f)-14 Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation Build Alternatives Section 2. Proposed Actions

FIGURE 2.2-2 Alternative A Bridge Configuration

Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-15 Build Alternatives Section 2. Proposed Actions

Bridge Rehabilitation When the alternatives were approved for the Sellwood Bridge Project DEIS, the project team planned to look at two separate seismic retrofit options for Alternative A—a Phase I retrofit and a combined Phase I and Phase II retrofit. As the project team explored the approach to rehabilitate the bridge in more detail, it was determined that the equivalent of a combined Phase I and Phase II retrofit would need to be incorporated into the design to allow for bridge widening and structural integrity to accommodate trucks, transit, and emergency vehicles. Therefore, the equivalent of a Phase II seismic retrofit would be incorporated into the design for Alternative A. The rehabilitated bridge under Alternative A would be structurally equivalent to a new bridge. Because Alternative A would rehabilitate the existing bridge, the bridge type would continue to be a continuous truss span. Although Alternative A is called a bridge rehabilitation, most of the elements of the existing bridge would require replacement. The only elements of the bridge that would be retained would be the steel truss and piers. A new truss would parallel the existing truss on each side of the bridge to create a “shadow truss” (Figure 2.2-3). The five existing bridge piers would be within the ordinary high water elevation and would be extended to provide structural support to accommodate heavier vehicles.

FIGURE 2.2-3 Rehabilitated Bridge Cross-section

4(f)-16 Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation Build Alternatives Section 2. Proposed Actions

West-side Interchange with OR 43 The west-side interchange configuration would consist of a roundabout on the upper level of the interchange to control traffic entering and exiting the vehicular bridge and River View Cemetery (Figure 2.2-1). OR 43 would pass under the roundabout on the lower level. Ramps from the roundabout would provide access to and from OR 43. A roadway would diverge from the new River View Cemetery access and would pass under OR 43 south of the roundabout to provide access to Staff Jennings and Powers Marine Park. The loop for this access would be similar to that of Alternatives B and D.

East-side Connection with SE Tacoma Street The connection on the east side of the bridge would be the same as the existing connection (i.e., eastbound left turn permitted at SE 6th Avenue).

Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge Bicyclists and pedestrians would be accommodated on a separate bridge structure under Alternative A. The bicycle/pedestrian bridge would be 23 feet wide, with 20 feet for bicycle/pedestrian use and 1.5-foot-wide railings (Figure 2.2-1). The alignment would extend from SE Grand Avenue at Oaks Pioneer Park on the east side, above Oaks Pioneer Park and the Sellwood Riverfront Park parking lot, across the river to north of Staff Jennings, and across OR 43 to connect to a River View Cemetery access road on the west end of the roundabout. Spiral ramps from the bicycle/pedestrian bridge would also connect to the Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank). On the east side, the bridge would connect with the Springwater Corridor Trail via SE Spokane Street. Bicyclists and pedestrians would access the bridge via SE Spokane Street or SE 6th Avenue to SE Grand Avenue. The bridge types being evaluated for the bicycle/pedestrian bridge are the stress-ribbon and cable- stayed. Both of these bridge types would have four bridge piers and one smaller pier for the bicycle/pedestrian spiral ramp on the west side within the ordinary high water elevation.

Construction Impacts and Phasing During bridge construction, the bridge would be closed to all modes of traffic; no temporary detour bridge is proposed in Alternative A. Traffic would be diverted to other existing bridges. The three main elements of Alternative A (i.e., vehicular bridge, west-side interchange, and bicycle/pedestrian bridge) could be phased so they could be constructed at different times during a 20-year timeframe. Section 2.3 documents construction activities for Alternative A.

Construction Cost The estimated cost to construct Alternative A would be $331 million (in 2012 dollars) if the stress- ribbon bridge were selected for the bicycle/pedestrian bridge, or $337 million (in 2012 dollars) if the cable-stayed bridge were selected for the bicycle/pedestrian bridge. The construction cost includes $10.8 million for right-of-way.

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

Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-17 Build Alternatives Section 2. Proposed Actions adding width at each end. Drilled shafts would be added to support the additional width of the piers. The existing concrete approach spans on each side of the truss spans over the river would be replaced. Figure 2.2-4 shows the right-of-way footprint of Alternative B in conjunction with existing Section 4(f) resources.

FIGURE 2.2-4 Alternative B: Right-of Way Footprint on Section 4(f) Resources

Basic Bridge Cross-section Figure 2.2-5 shows the bridge configuration and cross-sections for Alternative B. The basic bridge cross-section, which would be 57 feet wide, would consist of two 11-foot-wide travel lanes, two 5-foot-wide shoulders/bicycle lanes, two 10-foot-wide sidewalks, and 1.5-foot-wide outer railings on each side. However, on each end of the bridge, the number of travel lanes would be different than this basic cross-section: • West end. The bridge would include two travel lanes eastbound to facilitate movements from the west-side roundabout, which would merge into one travel lane eastbound. Likewise, one travel lane westbound on the bridge would widen to two travel lanes approaching the west-side roundabout to separate northbound and southbound movements and to provide for queuing.

4(f)-18 Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation Build Alternatives Section 2. Proposed Actions

• East end. There would be one travel lane in both directions. An eastbound left-turn lane would be provided at the intersection of SE 6th Avenue with SE Tacoma Street. East of SE 6th Avenue, SE Tacoma Street would be one travel lane in both directions with a center-turn lane (the same as the existing conditions).

FIGURE 2.2-5 Alternative B Bridge Configuration

Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-19 Build Alternatives Section 2. Proposed Actions

Bridge Rehabilitation When the Build alternatives were approved for the Sellwood Bridge Project DEIS, the project team planned to look at two separate seismic retrofit options for Alternative B—a Phase I retrofit and a combined Phase I and Phase II retrofit. As the project team explored the approach to rehabilitate the bridge in more detail, it was determined that the equivalent of a combined Phase I and Phase II retrofit would need to be incorporated into the design to allow for bridge widening and structural integrity to accommodate trucks, transit, and emergency vehicles. Therefore, the equivalent of a Phase II seismic retrofit would be incorporated into the design for Alternative B. The rehabilitated bridge under Alternative B would be structurally equivalent to a new bridge. Because Alternative B would rehabilitate the existing bridge, the bridge type would continue to be a continuous truss span. Although Alternative B is called a bridge rehabilitation, most of the elements of the existing bridge would require replacement. The only elements of the bridge that would be maintained would be the steel truss and piers. A new truss would parallel the existing truss on each side of the bridge to create a “shadow truss” (Figure 2.2-3). The five existing bridge piers would be within the ordinary high water elevation and would be extended to provide structural support to accommodate heavier vehicles. Five smaller piers for the bicycle/pedestrian spiral ramps on the west side would also be within the ordinary high water elevation.

West-side Interchange with OR 43 The west-side interchange configuration would consist of a roundabout on the upper level of the interchange to control traffic entering and exiting the vehicular bridge and River View Cemetery (Figure 2.2-5). The roundabout would provide marked bicyclist and pedestrian crossings on the north, south, and west legs, and would include pedestrian-actuated signals at the OR 43 northbound entrance and exit ramps, and at the OR 43 southbound exit ramp. OR 43 would pass under the roundabout on the lower level. Ramps from the roundabout would provide access to and from OR 43. A roadway would diverge from the new River View Cemetery access and pass under OR 43 south of the roundabout to provide access to Staff Jennings and Powers Marine Park. The loop for this access would be similar to that of Alternatives A and D.

East-side Connection with SE Tacoma Street The connection on the east side of the bridge would be the same as the existing connection (i.e., eastbound left turn permitted at SE 6th Avenue).

Temporary Detour Bridge Alternative B would include the option for a temporary detour bridge (Figure 2.2-4). This temporary detour bridge would be 36 feet wide with two 12-foot-wide travel lanes; two 2-foot-wide barriers on the outside of the travel lanes; a 5-foot-wide sidewalk (for bicyclists and pedestrians) with a 1-foot-wide railing on one side of the bridge; and a 2-foot-wide buffer on the side of the bridge without a sidewalk (Figure 2.2-6). The temporary detour bridge would intersect OR 43 at an at- grade signalized intersection. On the east side, the temporary detour bridge would be elevated above SE Spokane Street between the river and SE Grand Avenue. Existing accesses on SE Spokane Street would be maintained. The temporary detour bridge would be on fill as it crossed the block bounded by SE Tacoma Street to the south, SE Grand Avenue to the west, SE Spokane Street to the north, and SE 6th Avenue to the east. The temporary detour bridge would have seven bridge piers and two smaller piers within the ordinary high water elevation.

4(f)-20 Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation Build Alternatives Section 2. Proposed Actions

FIGURE 2.2-6 Temporary Detour Bridge Cross-section

Construction Impacts and Phasing A temporary detour bridge would maintain traffic over the river during construction and then be removed. The permanent bridge and interchange with OR 43 could be phased so they could be constructed at different times over a 20-year timeframe. Section 2.3 documents construction activities for Alternative B.

Construction Cost The estimated cost to construct Alternative B would be $326 million (in 2012 dollars), or $356 million (in 2012 dollars) if the temporary detour bridge were included. The construction cost includes $10.5 million for right-of-way ($11.7 million if the temporary detour bridge were included).

2.2.3 Alternative C: Replacement Bridge on Existing Alignment Alternative C would consist of a double-deck bridge replacement on the existing alignment. Figure 2.2-7 shows the right-of-way footprint of Alternative C in conjunction with existing Section 4(f) resources.

Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-21 Build Alternatives Section 2. Proposed Actions

FIGURE 2.2-7 Alternative C: Right-of Way Footprint on Section 4(f) Resources

Basic Bridge Cross-section Figure 2.2-8 shows the bridge configuration and cross-sections for Alternative C, which would have two bridge decks. Motorized vehicles would be on the upper bridge deck. A 23-foot-wide lower deck would provide a 20-foot-wide shared-use path for bicyclists and pedestrians with a 1.5-foot- wide railing on each side. The basic bridge cross-section for the upper bridge deck, which would be 45 feet wide, would consist of three 12-foot-wide travel lanes (two travel lanes eastbound and one travel lane westbound) with 3-foot-wide shoulders (the minimum width allowed in American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials [AASHTO] guidance) and a 1.5-foot-wide railing on each side. However, on each end of the bridge, the number of travel lanes would be different than this basic cross-section: • West end. The bridge would include two travel lanes eastbound. One travel lane westbound on the bridge would widen to two travel lanes approaching the west-side interchange to separate northbound and southbound movements and to provide for queuing. • East end. There would be one travel lane in both directions. The two travel lanes eastbound would merge into one travel lane with a 12-foot wide median. East of SE 6th Avenue, SE Tacoma Street would be one travel lane in both directions with a center-turn lane (the same as the existing conditions).

4(f)-22 Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation Build Alternatives Section 2. Proposed Actions

FIGURE 2.2-8 Alternative C Bridge Configuration

Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-23 Build Alternatives Section 2. Proposed Actions

Replacement Bridge The bridge type being evaluated for Alternative C is the through-arch, which would have four bridge piers and one smaller pier within the ordinary high water elevation. Figure 2.2-9 shows the through- arch bridge; this illustration is conceptual and not based on design.

FIGURE 2.2-9 Through-arch Bridge

West-side Interchange with OR 43 The interchange design on the west side, called a trumpet interchange, would provide free flow of traffic in all directions from the lower level (Figure 2.2-8). The existing access to River View Cemetery from OR 43 would be removed. Visitors would need to use the existing cemetery access from SW Taylors Ferry Road. A left-turn refuge would be added to SW Taylors Ferry Road to facilitate the increase in traffic using this access to the cemetery resulting from closure of the OR 43 entrance. A ramp from the shared-use path on the lower deck of the bridge would provide access to the Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank), and an underpass on the south side of the interchange below OR 43 would provide access between River View Cemetery and the Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank) for pedestrians and bicyclists. The relocated access point to Willamette Moorage Park and the Macadam Bay Club would also provide access to Powers Marine Park.

East-side Connection with SE Tacoma Street On the east side of the bridge, eastbound left-turn movements from SE Tacoma Street to SE 6th Avenue would be rerouted to a right-turn loop. Vehicles would turn right at SE 6th Avenue, turn right at SE Tenino Street, pass under the bridge via SE Grand Avenue (lowered and extended to SE Tenino Street), and intersect with SE Spokane Street. A spiral ramp on the east end of the bridge would provide access from the shared-use path on the lower deck of the bridge to the Springwater Corridor Trail and local streets.

Construction Impacts and Phasing Alternative C does not propose a temporary detour bridge during construction. Traffic would need to use other existing bridges. The bridge and interchange with OR 43 could be phased so that they could be constructed at different times over a 20-year timeframe.

4(f)-24 Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation Build Alternatives Section 2. Proposed Actions

Section 2.3 documents construction activities for Alternative C. The construction cost includes $14.3 million for right-of-way.

Construction Cost The estimated cost to construct Alternative C would be $280 million (in 2012 dollars).

2.2.4 Alternative D: Replacement Bridge, Widened to the South Alternative D would consist of a replacement bridge on the existing alignment, widened to the south. Figure 2.2-10 shows the right-of-way footprint of Alternative D in conjunction with existing Section 4(f) resources.

FIGURE 2.2-10 Alternative D: Right-of Way Footprint on Section 4(f) Resources

Basic Bridge Cross-section

Figure 2.2-11 shows the bridge configuration and cross-sections for Alternative D.

Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-25 Build Alternatives Section 2. Proposed Actions

FIGURE 2.2-11 Alternative D Bridge Configuration

The basic bridge cross-section, which would be 64 feet wide, would consist of two 12-foot-wide travel lanes, two 6.5-foot-wide shoulders/bicycle lanes, two 12-foot-wide shared-use sidewalks, and 1.5-foot-wide railings on each side. However, on each end of the bridge, the number of travel lanes would be different than this basic cross-section: • West end. The bridge would include two travel lanes eastbound to facilitate movements from the west-side interchange, which would merge into one travel lane eastbound. Likewise, one travel lane westbound on the bridge would widen to three travel lanes approaching the west-

4(f)-26 Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation Build Alternatives Section 2. Proposed Actions

side interchange to separate northbound and southbound movements and to provide for queuing. • East end. There would be one travel lane in both directions. An eastbound left-turn lane would be provided at the intersection of SE 6th Avenue with SE Tacoma Street. East of SE 6th Avenue, SE Tacoma Street would be one travel lane in both directions with a center-turn lane (the same as the existing conditions).

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

FIGURE 2.2-12 Delta-frame Bridge

FIGURE 2.2-13 Deck-arch Bridge

Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-27 Build Alternatives Section 2. Proposed Actions

West-side Interchange with OR 43 The west-side interchange configuration would consist of a signalized intersection on the upper level of the interchange to control traffic entering and exiting the Sellwood Bridge and River View Cemetery (Figure 2.2-11). OR 43 would pass under this intersection on the lower level. Ramps from the signalized intersection would provide access to and from OR 43. Signalized crosswalks at the intersection would accommodate bicyclist and pedestrian access to west-side destinations. Spiral ramps on the north and south sides of the bridge would provide access to the Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank). A roadway that would diverge from the new River View Cemetery access and pass under OR 43 south of the roundabout would provide access to Staff Jennings and Powers Marine Park. The loop for this access would be similar to that of Alternatives A and B.

East-side Connection with SE Tacoma Street On the east side of the bridge, the intersection of SE Tacoma Street/SE 6th Avenue would include a signal.

Construction Impacts and Phasing Alternative D would be constructed in stages to maintain traffic across the river during construction. Half of the bridge would be constructed alongside the existing bridge. Traffic would be switched to the new half-bridge, and the existing bridge would be demolished. Then the second half of the bridge would be constructed, and traffic would be centered on the new structure. Sidewalks and bike lanes would also be added. The bridge and interchange with OR 43 could be phased so that they could be constructed at different times over a 20-year timeframe. Section 2.3 documents construction activities for Alternative D.

Construction Cost The estimated cost to construct Alternative D would be $293 million (in 2012 dollars) if the delta- frame bridge were selected, or $311 million (in 2012 dollars) if the deck-arch bridge were selected. The construction cost includes $17.7 million for right-of-way.

2.2.5 Alternative E: Replacement Bridge Relocated to the North with Transit Lanes Alternative E would replace the existing bridge on a new alignment to the north. Figure 2.2-14 shows the right-of-way footprint of Alternative D in conjunction with existing Section 4(f) resources.

4(f)-28 Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation Build Alternatives Section 2. Proposed Actions

FIGURE 2.2-14 Alternative E: Right-of Way Footprint on Section 4(f) Resources

Basic Bridge Cross-section Figure 2.2-15 shows the bridge configuration and cross-sections for Alternative E. The basic bridge cross-section, which would be 75 feet wide, would consist of two 12-foot-wide travel lanes for cars and trucks, two 12-foot-wide lanes dedicated to transit vehicles, an 8-foot-wide shared-use sidewalk for bicyclists and pedestrians on the south side of the bridge, a 16-foot-wide shared-use sidewalk on the north side of the bridge, and 1.5-foot-wide railings on each side. However, on each end of the bridge, the number of travel lanes would be different than this basic cross-section: • West end. The bridge would include two travel lanes eastbound. Two travel lanes westbound on the bridge would widen to three travel lanes approaching the west-side interchange to separate northbound and southbound movements and to provide for queuing. • East end. There would be one travel lane in both directions. An eastbound left-turn lane would be provided at the intersection of SE 6th Avenue with SE Tacoma Street. East of SE 6th Avenue, SE Tacoma Street would be one travel lane in both directions with a center-turn lane (the same as the existing conditions).

Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-29 Build Alternatives Section 2. Proposed Actions

FIGURE 2.2-15 Alternative E Bridge Configuration

Replacement Bridge The bridge types being evaluated with Alternative E are the box-girder and the through-arch. Figures 2.2-16 and 2.2-17 show the bridge types; these illustrations are conceptual and not based on design.

4(f)-30 Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation Build Alternatives Section 2. Proposed Actions

The box-girder bridge would have two bridge piers and the through-arch bridge would have four bridge piers within the ordinary high water elevation.

FIGURE 2.2-16 Box-girder Bridge

FIGURE 2.2-17 Through-arch Bridge

After the new bridge was constructed, the existing bridge would be demolished.

West-side Interchange with OR 43 The west-side interchange configuration would consist of a signalized intersection on the upper level of the interchange to control traffic entering and exiting the Sellwood Bridge and River View Cemetery (Figure 2.2-15). OR 43 would pass under this intersection on the lower level. Ramps from the signalized intersection would provide access to and from OR 43. Signalized crosswalks at the intersection would accommodate bicyclist and pedestrian access to west-side destinations. A spiral

Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-31 Construction Activities Section 2. Proposed Actions ramp on the north side of the bridge would provide access to the Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank). A roadway that would diverge from the new River View Cemetery access and pass under OR 43 south of the roundabout would provide access to Staff Jennings and Powers Marine Park. The loop for this access would be similar to that of Alternatives A, B, and D, but more elongated.

East-side Connection with SE Tacoma Street On the east side, the bridge would curve to the southeast to tie in with SE Tacoma Street. A signalized intersection of SE Tacoma Street/SE 6th Avenue will be considered with Alternative E.

Construction Impacts and Phasing Traffic could be maintained on the existing bridge during construction. Because the new bridge would be aligned north of the existing west-side interchange, phasing the construction of the bridge and west-side interchange would not be feasible under Alternative E. The bridge and the interchange would need to be built together. Section 2.3 documents construction activities for Alternative E.

Construction Cost The estimated cost to construct Alternative E would be $281 million (in 2012 dollars) if the box- girder bridge type were selected, or $361 million (in 2012 dollars) if the through-arch bridge type were selected. The construction cost includes $24.6 million for right-of-way. The through-arch bridge type for Alternative E would cost more than the through-arch bridge type for Alternative C primarily because of higher right-of-way acquisition costs ($24.6 million compared to $14.3 million) and the wider (75 feet compared to 45 feet at the middle) and longer bridge.

2.3 Construction Activities

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

Rock Excavation • Rock cut slopes on the west bank hillside would be shaped using blasting techniques. Proper inspection, monitoring, and shoring of the existing bridge would occur before and after blasting to ensure stability. • Traffic control would be required on OR 43 during blasting activities. Nights and weekends would be the most likely times to perform the work, coupled with temporary detours to manage the traffic.

4(f)-32 Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation Construction Activities Section 2. Proposed Actions

Construction Storage and Fabrication Areas • The construction contractor would need laydown areas for construction of the project. These laydown areas, located on private properties, would be negotiated between the contractor and the property owner at the time of the contractor’s bid preparation. These private properties are expected to be outside the right-of-way required by the project. Approximately a 0.5- to 1.0-acre site near the proposed bridge construction would be needed for the contractor’s field office, storage of construction materials, and equipment. • The exact size of the laydown areas and the duration of occupation by the contractor would depend on the contractor’s approach to staging the bridge construction, and the type of bridge construction techniques required for the project. • The contractor would need river access near the bridge site. SE Spokane Street near the east roadway approach of the existing bridge, one block north of SE Tacoma Street, has been identified as a possible location where the contractor could establish access to the river. • Approximately a 5.0- to 8.0-acre site outside the project area would be needed for storage of bridge components and additional pieces of equipment, and for assembly of bridge members. Materials and equipment are expected to be assembled, stored, transported, and shipped by barge to the project area from this staging area. The contractor would need a temporary loading dock facility for assembly or loading of bridge members onto a barge.

In-Water Construction Piers in the River The existing river crossing has five piers within the ordinary high water elevation. For Alternatives A and B, all five of the existing bridge piers would be widened and strengthened. The temporary detour bridge for Alternative B would have eight piers, and both bicycle/pedestrian bridge types for Alternative A would have four piers within the ordinary high water elevation. For Alternatives C, D, and E, each bridge type would have no more than three piers within the ordinary high water elevation. The maximum spans for each alternative would be large enough to provide the required 200 feet of horizontal navigation clearance.

Bridge Foundation Drilled shaft foundations have been assumed for the piers for each Build alternative. Concrete footings for each bridge pier in the river would be supported on drilled shafts. The in-water construction activities for the river piers would include the following: • Cofferdams would be constructed around the perimeter of the proposed concrete footings. Cofferdams would be installed and removed from July 1 to October 31 and from December 1 to January 31. • Drilling equipment would be used to advance 6-foot- or 8-foot-diameter steel pipe casings into the river bottom. The steel casings would extend above the river surface for access.

Dredging Dredging would not occur for any of the Build alternatives.

Construction Staging and Duration The construction staging and duration for each alternative and bridge type are based on a conceptual level of development for the bridge layout. The footprint, piers, and abutments for each

Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-33 Construction Activities Section 2. Proposed Actions bridge would be built in stages to minimize disruption to traffic. The following are general guidelines for the development of the construction staging for each Build alternative: • At least one lane of traffic in each direction would remain open on OR 43 during construction. • Temporary roadway and retaining walls would be required during construction of the new west- side interchange. • The Willamette Shoreline Trolley on the west bank would most likely be suspended for up to 6 months while its tracks were being realigned and constructed. Use of the Oregon Pacific Railroad would be temporarily halted for the construction of overpass structures and other construction activities. • Construction work in the river would be restricted to the two in-water work windows (from July 1 to October 31 and from December 1 to January 31).

2.3.2 Alternative A Construction Activities For Alternative A, modification of the existing piers would be required to accommodate the widening and strengthening of the existing footings. This work would be performed inside a temporary cofferdam. The existing river piers would be reused, widened, and strengthened to support the addition of one truss panel on each side of the existing trusses. The widened sections of the piers would be supported on drilled shaft foundations. Construction of the pier extensions would take approximately 12 months to complete and could be performed with the bridge open to traffic. After 12 months of construction, the bridge would be closed to traffic. Following the closure of the bridge to traffic, the concrete deck of the existing truss spans would be removed without damage to the existing trusses. This would take approximately 9 months to complete. The new steel-truss shadow panels would be transported by barge to the site. The erection of the new steel trusses could be completed without the use of in-water false-work. Construction of the new trusses and the new deck would take approximately 12 months. The approach spans on each side of the river would be replaced. Construction of the approach concrete spans on each side of the river and the cleaning and painting of the existing trusses would proceed simultaneously with the erection of the steel trusses. Temporary closures would be required during removal of the concrete deck and girder span over OR 43. Temporary widening of OR 43 would be required to maintain one lane in each direction. Construction of Alternative A would take approximately 36 months to complete (24 months of closure). Modification of the substructure and new steel fabrication is anticipated to occur simultaneously in the first 12 months of construction. This would allow traffic closure of the existing bridge to be limited to the final 24 months while the main span superstructure and the approach spans were reconstructed.

Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge Construction of the bicycle/pedestrian bridge could be accomplished in parallel with the rehabilitation work on the existing bridge. The bicycle/pedestrian bridge construction for both bridge types would take approximately 24 months, with approximately 12 months to construct the bridge foundation. The deck for either type of bicycle/pedestrian bridge would be constructed without in-water false-work.

4(f)-34 Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation Construction Activities Section 2. Proposed Actions

2.3.3 Alternative B Construction Activities Alternative B would close the existing bridge during construction. However, Alternative B would include the option of a temporary detour bridge to maintain traffic across the river during construction. With the temporary detour bridge, access to properties adjacent to SE Spokane Street, SE Oaks Park Way, and Sellwood Riverfront Park would be maintained during construction with short-term closures during construction of the temporary detour bridge. A signalized “T-intersection” would be installed at the west approach to the bridge to accommodate vehicular movements to and from the temporary detour bridge while the new west-side interchange was constructed. This would require temporary widening of OR 43 to the west to maintain one southbound through lane, one southbound-to-eastbound left-turn lane, and one northbound lane during construction. Construction methods would be the same as those for Alternative A, except Alternative B would have a wider bridge cross-section. Construction of Alternative B would take 36 months (12 months to widen the existing piers and new structural steel fabrication and 24 months for superstructure modifications and replacement of the approach spans). The bridge would be closed for the final 24 months of the 36 months of construction. With the temporary detour bridge option, construction of Alternative B would take approximately 39 months (12 months to construct the temporary detour bridge, which would be concurrent with the widening of the existing piers and new structural steel fabrication; 24 months for superstructure modifications and replacement of the approach spans; and 3 months to remove the temporary detour bridge). The temporary detour bridge would enable a river crossing during all of the 39 months of construction.

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

2.3.5 Alternative D Construction Activities The existing bridge would be maintained for traffic while the new bridge under Alternative D was being constructed. At a minimum, two 12-foot-wide traffic lanes and a 4-foot-wide sidewalk would be maintained on the existing bridge. The first stage would construct the new bridge wide enough to accommodate temporary traffic after its completion. The second stage would be built while traffic was shifted to the first stage. Once traffic was shifted to the new half of the bridge, the existing bridge would be demolished. The main spans would be removed first, followed by the approach concrete girder spans. Once the two halves of the new bridge were built, a closure strip would tie the two stages together. A signalized “T-intersection” would be installed at the west approach to the bridge to accommodate vehicular movements to and from the bridge while the new west-side interchange was constructed. This would require temporary widening of OR 43 to the west to maintain one southbound through lane, one southbound-to-eastbound left-turn lane, and one northbound lane during construction.

Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-35 Construction Activities Section 2. Proposed Actions

The delta-frame and deck-arch bridge types are evaluated with Alternative D. Construction activities by bridge type are summarized in the following subsections. A box-girder bridge could also be constructed with Alternative D.

Delta-frame Bridge A delta-frame bridge would be constructed using temporary false-work in the river. This option could also be built on false-work by sequencing the order of construction of the spans. This could be accomplished in three steps: (1) building the side spans flanking the east and west banks, (2) removing the false-work for those spans, and (3) building the center span. This method would require false-work across the entire river, but not all at the same time. Staged construction of a delta-frame bridge would be approximately 45 months (21 months for the first stage, 3 months for removal of the existing bridge, and 21 months for the third stage). The bridge would be open during all 45 months of construction.

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

2.3.6 Alternative E Construction Activities The existing Sellwood Bridge would be maintained for traffic during construction of Alternative E. A signalized “T-intersection” would be installed at the west approach to the bridge to accommodate vehicular movements to and from the existing Sellwood Bridge while the new west-side interchange was constructed. This would require temporary widening of OR 43 to the west to maintain one southbound through lane, one southbound-to-eastbound left-turn lane, and one northbound lane during construction. The box-girder and through-arch bridge types are evaluated with Alternative E. Construction activities by bridge type are summarized in the following subsections. A cable-stayed, deck- arch, delta- frame, or through- arch bridge could also be constructed with Alternative E.

Box-girder Bridge False-work in the river would not be required to construct a box-girder (concrete segmental) bridge. Construction of this bridge type would take approximately 36 months (15 months for foundation work, 18 months for superstructure work, and 3 months for removal of the existing bridge). The bridge would be open during all 36 months of construction.

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

4(f)-36 Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation

Section 3. Avoidance Alternatives

As noted earlier, the Section 4(f) statute requires the selection of an alternative that avoids the use of Section 4(f) property if that alternative is deemed feasible and prudent. The alternatives evaluation process conducted as part of the Sellwood Bridge Project concluded there was no feasible and prudent alternative that would address the project purpose and need without using Section 4(f) property. Consequently, each Build alternative forwarded for consideration in the Sellwood Bridge Project DEIS (Alternatives A through E) would result in a use of Section 4(f) resources. The primary reason for this finding is the presence of Section 4(f) resources on one or both sides of the Willamette River extending approximately one mile in each direction from the existing bridge location. This section discusses the concepts to avoid the use of all Section 4(f) resources that were objectively evaluated and explains the rationale for the dismissal of each concept. The following avoidance concepts were examined: 1. No Build Alternative 2. Improve the transportation facility in a manner that addresses purpose and need without the use of Section 4(f) property 3. Build a new bridge facility at a new location without the use of Section 4(f) resource 4. Tunnel alignment

3.1 Avoidance Concept 1: No Build Alternative The No Build Alternative would avoid uses of all Section 4(f) resources, but is deemed not prudent per (3)(i) and (3)(ii) under the definition of “feasible and prudent alternative” in 23 CFR 774.17. The No Build Alternative is not prudent per (3)(i) in the 23 CFR 774.17 section noted previously because it neither addresses nor corrects the transportation purpose and need that prompted the proposed project. • The No Build Alternative does not address the stated project purpose: “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.” A No Build Alternative would leave in place a bridge that is deteriorating rapidly because of an active landslide and has been classified as functionally obsolete. It has a bridge inspection sufficiency rating of 2 (on a scale of 0 to 100) and is vulnerable to failure in the event of an earthquake (the bridge is located in a seismically active zone). • The No Build Alternative would not address other stated project needs such as the following: − Existing substandard and unsafe geometric roadway conditions would not be corrected. − Transit service between southeast and southwest Portland in the project area would not be reestablished. (Because of imposed weight restrictions resulting from identified structural deficiencies, bus service across the existing Sellwood Bridge was eliminated in 2004.)

Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-37 Avoidance Concept 2: Improve the Transportation Facility without the Use of Section 4(f) Property Section 3. Avoidance Alternatives

− Freight mobility issues associated with current load restrictions and the substandard geometrical conditions of the bridge’s west-side interchange would not be addressed. − Safe pedestrian and bicyclist facilities across the Willamette River in the project area that would satisfy ADA standards would not be provided. The No Build Alternative is not prudent per (3)(ii) in the 23 CFR 774.17 section noted previously because it would result in the continuation of unacceptably unsafe conditions at the Sellwood Bridge crossing.

3.2 Avoidance Concept 2: Improve the Transportation Facility without the Use of Section 4(f) Property This avoidance concept would entail replacing the bridge structure with a new structure of similar dimensions inside the existing bridge footprint without widening or modifying any of the connecting ramps or the interchange at OR 43. Although this concept could potentially avoid uses of all Section 4(f) resources (if construction were conducted in such a way as to avoid a Section 4(f) use of the historic bridge and the recreational trail on the bridge), it was dismissed as not prudent per (3)(i) and (3)(ii) under the definition of “feasible and prudent alternative” in 23 CFR 774.17. This concept is not prudent per (3)(i) in the 23 CFR 774.17 section noted previously because it would not correct the specific transportation needs that prompted the proposed project. • This concept would not provide suitable (to standard) bicyclist and pedestrian connections to the established shared-use trail network located on both sides of the Willamette River. • This concept would not address the substandard and unsafe roadway conditions present in the immediate vicinity of the bridge. The interchange of the bridge and OR 43 has many substandard features, including horizontal and vertical alignments that limit motorist sight distance and prohibit the ability of longer trucks to turn safely. Ramp connections also do not provide sufficient vertical clearances, sight distances, or shoulders. This concept is not prudent per (3)(ii) in the 23 CFR 774.17 section noted previously because it would result in the continuation of unacceptably unsafe conditions in the vicinity of the Sellwood Bridge, as described in the second bullet point above.

3.3 Avoidance Concept 3: Build New Bridge Facility at a New Location without Use of Section 4(f) Resource Building a new bridge facility at a new location without the use of a Section 4(f) resource is deemed not prudent according to 23 CFR 774.17 because it would not accomplish the stated purpose and need of the project. Building a new river crossing outside the Sellwood area would not meet the stated purpose of the proposed project, which is to “rehabilitate or replace the Sellwood Bridge within its existing east-west corridor….” (see Sections 1.2, 1.4, and 1.5). The purpose and need statement of the Sellwood Bridge Project DEIS was based on the findings of the South Willamette River Crossing Study (Metro, 1999), which was also approved by the City of Portland. (The summary Findings and Recommendations Report of the South Willamette River Crossing Study is available on the project Web site at http://www.sellwoodbridge.org/ProjectLibrary.aspx.) The purpose of that study was to recommend multi-modal crossing improvements to address transportation needs over a 20-year planning horizon for the Willamette River corridor between

4(f)-38 Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation Avoidance Concept 3: Build New Bridge Facility at a New Location without Use of Section 4(f) Resource Section 3. Avoidance Alternatives the Ross Island Bridge in Portland and the I-205 Bridge in Oregon City. Given that the Sellwood Bridge is the only river crossing in this 10-mile corridor, plays a vital role in the city’s transportation system, and is nearing the end of its usable lifespan, the study addressed the feasibility of building a new bridge at another location and assessed locations to accommodate forecasted travel demand. The South Willamette River Crossing Study (Metro, 1999) originally identified 17 potential Willamette River crossing alternatives. A screening process analyzed the potential for crossing options to meet travel demand and avoid direct environmental impact to parks, water resources, schools, cemeteries, and historic sites. That screening process reduced the number of alternatives to six. After evaluating travel forecasts, examining the costs of options, and assessing the potential support for Metro’s 2040 Growth Concept, the study recommended rehabilitating or replacing the Sellwood Bridge on the existing alignment as a two-lane bridge, with better service for bicyclist and pedestrian travel. The study recommended against replacing the Sellwood Bridge with a river crossing outside the vicinity of the existing Sellwood Bridge (such as in Clackamas County at north Lake Oswego, Marylhurst, or Milwaukie). The study determined that alternative crossing concepts outside the existing Sellwood Bridge alignment did not address the local needs of the Sellwood area. As shown on Figure 3.3-1, other bridge alignments inside the immediate vicinity of the existing bridge were also considered during the Sellwood Bridge Project DEIS process.

FIGURE 3.3-1 Bridge Alignment Concepts Evaluated

Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-39 Avoidance Concept 4: Tunnel Alignment Section 3. Avoidance Alternatives

3.4 Avoidance Concept 4: Tunnel Alignment The tunnel alignment concept, shown in Figure 3.4-1, would avoid uses of all Section 4(f) resources and would be feasible from an engineering perspective, but is deemed not prudent per (3)(i), (3)(ii), and (3)(iv) under the definition of “feasible and prudent alternative” in 23 CFR 774.17. The tunnel alignment is not prudent per (3)(i) in the 23 CFR 774.17 section noted previously because it would not correct the specific transportation needs that prompted the proposed project. • The tunnel alignment would not provide bicyclist and pedestrian connections to the established shared-use trail network located on both sides of the Willamette River. • The tunnel alignment would not accommodate existing and future travel demands between origins and destinations served by the Sellwood Bridge. A tunnel would primarily serve through traffic, leaving local traffic with significant out-of-direction travel, particularly for neighborhood destinations. The tunnel alignment is not prudent per (3)(ii) in the CFR 774.17 section noted previously because safety would be unacceptably compromised. The length of the tunnel and associated access points would restrict the tunnel’s usefulness for emergency vehicles, which need immediate access to local destinations. The tunnel alignment is not prudent per (3)(iv) in the CFR 774.17 section noted previously because of the extraordinary costs of construction compared to bridge rehabilitation/ replacement options. A tunnel alignment was estimated to cost approximately 15 times more than a bridge option1.

FIGURE 3.4-1 Tunnel Alignment

1 Based on a planning-level cost estimate for a two-lane bored tunnel and a two-lane, pre-stressed girder bridge. The estimate for the tunnel was roughly $450 million; the estimate for the bridge was roughly $30 million.

4(f)-40 Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation

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

Section 5. Coordination

The development of the Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation has involved input and guidance from a variety of governmental agencies and citizens. Multnomah County has coordinated with many agencies and entities having jurisdiction over Section 4(f) properties in the project impact area. These include the Portland Parks and Recreation (PP&R), the Portland Bureau of Environmental Services (BES), Metro, River View Cemetery, and the Willamette Shoreline Consortium. In addition, Multnomah County, the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) are coordinating the historic eligibility and effects determinations with the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). Because of the many city park resources within the project area, Multnomah County worked particularly close with PP&R, providing draft sections of this Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation report for review and comment and working with both PP&R and BES to establish suitable mitigation concepts. Table 5-1 lists the meetings that were held with Section 4(f) resource stakeholders over the course of the Sellwood Bridge Project DEIS project, in addition to the regular transmission of project- related communication between Multnomah County and stakeholders.

TABLE 5-1 Section 4(f) Coordination Meetings Date Location Attendee Agencies

October 16, 2006 Multnomah County Bridge Shop Multnomah County, PP&R Portland, OR

October 24, 2006 FHWA Office FHWA, ODOT, CH2M HILL, Salem, OR Multnomah County

February 22, 2007 ODOT Region 1 Office FHWA, ODOT, Multnomah Portland, OR County, CH2M HILL

September 17, 2007 Portland Parks & Recreation ODOT, Multnomah County, Portland Building PP&R, Portland Department of Portland, OR Transportation

October 23, 2007 Portland Parks & Recreation FHWA, ODOT, Multnomah Portland Building County, PP&R, Portland Portland, OR Department of Transportation, CH2M HILL

December 20, 2007 Portland Parks & Recreation PP&R, CH2M HILL Portland Building Portland, OR

May 22, 2008 CH2MHILL Center PP&R, BES, ODOT, Multnomah Portland, OR County, Metro, CH2M HILL

Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-73

Index

Alternative A, 4(f)-13 parks and recreation, 4(f)-41 construction activities, 4(f)-34 Powers Marine Park, 4(f)-50 Alternative B, 4(f)-17 project construction activities, 4(f)-35 location, 4(f)-2 Alternative C, 4(f)-21 need, 4(f)-2, 4(f)-3 construction activities, 4(f)-35 purpose, 4(f)-2, 4(f)-3 Alternative D, 4(f)-25 River View Cemetery, 4(f)-57 construction activities, 4(f)-35 Superintendent's House, 4(f)-59 Alternative E, 4(f)-28 roadways construction activities, 4(f)-36 east-side intersection, 4(f)-7 bicyclists and pedestrians, 4(f)-6 performance, 4(f)-7 bridge, 4(f)-61 substandard and unsafe, 4(f)-6 structural integrity, 4(f)-4 west-side interchange, 4(f)-7, 4(f)-32 bridge cross-sections, 4(f)-13 Section 4(f) evaluation, 4(f)-1 bridge design avoidance alternatives, 4(f)-37 box-girder, 4(f)-36 historic resources, 4(f)-55 deck-arch, 4(f)-36 parks and recreation, 4(f)-41 delta-frame, 4(f)-36 prudence and feasibility, 4(f)-2 through-arch, 4(f)-36 Sellwood Bridge Recreational Trail, 4(f)-49 Build alternatives, 4(f)-9 Sellwood Riverfront Park, 4(f)-46 construction activities, 4(f)-32 Springwater Corridor Trail, 4(f)-41 bridge foundation, 4(f)-33 streetcar, 4(f)-11 dredging, 4(f)-33 temporary detour bridge, 4(f)-35 excavation, 4(f)-32 traffic methods, 4(f)-32 capacity, 4(f)-7 phasing, 4(f)-33 safety, 4(f)-6 piers, 4(f)-33 trolley. See Willamette Shoreline Trolley staging areas, 4(f)-33 Willamette Greenway Trail geology, 4(f)-32 East Bank, 4(f)-43 least harm analysis, 4(f)-63 SE Spokane Street Section, 4(f)-45 Macadam Bay Club, 4(f)-12 West Bank, 4(f)-11 No Build Alternative, 4(f)-37 Willamette Moorage Park, 4(f)-12, 4(f)-53 Oaks Pioneer Church, 4(f)-56 Willamette Shoreline Trolley, 4(f)-11, 4(f)-62 Oaks Pioneer Park, 4(f)-47

\

Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f) Index-1

Attachment 1. Determination of Eligibility (DOE) Forms

OREGON INVENTORY OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES SECTION 106 DOCUMENTATION FORM Individual Properties

Agency/Project: Oregon Department of Transportation and Multnomah County/Sellwood Bridge Project, Key No. 13762, Federal Aid No. C051(68) PE Property Name: Oaks Pioneer Church, formerly St. John’s Episcopal Church (1974) Street Address: 455 Spokane Street City, County: Portland, Multnomah USGS Quad Name: Lake Oswego Township: 1S Range: 1E Section: 22 This property is part of a District Grouping/Ensemble (see instructions) Name of District or Grouping/Ensemble: Number and Type of Associated Resources in Grouping/Ensemble:

Current Use: Social Construction Date: 1851 Architectural Classification / Resource Type: Neoclassical originally, Alterations & Dates: Various, see description Gothic Revival after 1883 remodeling

Window Type & Material: Wood, double-hung sash and Exterior Surface Materials: fixed Primary: Wood Secondary: Roof Type & Material: Wood Decorative: Wood

Condition: Excellent Good Fair Poor Integrity: Excellent Good Fair Poor

Preliminary National Register Findings: National Register listed: 1974 Potentially Eligible: Individually As part of District

Not Eligible: In current state Irretrievable integrity loss Lacks Distinction Not 50 Years

State Historic Preservation Office Comments: Concur Do Not Concur: Potentially Eligible Individually Potentially Eligible as part of District Not Eligible

Signed ______Date ______Comments:

Surveyor/Agency: Jessica B. Feldman/CH2M HILL Date Recorded: June 19, 2007 Pg 1 106 Documentation: Individual Properties Rev. 08/03 OREGON INVENTORY OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES SECTION 106 DOCUMENTATION FORM Individual Properties

Property Name: Oaks Pioneer Church, formerly St. John’s Episcopal Church Street Address: 455 Spokane Street City, County: Portland, Multnomah Architect, Builder or Designer (if known): Owner: Private Local Government State Federal Other Description of Property (including exterior alterations & approximate dates) (VERBATIM from the 1974 National Register of Historic Places nomination): It is a simple rectangle in plan measuring about 18 x 42 feet, with a heavy post and beam frame which is mortise and tenoned together. There are three lancet windows on each side of the nave, one flanking either side of the slightly extended vestibule tower and a single broad arched window over the altar. The medium pitched roof has simple boxed eaves and a small plain frieze. There is an arched louvred opening and a small round window in the tower base above the square-headed vestibule door. The double leaf doors contain four panels each. A small four-sided spire atop a square belfry with an arched louvred opening on each side rises above the tower. The lanced (sic) windows of the nave contain double-hung sashes: the upper sashes contain clear glass set in tracery mullions, the lower sashes four light symmetrically arranged. Panels of the stained glass window at the chancel end are set in tracery mullions. The horizontal exterior drop siding has vertical corner board trim. The tongue and groove interior wall finish is laid diagonally in a large chevron pattern.

Alterations and associated changes 1862: moved to Main Street in Milwaukie; 1869: chancel of the church extended by 3 bays; 1883: windows changed from square to gothic arch, steeple and stained glass windows added, enclosed entry vestibule added; 1928: a basement was excavated for use as a kitchen and meeting area; 1950: moved to 2036 SE Jefferson in Milwaukie, the vestibule and entry were removed and a brick veneer structure with a shed room was added between the church and adjacent structures; 1961: moved to current location; After 1961 (date unknown): vestry added; 1969: flagpole added; 1980s: interior decorative alterations, rose garden, and brick walkways added.

Significance Statement (VERBATIM from the 1974 National Register of Historic Places nomination) St. John’s Church is the first Episcopal church in the Oregon country, the oldest intact church building in Oregon, and for a while served as the cathedral seat of the Episcopal Diocese of Oregon. When given by Lot Whitcomb, a pioneer operator of steamboats on the Willamette River, in 1851, it was a partially completed double house outside the town of Milwaukie, which Whitcomb had founded in the 1840s as a cooperative colony but which 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.

In 1862 it was decided to move the building to a more central location within the town of Milwaukie, and according to some sources, alterations were made to the chancel end in 1869. The most significant alterations however were made in 1888, at which time the building was given its present Gothic Revival character. The original square-headed windows were given pointed-arch heads, new siding was put on, and alterations were made to the tower and belfry, including the addition of a spire and a small extended vestibule. The diagonal interior paneling probably dates from this time, as well as a small vestry which once stood to the right of the nave at the chancel end. The belfry still houses the ship’s bell given by Whitcomb.

The building was moved again in 1928 temporarily while a new foundation and basement were constructed. After the construction of a new church building in 1948, the venerable old structure served for a while as a chapel, but in 1969 (sic), the decision was made to raze it. Through private efforts funds were raised to load it aboard a barge and float it a short way down the Willamette River to its present site, where, minus the vestry and extended vestibule, it now serves as a museum and is used [for] weddings. [Author’s note: 300 weddings a year are performed at this location.]

The National Register nomination was prepared after the building was moved three separate times from its original location. Therefore, it lacks integrity of location and some elements of the historic setting and feeling. However, it retains integrity of design (Gothic Revival), materials, workmanship, and association (as the oldest church in Oregon still in use and as the oldest intact Episcopal Church in the state). Under Criterion A, the period of significance would span 1851 (founding) to 1961 (end of era as St. John’s Episcopal Church), while under Criterion C, the period of significance would span 1883 (Neo-Gothic architectural style) to 1928 (new foundation and basement).

(See continuation sheet, page 6)

Surveyor/Agency: Jessica B. Feldman/CH2M HILL Date Recorded: June 19, 2007 Pg 2 106 Documentation: Individual Properties Rev. 08/03 OREGON INVENTORY OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES SECTION 106: DOCUMENTATION FORM Continuation Sheet

Property Name: Oaks Pioneer Church, formerly St. John’s Episcopal Church Street Address: 455 Spokane Street City, County: Portland, Multnomah

View: Front view of the Oaks Pioneer Church, showing the vestry on the west side and the 1980 brick walkway.

Surveyor/Agency: Jessica B. Feldman/CH2M HILL Date Recorded: June 19, 2007 Pg 3 106 Documentation: Individual Properties Rev. 08/03 OREGON INVENTORY OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES SECTION 106: DOCUMENTATION FORM Continuation Sheet

Property Name: Oaks Pioneer Church, formerly St. John’s Episcopal Church Street Address: 455 Spokane Street City, County: Portland, Multnomah

View: Rear view of Oaks Pioneer Church.

View: Dedication Plaque (1851).

Surveyor/Agency: Jessica B. Feldman/CH2M HILL Date Recorded: June 19, 2007 Pg 4 106 Documentation: Individual Properties Rev. 08/03 OREGON INVENTORY OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES SECTION 106: DOCUMENTATION FORM Continuation Sheet

Property Name: Oaks Pioneer Church, formerly St. John’s Episcopal Church Street Address: 455 Spokane Street City, County: Portland, Multnomah

Two views of the church when it was located in Milwaukie. It is likely that the image on the left shows the church at its location on Main Street, while the image on the right probably shows the church at its location on Jefferson Street. Both images were taken from http://www.stjohnsmilwaukie.org/history/history.htm, “St. John the Evangelist Episcopal Church, History of St. John’s.”

The church being transported to Sellwood, taken from http://www.oakspioneerchurch.org/, “The History of the Oaks Pioneer Church.”

Surveyor/Agency: Jessica B. Feldman/CH2M HILL Date Recorded: June 19, 2007 Pg 5 106 Documentation: Individual Properties Rev. 08/03 OREGON INVENTORY OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES SECTION 106: DOCUMENTATION FORM Continuation Sheet Property Name: Oaks Pioneer Church, formerly St. John’s Episcopal Church Street Address: 455 Spokane Street City, County: Portland, Multnomah

Sources

Norman, James B., Jr. Portland’s Architectural Heritage. Oregon Historical Society Press: Portland, 1991.

“Oaks Pioneer Church home page,” http://www.oakspioneerchurch.org/history.html.

“St. John’s Episcopal Church,” National Register of Historic Places Inventory – Nomination Form, prepared by D.W. Powers, III, Temporary Assistant with the Parks and Recreation Section of the State Parks Department on August 5, 1974.

“St. John’s History,” http://www.stjohnsmilwaukee.org/history/history.htm.

Surveyor/Agency: Jessica B. Feldman/CH2M HILL Date Recorded: June 19, 2007 Pg 6 106 Documentation: Individual Properties Rev. 08/03 OREGON INVENTORY OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES SECTION 106: DOCUMENTATION FORM Continuation Sheet

Property Name: Oaks Pioneer Church, formerly St. John’s Episcopal Church Street Address: 455 Spokane Street City, County: Portland, Multnomah

Surveyor/Agency: Jessica B. Feldman/CH2M HILL Date Recorded: June 19, 2007 Pg 7 106 Documentation: Individual Properties Rev. 08/03

OREGON INVENTORY OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES SECTION 106 DOCUMENTATION FORM Individual Properties

Agency/Project: Oregon Department of Transportation and Multnomah County/Sellwood Bridge Project, Key No. 13762, Federal Aid No. C051(68) PE Property Name: Riverview Cemetery Street Address: 8421 SW Macadam Avenue City, County: Portland, Multnomah USGS Quad Name: Lake Oswego Township: 1S Range: 1E Section: 22 This property is part of a District Grouping/Ensemble (see instructions) Name of District or Grouping/Ensemble: Riverview Cemetery Number and Type of Associated Resources in Grouping/Ensemble: See continuation sheet

Current Use: Riverview Cemetery Construction Date: 1882 – 1945? Architectural Classification / Resource Type: Cemetery Alterations & Dates: Various

Window Type & Material: N/A Exterior Surface Materials: Primary: Secondary: Roof Type & Material: N/A Decorative:

Condition: Excellent Good Fair Poor Integrity: Excellent Good Fair Poor

Preliminary National Register Findings: National Register listed Potentially Eligible: Individually As part of District

Not Eligible: In current state Irretrievable integrity loss Lacks Distinction Not 50 Years

State Historic Preservation Office Comments: Concur Do Not Concur: Potentially Eligible Individually Potentially Eligible as part of District Not Eligible

Signed ______Date ______Comments:

Surveyor/Agency: Jessica B. Feldman/CH2M HILL Date Recorded: August 6, 2007 Pg 1 106 Documentation: Individual Properties Rev. 08/03 OREGON INVENTORY OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES SECTION 106 DOCUMENTATION FORM Individual Properties

Property Name: Riverview Cemetery Street Address: 8421 SW Macadam Avenue City, County: Portland, Multnomah Architect, Builder or Designer (if known): Owner: Private Local Government State Federal Other Description of Property (including exterior alterations & approximate dates) Located south of downtown Portland, Riverview Cemetery is bounded by SW Macadam on the east, Taylors Ferry Road on the north, the Greenwood Hills Cemetery and Boones Ferry road on the west, and Palatine Hill Road and Lewis & Clark College on the south. The main entrances to the cemetery are located on SW Macadam Avenue, near the Sellwood Bridge, and on Taylors Ferry Road. Original plans or correspondence relating to the original design of Riverview Cemetery were not found in the course of the preparation of this form, but it is known that it was established in 1882 and designed by Edward O. Schwagerl. The cemetery is approximately 300 acres in size and is situation on a wooded, sloping terrain crisscrossed with unnamed curvilinear roads. The roads are paved or are gravel, and the cemetery is divided into sections. The Superintendent’s House/Caretaker’s House (1914), which replaced an earlier building at the same location, and the cemetery gates (1928) are located at the SW Macadam Avenue entrance. The cemetery office (1945), Mausoleum (1945), and Charles Francis Adams Memorial Chapel (1943) are accessible from Taylors Ferry Road. In addition to the many gravestones and family plot markers, a 1902 “Roll Call” statue, surrounded by the graves of 165 Oregonians who died in the Spanish American War, is located to the northeast of the entrance from Taylors Ferry Road.

Significance Statement The cemetery is considered locally significant. It was entered into the City of Portland Historic Resource Inventory (HRI) circa 1982. It was given a Rank III code, which according to the City of Portland Historic Resource Protection Overlay Zone ordinance (33.445.030) signifies that the resource may be eligible for listing in the National Register (of Historic Places) 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 Riverview Cemetery. This cemetery was among those developed during the rural cemetery movement for which landscaping was very important.” Criterion A: The cemetery appears to be eligible under Criteria A because it is one of the oldest cemeteries in the City of Portland, and the oldest cemetery still owned and maintained by a private entity. Because of its age and its establishment in the early 1880s, it contains the remains of persons who are considered important in the history, politics, and social landscape of the city in the late 19th century. First settled in the 1840s, Portland was incorporated in 1851. By the 1880s, Portland was a thriving port city on the Willamette River. At that time, Portland was five times larger than Seattle and had a thriving downtown business and civic center on the west side of the river; the east side residential areas were slowly being acquired, annexed, and developed. Lone Fir Cemetery is the oldest cemetery in Portland. It was initially established in 1846 as a family gravesite on private property. It was sold to the city of Portland in 1866 and named for the solitary tree at the site. Considered a historic pioneer cemetery, it is now managed by Metro, the regional government. Lone Fir Cemetery is located between Stark and Morrison streets on the north and south, and between SE 20th and SE 26th on the west and east. Criterion B: Many people who were associated with the cemetery can be considered significant, especially in the incorporation of the Riverview Cemetery Association in the late 1880s. The Association’s board included members of the Failing, Corbett, and Ladd families. The Ladd family donated the land on which the cemetery would be situated. Twelve former Portland mayors, including Henry Failing and William Ladd (both of whom were founding members of the cemetery board), are buried at the cemetery. These persons have been established as significant for their contributions to the history of the city of Portland in the late 19th century; however, this association does not meet the requirement for the cemetery to be eligible for the National Register under Criterion B. Criterion C: Under Criterion C, a cemetery may be eligible for the National Register if the property represents the work of master artists, designers, and craftsman, or the highest artistic values of the period. Riverview Cemetery may be the first cemetery in Portland to have been established by committee and designed as a “rural” cemetery, a style that reflected the romantic notions of the period. The cemetery, which opened in the late 19th century, retains integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. It exhibits those elements that distinguish the rural cemetery design, continues to evoke the period in which it was first established, and possesses high artistic value. Therefore, it appears eligible for the National Register under Criterion C. Although Lone Fir Cemetery and Riverview Cemetery are early important examples of cemeteries in Portland and both contain the final resting places of significant person in local and state history, there are several essential differences between the two cemeteries. These differences include their origin (family plot/organized development), date of establishment (1866/1882), design (designed landscape), size (30 acres/300+ acres), location (urban/rural), and ownership (municipal/private non-profit).

(See continuation sheet, page 4)

Surveyor/Agency: Jessica B. Feldman/CH2M HILL Date Recorded: August 6, 2007 Pg 2 106 Documentation: Individual Properties Rev. 08/03 OREGON INVENTORY OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES SECTION 106: SUPPLEMENTAL PHOTOGRAPHS

Property Name: Riverview Cemetery Street Address: 8421 SW Macadam Avenue City, County: Portland, Multnomah

View: Superintendent’s House and cemetery gates.

View: The Helms Mausoleum.

Surveyor/Agency: Jessica B. Feldman/CH2M HILL Date Recorded: August 6, 2007 Pg 3 106 Documentation: Individual Properties Rev. 08/03 OREGON INVENTORY OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES Continuation Sheet

Property Name: Riverview Cemetery Street Address: 8421 SW Macadam Avenue City, County: Portland, Multnomah Significance Statement (continued) Until the late 18th century, burials in America were conducted in a practical manner. The early settlers buried their dead in the traditions of their homelands, with little ceremony or thought about how to commemorate the deceased. By the early 19th century, colonial burying grounds and churchyards located in rapidly expanding towns and cities were becoming overcrowded and neglected. As the century progressed, there was a growing public attitude that a cemetery should fill a larger purpose than merely serving as a place for interment. Pressures of sanitation, disease, and public health also caused public officials and public-spirited individuals to promote the establishment of larger planned cemeteries outside the growing city center. Cemetery foundation outside of these centers was largely conducted either by commercial or non- profit entities, and the cemeteries they created became the final burying places for members of a broad range of ethnic and religious groups. [French, pp.37-59] The conjunction of these pressures and the social and aesthetic movements of the early 19th century shaped the design of the "rural" cemetery. In the United States, the "rural" cemetery movement was inspired by romantic perceptions of nature, art, national identity, and the melancholy theme of death. It drew upon innovations in burial ground design in England and France, most particularly Père Lachaise Cemetery in Paris, established in 1804 and developed according to an 1815 plan. [Curl, pp.13-41] America's "rural" cemeteries typically were established at elevated sites on the outskirts of a city. The archetypal "rural" cemetery was planned as a romantic pastoral landscape studded with fine monuments and architectural works. These landscapes aspired to be serene and spacious grounds where the combination of nature and monuments would be spiritually uplifting. They came to be looked on as public parks, places of respite and recreation acclaimed for both their beauty and their usefulness to society. These goals were accomplished through designs that enhanced hilly, wooded sites by grading, selective thinning of trees, and massing of plant materials that directed the eye to broad, picturesque vistas. Cemetery gateways were often monumental in size and design, establishing a separation from the workaday world. A winding drive of gradual ascent often encouraged a sense of internal transition from the visitor’s external concerns to the spiritual landscape. [Potter, National Register Bulletin 41] The designer of Riverview Cemetery been identified as Edward O. Schwagerl (1842-1910), a Bavarian-born landscape gardener who was raised in Paris. Schwagerl trained in the northeast United States before practicing in Omaha, St. Louis, and Cleveland. He was working in Cleveland when he received the commission for the design of Riverview Cemetery from Henry Failing. Riverview Cemetery was modeled after Schwagerl’s Riverside Cemetery in Cleveland, which opened in 1876. Cleveland’s Riverside Cemetery is listed on the National Register as part of the Brooklyn Centre Historic District. Schwagerl was also a consulting landscape architect for the design of the Toledo, OH, Woodlawn Cemetery in the early 1880s. That cemetery is also listed on the National Register. Schwagerl did not get additional work in Portland, but he returned to the Pacific Northwest within a few years and settled in Tacoma, WA. There he received a commission to design Wright Park and later Point Defiance Park. In 1892, he became the Superintendent of Public Parks for the City of Seattle, WA, where he was responsible for the layout of Kinnear Park, Denny Park, and the preliminary plans for Volunteer Park (then known as City Park). Between 1895 and 1897, he had a private practice in Tacoma before he moved on to Seattle. Besides public parks, cemeteries, and recreation sites, Schwagerl also designed subdivisions, such as University Heights Addition, Mount Baker Park Addition, and the University Place subdivisions in Seattle. Perhaps his best known work, which was not finished by him, was a comprehensive plan for parks and boulevards for the City of Seattle. (The Olmsted Brothers eventually received that commission.) Schwagerl’s designs are still intact in a number of places, and he is considered a significant landscape designer and pioneer of park planning in the Pacific Northwest Region from 1890 through 1910. Riverview Cemetery appears to have been the only Portland commission within his portfolio and, perhaps, the only cemetery he designed in the Pacific Northwest Region. The proponents of the Riverview Cemetery wanted to create, “a burial ground that would match, in every respect, the architectural splendor of their city.” [Bosker and Lencek, p.170] Keeping with that tradition, several local/regional architects were commissioned to design architectural structures throughout the grounds. Three examples of architects are Ellis Lawrence, architect of the Superintendent’s House/Caretaker’s House (1914); A.E. Doyle, designer of the cemetery gate(s) (1928); and Pietro Belluschi (Doyle’s protégé), who designed the Charles Francis Adams Memorial Chapel (1943), Mausoleum (1945), and Office (1945). Lawrence was a prominent and prolific architect from Eugene, OR, who, after arriving in Portland in 1905, began practicing his craft during the early decades of the 20th Century. Lawrence founded the University of Oregon’s School of Architecture and Applied Arts and led that program from its inception in 1914 through 1922. In addition to being the dean of the Architecture School, beginning in 1915, he was the “university architect.” He fulfilled both of these roles until his death in 1946. At the Riverview Cemetery, Lawrence designed a “Rest Cottage” for the cemetery. The building (dating from 1913) no longer exists, but it complemented the 1914 Superintendent’s House. Lawrence also designed entry gates for the SW Macadam access to the cemetery. These gates, which were designed to be contemporary with the Superintendent’s House, were replaced by Doyle’s cemetery gates in 1928. Lawrence also designed the Riverview Abbey Mausoleum (1916), which is outside of the cemetery across the street at 319 SW Taylors Ferry Road.

Surveyor/Agency: Jessica B. Feldman/CH2M HILL Date Recorded: August 6, 2007 Pg 4 106 Documentation: Individual Properties Rev. 08/03 OREGON INVENTORY OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES Continuation Sheet

Property Name: Riverview Cemetery Street Address: 8421 SW Macadam Avenue City, County: Portland, Multnomah Doyle, who practiced architecture in the first decades of the 20th century, designed buildings referred to as “distinctly above the ordinary as to be considered of national artistic importance.” [Bosker and Lencek, p.36] He began practicing in 1909, and opened his own office in Portland. Some of his best known works include the downtown Meier and Frank department store building (1909), the United States National Bank (1917), and the Bank of California (1924). He also served on the City Planning Commission. Doyle was considered the “master builder” of Portland in the early 20th century, having shaped much of the architectural tone of the downtown area between 1909 and 1929. Pietro Belluschi, a designer, led the firm of A.E. Doyle and Associates after Doyle’s death. In his own right, Belluschi was renowned for his use of the modern Art Deco/Moderne and International styles for commercial and civic structures. He is most noted for Portland’s Equitable Building (1948), which many consider the first curtain-walled skyscraper in the United States. Later he was the Dean of Architecture at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1951-1965). Criteria Consideration D: The Riverview Cemetery meets the requirements of Criteria Consideration D because it is eligible for the National Register under Criteria A and C; it contains the graves of numerous persons of importance in local and state history, including members of some of the founding families, industrialists, and politicians from Portland (such as William L. Ladd, Henry Failing, Henry Corbett, two Governors, two Senators, a Representative to Congress, an early mayor of Portland, the first state Chief of Water Works, and a State Surveyor General [who was also the City’s Superintendent of Streets and a City Engineer]), important local artists, the organizer of the first local volunteer fire department, a Rose Festival Queen and Princess, and the second Chinese woman to have received a pilot’s license; it possesses important historic associations with Portland’s early period of settlement; and it embodies those characteristics that distinguish it as an important local example of the “rural cemetery” movement of the 19th century.

Associated Properties/Contributing Features (not inclusive): Curvilinear drives (to be determined) and their associated brick culverts and gutters; Paths and trails (to be determined); Retaining walls (to be determined); Original landscaping (to be determined); Helms Mausoleum, designer unknown, constructed circa 1910; Superintendent’s House, designed by Ellis Lawrence, constructed 1914; cemetery gate(s), design attributed to A.E. Doyle, constructed circa 1928; Charles Francis Adams Memorial Chapel, designed by Pietro Belluschi, constructed 1943; Mausoleum, designed by Pietro Belluschi, completed 1945; Office, designed by Pietro Belluschi, completed 1945.

Sources: Bosker, Gideon, and Lena Lencek. Frozen Music, A History of Portland Architecture. Western Imprints, The Press of the Oregon Historical Society: Portland, OR, 1985. Curl, James Stephen. “The Architecture and Planning of the Nineteenth Century Cemetery,” Garden History, Vol. 3, No. 3 Summer 1975. “E.O. Schwagerl and Seattle Parks,” www.halcyon.com/tmend/schwagerl.htm, accessed on multiple dates. French, Stanley. “The Cemetery as Cultural Institution: The Establishment of Mount Auburn and the ‘Rural Cemetery Movement,’” American Quarterly, Vol. 26, No. 1, March 1974. Hawkins, William J., III, and William F. Willingham. Classic Houses of Portland, Oregon: 1850-1950. Timber Press, Inc: Portland, Oregon, 1999. Historic Preservation Program, School of Architecture and Allied Arts, University of Oregon. “Oregon Inventory of Historic Property, Ellis Lawrence Building Survey.” April 1, 1989. Lansing, Jewel. Portland, People, Politics, and Power, 1851-2001. Oregon State University Press: Corvallis, OR, 2005. MacColl, E. Kimbark. The Growth of a City: Power and Politics in Portland, Oregon 1915 to 1950. The Georgian Press: Portland, OR, 1979. MacColl, E. Kimbark. The Shaping of a City: Business and Politics in Portland, Oregon 1885 to 1915. The Georgian Press: Portland, OR, 1976. Maddux, Percy. City on the Willamette. Binfords & Mort: Portland, OR, 1952. “National Historic Site Nomination for Historic Woodlawn Cemetery,” www.historic-woodlawn.com/historynps.html, accessed on March 20, 2008. Ochsner, Jeffrey Karl, Ed. Shaping Seattle Architecture. University of Washington Press: Seattle, WA. O’Donnell, Terence, and Thomas Vaughan. Portland, A Historical Sketch and Guide. Oregon Historical Society/Glass- Dahlstrom Printers: Portland, OR, 1976. Potter, Elisabeth Walton, and Beth M. Boland. Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Cemeteries and Burial Places. National Register Bulletin 41. United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1992. Ritz, Richard Ellison. Architects of Oregon: A Biographical Dictionary of Architects Deceased – 19th and 20th Centuries. Lair Hill Publishing: Portland, OR, 2002. “Riverview Cemetery in Cleveland,” www.riversidecemeterycleveland.org, accessed on multiple dates. “Seattle Parks and Recreation: Park History,” www.seattle.gov/parks/history/default.org, accessed on March 20, 2008.

Surveyor/Agency: Jessica B. Feldman/CH2M HILL Date Recorded: August 6, 2007 Pg 5 106 Documentation: Individual Properties Rev. 08/03 OREGON INVENTORY OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES Continuation Sheet

Property Name: Riverview Cemetery Street Address: 8421 SW Macadam Avenue City, County: Portland, Multnomah

View: The Charles Francis Adams Memorial Chapel, designed by Pietro Belluschi, 1943.

View: The Riverview Cemetery Funeral Home, Mausoleum, and Office, designed by Pietro Belluschi, 1945.

Surveyor/Agency: Jessica B. Feldman/CH2M HILL Date Recorded: August 6, 2007 Pg 6 106 Documentation: Individual Properties Rev. 08/03 OREGON INVENTORY OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES Continuation Sheet

Property Name: Riverview Cemetery Street Address: 8421 SW Macadam Avenue City, County: Portland, Multnomah

View: Noting the landscaping, foliage, and retaining walls.

View: An example of the curvilinear road design and the landscaping.

Surveyor/Agency: Jessica B. Feldman/CH2M HILL Date Recorded: August 6, 2007 Pg 7 106 Documentation: Individual Properties Rev. 08/03 OREGON INVENTORY OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES Continuation Sheet Property Name: Riverview Cemetery Street Address: 8421 SW Macadam Avenue City, County: Portland, Multnomah

View: The “Roll Call” statue and surrounding circle of military-style markers.

View: A section of road showing the brick gutter.

Surveyor/Agency: Jessica B. Feldman/CH2M HILL Date Recorded: August 6, 2007 Pg 8 106 Documentation: Individual Properties Rev. 08/03 OREGON INVENTORY OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES Continuation Sheet

Property Name: Riverview Cemetery Street Address: 8421 SW Macadam Avenue City, County: Portland, Multnomah

View: The original Superintendent’s House at Riverview Cemetery looking southeast, date unknown.

View: A drawing of the original Superintendent’s House, looking southeast, date unknown. From p. 68 in The Growth of a City: Power and Politics in Portland, Oregon 1915 to 1950 by E. Kimbark MacColl.

Surveyor/Agency: Jessica B. Feldman/CH2M HILL Date Recorded: August 6, 2007 Pg 9 106 Documentation: Individual Properties Rev. 08/03 OREGON INVENTORY OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES Continuation Sheet Property Name: Riverview Cemetery Street Address: 8421 SW Macadam Avenue City, County: Portland, Multnomah

View: A copy of a map produced by the Riverview Cemetery.

Surveyor/Agency: Jessica B. Feldman/CH2M HILL Date Recorded: August 6, 2007 Pg 10 106 Documentation: Individual Properties Rev. 08/03 OREGON INVENTORY OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES Continuation Sheet Property Name: Riverview Cemetery Street Address: 8421 SW Macadam Avenue City, County: Portland, Multnomah

Surveyor/Agency: Jessica B. Feldman/CH2M HILL Date Recorded: August 6, 2007 Pg 11 106 Documentation: Individual Properties Rev. 08/03

OREGON INVENTORY OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES SECTION 106 DOCUMENTATION FORM Individual Properties

Agency/Project: Oregon Department of Transportation and Multnomah County/Sellwood Bridge Project, Key No. 13762, Federal Aid No. C051(68) PE Property Name: Riverview Cemetery, Superintendent’s House/Caretaker’s House Street Address: 8421 SW Macadam Avenue City, County: Portland, Multnomah USGS Quad Name: Lake Oswego Township: 1S Range: 1E Section: 22 This property is part of a District Grouping/Ensemble (see instructions) Name of District or Grouping/Ensemble: Number and Type of Associated Resources in Grouping/Ensemble:

Current Use: Other Construction Date: 1914 Architectural Classification / Resource Type: Georgian Revival Alterations & Dates: Removal of widow’s walk, (sometimes referred to in publications as Colonial Revival) Domestic and possible roof replacement after 1988.

Window Type & Material: Multi-pane, double-hung wood Exterior Surface Materials: Primary: Brick Secondary: Wood Roof Type & Material: Hipped with composition shingle Decorative: Wood balustrade atop truncated hip roof, cornice with block modillions, shutters, round arch hood with shell motif, brackets, and sidelights Condition: Excellent Good Fair Poor Integrity: Excellent Good Fair Poor

Preliminary National Register Findings: National Register listed Potentially Eligible: Individually As part of District

Not Eligible: In current state Irretrievable integrity loss Lacks Distinction Not 50 Years

State Historic Preservation Office Comments: Concur Do Not Concur: Potentially Eligible Individually Potentially Eligible as part of District Not Eligible

Signed ______Date ______Comments:

Surveyor/Agency: Jessica B. Feldman/CH2M HILL Date Recorded: August 6, 2007 Pg 1 106 Documentation: Individual Properties Rev. 08/03 OREGON INVENTORY OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES SECTION 106 DOCUMENTATION FORM Individual Properties

Property Name: Riverview Cemetery, Superintendent’s House/Caretaker’s House Street Address: 8421 SW Macadam Avenue City, County: Portland, Multnomah Architect, Builder or Designer (if known): Owner: Private Local Government State Ellis F. Lawrence, chief designer. Lawrence and Federal Other Holford, architecture firm. Description of Property (including exterior alterations & approximate dates): This brick, two-story residence has three bays across the primary façade. It was designed in the Georgian Revival style, although some publications refer to it as stylistically Colonial Revival. The central entry door has sidelights and a half- round, shell-design pediment supported with scroll-like brackets. There is a soldier bond belt course between the first and second stories. Historic photographs show that there was originally a widow’s walk at the top of the hipped roof, which was removed after 1988. Surrounding the flattened roof top was a balustrade with thick posts topped with finials at each corner. The roof eaves exhibit pronounced modillions. The windows are eight-over-eight, double-hung wood sash, with fixed panel shutters. According to the Ellis Lawrence Building Survey (1988), a detached garage built in 1921, which was associated with the building, was removed some time after 1988. Significance Statement: The current Superintendent’s House/Caretaker’s House replaced a 19th century building in the Gothic Revival style at Riverview Cemetery (one of the oldest cemeteries in the city and the final resting place for many of Portland’s founding families). The Riverview Cemetery is locally significant in part due to its age and prominence as the cemetery of choice and because it evokes the rural cemetery design movement of the 19th century. The cemetery is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) under Criteria A and C. The Superintendent’s House was designed by Ellis F. Lawrence, a prominent and prolific architect from the East Coast, who practiced his craft in Portland in the early decades of the 20th century. He came to Portland on his way to San Francisco to open an office, but he stayed following the 1906 earthquake that devastated San Francisco. Lawrence founded the University of Oregon’s School of Architecture and Applied Arts and led that program from its inception in 1914 through 1922. In addition to being the dean of the Architecture School, beginning in 1915, he was the “university architect.” He fulfilled both of these roles until his death in 1946. Out of 500 buildings and non-built projects designed by Lawrence, 260 survive in Oregon and Washington, including 120 out of 200 residences. No specific style is typically associated with Lawrence, who chose the designs based on the customer’s interests as well as the building’s use. At the Riverview Cemetery, Lawrence designed a “Rest Cottage” for the cemetery. The building (dating from 1913) no longer exists, but it complemented the architecture of the 1914 Superintendent’s House. Lawrence also designed entry gates for the SW Macadam access to the cemetery. These gates, which were designed to be contemporary with the Superintendent’s House, were replaced by gates designed by A.E. Doyle in 1928. Lawrence also designed the Riverview Abbey Mausoleum (1916), which is outside of the cemetery across the street at 319 SW Taylors Ferry Road. The Portland Historic Resource Inventory form, prepared circa 1982 for this building, identifies the Superintendent’s House as significant under the area of architecture. It received a Rank II designation, which means that a given resource may be eligible for listing in the National Register. The property also is identified as #1429 on the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office inventory. In 1988, the building was surveyed as part of the Oregon Inventory of Historic Property: Ellis Lawrence Building Survey, which itself is an indication of the importance of Lawrence as a designer of buildings throughout the state. Buildings were ranked according to integrity, distinction, and associative value. Buildings that received 41 or more points were determined eligible for the National Register; the Superintendent’s House received 79 points. In the survey, the evaluators noted that this building displayed high-quality skilled work and better-than-average workmanship and materials. The evaluators determined that the Superintendent’s House was a prime example of the Georgian style and, compared with Lawrence’s other surviving Oregon buildings, the use of this style was unique for the area. More importantly, those preparing the inventory sheets determined that the design of this building was among his best works. The survey results provided the basis for the “Architecture of Ellis F. Lawrence Multiple Property Submission (MPS)” that was submitted to the United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service in 1990. The Superintendent’s House is considered locally significant as one of the only buildings Lawrence designed in the Georgian style. One publication notes that this is one the few houses from the Early Colonial Revival Period constructed in brick. [Hawkins and Willingham, p.238] The period of significance begins in 1914, when it was first constructed, and ends in 1928, when the contemporary entry gates Lawrence designed were replaced by the Doyle-designed cemetery gates. The Superintendent’s House retains integrity of location, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. The building has not been moved, because there is no record of it having been moved and, according to historic aerial photographs, it appears to be in the same place. The more recent removal of the widow’s walk moderately diminishes the integrity of design. The removal of the associated but detached garage, located behind the building, does not diminish the integrity of the building.

(See continuation sheet, page 3)

Surveyor/Agency: Jessica B. Feldman/CH2M HILL Date Recorded: August 6, 2007 Pg 2 106 Documentation: Individual Properties Rev. 08/03 OREGON INVENTORY OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES SECTION 106 DOCUMENTATION FORM Continuation Sheet

Property Name: Riverview Cemetery, Superintendent’s House/Caretaker’s House Street Address: 8421 SW Macadam Avenue City, County: Portland, Multnomah

When the building was constructed in 1914, its setting would have been somewhat similar to its current setting – a cleared parcel at the base of a forested slope containing a large cemetery facing the river across SW Macadam. The setting is still somewhat rural because of its location at the edge of the cemetery. However, there have been some changes to the setting of the property. These changes include the construction of the Sellwood Bridge in 1925 (within the period of significance), the 1960s alteration of the west end ramp alignment of the Sellwood Bridge, and the construction of the parking lot and wheelchair ramps. Key exterior materials, such as the brick construction, the wood details like the cornice, the front door surrounds (pediment, pilasters, etc.), and windows remain intact. Therefore, in general, the integrity of materials is intact. Although this is not as important an issue of integrity as several other aspects, the workmanship appears to be intact. In general, because the location, design, setting, materials, and workmanship are largely intact, the property is still able to convey its significance. Feeling is intact and association (which requires the presence of physical features that convey the property’s historic character) is also intact. The Superintendent’s House does not appear to meet National Register Criterion A because it has no known associations with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history. Furthermore, this property does not appear to be individually eligible for the National Register under Criterion B because the association with Lawrence, a prominent local architect, does not meet the specification that this property illustrates his important contributions to the field of architecture. Typically, architects are best represented by work that may be eligible for the National Register under Criterion C. This structure is eligible for the National Register under Criterion C as representing a stylistic achievement by Lawrence. According to the Oregon Inventory of Historic Property form prepared for the Ellis Lawrence Building Survey, the structure is a prime example of its style and is unique when compared to Lawrence’s other surviving designs locally and within the state. As stated in that document, it is one of his best works. Therefore, it is eligible for the National Register under Criterion C for its high artistic value and as a rare example of the use of a style by this particular architect, because it displays those distinctive characteristics that evoke the Georgian style of residential architecture.

Sources: Bosker, Gideon, and Lena Lencek. Frozen Music, A History of Portland Architecture. Western Imprints, The Press of the Oregon Historical Society: Portland, OR, 1985. City of Portland, Oregon. “8421 S.W. Macadam Avenue.” Historic Resource Inventory Form. 1982. Curl, James Stephen. “The Architecture and Planning of the Nineteenth Century Cemetery.” Garden History, Vol. 3, No. 3, Summer 1975. Demuth, Kimberly, Kimberly Lakin, and Patricia Sackett. “Architecture of Ellis F. Lawrence Multiple Property Submission (MPS).” Submitted to the United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 1990. French, Stanley. “The Cemetery as Cultural Institution: The Establishment of Mount Auburn and the ‘Rural Cemetery Movement.’” American Quarterly, Vol. 26, No. 1, March 1974. Hawkins, William J., III, and William F. Willingham. Classic Houses of Portland, Oregon, 1850-1950. Timber Press, Portland, OR, 1999. Historic Preservation Program, School of Architecture and Allied Arts, University of Oregon. “Oregon Inventory of Historic Property, Ellis Lawrence Building Survey.” April 1, 1989. MacColl, E. Kimbark. The Growth of a City: Power and Politics in Portland, Oregon 1915 to 1950. The Georgian Press: Portland, OR, 1979. Potter, Elisabeth Walton, and Beth M. Boland. Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Cemeteries and Burial Places. National Register Bulletin 41. United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 1992. Ritz, Richard Ellison. Architects of Oregon, A Biographical Dictionary of Architects Deceased – 19th and 20th Centuries. Lair Hill Publishing, Portland, OR, 2002.

Surveyor/Agency: Jessica B. Feldman/CH2M HILL Date Recorded: August 6, 2007 Pg 3 106 Documentation: Individual Properties Rev. 08/03 OREGON INVENTORY OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES SECTION 106: SUPPLEMENTAL PHOTOGRAPHS

Property Name: Riverview Cemetery, Superintendent’s House/Caretaker’s House Street Address: 8421 SW Macadam Avenue City, County: Portland, Multnomah

View: Looking northwest towards the front (east) and north façades; also note the concrete ramp and other landscaping.

View: The rear (west) and south sides of the building, looking east/northeast.

Surveyor/Agency: Jessica B. Feldman/CH2M HILL Date Recorded: August 6, 2007 Pg 4 106 Documentation: Individual Properties Rev. 08/03 OREGON INVENTORY OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES SECTION 106: SUPPLEMENTAL PHOTOGRAPHS Property Name: Riverview Cemetery, Superintendent’s House/Caretaker’s House Street Address: 8421 SW Macadam Avenue City, County: Portland, Multnomah

View: The original Superintendent’s House at Riverview Cemetery looking southeast, date unknown.

View: A drawing of the original Superintendent’s House, looking southeast, date unknown. From p. 68 in The Growth of a City: Power and Politics in Portland, Oregon 1915 to 1950 by E. Kimbark MacColl.

Surveyor/Agency: Jessica B. Feldman/CH2M HILL Date Recorded: August 6, 2007 Pg 5 106 Documentation: Individual Properties Rev. 08/03 OREGON INVENTORY OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES SECTION 106: SUPPLEMENTAL PHOTOGRAPHS

Property Name: Riverview Cemetery, Superintendent’s House/Caretaker’s House Street Address: 8421 SW Macadam Avenue City, County: Portland, Multnomah

View: A copy of a map produced by the Riverview Cemetery showing the location of the Superintendent’s House (identified as the “Funeral Home Office”), in relation to SW Macadam Avenue and the rest of the cemetery grounds.

Surveyor/Agency: Jessica B. Feldman/CH2M HILL Date Recorded: August 6, 2007 Pg 6 106 Documentation: Individual Properties Rev. 08/03 OREGON INVENTORY OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES SECTION 106: SUPPLEMENTAL PHOTOGRAPHS Property Name: Riverview Cemetery, Superintendent’s House/Caretaker’s House Street Address: 8421 SW Macadam Avenue City, County: Portland, Multnomah

Surveyor/Agency: Jessica B. Feldman/CH2M HILL Date Recorded: August 6, 2007 Pg 7 106 Documentation: Individual Properties Rev. 08/03

OREGON INVENTORY OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES SECTION 106 BRIDGE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY FORM

Agency/Project: Oregon Department of Transportation and Multnomah County/Sellwood Bridge Project, Key No. 13762, Federal Aid No. C051(68) PE Structure Name and Number: Sellwood Bridge, No. 6879 City, County: Portland, Multnomah County Location: Willamette River mile 16.5 Lat: 45.4640846 Long: -122.6657715 USGS Quad Name: Lake Oswego General Class of Main Structure Township: 1S Range: 1E Section: 22 Truss Arch Moveable Slab/Beam/Girder Other

Structural Information: Dimensions: Date of Construction: 1925 Super Structure: Steel Roadway Width: 24 feet Designer: Gustav Lindenthal Main Span: Steel Structure Length: 1,092 feet Contractor: Gilpin Construction Secondary Span(s): Steel Structure Width: 28 feet Floor/decking: Steel Floor/decking: Alterations/moved (dates): Various, see continuation sheet Support Structure: Reinforced

concrete Plaque Sidewalk Other Features: Material:

Concrete Steel Rail type: Reinforced concrete window arch Wood Condition: Integrity: Excellent Good Fair Poor Excellent Good Fair Poor

Preliminary National Register Findings: National Register listed Potentially Eligible: Individually As part of District Name of District______As part of Multiple Property Submission Name of MPS______Not Eligible: In current state Irretrievable integrity loss Lacks Distinction Not 50 Years

State Historic Preservation Office Comments: Concur Do Not Concur: Potentially Eligible Individually Potentially Eligible As part of District Not Eligible

Signed ______Date ______Comments:

Surveyor/Agency: Jessica B. Feldman/CH2M HILL Date Recorded: June 15, 2007 106 Bridge Documentation Pg. 1

OREGON INVENTORY OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES SECTION 106 BRIDGE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY FORM

Structure Name and Number: Sellwood Bridge, ODOT No. 6879 City, County: Portland, Multnomah Location: Willamette River mile 16.5 Owner: Private Local Government State Federal Other Name: Multnomah County

Address: Business and Community Services Department, 501 SE Hawthorne Boulevard

City, State, Zip: Portland, OR, 97214

Phone: (503) 988-3043

Significance: Technological Significance: Historical Significance: National Register Criteria: Represents the work of a master Associated with significant persons Criterion A Possesses high artistic values Associated with significant events or patterns Criterion B Represents a type, period or method of construction Contributes to historical district Criterion C

DESCRIPTION: The Sellwood Bridge is a fixed span bridge consisting of four continuous deck trusses, which are subdivided Warren trusses. It spans the Willamette River between the Sellwood neighborhood on the east side and Riverview Cemetery on the west side of the river. Its eastern terminus is the intersection of SE Sixth Avenue and Tacoma Street and its western terminus intersects with SW Macadam Avenue at Riverview Cemetery. The bridge carries two lanes of traffic in each direction, each 12 feet wide with a 4-foot wide pedestrian sidewalk on the north side of the bridge. The total length of the continuous truss is 1,092 feet, with each center span measuring 300 feet long. The approach spans, which are reinforced concrete, measure 246 feet in length. The steel plate girder spans at the end of the truss came from the 1894 Burnside Bridge. The five piers supporting the spans are reinforced concrete as well. (See Continuation Sheet)

SIGNIFICANCE: The Sellwood Bridge was evaluated for significance using the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) Criteria and was found to be eligible under Criterion A and Criterion C. In order to meet the requirements of Criterion A of the National Register, a structure must be associated with one or more events considered important within a historic context. As one of the 10 Willamette River bridges in the vicinity of Portland, Oregon, the construction of the Sellwood Bridge was part of the large-scale, publicly funded, bridge construction program that Multnomah County began in the early 20th century. These 10 vehicular bridges represent different eras of bridge design and the concepts of different engineers, designers, and planners. Collectively, however, the bridges represent and are associated with significant periods of development of the city of Portland. “Portland’s ten Willamette River vehicular bridges began as solutions to the problem of linking the city’s east side with its west side business center. They also reflected the powerful economic influences of real estate developers, street railways companies, and railroads. By the 1920s, common use of the automobile motivated building of new bridges to handle more traffic and serve outlying areas such as Sellwood and St. Johns.” [HAER OR-55, “WILLAMETTE RIVER BRIDGES, p. 1] The Sellwood Bridge was also the first local through-truss bridge to be designed and built with the automobile clearly defined as the primary user of these crossing; it was the first constructed without trolley tracks. Along with the Ross Island Bridge (1926) and the Burnside Bridge (1926), the Sellwood Bridge was designed as a deck truss, to provide more width for trucks and cars. Furthermore, the completion of these three bridges in the mid-1920s coincided with, and influenced, the increasing number of cars and trucks transporting goods, services, and workers between the downtown business district on the west side of the river and the growing residential areas on the east side of the river, as well as to the south. Therefore, the Sellwood Bridge is eligible for the National Register under Criterion A.

(See Continuation Sheet)

Surveyor/Agency: Jessica B. Feldman/CH2M HILL Date Recorded: June 15, 2007 106 Bridge Documentation Pg. 2 OREGON INVENTORY OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES SECTION 106: BRIDGE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY FORM Continuation Sheet

Structure Name and Number: Sellwood Bridge, ODOT No. City, County: Portland, Multnomah 6879 Location: Willamette River mile 16.5

HISTORY: In the early 20th century, Multnomah County began a bridge-building program to construct several spans across the Willamette River. The original team hired to design these bridges was removed from the project because of evidence of bribe-taking. Gustav Lindenthal was hired by the County in the wake of the scandal. Lindenthal’s directions were to review the existing design plans for the Sellwood, Ross Island, and new Burnside bridges and propose changes. In the case of the Sellwood Bridge, Lindenthal recommended that elements of the original design, specifically the approach spans and the river substructure, be retained. However, he decided that a new truss design was preferred and the result was the four- span continuous sub-divided Warren truss design. The bridge was originally designed to carry 15,000 cars per day. It did not reach that capacity until the 1960s. When it was completed, the cost for the bridge was $541,000. The Sellwood Bridge was officially dedicated on December 15, 1925. It replaced a ferry crossing, the Spokane Street Ferry, which had been in operation for more than 30 years. It served the Sellwood neighborhood, which was platted in the early 1880s by Henry L. Pittock’s Sellwood Real Estate Company and was annexed by Portland in 1893. Between 1892 and 1925, the ferry John F. Caples transported passengers from the east side of Spokane Street, one block north of SE Tacoma Street west across the river. The west side landing was located at what is now a dead-end street – Sellwood Ferry Road.

CONTEXT: Measures of Rarity/Uniqueness/Distribution [In Oregon] Total number of type built prior to 1940: 23 Total number of type built 1941 to present: 15 Total number of type built prior to subject bridge: 6 Total number of type built during the year of subject bridge: 2 (including subject bridge) Total number of type that are longer: 1 Total number of type in same county: 10 Total number of type on same highway: 0 Total number of type in region: Oregon Coast: 4 Willamette Valley: 12 Southern Oregon: 14 Eastern Oregon: 6 Discussion of Rarity or Uniqueness “Sellwood Bridge is: 1) one of only 215 known truss highway bridges in Oregon; 2) one of only five known continuous highway trusses (of any type or span length) in Oregon; and 3) the state’s only known highway continuous deck truss. In addition, Sellwood is one of five Portland spans associated with Gustav Lindenthal during the period 1925-1928 and is among the last bridges of this master American bridge designer’s career. A rare example of a Lindenthal highway-only deck truss, Sellwood is significant because of its unusually finely subdivided Warren Truss with Verticals, that part of its superstructure and its entire substructure designed by Kansas City engineer Ira G. Hedrick, a one-time partner of J.A.L. Waddell.” [Sellwood Bridge, HAER OR-103, pp. 2-3] There were other spans across the Willamette River before the Sellwood Bridge was constructed, but it was the first built without a moveable span and was also the first to be designed without trolley tracks. SOURCES: Bottenberg, Ray. Bridges of Portland. Arcadia Publishing: Charleston, SC, 2007. City of Portland Historic Resource Inventory, Sellwood Bridge form. National Bridge Inventory, http://nationalbridges.com/. Parsons Brinckerhoff and Engineering and Industrial Heritage. “A Context For Common Historic Bridge Types.” October 2005. Steinman, David B., and Sara Ruth Watson. Bridges and their Builders. Dover Publications, Inc.: New York, NY, 1957. Wortman, Sharon Wood, for the Historic American Engineering Record (HAER). “Sellwood Bridge, HAER OR-103.” Circa 2000. Wortman, Sharon Wood, with Ed Wortman. The Portland Bridge Book. Urban Adventure Press: Portland OR, 2006. Wortman, Sharon Wood, and Edward J. Wortman. “Response to ‘Evolution of the Continuous Truss Bridge’, by Francis E. Griggs, Jr.” Originally published in American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Vol. 12, No. 1, January/February 2007. Surveyor/Agency: Jessica B. Feldman/CH2M HILL Date Recorded: June 15, 2007 106 Bridge Documentation Pg. 3 OREGON INVENTORY OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES SECTION 106: BRIDGE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY FORM Continuation Sheet

Structure Name and Number: Sellwood Bridge, ODOT No. City, County: Portland, Multnomah 6879 Location: Willamette River mile 16.5

Description: continued According to several sources, the substructure and superstructure of the bridge remain essentially intact; the west end approach has been altered through reconstruction. These alterations include but are not limited to reconstructing Pier 21 by adding piling, concrete buttresses, and truss-bearing modifications circa 1961 and the new west approach interchange completed in 1981. According to the HAER report, the original lighting system was replaced in 1952 with mercury vapor luminaires with aluminum pendant standards. The 1952 lighting system was replaced by a high intensive discharge lighting system in 1976.

Significance: continued In order for a structure to be eligible under National Register Criterion C as “a true representative of a particular type, period, or method of construction,” it must exhibit the character-defining features of that type, period, or style. The Sellwood Bridge retains the important character-defining features of the subdivided Warren truss, and appears to retain integrity of location, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. The Warren truss was patented in 1848 by James Warren and Willoughby Monzoni in the United Kingdom. The defining characteristics include the presence of isosceles or equilateral triangles formed by the web members, which then connect the top and bottom chords. The Warren truss has become one of the most ubiquitous bridge forms since the 1920s, mainly because of the economy of the truss bridge—it uses less material, but the organization of the reinforcing framework is stronger and can carry more weight than other designs. Therefore, the bridge structure itself can be lighter and the spans longer. The continuous truss bridge design was first used by Lindenthal for the Sciotioville Bridge (1917) over the Ohio River. One source referred to the latter bridge as, “the prototype for long continuous-truss bridges in America.” [Steinman, p.372] According to Lindenthal, continuous span bridges were a superior choice because: 1) A continuous structure generally will require less material, 2) deflections and vibrations are smaller in a continuous structure as compared to a cantilever structure, 3) a continuous span is more damage-proof than either a simple span or a cantilever type, 4) portions of a continuous structure can be erected by the cantilever method and, therefore, would not require the cost and construction of erecting falsework and will not interfere with river traffic, and 5) the profile of the continuous span is more attractive than cantilever types or simple spans. [HAER, p.9] A subset of the Warren truss bridge design is the Subdivided Warren Truss, where the triangles are further split, generally with a vertical member. According to “A Context For Common Historic Bridge Types,” the Subdivided Warren Truss is considered to be one of the least common bridge types. Examples that retain their character-defining features are, therefore, highly significant within the context of the study. Character-defining features of the subdivided Warren truss include parallel top and bottom chords, diagonal members, floor beams, stringers, and struts; method of construction; portal features; and vertical members. The Sellwood Bridge is also eligible for listing on the National Register under Criterion C because it appears to be a rare bridge type locally and within the state. It is the only known highway continuous deck truss in Oregon, and one of just five in the state. The other four are either two- or three-span continuous through trusses, which makes the Sellwood Bridge unique amongst this type of bridge design. Additionally, the other continuous truss bridges were built between 1929 and 1950, making the Sellwood Bridge the oldest remaining one. The Sellwood Bridge demonstrates the application of a common bridge type in an unusual way, increasing the number of spans from two or three to four, in order to achieve an artistic effect. Under National Register Criterion C, to be eligible for listing as the “work of a master,” a structure must express a particular phase in the development of that person’s career, an aspect of his or her work, or a particular idea or theme in his or her craft. The Sellwood Bridge is eligible for listing under Criterion C of the National Register as a work of a master, Gustav Lindenthal. The legacy of Gustav 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 first erected the Sciotioville Bridge, his first continuous span bridge. He prepared design plans for five Portland-area bridges in less than 5 years, but the Sellwood bridge was his first, the longest, and the only four-span truss bridge.

Surveyor/Agency: Jessica B. Feldman/CH2M HILL Date Recorded: June 15, 2007 106 Bridge Documentation Pg. 4 OREGON INVENTORY OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES SECTION 106: SUPPLEMENTAL PHOTOGRAPHS

Structure Name and Number: Sellwood Bridge, ODOT No. City, County: Portland, Multnomah 6879 Location: Willamette River mile 16.5

View: Looking north towards a section of the bridge railing, with a view of the current asphalt covering the deck (taken June 2007).

View: Close-up of the bridge railing, looking north/northwest from the east end (taken June 2007). Surveyor/Agency: Jessica B. Feldman/CH2M HILL Date Recorded: June 15, 2007 106 Bridge Documentation Pg. 5 OREGON INVENTORY OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES SECTION 106: SUPPLEMENTAL PHOTOGRAPHS

Structure Name and Number: Sellwood Bridge, ODOT No. City, County: Portland, Multnomah 6879 Location: Willamette River mile 16.5

View: Looking east to west from the sidewalk on the north side of the bridge; this gives a good view of the current lighting standards (taken June 2007).

View: Looking northeast. See page 83 of The Portland Bridge Book, date of image unknown. Surveyor/Agency: Jessica B. Feldman/CH2M HILL Date Recorded: June 15, 2007 106 Bridge Documentation Pg. 6 OREGON INVENTORY OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES SECTION 106: SUPPLEMENTAL PHOTOGRAPHS

Structure Name and Number: Sellwood Bridge, ODOT No. City, County: Portland, Multnomah 6879 Location: Willamette River mile 16.5

View: Looking west to east from the bridge during its construction. This image is on page 84 of The Portland Bridge Book.

View: Looking southeast at the bridge from the west side of the Willamette River. This image is from 1961 and can be found on page 53 of Bridges of Portland.

Surveyor/Agency: Jessica B. Feldman/CH2M HILL Date Recorded: June 15, 2007 106 Bridge Documentation Pg. 7 OREGON INVENTORY OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES SECTION 106: SUPPLEMENTAL PHOTOGRAPHS

Structure Name and Number: Sellwood Bridge, ODOT No. City, County: Portland, Multnomah 6879 Location: Willamette River mile 16.5

View: Possibly taken in 1926, this view is looking northeast from south of the bridge. See page 52 of Bridges of Portland.

View: Looking straight down the center of the bridge, from the east towards the west side terminus. See page 54 of Bridges of Portland, which states that this image dates from 1965. Surveyor/Agency: Jessica B. Feldman/CH2M HILL Date Recorded: June 15, 2007 106 Bridge Documentation Pg. 8 OREGON INVENTORY OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES SECTION 106 BRIDGE SUPPLEMENTAL FORMS MAP/DRAWING Continuation Sheet Structure Name and Number: Sellwood Bridge, ODOT No. City, County: Portland, Multnomah 6879 Location: Willamette River mile 16.5

Surveyor/Agency: Jessica B. Feldman/CH2M HILL Date Recorded: June 15, 2007 106 Bridge Documentation Pg. 9

OREGON INVENTORY OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES SECTION 106 DOCUMENTATION FORM Individual Properties

Agency/Project: Oregon Department of Transportation & Multnomah County, Sellwood Bridge Project, Key No. 13762, Federal Aid No. C051(68) PE Property Name: Southern Pacific Railroad Red Electric Eastside Line (aka Jefferson Street Line) Street Address: Six miles of rail line from the intersection of SW Bancroft St. and SW Moody Ave. in Portland, heading south to 0.5 mile City, County: Portland, Multnomah and north of the intersection of N State St. and Foothills Rd. in Lake Lake Oswego, Clackamas Oswego.

Township: 1S Range: 1E Sections: 10, 15, 22, 27, 35 USGS Quad Names: Portland and Lake Oswego Township: 2S Range: 1E Sections: 2, 3 This property is part of a District Grouping/Ensemble (see instructions) Name of District or Grouping/Ensemble: Number and Type of Associated Resources in Grouping/Ensemble:

Current Use: Rail-related Construction Date: Orig. 1887 Architectural Classification / Resource Type: Other, railroad, trestles, Alterations & Dates: Various, including new rails tunnel and addition and removal of catenary wire and related apparatus for electrification and signals. Window Type & Material: N/A Exterior Surface Materials: Primary: N/A

Roof Type & Material: N/A Secondary: N/A Decorative: N/A Condition: Excellent Good Fair Poor Integrity: Excellent Good Fair Poor

Preliminary National Register Findings: National Register listed

Potentially Eligible: Individually As part of District

Not Eligible: In current state Irretrievable integrity loss Lacks Distinction Not 50 Years

State Historic Preservation Office Comments: Concur Do Not Concur: Potentially Eligible Individually Potentially Eligible as part of District Not Eligible

Signed ______Date ______Comments:

Surveyor/Agency: Jessica B. Feldman/CH2M HILL Date Recorded: August 8, 2007 Pg 1 106 Documentation: Individual Properties Rev. 08/03 OREGON INVENTORY OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES SECTION 106 DOCUMENTATION FORM Individual Properties

Property Name: Sellwood Bridge Replacement Project Street Address: Southern Pacific Railroad Red Electric Eastside Line City, County: Portland, Multnomah Architect, Builder or Designer (if known): Owner: Private Local Government State Southern Pacific Railroad Federal Other Description of Property (including exterior alterations & approximate dates). (Use continuation sheets if necessary): The Southern Pacific Railroad Red Electric Eastside 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 Fourth 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 towards Forest Grove before turning east to Hillsboro, Beaverton, and Bertha (now Hillsdale), before arriving back at Portland Union Station. The Southern Pacific Railroad Red Electric Eastside Line (aka Jefferson Street Line) portion of the Red Electric lines begins at the intersection of SW Bancroft Street and SW Moody Avenue in southwest Portland heading south 6 miles to 0.5 mile north of the intersection of N State Street and Foothills Road in Lake Oswego. The extant portion of the old Jefferson Street line has a high degree of original integrity. It still lies between SW Macadam Avenue and the Willamette River in the mixed commercial/residential neighborhood of southwest Portland. When it leaves the 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. In addition, the line has the ballast, ties, 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 Eastside Line is east of the southern terminus and not included as a contributing feature in this determination. Nevertheless, the Southern Pacific Railroad Red Electric Eastside Line retains a relatively high degree of integrity—its location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association for the period of significance (1914 to 1929). After the Red Electric ceased operations on the line, it continued to serve freight traffic for over 50 years. Since 1987, the Willamette Shore Trolley has provided seasonal excursion service between Portland and Lake Oswego on two historic trolley cars. The Oregon Electric Railway Historical Society has operated the trolley cars since 1995. Significance Statement (Transportation) In 1887, the Portland & Willamette Valley Railroad opened its steam lines in western Oregon. Shortly afterwards, the Southern Pacific Railroad announced control of the Portland & Willamette Valley Railroad and improved the line. This created a loop that served many communities south and west of Portland. It also became part of the larger Southern Pacific rail network in western Oregon. By 1914, the Southern Pacific had electrified the loop and had begun employing red-colored electric cars, hence the name “Red Electric.” According to The Red Electrics Southern Pacific’s Oregon Interurban by Tom Dill and Walter Grande, “This line was unique among electric interurbans in the West. It was the only major electric railroad converted from steam to electric interurban passenger use; one of the few systems with all-steel equipment, and one of the largest in the country.” By 1920, 64 cars ran daily between Portland and Lake Oswego. After 1929, however, the Southern Pacific abandoned its interest in streetcars in Portland; freight trains used the line until 1983. The Southern Pacific Railroad Red Electric Eastside Line was one of the last electric interurbans constructed in the country and was subsequently one of the first to shut down. The segment of the Southern Pacific Railroad Red Electric Eastside Line that ran between Portland and Lake Oswego may be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) under Criterion A. It has been noted that this railroad corridor was part of an important transportation network that connected Portland with its hinterland, and it 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 (such as Tigard, Hillsboro, and Beaverton) because the roads and highways to and around those communities were constructed following the existing railroad alignments.

(See continuation sheet, page 5)

Surveyor/Agency: Jessica B. Feldman/CH2M HILL Date Recorded: August 8, 2007 Pg 2 106 Documentation: Individual Properties Rev. 08/03 OREGON INVENTORY OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES SECTION 106: SUPPLEMENTAL PHOTOGRAPHS

Property Name: Sellwood Bridge Replacement Project Street Address: Southern Pacific Railroad Red Electric Eastside Line City, County: Portland, Multnomah

View: An example of the signal base and pole at the yacht club.

View: An example of the upper portion of the signal apparatus at the yacht club. Surveyor/Agency: Jessica B. Feldman/CH2M HILL Date Recorded: August 8, 2007 Pg 3 106 Documentation: Individual Properties Rev. 08/03 OREGON INVENTORY OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES SECTION 106: SUPPLEMENTAL PHOTOGRAPHS

Property Name: Sellwood Bridge Replacement Project Street Address: Southern Pacific Railroad Red Electric Eastside Line City, County: Portland, Multnomah

View: Looking west towards the trestle over the access road to the Staff Jennings property at 8420 SW Macadam Avenue.

View: A closer view of the vertical elements and part of the deck of the trestle near 8420 SW Macadam Avenue.

Surveyor/Agency: Jessica B. Feldman/CH2M HILL Date Recorded: August 8, 2007 Pg 4 106 Documentation: Individual Properties Rev. 08/03 OREGON INVENTORY OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES SECTION 106: DOCUMENTATION FORM Continuation Sheet Property Name: Sellwood Bridge Replacement Project Street Address: Southern Pacific Railroad Red Electric Eastside Line City, County: Portland, Multnomah

Sources

Dill, Tom, and Walter Grande. The Red Electrics Southern Pacific’s Oregon Interurban. Pacific Fast Mail: Edmonds, WA, 1994. MacColl, E. Kimbark. The Growth of a City: Power and Politics in Portland, Oregon 1915 to 1950. The Georgian Press: Portland, OR, 1979. Schwantes, Carlos A. Railroad Signatures across the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press: Seattle, WA, 1993. Thompson, Richard. Portland’s Streetcars. Arcadia Publishing: Charleston, SC, 2006.

Surveyor/Agency: Jessica B. Feldman/CH2M HILL Date Recorded: August 8, 2007 Pg 5 106 Documentation: Individual Properties Rev. 08/03 OREGON INVENTORY OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES SECTION 106: DOCUMENTATION FORM Continuation Sheet Property Name: Sellwood Bridge Replacement Project Street Address: Southern Pacific Railroad Red Electric Eastside Line City, County: Portland, Multnomah

View: From page 111 in The Growth of a City: Power and Politics in Portland, Oregon 1915 to 1950.

Surveyor/Agency: Jessica B. Feldman/CH2M HILL Date Recorded: August 8, 2007 Pg 6 106 Documentation: Individual Properties Rev. 08/03 OREGON INVENTORY OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES SECTION 106: DOCUMENTATION FORM Continuation Sheet Property Name: Sellwood Bridge Replacement Project Street Address: Southern Pacific Railroad Red Electric Eastside Line City, County: Portland, Multnomah

View: From page 170 in Railroad Signatures across the Pacific Northwest.

View: An inset from the above map showing the stops on the “loop,” including those between Portland and Lake Oswego.

Surveyor/Agency: Jessica B. Feldman/CH2M HILL Date Recorded: August 8, 2007 Pg 7 106 Documentation: Individual Properties Rev. 08/03 OREGON INVENTORY OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES SECTION 106: DOCUMENTATION FORM Continuation Sheet

Property Name: Sellwood Bridge Replacement Project Street Address: Southern Pacific Railroad Red Electric Eastside Line City, County: Portland, Multnomah

Surveyor/Agency: Jessica B. Feldman/CH2M HILL Date Recorded: August 8, 2007 Pg 8 106 Documentation: Individual Properties Rev. 08/03 OREGON INVENTORY OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES SECTION 106: DOCUMENTATION FORM Continuation Sheet

Property Name: Sellwood Bridge Replacement Project Street Address: Southern Pacific Railroad Red Electric Eastside Line City, County: Portland, Multnomah

Surveyor/Agency: Jessica B. Feldman/CH2M HILL Date Recorded: August 8, 2007 Pg 9 106 Documentation: Individual Properties Rev. 08/03