Final Section 4(F) Evaluation

Final Section 4(f) Evaluation

Contents

Section 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)-3 1.4 What is the Purpose of the Project? ...... 4(f)-4 1.5 Why is the Project Needed? ...... 4(f)-4 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)-6 1.6 Section 4(f) Resources in the Area of Potential Effect ...... 4(f)-7

Section 2. Proposed Actions ...... 4(f)-9 2.1 What are the proposed actions? ...... 4(f)-9 2.2 Build Alternatives Evaluated in the DEIS and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation ...... 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)-18 2.2.3 Alternative C: Replacement Bridge on Existing Alignment ...... 4(f)-22 2.2.4 Alternative D: Replacement Bridge, Widened to the South ...... 4(f)-26 2.2.5 Alternative E: Replacement Bridge Relocated to the North with Transit Lanes ...... 4(f)-30 2.3 Construction Activities ...... 4(f)-34 2.3.1 Land-Based Construction ...... 4(f)-34 2.3.2 In-Water Construction ...... 4(f)-35 2.3.3 Construction Staging and Duration ...... 4(f)-36 2.3.4 Alternative A Construction Activities ...... 4(f)-36 2.3.5 Alternative B Construction Activities ...... 4(f)-37 2.3.6 Alternative C Construction Activities ...... 4(f)-37 2.3.7 Alternative D Construction Activities ...... 4(f)-38 2.3.8 Alternative E Construction Activities ...... 4(f)-38 2.4 Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) ...... 4(f)-39 2.4.1 Identification of a Preferred Alternative ...... 4(f)-39 2.4.2 Description of the Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) ...... 4(f)-40 2.4.3 Bridge Configuration ...... 4(f)-45 2.4.4 East-side Connection with SE Tacoma Street ...... 4(f)-49 2.4.5 Access to Properties Adjacent to OR 43 ...... 4(f)-49 2.4.6 Construction Cost ...... 4(f)-52 2.4.7 Relation of Preferred Alternative to Section 4(f) Resources ...... 4(f)-52

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

2.4.8 Construction Activities ...... 4(f)-53

Section 3. Avoidance Alternatives ...... 4(f)-59 3.1 Avoidance Concept 1: No Build Alternative ...... 4(f)-59 3.2 Avoidance Concept 2: Improve the Transportation Facility without the Use of Section 4(f) Property ...... 4(f)-60 3.3 Avoidance Concept 3: Build a New Bridge Facility at a New Location without Use of Section 4(f) Resource ...... 4(f)-61 3.4 Avoidance Concept 4: Tunnel Alignment ...... 4(f)-61 Section 4. Section 4(f) Resources, Uses, and Measures to Minimize Harm ...... 4(f)-65 4.1 Parks and Recreational Section 4(f) Resources ...... 4(f)-65 4.1.1 Springwater Corridor Trail ...... 4(f)-65 4.1.2 Willamette Greenway Trail (East Bank) ...... 4(f)-68 4.1.3 Willamette Greenway Trail (SE Spokane Street Section) ...... 4(f)-71 4.1.4 Sellwood Riverfront Park ...... 4(f)-71 4.1.5 Oaks Pioneer Park ...... 4(f)-72 4.1.6 Sellwood Bridge Recreational Trail ...... 4(f)-72 4.1.7 Powers Marine Park ...... 4(f)-73 4.1.8 Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank) ...... 4(f)-75 4.1.9 Willamette Moorage Park ...... 4(f)-78 4.2 Historic and Archaeological Resources ...... 4(f)-80 4.2.1 Oaks Pioneer Church...... 4(f)-81 4.2.2 River View Cemetery ...... 4(f)-82 4.2.3 River View Cemetery Superintendent’s House ...... 4(f)-84 4.2.4 Sellwood Bridge ...... 4(f)-86 4.2.5 Willamette Shoreline Trolley ...... 4(f)-88

Section 5. Coordination ...... 4(f)-101

Section 6. References ...... 4(f)-103

Index ...... 4(f)-105

Attachments 1 Section 4(f) Temporary Use Documentation: Springwater Corridor Trail 2 Section 4(f) Temporary Use Documentation: Willamette Greenway Trail (East Bank) 3 De minimis Findings Documentation: Powers Marine Park 4 Section 4(f) Temporary Use Documentation: Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank) 5 De minimis Findings Documentation: Willamette Moorage Park 6 Section 106 Determination of Eligibility (DOE) Forms 7 Section 106 Findings of Effect (FOE) Forms 8 Historic Resources Memorandum of Agreement: Riverview Cemetery and Sellwood Bridge

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

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 and Cross-sections ...... 4(f)-15 2.2-3 Rehabilitated Bridge Cross-section ...... 4(f)-17 2.2-4 Alternative B: Right-of Way Footprint on Section 4(f) Resources ...... 4(f)-19 2.2-5 Alternative B Bridge Configuration and Cross-sections ...... 4(f)-20 2.2-6 Temporary Detour Bridge Cross-section ...... 4(f)-22 2.2-7 Alternative C: Right-of Way Footprint on Section 4(f) Resources ...... 4(f)-23 2.2-8 Alternative C Bridge Configuration and Cross-sections ...... 4(f)-24 2.2-9 Through-arch Bridge ...... 4(f)-25 2.2-10 Alternative D: Right-of Way Footprint on Section 4(f) Resources ...... 4(f)-26 2.2-11 Alternative D Bridge Configuration and Cross-sections ...... 4(f)-27 2.2-12 Delta-frame Bridge ...... 4(f)-28 2.2-13 Deck-arch Bridge ...... 4(f)-29 2.2-14 Alternative E: Right-of Way Footprint on Section 4(f) Resources ...... 4(f)-30 2.2-15 Alternative E Bridge Configuration and Cross-sections ...... 4(f)-31 2.2-16 Box-girder Bridge ...... 4(f)-32 2.2-17 Through-arch Bridge ...... 4(f)-33 2.4-1 Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) ...... 4(f)-41 2.4-2 Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) Bridge Configuration and Cross-sections ...... 4(f)-45 2.4-3 West End Bridge Configuration – Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) and Alternative D ...... 4(f)-46 2.4-4 West-side Interchange – Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) and Alternative D ...... 4(f)-47 2.4-5 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities – Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) and Alternative D ...... 4(f)-48 2.4-6 East-side Connection – Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) ...... 4(f)-49 2.4-7 Willamette Moorage Park and Macadam Bay Club Access Driveway – Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) ...... 4(f)-51 2.4-8 Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined): Right-of Way Footprint on Section 4(f) Resources ...... 4(f)-52 2.4-9 Willamette Moorage Park/Stephens Creek and Powers Marine Park Mitigation and Enhancement Areas – Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined)...... 4(f)-54

3.3-1 Bridge Alignment Concepts Evaluated ...... 4(f)-62 3.4-1 Tunnel Alignment ...... 4(f)-62

4.1-1 Preferred Alternative: Temporary Occupancy at Springwater Corridor Trail and Willamette Greenway Trail (East Bank) ...... 4(f)-66 4.1-2 Preferred Alternative: Impact Area at Powers Marine Park ...... 4(f)-74 4.1-3 Preferred Alternative: Temporary Occupancy at Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank) ...... 4(f)-76 4.1-4 Preferred Alternative: Impact Area at Willamette Moorage Park ...... 4(f)-80

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-v Contents, continued

Tables

2.2-1 Build Alternative Characteristics ...... 4(f)-10 2.4-1 Build Alternative Characteristics Including Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) ...... 4(f)-43

4.3-1 Least Harm Analysis by Section 4(f) Resource ...... 4(f)-92 4.3-2 Summary of Impacts by Alternative ...... 4(f)-98 4.3-3 Least Harm Analysis by 23 CFR 774 Factors ...... 4(f)-98

5-1 Section 4(f) Coordination Meetings ...... 4(f)-104

4(f)-vi Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation

Section 1. Introduction

This Final Section 4(f) Evaluation is an update and refinement of the Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation that was circulated for public and agency comment as part of the Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) in November 2008 (Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] et al., 2008). After publication and distribution of the DEIS, the project sponsor agencies:

 Conducted two community briefings on the DEIS – November 10, 2008, and November 13, 2008

 Conducted a public hearing/open house on the DEIS on December 10, 2008

 Provided a public comment period from November 7, 2008, to December 22, 2008, where interested parties submitted comments on the DEIS via the Sellwood Bridge Project Web site (http://www.sellwoodbridge.org/), at public events, and by mail

 Identified a preferred alternative (February 2009) Following publication of the DEIS, comments regarding the environmental analysis and project alternatives were compiled. Based on these comments and agency/public workshops, Alternative D, with conditions, was identified as the preferred alternative. Alternative D was refined to address public and agency comments and minimize environmental impacts. Alternative D Refined is addressed in this Final Section 4(f) Evaluation. The preferred alternative (Alternative D Refined) would consist of a replacement bridge on the existing alignment, widened to the south, and the reconfiguration of the bridge’s west-side interchange with Oregon 43 (OR 43; SW Macadam Avenue). 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 (described in Section 2). Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) Act of 1966 (49 United States Code [U.S.C.] 303[c]) applies to this project because project alternatives impact (“use” in the parlance of Section 4[f)]) eligible recreational and cultural resources in the project area. Existing Section 4(f) regulations were amended in March 2008 with the publication of the Section 4(f) Final Rule. This Final Section 4(f) Evaluation is written in accordance with these new regulations – 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 774.

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 significant historic site that is on, or considered eligible for, the National Register of Historic Places (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.

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-1 W h y a r e W e C o n s i d e r i n g t h e Sellwood Bridge Project? Section 1. Introduction

Section 4(f) specifies that 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 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.

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 is reaching 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, bicyclists, 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 during the morning and evening peak hours. Multnomah County, which owns and maintains the

4(f)-2 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation Where is the Project Located? Section 1. Introduction bridge, has been working with the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), the FHWA, 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 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) Abernathy Bridge. 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.

FIGURE 1.3-1 Project Vicinity

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-3 W h a t i s t h e P u r p o s e o f the Project? Section 1. Introduction

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.

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 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. The yellow line indicates a sag in the southern bridge railing. Concrete is falling off the bridge because the

4(f)-4 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation Why is the Project Needed? Section 1. Introduction reinforcing steel is corroded and expansion joints are weakening. The existing lead-based paint coating has largely failed and widespread corrosion is attacking the steel truss. The bridge was opened to traffic in 1925. However, the steel girders of the bridge approaches are actually more than 100 years old because steel girders from the Burnside Bridge (circa 1894) were reused on this bridge. Earth movements caused the development of cracks in the west approach concrete girders. Vehicle loads were restricted to a maximum of 32 tons in 1985 after calculations showed that higher weights would overstress critical bridge elements. Further weight restrictions were imposed in 2004, when large cracks were discovered in the concrete girders. Vehicle weight was limited to 10 tons and buses and large emergency vehicles and trucks were prohibited from using the bridge. Portland’s Freight Master Plan (City of Portland, 2006) designates the bridge as a Truck Access Street in recognition of its service as an access and circulation route for the delivery of goods and services to neighborhood-serving commercial and employment land uses. This includes truck trips between Sellwood, Westmoreland, and Milwaukie on the east side of the Willamette River and the southwest Portland area on the west side, via OR 43. However, because of current load restrictions and the physical geometry of the 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.

The existing lead-based paint coating has largely failed and widespread corrosion is attacking the steel truss. Transit service has been discontinued across the bridge because of the structural deficiencies. Before the weight restriction was imposed in 2004, bus usage across the bridge was substantial (SE Tacoma Street is a Major Transit Street in the City of Portland Transportation System Plan [2004, 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

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-5 Why is the Project Needed? Section 1. Introduction 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-wide passage for two-way traffic next to each of its 22 light poles. The sidewalk width is not safe for bicyclists and pedestrians, and the sidewalk cannot accommodate some disabled users. The existing sidewalk and connections at either end of the bridge do not meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. There is no sidewalk on the south side of the bridge. The bridge does not provide designated bicycle facilities. Some bicyclists try to use the sidewalk; others intermingle with traffic. The bridge could provide bicyclists and pedestrians with a critical link between the west and east sides of the Willamette River and with established shared-use paths. However, the bridge’s connections with shared-use paths are deficient, unsafe, and often avoided. There are no sidewalks, crosswalks, or bicycle lanes on OR 43 in the bridge interchange. Pedestrian and bicyclist connections between the highway and the bridge are circuitous, unpaved, and, in some areas, force users to mix with vehicle traffic. Most of these facilities do not comply with ADA guidelines. In addition, the bridge’s connection to the Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank) is narrow; has deficient horizontal curves and limited sight distances; and does not meet ADA standards.

1.5.4 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 Abernathy Bridge.

4(f)-6 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation S e c t i o n 4 ( f ) R e s o u r c e s i n the Area of Potential Effect Section 1. Introduction

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 (City of Portland Office of Transportation, 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 Final 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, 2008).

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  Powers Marine Park  Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank)  Willamette Moorage Park

The following are Section 4(f) historic resources in the Sellwood Bridge project APE:

 Oaks Pioneer Church  River View Cemetery  River View Cemetery Superintendent’s House  Sellwood Bridge  Willamette Shoreline Trolley

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-7 S e c t i o n 4 ( f ) R e s o u r c e s i n the Area of Potential Effect Section 1. Introduction

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

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

Section 2. Proposed Actions

2.1 What are the proposed actions? Five Build alternatives were proposed for consideration in the DEIS. Four of the DEIS Build alternatives entailed rehabilitating or replacing the bridge on its existing alignment, while the other Build alternative proposed replacing the bridge on an alignment north of the existing alignment. Each of the DEIS Build alternatives included modernization of the interchange at OR 43 on the west side of the bridge, which would have incorporated additional right-of-way. Each of the Build alternatives would have resulted in the use of a Section 4(f) resource. As noted in Section 1, a preferred alternative (Alternative D Refined) was identified in February of 2009.

This section describes the Build alternatives evaluated in the DEIS and the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and the preferred alternative (Alternative D Refined) evaluated in the FEIS. Chapter 2 of the FEIS provides additional details related to the Build alternatives.

2.2 Build Alternatives Evaluated in the DEIS and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation Table 2.2-1 summarizes the five Build alternatives evaluated in the DEIS and the Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation. The Build alternatives are lettered A through E. The Build alternatives were assembled from compatible combinations of alignments, basic bridge cross-sections, bridge types, interchange types, and other concepts to form the most effective combination for each set of features. These features have been evaluated within the context of individual Build alternatives.

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 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.

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-9 B u i l d A l t e r n a t i v e s Evaluated in the DEIS and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation Section 2. Proposed Actions

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

Rehabilitation or  Rehabilitation  Rehabilitation  Replacement  Replacement  Replacement 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 inner shared-use  16-foot- and railings sidewalks 8-foot-wide  Two 10-foot-  Two 1.5-foot-wide shared-use wide sidewalks railings sidewalks  Two 1-foot-wide  Two 1.5-foot-wide outer railings railings

Other Features  Separate 20-foot-  Seismic retrofit  Double-deck  Meets seismic  Meets seismic wide bike/ equivalent to bridge standards standards pedestrian bridge Phase IIa  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 width of 23 feet) Phase IIa  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  Free-flow OR 43  Free-flow OR 43 upper level upper level on lower level of on lower level of on lower level of  Free-flow OR 43  Free-flow OR 43 two-level two-level two-level on lower level of on lower level of interchange interchange interchange two-level two-level  Relocates  Relocates  Relocates interchange interchange approximately 900 approximately approximately  Relocates  Relocates linear feet of 900 linear feet of 1,700 linear feet of approximately approximately 800 railway right-of- railway right-of- railway right-of- 1,000 linear feet of linear feet of way 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 (eastbound left to SE 6th Avenue Tacoma Street/SE Tacoma Street/SE turn permitted at turn permitted at restricted 6th Avenue 6th Avenue SE 6th Avenue) SE 6th Avenue)  Right turn to loop intersection intersection under bridge  Bicyclist/pedestrian -activated signal at SE Tacoma Street/SE 6th Avenue intersection

4(f)-10 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation B u i l d A l t e r n a t i v e s Evaluated in the DEIS and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation Section 2. Proposed Actions

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

Potential Bridge  Retain existing  Retain existing  Through-arch  Delta-frame or  Box-girder or 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 Access  New roadway to  New roadway to  No motor vehicle  New roadway to  New roadway to provide access to provide access to access from provide access to provide access to River View River View OR 43 to River River View River View Cemetery, Powers Cemetery, View Cemetery or Cemetery, Powers Cemetery, Powers Marine Park, and Powers Marine Powers Marine Marine Park, and Marine Park, and the Staff Jennings Park, and the Park the Staff Jennings the Staff Jennings property Staff Jennings  Relocated access property property  Relocated access property to Willamette  Relocated access  Relocated access to Willamette  Relocated access Moorage Park and to Willamette to Willamette Moorage Park and to Willamette Macadam Bay Club Moorage Park and Moorage Park and Macadam Bay Club Moorage Park  Powers Marine Macadam Bay Club Macadam Bay Club and Macadam Bay Park accessed by Club footpath from Willamette Moorage Park

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

Construction Cost  $331 million  $326 million  $280 million  $293 million  $281 million (box- (in 2012 dollars)d,e (stress-ribbon  $356 million  Right-of-way cost (delta-frame girder bridge) bike/pedestrian (including of $20.9 millionf bridge)  $361 million bridge) temporary  $311 million (through-arch  $337 million (cable- detour bridge) (deck-arch bridge) bridge) stayed bike/  Right-of-way cost  Right-of-way cost  Right-of-way cost pedestrian bridge) of $15.8 millionf; of $25.8 millionf of $35.7 millionf  Right-of-way cost $17.1 millionf of $15.8 millionf including temporary detour bridge

Construction Cost  Rehabilitated  Rehabilitated  Replacement  Replacement  Replacement Breakdown (in vehicle bridge: vehicle bridge: bridge: bridge: bridge: 2012 dollars)d,e $185 million $222 million $185 million $202 million $189 million (box-  Bike/pedestrian  Temporary  West-side (delta-frame); $220 girder; bridge: $52 million detour bridge: interchange: $90 million (deck-arch) $269 million (stress-ribbon); $30 million million  West-side (through-arch) $58 million (cable-  West-side  East-side interchange:  West-side stayed) interchange: intersection: $89 million interchange:  West-side $102 million $5.4 million  East-side $88 million interchange:  East-side intersection:  East-side $93 million intersection: $1.9 million intersection:  East-side $1.6 million $3.9 million intersection: $1.6 million

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-11 B u i l d A l t e r n a t i v e s Evaluated in the DEIS and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation Section 2. Proposed Actions

TABLE 2.2-1 Build Alternative Characteristics Alternative A B C D E 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 Final Section 4(f) Evaluation for analysis purposes only to identify impacts and estimate costs and construction activities. c Traffic access across the bridge would be periodically affected by interim closures to replace the existing bridge and construct the new bridge. d 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. e The Alternatives A through E construction cost includes a 40-percent contingency. f The Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation (FHWA et al., 2008) reported 2009 right-of-way costs for Alternatives A through E. The right-of-way costs have been updated to 2012 costs. The right-of-way costs are included in the total construction costs.

Since 1990, the Oregon Electric Railroad Historical Society has operated an excursion trolley service on the rail line during the spring, summer, and fall months on a limited schedule. Continuing the trolley operation is a viable means of preserving the corridor. The Willamette Shoreline Trolley consists of a single railroad track on the west bank of the Willamette River beneath the Sellwood Bridge, just east of OR 43. In this area, the right-of-way ranges from approximately 30 to 40 feet (or more) in width. All Build alternatives would require moving the railway right-of-way eastward into Powers Marine Park and toward the Staff Jennings property (a former commercial boat retailer north of the existing bridge that closed in March 2010). The existing rail facility is a single track; however, current planning is for a streetcar with a second track in this area, and space for the Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank) along the tracks. The ground level slopes steeply down to the river east of OR 43. Therefore, moving the rail tracks to the east would require placing them on fill or structure and building a retaining wall to support the fill and minimize encroachment into the park. The replacement right-of-way provided and presented in the FEIS would replace the existing right-of-way. The cost included in this project is for the replacement of existing right-of- way; the track replacement; any fill or structure required; and the construction of any necessary retaining walls. These improvements would extend from the north end of the Staff Jennings property (approximately 500 feet north of the existing bridge) to the south end of project improvements (approximately 1,000 feet south of the existing bridge).

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

4(f)-12 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation B u i l d A l t e r n a t i v e s Evaluated in the DEIS and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation Section 2. Proposed Actions

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

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

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 Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-13 B u i l d A l t e r n a t i v e s Evaluated in the DEIS and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 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.

4(f)-14 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation B u i l d A l t e r n a t i v e s Evaluated in the DEIS and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation Section 2. Proposed Actions

FIGURE 2.2-2 Alternative A Bridge Configuration and Cross-sections

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-15 B u i l d A l t e r n a t i v e s Evaluated in the DEIS and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation Section 2. Proposed Actions

The basic motorized vehicle bridge cross-section, which would be 39 feet wide, would include two 12-foot-wide travel lanes, two 6-foot-wide shoulders to allow emergency vehicles to pass, and 1.5-foot-wide railings on both sides of the bridge. However, on each end of the bridge, the number of travel lanes would differ from this basic cross-section as follows:

 West end. The bridge would include two 12-foot-wide travel lanes eastbound to facilitate movements from the west-side roundabout, which would merge into one travel lane eastbound. Likewise, one travel lane westbound on the bridge would widen to two 12-foot- wide travel lanes approaching the west-side roundabout to separate northbound and southbound movements and to provide for queuing.

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

Bridge Rehabilitation When the Build alternatives were approved for the DEIS, the project team planned to look at two separate seismic retrofit options for Alternative A—a Phase I retrofit and a combined Phase I and Phase II retrofit. As the project team explored the approach for rehabilitating the bridge in more detail, they 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.

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 Powers Marine Park and the Staff Jennings property. The loop for this access would be similar to that of Alternatives B or D.

4(f)-16 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation B u i l d A l t e r n a t i v e s Evaluated in the DEIS and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation Section 2. Proposed Actions

FIGURE 2.2-3 Rehabilitated Bridge Cross-section

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

Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge With Alternative A, bicyclists and pedestrians would be accommodated on a separate bridge structure north of the existing Sellwood Bridge (Figure 2.2-1). The bicycle/pedestrian bridge would be 23 feet wide, with 20 feet for bicycle/pedestrian use and 1.5-foot-wide railings (Figure 2.2-2). The alignment would extend from SE Grand Avenue at Oaks Pioneer Park on the east side; above Oaks Pioneer Park and the Sellwood Riverfront Park parking lot; across the river to the north of the Staff Jennings property; and across OR 43 to connect to a River View Cemetery access road on the west end of the roundabout. A spiral ramp from the bicycle/pedestrian bridge would also connect to the Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank). On the east side, the bridge would connect with the Springwater Corridor Trail via SE Spokane Street. Bicyclists and pedestrians would access the bridge via SE Spokane Street or SE 6th Avenue to SE Grand Avenue. The bridge types being evaluated for the bicycle/pedestrian bridge are the stress-ribbon and the cable-stayed. Both of these bridge types would have four bridge piers and one smaller pier for the bicycle/pedestrian spiral ramp on the west side within the ordinary high water elevation.

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-17 B u i l d A l t e r n a t i v e s Evaluated in the DEIS and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation Section 2. Proposed Actions

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 (that is, 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 2.3.4 documents construction activities for Alternative A.

Construction Cost The estimated cost to construct Alternative A would be $331 million (in 2012 dollars) if the stress-ribbon bridge were selected for the bicycle/pedestrian bridge, or $337 million (in 2012 dollars) if the cable-stayed bridge were selected for the bicycle/pedestrian bridge. The construction cost includes $15.8 million for right-of-way.

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 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.

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, 1.5-foot-wide inner railings on each side, and 1-foot-wide outer railings on each side. However, on each end of the bridge, the number of travel lanes would differ from this basic cross-section as follows:

 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 Final Section 4(f) Evaluation B u i l d A l t e r n a t i v e s Evaluated in the DEIS and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation Section 2. Proposed Actions

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

Bridge Rehabilitation When the Build alternatives were approved for the DEIS, the project team planned to look at two separate seismic retrofit options for Alternative B—a Phase I retrofit and a combined Phase I and Phase II retrofit. As the project team explored the approach to rehabilitate the bridge in more detail, they 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.

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-19 B u i l d A l t e r n a t i v e s Evaluated in the DEIS and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation Section 2. Proposed Actions

FIGURE 2.2-5 Alternative B Bridge Configuration and Cross-sections

4(f)-20 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation B u i l d A l t e r n a t i v e s Evaluated in the DEIS and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation Section 2. Proposed Actions

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

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

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

Temporary Detour Bridge Alternative B would include the option for a temporary detour bridge north of the existing Sellwood 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.

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 2.3.5 documents construction activities for Alternative B.

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-21 B u i l d A l t e r n a t i v e s Evaluated in the DEIS and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation Section 2. Proposed Actions

FIGURE 2.2-6 Temporary Detour Bridge Cross-section

Construction Impacts and Phasing Construction Cost The estimated cost to construct Alternative B would be $326 million (in 2012 dollars), or $356 million (in 2012 dollars) if the temporary detour bridge were included. The construction cost includes $15.8 million for right-of-way ($17.1 million if the temporary detour bridge were included).

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.

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 differ from this basic cross-section as follows:

 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 Final Section 4(f) Evaluation B u i l d A l t e r n a t i v e s Evaluated in the DEIS and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation Section 2. Proposed Actions

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

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-23 B u i l d A l t e r n a t i v e s Evaluated in the DEIS and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation Section 2. Proposed Actions

FIGURE 2.2-8 Alternative C Bridge Configuration and Cross-sections

4(f)-24 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation B u i l d A l t e r n a t i v e s Evaluated in the DEIS and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 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 type; 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.

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-25 B u i l d A l t e r n a t i v e s Evaluated in the DEIS and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation Section 2. Proposed Actions

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 they could be constructed at different times over a 20-year timeframe. Section 2.3.6 documents construction activities for Alternative C. The construction cost includes $20.9 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

4(f)-26 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation B u i l d A l t e r n a t i v e s Evaluated in the DEIS and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation Section 2. Proposed Actions

Basic Bridge Cross-section Figure 2.2-11 shows the bridge configuration and cross-sections for Alternative D.

FIGURE 2.2-11 Alternative D Bridge Configuration and Cross-sections

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-27 B u i l d A l t e r n a t i v e s Evaluated in the DEIS and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation Section 2. Proposed Actions

The basic bridge cross-section, which would be 64 feet wide, would consist of two 12-foot-wide travel lanes, two 6.5-foot-wide shoulders/bicycle lanes, two 12-foot-wide shared-use sidewalks, and 1.5-foot-wide railings on each side. However, on each end of the bridge, the number of travel lanes would differ from this basic cross-section as follows:

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

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

4(f)-28 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation B u i l d A l t e r n a t i v e s Evaluated in the DEIS and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation Section 2. Proposed Actions

FIGURE 2.2-13 Deck-arch Bridge

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 2.3.7 documents construction activities for Alternative D.

Construction Cost The estimated cost to construct Alternative D would be $293 million (in 2012 dollars) if the delta-frame bridge were selected, or $311 million (in 2012 dollars) if the deck-arch bridge were selected. The construction cost includes $25.8 million for right-of-way.

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-29 B u i l d A l t e r n a t i v e s Evaluated in the DEIS and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation Section 2. Proposed Actions

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.

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.

4(f)-30 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation B u i l d A l t e r n a t i v e s Evaluated in the DEIS and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation Section 2. Proposed Actions

FIGURE 2.2-15 Alternative E Bridge Configuration and Cross-sections

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-31 B u i l d A l t e r n a t i v e s Evaluated in the DEIS and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation Section 2. Proposed Actions

The basic bridge cross-section, which would be 75 feet wide, would consist of two 12-foot-wide travel lanes for cars and trucks, two 12-foot-wide lanes dedicated to transit vehicles, an 8-foot- wide shared-use sidewalk for bicyclists and pedestrians on the south side of the bridge, a 16-foot-wide shared-use sidewalk on the north side of the bridge, and 1.5-foot-wide railings on each side. However, on each end of the bridge, the number of travel lanes would differ from this basic cross-section as follows:

 West end. The bridge would include two travel lanes eastbound. Two travel lanes westbound on the bridge would widen to three travel lanes approaching the west-side interchange to separate northbound and southbound movements and to provide for queuing.

 East end. There would be one travel lane eastbound and two travel lanes westbound. An eastbound left-turn lane would be 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 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. The box-girder bridge would have two bridge piers and the through-arch bridge would have four bridge piers within the ordinary high water elevation.

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

FIGURE 2.2-16 Box-girder Bridge

4(f)-32 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation B u i l d A l t e r n a t i v e s Evaluated in the DEIS and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation Section 2. Proposed Actions

FIGURE 2.2-17 Through-arch Bridge

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

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

Section 2.3.8 documents construction activities for Alternative E.

Construction Cost The estimated cost to construct Alternative E would be $281 million (in 2012 dollars) if the box-girder bridge type were selected, or $361 million (in 2012 dollars) if the through-arch bridge type were selected. The construction cost includes $35.7 million for right-of-way. The through-arch bridge type for Alternative E would cost more than the through-arch bridge type for Alternative C primarily because of higher right-of-way acquisition costs ($35.7 million

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-33 Construction Activities Section 2. Proposed Actions compared to $20.9 million) and the wider (75 feet compared to 45 feet at the middle) and longer bridge.

2.3 Construction Activities

2.3.1 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 the River View Cemetery and the Staff Jennings property 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.

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. No specific laydown areas have been located or specified for use. However, these private properties are expected to be outside the right-of-way required by the project. Approximately a 0.5- to 1.0-acre site near the proposed bridge construction would be needed for the contractor’s field office, storage of construction materials, and equipment.

 The exact size of the laydown areas and the duration of occupation by the contractor would depend on the contractor’s approach to staging the bridge construction and the type of bridge-construction techniques required for the project.

 The contractor would need river access near the bridge site. SE Spokane Street near the east roadway approach of the existing bridge, one block north of SE Tacoma Street, has been identified as a possible location where the contractor could establish access to the river.

 An approximately 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

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

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.

2.3.2 In-Water Construction Piers in the River The existing river crossing has five piers within the ordinary high water elevation.

 For Alternatives A or B, all five of the existing bridge piers would be widened and strengthened.

 Both bicycle/pedestrian bridge types for Alternative A would have four piers and one smaller pier within the ordinary high water elevation.

 Alternative B would have five smaller piers for the bicycle/pedestrian spiral ramps on the west side that would also be within the ordinary high water elevation.

 The temporary detour bridge for Alternative B would have seven piers and two smaller piers within the ordinary high water elevation.

 Alternative C would have four piers and one smaller pier within the ordinary high water elevation.

 Alternative D would have seven or eight piers within the ordinary high water elevation, (depending on bridge type), and both bridge types would have five smaller piers within the ordinary high water elevation for the bicycle/pedestrian spiral ramps on the west side.

 Alternative E would have two or four piers within the ordinary high water elevation (depending on bridge type). The maximum spans for each alternative would be large enough to provide the required 200 feet of horizontal navigation clearance.

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.

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

2.3.3 Construction Staging and Duration The construction staging and duration for each Build alternative and bridge type were based on a conceptual level of development for the bridge layout. The footprint, piers, and abutments for each bridge would be built in stages to minimize disruption to traffic. The following are general guidelines for the development of the construction staging for each Build alternative:

 At least one lane of traffic in each direction would remain open on OR 43 during construction.

 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).

2.3.4 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.

4(f)-36 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation Construction Activities Section 2. Proposed Actions

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.

2.3.5 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.

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

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-37 Construction Activities Section 2. Proposed Actions

2.3.7 Alternative D Construction Activities With Alternative D, the existing bridge would be maintained for traffic while the new bridge 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. The delta-frame and deck-arch bridge types were 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 second 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.

2.3.8 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.

4(f)-38 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) Section 2. Proposed Actions

The box-girder and through-arch bridge types were evaluated with Alternative E. Construction activities by bridge type are summarized in the following subsections. A cable-stayed, deck- arch, or delta- frame 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.

2.4 Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) This section summarizes how Alternative D Refined was identified as the preferred alternative, and how it was refined to incorporate new features to minimize environmental impacts and address public and agency comments received on the DEIS and at the December 10, 2008, public hearing. This section also provides more engineering, construction, and mitigation details of the preferred alternative (Alternative D Refined).

2.4.1 Identification of a Preferred Alternative In early 2009, after fully considering and evaluating public and agency comments on the DEIS, the project’s Community Task Force (CTF) identified, and the Policy Advisory Group (PAG) recommended, the following elements as the preferred alternative:

 Alignment “D” (existing bridge alignment and widen to the south)

 A bicyclist/pedestrian-activated signal at the SE Tacoma Street/SE 6th Avenue intersection as the east-side connection

 A grade-separated and signalized interchange on the west side at the intersection with OR 43 (SW Macadam Avenue)

 A bridge cross-section of 64 feet or less at its narrowest point

This preferred alternative is Alternative D as evaluated in the DEIS, except for the refinement associated with the east-side connection. The PAG recommended a bicyclist/pedestrian- activated signal at the SE Tacoma Street/SE 6th Avenue intersection as a refinement to Alternative D. (In the DEIS, Alternative D included a full signal at the SE Tacoma Street/SE 6th Avenue intersection.). The primary concern for the CTF in identifying, and the PAG in recommending, Alternative D Refined as the preferred alternative was to maintain traffic across the river during construction. The temporary detour bridge was not preferred because of its social and natural environmental

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-39 Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) Section 2. Proposed Actions impacts during construction. While Alternative E would have also maintained traffic across the river during construction, it would have been located on a new alignment. Therefore, construction could not have been phased if full funding for the project were not available. The CTF and PAG processes to identify a preferred alternative are outlined in the Identification and Refinement of the Preferred Alternative Technical Memorandum (CH2M HILL, 2009). Chapter 2 in the FEIS also provides a summary of the processes used to identify and adopt Alternative D Refined as the preferred alternative.

2.4.2 Description of the Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) After the PAG recommended a preferred alternative (Alternative D evaluated in the DEIS refined with a bicyclist/pedestrian-activated signal at the SE Tacoma Street/SE 6th Avenue intersection), the project team made various design refinements to Alternative D. The following refinements address public and agency comments received on the DEIS and minimize environmental impacts:

 Revised the bicycle/pedestrian ramps on the west end of the bridge from a spiral design on both sides of the bridge to a single, long switchback on both sides of the bridge connecting to the existing north–south trail network to reduce impacts to Powers Marine Park and natural resource areas. This refinement shifted the interchange footprint slightly to the west.

 Refined the OR 43 roadway footprint to reduce impacts to Willamette Moorage Park and Powers Marine Park.

 Reduced the width of the bridge on the west end from five lanes to four lanes to narrow the bridge.

 Realigned the roadway from the west side of the signalized intersection providing access to the Superintendent’s House at River View Cemetery, Powers Marine Park, and the Staff Jennings property to accommodate a streetcar, as preferred by the City of Portland. The realigned access would cross on the west side, behind the Superintendent’s House, instead of on the east side, in front of it.

 Removed the bicycle/pedestrian trail south of the bridge within Powers Marine Park to reduce park and natural resource impacts within Powers Marine Park. Extended the bicycle/pedestrian path north to SW Miles Street to provide continuity.

 Moved the access driveway to Willamette Moorage Park and Macadam Bay Club further north than with Alternative D (approximately 300 feet compared to approximately 250 feet) to improve safety and reduce park impacts.

Alternative D with these design refinements constitutes the preferred alternative (Alternative D Refined). Figure 2.4-1 shows Alternative D Refined.

4(f)-40 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) Section 2. Proposed Actions

FIGURE 2.4-1 Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined)

Table 2.4-1 summarizes the characteristics of Alternative D Refined and the Build alternatives evaluated in the DEIS (Alternatives A through E). The following sections describe Alternative D Refined in more detail.

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-41 Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) Section 2. Proposed Actions

TABLE 2.4-1 Build Alternative Characteristics Including Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) Preferred Alternative Alternative A B C D E (Alternative D Refined)

Rehabilitation or  Rehabilitation  Rehabilitation  Replacement  Replacement  Replacement  Replacement Replacement

Alignment  Existing  Existing  Existing  Existing  North of existing bridge  Existing

Bridge Cross-  39 feet wide  57 feet wide  45 feet wide  64 feet wide  75 feet wide  64 feet wide section  Two 12-foot-wide travel  Two 11-foot-wide travel  Three 12-foot-wide  Two 12-foot-wide travel  Two 12-foot-wide travel  Two 12-foot-wide travel lanes lanes travel lanes lanes lanes for traffic lanes  Two 6-foot-wide  Two 5-foot-wide  Two 3-foot-wide  Two 6.5-foot-wide  Two 12-foot-wide travel  Two 6.5-foot-wide shoulders shoulders/ bike lanes shoulders shoulders/ bike lanes lanes for transit shoulders/ bike lanes  Two 1.5-foot-wide railings  Two 1.5-foot-wide inner  Two 1.5-foot-wide  Two 12-foot-wide  16-foot- and 8-foot-  Two 12-foot-wide shared- railings railings shared-use sidewalks wide shared-use use sidewalks  Two 10-foot-wide  Two 1.5-foot-wide sidewalks  Two 1.5-foot wide railings sidewalks railings  Two 1.5-foot-wide  Two 1-foot-wide outer railings railings Other Features  Separate 20-foot-wide  Seismic retrofit equivalent  Double-deck bridge  Meets seismic standards  Meets seismic standards  Meets seismic standards bike/ pedestrian bridge to Phase IIa  20-foot-wide shared- with two 1.5-foot-wide  Meets seismic standards use path on lower railings (total width of deck with two 1.5- 23 feet) foot-wide railings  Seismic retrofit equivalent (total width of to Phase IIa 23 feet)  Meets seismic standards  Meets seismic standards

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

4(f)-42 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) Section 2. Proposed Actions

TABLE 2.4-1 Build Alternative Characteristics Including Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) Preferred Alternative Alternative A B C D E (Alternative D Refined)

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

Potential Bridge  Retain existing bridge (i.e.,  Retain existing bridge  Through-arch  Delta-frame or deck-  Box-girder or through-  Delta-frame or deck-arch Typeb continuous-truss span) (i.e., continuous-truss arch arch

span)  Stress-ribbon or cable- stayed for bike/pedestrian bridge

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

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

Construction  $331 million (stress-  $326 million  $280 million  $293 million (delta-  $281 million (box-girder  $299 million (deck-arch Cost (in 2012 ribbon bike/pedestrian  $356 million (including  Right-of-way cost of frame bridge) bridge) bridge) dollars)d,e bridge) temporary detour bridge) $20.9 millionf  $311 million (deck-arch  $361 million (through-  $290 million (delta-frame  $337 million (cable-stayed  Right-of-way cost of bridge) arch bridge) bridge) bike/pedestrian bridge) $15.8 millione;  Right-of-way cost of  Right-of-way cost of  Right-of-way cost of  Right-of-way cost of $15.8 $17.1 million including $25.8 millionf $35.7 millionf $27.0 millione millionf temporary detour bridgef

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-43 Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) Section 2. Proposed Actions

TABLE 2.4-1 Build Alternative Characteristics Including Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) Preferred Alternative Alternative A B C D E (Alternative D Refined)

Construction  Rehabilitated vehicle  Rehabilitated vehicle  Replacement bridge:  Replacement bridge:  Replacement bridge:  Replacement bridge: Cost Breakdown bridge: $185 million bridge: $222 million $185 million $202 million (delta- $189 million (box- $171 million (delta-frame); (in 2012  Bike/pedestrian bridge:  Temporary detour  West-side frame); $220 million girder); $269 million $180 million (deck-arch) dollars)d,e $52 million (stress- bridge: $30 million interchange: (deck-arch) (through-arch)  West-side interchange: ribbon); $58 million  West-side interchange: $90 million  West-side interchange:  West-side interchange: $113 million (cable-stayed) $102 million  East-side intersection: $89 million $88 million  East-side intersection:  West-side interchange:  East-side intersection: $5.4 million  East-side intersection:  East-side intersection: $2.1 million $93 million $1.6 million $1.9 million $3.9 million  Cost includes approximately  East-side intersection: $4 million for mitigatione $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 Final Section 4(f) Evaluation for analysis purposes only to identify impacts and estimate costs and construction activities. c Traffic access across the bridge would be periodically affected by interim closures to replace the existing bridge and construct the new bridge. d 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. e The Alternatives A through E construction cost includes a 40-percent contingency to include cultural resource and park/recreational facility mitigation. The preferred alternative (Alternative D Refined) includes a 35-percent contingency because mitigation costs have been estimated. f The Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation (FHWA et al., 2008) reported 2009 right-of-way costs for Alternatives A through E. The right-of-way costs have been updated to 2012 costs. The right-of-way costs are included in the total construction costs.

4(f)-44 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) Section 2. Proposed Actions

2.4.3 Bridge Configuration Figure 2.4-2 shows the bridge configuration and cross-sections for Alternative D Refined.

FIGURE 2.4-2 Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) Bridge Configuration and Cross-sections

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-45 Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) Section 2. Proposed Actions

The basic bridge cross-section would be the same as for Alternative D. The cross-section would be 64 feet wide, and would consist of two 12-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. The west and east ends of the bridge would have different configurations than the basic bridge cross-section shown on Figure 2.4-2. These configurations would be as follows:

 West end. The bridge would include two travel lanes eastbound to facilitate movements from the west-side interchange, which would merge into one travel lane eastbound. Likewise, one travel lane westbound on the bridge would widen to two travel lanes approaching the west-side interchange to separate northbound from through and southbound movements and to provide for queuing. The reduction by one lane in the number of travel lanes westbound at the west-side interchange is the only difference between Alternative D Refined and Alternative D (Figure 2.4-3).

FIGURE 2.4-3 West End Bridge Configuration – Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) and Alternative D

 East end. The east end would have one travel lane in each direction. An eastbound left-turn lane would be provided at the intersection of SE 6th Avenue with SE Tacoma Street. East of SE 6th Avenue, SE Tacoma Street would be one travel lane in each direction with a center-turn lane (the same as the existing conditions). A bicyclist/pedestrian-activated signal would be located at the SE Tacoma Street/SE 6th Avenue intersection. This bicyclist/pedestrian-activated

4(f)-46 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) Section 2. Proposed Actions

signal is the only difference on the east side between Alternative D Refined and Alternative D (which included a full signal).

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 2.4-4). OR 43 would pass under this intersection on the lower level. Ramps from the signalized intersection would provide access to and from OR 43. A new roadway originating on the west side of the signalized intersection would provide access to River View Cemetery and the Superintendent’s House at River View Cemetery. The new roadway would pass under OR 43 south of the signalized intersection to provide access to Powers Marine Park and the Staff Jennings property. This roadway, as shown on Figure 2.4-4, has been refined to pass behind (west of) the Superintendent’s House. The City of Portland preferred this location so this roadway could accommodate possible future streetcar tracks. (The City of Portland identifies the OR 43 [SW Macadam Avenue] corridor and the Sellwood Bridge as streetcar transit corridors in the Draft Portland Streetcar System Concept Plan [2009]. It is expected that the City of Portland will adopt this plan in 2010.) The River View Cemetery owners also preferred this realignment because they felt that this route would reduce adverse visual impacts to the Superintendent’s House.

FIGURE 2.4-4 West-side Interchange – Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) and Alternative D

As shown on Figure 2.4-5, the spiral ramps with Alternative D that provided access from the bridge to the north-south trail network and future streetcar station have been eliminated with Alternative D Refined to minimize environmental impacts (riparian area and in-water piers impacts).

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-47 Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) Section 2. Proposed Actions

FIGURE 2.4-5 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities – Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) and Alternative D

4(f)-48 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) Section 2. Proposed Actions

Figure 2.4-5 shows how bicyclists and pedestrians would travel through the west-side intersection and access the trail system and future streetcar station. Two switchback ramps originating north of the bridge would provide access to the north and south sides of the bridge deck. In the intersection area, pedestrian-activated signalized crosswalks at the signalized intersection would accommodate bicyclist and pedestrian access to River View Cemetery and across the Sellwood Bridge. Because OR 43 would be reconstructed within an urban area, a sidewalk along the east side of OR 43 would be constructed between the switchback ramp on the south end of the bridge and the south end of project improvements to accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians.

2.4.4 East-side Connection with SE Tacoma Street On the east side of the bridge, the SE Tacoma Street/SE 6th Avenue intersection would have a bicyclist/pedestrian-activated signal (Figure 2.4-6). The signal would allow bicyclists and pedestrians to safely cross SE Tacoma Street to access the Springwater Corridor (via SE Spokane Street) and the City of Portland-designated bicycle boulevards on SE Spokane and SE Umatilla streets. For vehicles, other than the signal for bicyclists and pedestrians, the east-side connection at SE 6th Avenue would be the same as the existing conditions because the signal would not provide vehicle- activated protected left turns or protected crossings across SE Tacoma Street.

FIGURE 2.4-6 East-side Connection – Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined)

2.4.5 Access to Properties Adjacent to OR 43 Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 734-051-0155(6) requires that an Interchange Area Management Plan (IAMP) be prepared for any new or substantially reconstructed interchange. The purpose of an IAMP is to:

 Ensure safe and efficient operations between connecting roadways to protect the function of the interchange.

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-49 Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) Section 2. Proposed Actions

 Protect the function of the interchange over time. Because modified interchanges are very costly, local governments and citizens have an interest in ensuring that they function as intended for the long term. An IAMP is required because the Sellwood Bridge project would reconstruct the interchange on OR 43 at the Sellwood Bridge. Multnomah County, ODOT, and the City of Portland collaboratively developed an IAMP for this proposed reconstructed interchange to address access to Willamette Moorage Park, the Macadam Bay Club, River View Cemetery, Powers Marine Park, and the Staff Jennings property. The following sections describe the provisions of the IAMP (ODOT, 2010). ODOT and the City of Portland adopted the IAMP in spring 2010. Because details of project designs will continue to evolve between the adoption of the IAMP and project construction, ODOT will evaluate the appropriateness of the following access concepts during the project final design phase.

Access to Willamette Moorage Park and the Macadam Bay Club The IAMP process identified several options for the access to Willamette Moorage Park and the Macadam Bay Club. Multnomah County, ODOT, and the City of Portland have agreed on the location of the access driveway to Willamette Moorage Park and the Macadam Bay Club. The existing access to Willamette Moorage Park and the Macadam Bay Club would be closed to all but emergency vehicles. The new driveway access would be relocated approximately 300 feet north of the existing driveway access to increase the spacing from the northbound OR 43 on-ramp at the west-side interchange. The northernmost driveway into the commercial area on the east side of OR 43 south of the SW Taylors Ferry Road intersection would be closed. Although this configuration (shown on Figure 2.4-7) would improve safety, the distance between the new driveway access location to the Macadam Bay Club and the OR 43 northbound on-ramp from the signalized intersection would be less than the ODOT spacing standard. ODOT agreed to grant a deviation from the access spacing standard for this driveway access subject to conditions stipulated in the IAMP that changes could be made if safety problems were to arise in the future. The IAMP also provides for a future alley, easement, or tract connecting to SW Miles Street that would provide the Macadam Bay Club and the other businesses in the area an alternative access that would be constructed upon redevelopment. Multnomah County has contacted Portland General Electric (PGE) about the driveway access under the electrical tower. Either the driveway access would be under the tower or a pole would replace the tower. This detail would be determined during the project’s engineering phase.

Access to River View Cemetery, Powers Marine Park, and the Staff Jennings Property The IAMP also addressed access to River View Cemetery, Powers Marine Park, and the Staff Jennings property. Despite the proximity of the River View Cemetery driveway to the new interchange, ODOT agreed to grant a deviation from its access spacing standard to permit access to these three properties via the new roadway shown on Figure 2.4-4 (as specified in the IAMP). The volume of traffic that would use this road is expected to be very low and would not adversely affect traffic operations or safety in the interchange.

4(f)-50 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) Section 2. Proposed Actions

FIGURE 2.4-7 Willamette Moorage Park and Macadam Bay Club Access Driveway – Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined)

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-51 Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) Section 2. Proposed Actions

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

2.4.7 Relation of Preferred Alternative to Section 4(f) Resources Figure 2.4-8 shows the right-of-way footprint of the preferred alternative (Alternative D Refined) in conjunction with existing Section 4(f) resources.

FIGURE 2.4-8 Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined): Right-of Way Footprint on Section 4(f) Resources

Mitigation and Enhancements Alternative D Refined would have fewer Section 4(f) impacts than all the Build alternatives studied in the DEIS. The project team worked with Portland Parks & Recreation (PP&R) and the Portland Bureau of Environmental Services to identify mitigation and enhancements for park impacts. Multnomah County and the City of Portland have agreed to the following mitigation and enhancement activities:

4(f)-52 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) Section 2. Proposed Actions

 Willamette Moorage Park

 Construct a 14-foot-wide paved multi-use trail between the Sellwood Bridge and SW Miles Street.

 Replace the existing Stephens Creek culvert (which is beneath the Willamette Shoreline railroad, the new multi-use trail described above, and the Willamette Moorage Park and Macadam Bay Club access driveway) with a fish-and-wildlife-friendly passage. Figure 2.4-9 shows the general location of this passage.

 Construct sloped, stepped, vegetated walls along the new multi-use trail (described above), where feasible, to minimize visual and aesthetic impacts to the park, and to provide for wildlife use and passage.

 Powers Marine Park

 Design and implement stream restoration along two streams to provide an off-river habitat for juvenile salmonids. Figure 2.4-9 shows the general location of these streams within the park.

 Design and implement a parking and pedestrian access plan for Powers Marine Park.

 Compensate PP&R at fair market value for the land within Powers Marine Park incorporated into a transportation use. Because these mitigation and enhancement activities have been defined, they are considered part of Alternative D Refined and are taken into account in the impact evaluation of this alternative.

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

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

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-53 Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) Section 2. Proposed Actions

FIGURE 2.4-9 Willamette Moorage Park/Stephens Creek and Powers Marine Park Mitigation and Enhancement Areas – Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined)

4(f)-54 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) Section 2. Proposed Actions

Bridge Types The bridge types being evaluated with the preferred alternative (Alternative D Refined) are the delta-frame and the deck-arch. Both would have three bridge piers within the ordinary high water elevation and would meet United States Coast Guard navigational horizontal and vertical clearance requirements.

 Delta-frame bridge. A delta-frame bridge would be constructed using temporary false-work in the river near each pier location. Temporary work platforms would be constructed first along the south side of the bridge and then along the north side. The temporary work platforms would be constructed out from each bank, but would have a 250-foot opening in the middle of the river for a navigation channel. Staged construction of a delta-frame bridge would take approximately 51 months (24 months for the first stage, 3 months for removal of the existing bridge, and 24 months for the second stage). The bridge would be open during all 51 months of construction.

 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.

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

 Access to the River View Cemetery, Powers Marine Park, and the Staff Jennings property would remain open during construction, with possible shifts in access point locations.

Rock Excavation  Rock cut slopes on the west-bank hillside would be shaped using blasting techniques. A blasting specialist would design the blasting activities so that small shots, adjusted in a delay pattern, were used. This technique would reduce air blast, vibration, and, to some extent, noise. Blasting mats would be used to control fly rock. Proper inspection, monitoring, and shoring of the existing bridge would occur before and after blasting to ensure stability.

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-55 Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) 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. No specific laydown areas have been located or specified for use. However, these private properties are expected to be outside the right-of-way required by the project. The contractor would need approximately a 0.5- to 1.0-acre site near the proposed bridge construction for a field office, storage of construction materials, and equipment.

 The exact size of the laydown areas and the duration the contractor would occupy them would depend on the contractor’s approach to staging the bridge construction and the type of bridge construction techniques required for the project.

 An approximately 5.0- to 8.0-acre site outside the project area would be needed to store bridge components and additional pieces of equipment, and for assembly of bridge members. Materials and equipment are expected to be assembled, stored, transported, and shipped by barge to the project area from this staging area. The contractor would need a temporary loading dock facility for assembly or loading of bridge members onto a barge.

 No mandatory construction storage, fabrication, or staging areas have been identified. The contractor would be responsible for all environmental investigation, permitting, and mitigation.

In-Water Construction Piers in the River The existing river crossing has five piers within the ordinary high water elevation. Both bridge types (delta-frame and deck-arch) would have three piers within the ordinary high water elevation. The maximum spans for each bridge type would be large enough to provide the required 200 feet of horizontal navigation clearance.

Bridge Foundation Concrete footings for each bridge pier in the river would be supported on drilled shafts. Two construction methods for the piers are being considered—the cofferdam method and the perched method.

The in-water construction activities for the river piers would include the following:

Cofferdam Method  Temporary work platforms would be constructed in the river for construction equipment to access the pier locations. Piles driven into the river bottom would support these platforms.

 Cofferdams (that is, enclosures within a water environment for allowing air to displace water to create a dry work environment) would be constructed around the perimeter of the proposed concrete footings. Cofferdams would be installed and removed during the in-water work window.

4(f)-56 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) Section 2. Proposed Actions

 Work on the shafts and piers would then be contained within the cofferdams, isolated from the river, which would allow the work to continue outside of the in-water work window.

Perched Method  Temporary work platforms would be constructed in the river for construction equipment to access the pier locations. Piles driven into the river bottom would support these platforms.

 Drilling equipment, working from the platforms or barges, would be used to advance 6-foot- or 8-foot-diameter steel pipe casings into the river bottom. The steel casings would extend above the river surface for access. The contents of the shaft casings would be excavated up to the river surface and removed by barge or by trucks on the work platforms.

 A precast concrete cofferdam would be floated over the shafts. The floating cofferdam would float just below the river surface. Concrete would then be placed inside the shafts and the floating cofferdam.

Dredging Neither the preferred alternative (Alternative D Refined) nor any of the other Build alternatives would require dredging.

Construction Staging and Duration Construction staging and duration are based on a conceptual level of development for the bridge layout. The footprint, piers, and abutments for each bridge would be built in stages to minimize disruption to traffic. The following are general guidelines for developing the construction staging:

 At least one lane of traffic in each direction would remain open on OR 43 during construction. Short-term closures might be necessary during blasting operations.

 Temporary roadway and retaining walls would be required during construction of the new west- side interchange.

 It is most likely that operation of the Willamette Shoreline Trolley on the west bank would be suspended for up to 6 months while its tracks were being realigned and reconstructed. Operation of the Oregon Pacific Railroad would be temporarily halted for the construction of overpass structures and other construction activities.

 Construction work in the river would be restricted to the in-water work windows. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) in-water work windows are July 1 to October 31 and December 1 to January 31. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in-water work window is July 1 to October 31.

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-57

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 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 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.

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-59 A v o i d a n c e C o n c e p t 2 : I m p r o v e t h e Transportation Facility without the Use of Section 4(f) Property Section 3. Avoidance Alternatives

 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.)

 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. This concept could have potentially avoided 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). DEIS Alternatives A, B, and B (with temporary detour bridge) were proposals to rehabilitate the existing bridge. The rehabilitation would have required 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 approach spans. This would have been an adverse effect under Section 106 because the changes would have been so extensive that they would have resulted in the physical destruction of the historic bridge 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 indicated that the rehabilitation associated with Alternatives A and B could not have been 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 had an adverse effect under Section 106. Based on FHWA guidance and the Section 106 findings of adverse effect, it was, therefore, concluded that there would have been a Section 4(f) use of the Sellwood Bridge historic resource under Alternatives A, B, and B (with temporary detour bridge). Given this discussion, this concept 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 further not prudent 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

4(f)-60 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation A v o i d a n c e C o n c e p t 3 : B u i l d a New Bridge Facility at a New Location without Use of Section 4(f) Resource Section 3. Avoidance Alternatives

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 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 a 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 DEIS was based on the findings of the South Willamette River Crossing Study (Metro, 1999), which was also approved by the City of Portland.1 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 the Ross Island Bridge in Portland and the I-205 Abernathy 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 DEIS process.

3.4 Avoidance Concept 4: Tunnel Alignment The tunnel alignment concept (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.

1 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.

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-61 Avoidance Concept 4: Tunnel Alignment Section 3. Avoidance Alternatives

FIGURE 3.3-1 Bridge Alignment Concepts Evaluated

FIGURE 3.4-1 Tunnel Alignment

4(f)-62 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation Avoidance Concept 4: Tunnel Alignment Section 3. Avoidance Alternatives

The tunnel alignment is not prudent 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 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 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 option.2

2 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.

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-63

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

This section provides analysis and determinations for the preferred alternative (Alternative D Refined) for each Section 4(f)-protected resource. Greater detail regarding Section 4(f) resources in the Sellwood Bridge project study area and the analysis conducted for the Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation is available in the Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation (included as part of the DEIS) and the Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation Technical Report (CH2M HILL, 2008; available upon request, as noted in Appendix D of the FEIS).

4.1 Parks and Recreational Section 4(f) Resources The 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. (Section 3 discusses avoidance alternatives.) Figure 1.6-1 depicts Section 4(f) park and recreational resources inside the Sellwood Bridge project APE. The ensuing subsections provide a description of each park/recreation resource and a Final Section 4(f) Evaluation use determination for the preferred alternative (Alternative D Refined).

The No Build Alternative would have no use of 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 metropolitan 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 Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-65 Parks and Recreational Section 4(f) Resources Section 4. Section 4(f) Resources, Uses, and Measures to Minimize Harm

Springwater Corridor Trail.

Final Section 4(f) Use Determination for the Preferred Alternative The preferred alternative (Alternative D Refined) would not result in a Section 4(f) use of the Springwater Corridor Trail. There would be no permanent incorporation of the trail. Although, with the preferred alternative, there might be times of temporary occupation of the trail in the immediate vicinity of the bridge (as shown on Figure 4.1-1), it was determined that these impacts would be very minor and would not qualify as a Section 4(f) use. Attachment 1 provides documentation of the finding of no Section 4(f) Temporary Use.

FIGURE 4.1-1 Preferred Alternative: Temporary Occupancy at Springwater Corridor Trail and Willamette Greenway Trail (East Bank)

4(f)-66 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation Parks and Recreational Section 4(f) Resources Section 4. Section 4(f) Resources, Uses, and Measures to Minimize Harm

The Section 4(f) legislation explains that if the five conditions in 23 CFR 774.13(d), commonly known as the “temporary occupation exception criteria,” are met, then a temporary occupancy is not adverse in terms of the Section 4(f) statute’s preservationist purpose and does not constitute a “use” under the meaning of Section 4(f). The findings with respect to the five “temporary occupation exception criteria” are presented below: (i) Duration must be temporary, i.e., less than the time needed for construction of the project, and there should be no change in ownership of the land; Finding. The total timeline for construction of the Sellwood Bridge project is estimated at 3 to 4 years. “Occupancy” of the Springwater Corridor Trail would occur because of project actions temporarily closing the trail (and detouring trail users) during brief periods of dangerous overhead bridge work. These activities would only result in potential sporadic, 1- to 2-hour closures of the trail (and subsequent detours). During the entire period of project construction, trail users would be able to continue to use the trail, as is, unabated. Overhead- work-protection measures (such as a roof over the trail and below the bridge construction work area) would be put in place to ensure safe passage for trail users during times of overhead work. If needed, these overhead-protected trail segments would be furnished with lighting for additional safety. In sum, Multnomah County is committed to keeping the Springwater Corridor Trail open, as is, during the entirety of the project. If there were brief, 1- to 2-hour periods when the trail would need to be closed, appropriate trail closure signage would be provided (in accordance with FHWA’s Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices [MUTCD] [2009]) and project contact information would be placed at appropriate locations north and south of the bridge.

There would be no change in ownership of the land upon which the Springwater Corridor Trail exists.

(ii) Scope of the work must be minor, i.e., both the nature and the magnitude of the changes to the section 4(f) resource are minimal; Finding. As it relates to the Springwater Corridor Trail, the scope of the Sellwood Bridge project would be negligible. The only interaction between project actions and the trail would be the installation of various overhead-protection apparatus and potential brief detours, as discussed previously. There would be no changes to the Springwater Corridor Trail.

(iii) There are no anticipated permanent adverse physical impacts, nor will there be interference with the activities or purpose of the resource, on either a temporary or permanent basis;

Finding. There would be no permanent adverse impacts to the Springwater Corridor Trail resulting from Sellwood Bridge project actions. In contrast, trail users would benefit from being able to connect to the new bicycle and pedestrian facilities that would be provided across the Sellwood Bridge. These facilities would significantly improve safety and mobility conditions for users. Although no damage is anticipated, Multnomah County would be responsible for correcting any structural damage done to the trail surface or to any trail amenities. The County would ensure that trail amenities would be returned to existing conditions at the completion of the Sellwood Bridge project.

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-67 Parks and Recreational Section 4(f) Resources Section 4. Section 4(f) Resources, Uses, and Measures to Minimize Harm

As discussed previously, there would be no interference with the activities or purpose of the Springwater Corridor Trail on either a permanent or a temporary basis. As noted earlier, Multnomah County is committed to keeping the trail open, as is, during the entirety of the project. The County would have protective measures in place to allow people to continue using the trail.

(iv) The land being used must be fully restored, i.e., the resource must be returned to a condition which is at least as good as that which existed prior to the project; and Finding. As noted previously, although no damage is anticipated, Multnomah County would be responsible for correcting any structural damage done to the trail surface or to any trail amenities, such as fencing. The County would photograph and document the prior condition of the trail and would ensure that trail amenities would be returned to existing conditions at the completion of the Sellwood Bridge project. (v) There must be documented agreement of the appropriate Federal, State, or local officials having jurisdiction over the resource regarding the above conditions. Finding. The documentation in Attachment 1 serves as concurrence by PP&R that the above conditions have been met for the Springwater Corridor Trail.

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 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.

Final Section 4(f) Use Determination for the Preferred Alternative The preferred alternative (Alternative D Refined) would not result in a Section 4(f) use of the Willamette Greenway Trail (East Bank). There would be no permanent incorporation of the trail. Although, with the preferred alternative, there might be times of temporary occupation of the trail in the immediate vicinity of the bridge (as shown on Figure 4.1-1), it was determined that these

4(f)-68 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation Parks and Recreational Section 4(f) Resources Section 4. Section 4(f) Resources, Uses, and Measures to Minimize Harm

Two views of the Willamette Greenway Trail (East Bank). impacts would be very minor and would not qualify as a Section 4(f) use. Attachment 2 provides documentation of the finding of no Section 4(f) Temporary Use.

The Section 4(f) legislation explains that if the five conditions in 23 CFR 774.13(d), commonly known as the “temporary occupation exception criteria,” are met, then a temporary occupancy is not adverse in terms of the Section 4(f) statute’s preservationist purpose and does not constitute a “use” under the meaning of Section 4(f). The findings with respect to the five “temporary occupation exception criteria” are presented below: (i) Duration must be temporary, i.e., less than the time needed for construction of the project, and there should be no change in ownership of the land; Finding. The total timeline for construction of the Sellwood Bridge project is estimated at 3 to 4 years. “Occupancy” of the Willamette Greenway Trail (East Bank) would occur because of project actions temporarily closing the trail (and detouring trail users) during brief periods of dangerous overhead bridge work. These activities would only result in potential sporadic, 1- to 2-hour closures of the trail (and subsequent detours). During the entire period of project construction, trail users would be able to continue to use the trail, as is, unabated. Overhead-work-protection measures (such as a roof over the trail and below the bridge construction work area) would be put in place to ensure safe passage for trail users during times of overhead work. If needed, these overhead-protected trail segments would be furnished with lighting for additional safety.

In sum, Multnomah County is committed to keeping the Willamette Greenway Trail (East Bank) open, as is, during the entirety of the project. If there were brief 1- to 2-hour periods when the trail would need to be closed, appropriate trail closure signage would be provided

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-69 Parks and Recreational Section 4(f) Resources Section 4. Section 4(f) Resources, Uses, and Measures to Minimize Harm

(in accordance with FHWA’s MUTCD [2009]) and project contact information would be placed at appropriate locations north and south of the bridge. There would be no change in ownership of the land upon which the Willamette Greenway Trail (East Bank) exists. (ii) Scope of the work must be minor, i.e., both the nature and the magnitude of the changes to the section 4(f) resource are minimal; Finding. As it relates to the Willamette Greenway Trail (East Bank), the scope of the Sellwood Bridge project would be negligible. The only interaction between project actions and the trail would be the installation of various overhead-protection apparatus and potential brief detours, as discussed previously. There would be no changes to the Willamette Greenway Trail (East Bank). (iii) There are no anticipated permanent adverse physical impacts, nor will there be interference with the activities or purpose of the resource, on either a temporary or permanent basis; Finding. There would be no permanent adverse impacts to the Willamette Greenway Trail (East Bank) resulting from Sellwood Bridge project actions. In contrast, trail users would benefit from being able to connect to the new bicycle and pedestrian facilities that would be provided across the Sellwood Bridge. These facilities would significantly improve safety and mobility conditions for users. Although no damage is anticipated, Multnomah County would be responsible for correcting any structural damage done to the trail surface or to any trail amenities. The County would ensure that trail amenities would be returned to existing conditions at the completion of the Sellwood Bridge project. As discussed previously, there would be no interference with the activities or purpose of the Willamette Greenway Trail (East Bank) on either a permanent or a temporary basis. As noted earlier, Multnomah County is committed to keeping the trail open, as is, during the entirety of the project. The County would have protective measures in place to allow people to continue using the trail. (iv) The land being used must be fully restored, i.e., the resource must be returned to a condition which is at least as good as that which existed prior to the project; and Finding. As noted previously, although no damage is anticipated, Multnomah County would be responsible for correcting any structural damage done to the trail surface or to any trail amenities, such as fencing. The County would photograph and document the prior condition of the trail and would ensure that trail amenities would be returned to existing conditions at the completion of the Sellwood Bridge project.

(v) There must be documented agreement of the appropriate Federal, State, or local officials having jurisdiction over the resource regarding the above conditions.

Finding. The documentation in Attachment 2 serves as concurrence by PP&R that the above conditions have been met for the Willamette Greenway Trail (East Bank).

4(f)-70 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation Parks and Recreational Section 4(f) Resources Section 4. Section 4(f) Resources, Uses, and Measures to Minimize Harm

4.1.3 Willamette Greenway Trail (SE Spokane Street Section) Description SE Spokane Street from SE 17th Avenue to the Willamette River (see Figure 4.1-1) is designated as a Primary Greenway Trail on the City of Portland’s Willamette Greenway Plan (1987) and as an Adopted Greenway in the Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan (Metro, 1992). This is an on-street section of the Willamette Greenway Trail with no improvements aside from standard sidewalks and a paved 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).

Final Section 4(f) Use Determination for the Preferred Alternative No Section 4(f) use of the Willamette Greenway Trail (SE Spokane Street Section) would result from the preferred alternative (Alternative D Refined). There would be no permanent incorporation or temporary occupation of the Willamette Greenway Trail (SE Spokane Street Section) resulting from preferred alternative actions.

4.1.4 Sellwood Riverfront Park Description Sellwood Riverfront Park is an 8.75-acre park located at SE Spokane Street and SE Oaks Park Way, just north of the Sellwood Bridge on the east bank of the Willamette River. 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 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 contains important visual resources, with expansive views to the river, west hills, and downtown skyline.

Sellwood Riverfront Park (looking south toward Sellwood Bridge)

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-71 Parks and Recreational Section 4(f) Resources Section 4. Section 4(f) Resources, Uses, and Measures to Minimize Harm

Final Section 4(f) Use Determination for the Preferred Alternative The preferred alternative (Alternative D Refined) would not result in a Section 4(f) use of Sellwood Riverfront Park. There would be no permanent incorporation or temporary occupation of Sellwood Riverfront Park as a result of preferred alternative actions.

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.

Final Section 4(f) Use Determination for the Preferred Alternative The preferred alternative (Alternative D Refined) would not result in a Section 4(f) use of Oaks Pioneer Park. Oaks Pioneer Church at Oaks There would be no permanent incorporation or temporary Pioneer Park occupation of Oaks Pioneer Park as a result of preferred alternative actions.

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.

Final Section 4(f) Use Determination for the Preferred Alternative The preferred alternative (Alternative D Refined) would not result in a Section 4(f) use of the Sellwood Bridge Recreational Trail. According to FHWA’s Section 4(f) Policy Paper (2005, p.20, Question 14C) guidance regarding trails on highway rights-of-way, the question of whether a Section 4(f) use is occurring at the Sellwood Bridge Recreational Trail is based on the ability of the alternative to reasonably accommodate the continuity of the recreational trail in some other portion of the right-of-way or in another right-of-

4(f)-72 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation Parks and Recreational Section 4(f) Resources Section 4. Section 4(f) Resources, Uses, and Measures to Minimize Harm way. The preferred alternative (Alternative D Refined) would avoid a Section 4(f) use of this resource by providing continued bicycle/pedestrian connectivity over the Willamette River during bridge construction, based on the aforementioned FHWA guidance. The preferred alternative 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.

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. 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 Powers Marine Park (looking south). (a partnership of the City of Portland and community organizations) is actively engaged in restoring riverbank conditions and enhancing the banks of the Willamette River at the park.

Final Section 4(f) Use Determination for the Preferred Alternative Approximately 1.02 acres of land at Powers Marine Park would be converted to transportation use with the preferred alternative (Alternative D Refined) (see Figure 4.1-2). The features and attributes being impacted by the preferred alternative are predominantly dedicated natural-area trees and vegetation (0.64 acre of Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest and 0.17 acre of Riparian vegetation). There is also 0.35 acre of paved area being impacted that contains public parking spaces for Powers Marine Park.

Based on the preferred alternative’s degree of impact, in conjunction with the measures to minimize harm that are part of the preferred alternative, it was concluded that the preferred alternative (Alternative D Refined) would not have an adverse effect on Powers Marine Park, thereby resulting in a de minimis use finding. Attachment 3 contains the de minimis findings package.

The County will require the following best management practices (BMPs) during project construction to minimize adverse impacts to the park’s natural areas:

 Have a professional engineer registered with the State of Oregon develop erosion control plans.

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-73 Parks and Recreational Section 4(f) Resources Section 4. Section 4(f) Resources, Uses, and Measures to Minimize Harm

pollution control plans and spill prevention control plans; and restrictions on refueling/maintenance of construction equipment within or immediately adjacent to the park.

 Implement an erosion/sediment FIGURE 4.1-2 control monitoring plan during Preferred Alternative: Impact Area at Powers Marine Park construction to monitor and manage runoff.

 Stage construction to limit denuded soil on-site at any one time to reduce the potential for sediment runoff.

 Fence off construction areas using orange plastic construction fencing to limit impacts to natural areas.

 Post signs on fencing to indicate no work zones/protected natural areas. The minimization and mitigation actions considered in the finding of de minimis impacts are listed below:

 The preferred alternative (Alternative D Refined) includes the design and implementation of a parking and pedestrian access plan for Powers Marine Park, to include the provision of a minimum of seven (7) parking spaces.

 In the vicinity of Powers Marine Park, design features have been incorporated into the typical roadway section of the preferred alternative (Alternative D Refined) so that right-of-way needs are minimized.

 Innovative bicycle/pedestrian ramps were designed to eliminate the need for large spiral ramps, thereby reducing the project’s footprint on the park.

 Sloped, vegetated walls will be utilized in the park, wherever possible from an engineering perspective, to minimize visual and wildlife habitat impacts to the park.

4(f)-74 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation Parks and Recreational Section 4(f) Resources Section 4. Section 4(f) Resources, Uses, and Measures to Minimize Harm

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 property; 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.

Final Section 4(f) Use Determination for the Preferred Alternative According to FHWA’s Section 4(f) Policy Paper (2005, p.20, Question 14C) guidance regarding trails on highway rights-of-way, the question of whether a Section 4(f) use would occur at the Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank) is based on the ability of the preferred 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. Based on that FHWA guidance, the preferred alternative (Alternative D Refined) would avoid a Section 4(f) use of this resource by providing continued Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank) bicycle/pedestrian connectivity through the project area in the form of a 14-foot-wide paved multi-use trail. This trail would serve the same users of the existing Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank) and would traverse the same travel corridor as the existing trail. As depicted in Section 2.4, the multi-use trail that would be constructed as part of the project would provide users with a connection between the Sellwood Bridge and SW Miles Street, adjacent to Willamette Moorage Park. Indeed, accommodations on the new trail would be superior to the existing trail, while delivering users between the same two location points.

The preferred alternative (Alternative D Refined) also would avoid a Section 4(f) use of the Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank) based on temporary occupancy. Attachment 4 provides documentation of the finding of no Section 4(f) Temporary Use. Figure 4.1-3 shows the temporary impact area at the Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank).

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-75 Parks and Recreational Section 4(f) Resources Section 4. Section 4(f) Resources, Uses, and Measures to Minimize Harm

FIGURE 4.1-3 Preferred Alternative: Temporary Occupancy at Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank)

The Section 4(f) legislation explains that if the five conditions in 23 CFR 774.13(d), commonly known as the “temporary occupation exception criteria,” are met, then a temporary occupancy is not adverse in terms of the Section 4(f) statute’s preservationist purpose and does not constitute a “use” under the meaning of Section 4(f). The findings with respect to the five “temporary occupation exception criteria” are presented below: (i) Duration must be temporary, i.e., less than the time needed for construction of the project, and there should be no change in ownership of the land; Finding. The Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank) would be modified by the Sellwood Bridge project. The existing 4-foot-wide paved Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank) in the project impact area would be replaced by a 14-foot-wide paved trail between the Sellwood Bridge and SW Miles Street. In accordance with FHWA’s Section 4(f) Policy Paper (2005), because the existing trail is not limited to any specific location within the existing right-of-way and the project would not impair the continuity of the trail, there is no “permanent” Section 4(f) use occurring at the trail. In summary, the alignment of the Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank) would be changed. The existing segment would be incorporated into the project, but a segment of the Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank) in the same corridor would be provided that would serve the same function and purpose as the trail segment that would be replaced. Based on this discussion, references in the remainder of these findings to the Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank) infer either of the trail segments (the existing or the

4(f)-76 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation Parks and Recreational Section 4(f) Resources Section 4. Section 4(f) Resources, Uses, and Measures to Minimize Harm

replacement). The following paragraph addresses the matter of “temporary occupancy” of the Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank) related to construction activities. The total timeline for construction of the Sellwood Bridge project is estimated at 3 to 4 years. “Occupancy” of the Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank) would occur because of project actions temporarily closing the trail (and detouring trail users) during brief periods of dangerous overhead bridge work. These activities would only result in potential sporadic closures of the trail (and subsequent detours). Overwhelmingly during the entire period of project construction, however, trail users would continue to have access to trail segments through this corridor. Overhead-work-protection measures (such as a roof over the trail and below the bridge construction work area) would be put in place to ensure safe passage for trail users during times of overhead work. If needed, these overhead-protected trail segments would be furnished with lighting for additional safety. In sum, Multnomah County is committed to keeping the Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank) open during the entirety of the project. If there were brief periods when the trail would need to be closed, appropriate detour/temporary traffic control signage would be provided (in accordance with FHWA’s MUTCD [2009]) and project contact information would be placed at appropriate locations. There would be no change in ownership of the Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank) or the land upon which the trail exists. (ii) Scope of the work must be minor, i.e., both the nature and the magnitude of the changes to the section 4(f) resource are minimal; Finding. As noted previously, the Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank) would be modified as a result of project actions. The replacement trail segment would provide significantly improved bicycling/pedestrian accommodations. The project would not result in any detrimental changes to this Section 4(f) resource.

(iii) There are no anticipated permanent adverse physical impacts, nor will there be interference with the activities or purpose of the resource, on either a temporary or permanent basis; Finding. There would be no permanent adverse impacts to the Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank). Rather, as noted, the activities and purpose of this resource would be bolstered by the construction of a new trail that would meet current City of Portland standards for off- street bicycle trails.

As discussed previously, there would be no interference with the activities or purpose of the Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank) on either a permanent or a temporary basis. Multnomah County is committed to keeping a Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank) segment open during the entirety of the project. The County would have protective measures in place to allow people to continue using the trail.

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-77 Parks and Recreational Section 4(f) Resources Section 4. Section 4(f) Resources, Uses, and Measures to Minimize Harm

(iv) The land being used must be fully restored, i.e., the resource must be returned to a condition which is at least as good as that which existed prior to the project; and Finding. As noted previously, the new trail that would be constructed as part of the Sellwood Bridge project would provide significantly improved bicycle and pedestrian accommodations compared to the existing trail. (v) There must be documented agreement of the appropriate Federal, State, or local officials having jurisdiction over the resource regarding the above conditions. Finding. The documentation in Attachment 4 serves as concurrence by PP&R that the above conditions have been met for the Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank).

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 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 (such as trail walking and bird-watching), 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]).

Final Section 4(f) Use Determination for the Preferred Alternative Approximately 0.35 acre of land at Willamette Moorage Park would be converted to transportation use with the preferred alternative (Alternative D Refined) (see Figure 4.1-4). The features and attributes that would be impacted by the preferred alternative consist entirely of dedicated natural area (Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest both along the west side of the park and in the area adjacent to Stephens Creek).

The preferred alternative (Alternative D Refined) includes the construction of a north–south, 0.25-mile-long, 18-foot-wide (14 feet paved; two 2-foot-wide soft shoulders) multi-use trail from the existing Macadam Bay Homes driveway to SW Miles Street along the western edge of Willamette Moorage Park parallel to the existing Willamette Shoreline Trolley tracks. The construction of this trail would remove bicycle commuters from the section of the Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank) that is located in the central part of the park, a trail which PP&R would prefer be used strictly as a walking trail through this designated natural area.

The County will require the following BMPs during project construction to minimize adverse impacts to the park’s natural areas:

4(f)-78 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation Parks and Recreational Section 4(f) Resources Section 4. Section 4(f) Resources, Uses, and Measures to Minimize Harm

 Have a professional engineer registered with the State of Oregon develop erosion control plans.

 Install and maintain appropriate drainage/erosion control measures to trap sediment runoff during construction to avoid effects to habitats in or near the park. Such measures include sediment fencing; check dams; inlet protection; requirements of contractors to have on-site pollution control plans and spill prevention control plans; and restrictions on refueling/maintenance of construction equipment within or immediately adjacent to the park.

 Implement an erosion/sediment control monitoring plan during construction to monitor and manage runoff.

 Stage construction to limit denuded soil on-site at any one time to reduce the potential for sediment runoff.

 Fence off construction areas using orange plastic construction fencing to limit impacts to natural areas.

 Post signs on fencing to indicate no work zones/protected natural areas.

Willamette Moorage Park (looking north).

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-79 Historic and Archaeological Resources Section 4. Section 4(f) Resources, Uses, and Measures to Minimize Harm

FIGURE 4.1-4 Preferred Alternative: Impact Area at Willamette Moorage Park

Based on the preferred alternative’s degree of impact, in conjunction with the measures to minimize harm that are part of the preferred alternative, it was concluded that the preferred alternative (Alternative D Refined) would not have an adverse effect on Willamette Moorage Park, thereby resulting in a de minimis impact finding. Attachment 5 contains the de minimis findings package.

Minimization and mitigation actions considered in the finding of de minimis impacts are listed below:

 In the vicinity of Willamette Moorage Park, design features have been incorporated into the typical roadway section of the preferred alternative (Alternative D Refined) so that right-of-way needs are minimized. Sloped, vegetated walls will be utilized in the park along the multi-use trail to minimize visual and wildlife habitat impacts to the park.

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.

4(f)-80 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation Historic and Archaeological Resources Section 4. Section 4(f) Resources, Uses, and Measures to Minimize Harm

No archaeological sites are known to exist in the project APE. 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 protected by Section 4(f). A detailed discussion of each of these historic properties is included in Chapter 3 of the FEIS. Figure 1.6-1 depicts Section 4(f) historic resources inside the Sellwood Bridge project APE. The ensuing subsections provide a description of each historic resource and a Final Section 4(f) Evaluation use determination for the preferred alternative (Alternative D Refined).

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 and Park, which PP&R administers.

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.

Attachment 6 contains the Section 106 Determination of Eligibility (DOE) form for Oaks Pioneer Church.

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-81 Historic and Archaeological Resources Section 4. Section 4(f) Resources, Uses, and Measures to Minimize Harm

Final Section 4(f) Use Determination for the Preferred Alternative The preferred alternative (Alternative D Refined) would not result in a Section 4(f) use of Oaks Pioneer Church. The preferred alternative would not incorporate land from this resource. The Section 106 process for DEIS Alternative D concluded with a 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]). The refinement of Alternative D (to the current preferred alternative) did not entail any changes with respect to this historical resource.

Attachment 7 contains the Section 106 Finding of Effect (FOE) form for Oaks Pioneer Church.

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 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. Attachment 6 contains the DOE form for River View Cemetery.

Final Section 4(f) Use Determination for the Preferred Alternative The preferred alternative (Alternative D Refined) would result in a Section 4(f) use of the River View Cemetery. However, as discussed in Section 3, there are no feasible and prudent alternatives that would not use this resource and meet the purpose and need of the project. The preferred alternative (Alternative D Refined) would convert approximately 3.99 acres of property from this site to transportation use because of the modification of the interchange at OR 43. Additional impacts with the preferred alternative would include:

4(f)-82 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation Historic and Archaeological Resources Section 4. Section 4(f) Resources, Uses, and Measures to Minimize Harm

 Incorporation of parking spaces  Relocation of the cemetery gates  Realignment of the access road from OR 43 to the Superintendent’s House

Attachment 7 contains the FOE form for River View Cemetery.

All Possible Planning to Minimize Harm The following measures will be employed to minimize harm to the River View Cemetery historic site:

 ODOT will research, photograph, and record the history of the River View Cemetery, including the Superintendent’s House, in accordance with the standards set forth by the Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS), a division of the National Park Service. Copies of this document will be distributed to the Ellis F. Lawrence holdings in the Special Collections files at the University of Oregon Architecture and Allied Arts Library, as well as River View Cemetery, the City of Portland archives, the Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division (if they choose to accept the copies), the Central and Sellwood-Moreland branches of the Multnomah County library system, and the Oregon Historical Society.

 ODOT will prepare a 3- to 10-page total history and architectural description of the River View Cemetery, including the Superintendent’s House, which would be accompanied by a new map showing the locations of roads and trails, structures, and important graves, as well as photographs of important structures, general vistas of the cemetery grounds, and the cemetery gates. The images will be taken by an experienced photographer and will be prepared to Oregon SHPO Documentation Standards for digital photographs. Copies of this document will be distributed to the River View Cemetery, the City of Portland archives, the University of Oregon Architecture and Allied Arts Library, the Central and Sellwood-Moreland branches of the Multnomah County library system, and the Oregon Historical Society.

 ODOT will move the existing cemetery gates to a new location within the cemetery property. Relocation at another entrance is appropriate. This task will be accomplished using individuals or companies with experience in historic masonry. All persons working on the relocation of the gates should be familiar with, and follow, the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and the Secretary of the Interior’s Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Properties.

 ODOT will place interpretive plaques or panels at River View Cemetery. These plaques will provide a general history of the River View Cemetery. ODOT will endeavor to employ individuals or companies with experience in producing museum-quality plaques.

 ODOT will provide for the creation and upkeep of a Web site during project construction that provides information regarding the River View Cemetery and its historic context. Information for the Web site will be obtained by a qualified researcher and the Web site will be developed by a qualified Web site designer.

 ODOT will design and build retaining walls around the Superintendent’s House to assimilate with the surrounding landscape, and vegetation will be used as screening to obscure the new structures. The walls will be designed to ensure they do not infringe upon the historic qualities of the Superintendent’s House. All work will be completed according to the Secretary of the

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-83 Historic and Archaeological Resources Section 4. Section 4(f) Resources, Uses, and Measures to Minimize Harm

Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and the Secretary of the Interior’s Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes, as well as the National Park Service Technical Preservation Service’s Preservation Brief #36, “Protecting Cultural Landscapes,” as applicable. ODOT will also prepare an inadvertent discovery plan prior to project construction.

 ODOT will provide SHPO the opportunity to provide comments at appropriate times during project construction for relocation of the cemetery gates and design of the retaining walls and will make a reasonable effort to incorporate SHPO comments.

A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between FHWA, SHPO, ODOT, and Multnomah County (included in Attachment 8) memorializes measures Multnomah County would implement to offset the use of this Section 4(f) historic resource (River View Cemetery).

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.

Attachment 6 contains the DOE form for the River View Cemetery Superintendent’s House.

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

Final Section 4(f) Use Determination for the Preferred Alternative No Section 4(f) use of the River View Cemetery Superintendent’s House would result from the preferred alternative (Alternative D Refined).

4(f)-84 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation Historic and Archaeological Resources Section 4. Section 4(f) Resources, Uses, and Measures to Minimize Harm

The preferred alternative 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.

FHWA’s Section 4(f) Policy Paper (2005. p. 13, Question 3B) 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 (http://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 1B). 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. The Superintendent’s House is situated on its own legal property tax lot, which thereby defines the property’s boundaries. Because the preferred alternative would not incorporate property from the Superintendent’s House property site, a determination of Section 4(f) use is based on whether the proximity of preferred 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. The Superintendent’s House would experience a change to its setting from the project with the preferred alternative (Alternative D Refined) resulting from a change in the alignment of the access road to the site, and this change has been determined an adverse effect under Section 106. Although this has been determined an adverse effect under Section 106, it does not meet the level of severity to be considered a constructive use under Section 4(f). As detailed below, proximity effects, including changes to the setting, are unlikely to be so severe as to substantially impair significant attributes of the historic resource and, therefore, would not constitute a constructive use of the property. According to the Section 106 DOE documentation form for the Superintendent's House, the Superintendent’s House 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 [Ellis Lawrence], because it displays those distinctive characteristics that evoke the Georgian style of residential architecture.” The Superintendent’s House site is, therefore, considered eligible for the National Register for the distinctive architectural characteristics of the house structure, and as an extant example of a

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-85 Historic and Archaeological Resources Section 4. Section 4(f) Resources, Uses, and Measures to Minimize Harm particular style of residential architecture attributable to a renowned architect. The realignment of the access road to the Superintendent’s House would not impair the ability of the Superintendent’s House to convey either its architectural attributes or its representation as an architectural style performed by a particular architect. The existing Superintendent’s House structure would still convey its historical and cultural significance despite the realigned access road. Therefore, as the Superintendent’s House does not substantially derive its historical value from its setting, changing this setting would not result in a constructive use. While the preferred alternative would cause a change to the setting of the Superintendent’s House because of the realignment of the access road, the overall setting in relation to the historic building would not change. The building would remain accessible from OR 43 and would retain the same orientation to the street following the completion of the project. The project would not result in the construction of any structures that would hinder the visibility of the building from other vantage points. Although OR 43 would be closer to the Superintendent’s House, it would retain its existing geographical relationship with the historic building, and would still allow the same access to the building as it has currently. None of the anticipated proximity effects or changes in setting described above is likely to be so severe as to substantially impair those significant attributes of the Superintendent’s House historic resource and, therefore, they would not constitute a constructive use of the resource. Attachment 7 contains the FOE form for the River View Cemetery Superintendent’s House.

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

4(f)-86 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation Historic and Archaeological Resources Section 4. Section 4(f) Resources, Uses, and Measures to Minimize Harm

Sellwood Bridge was his first, and it is the longest and the only four-span truss bridge he designed in Portland.

Attachment 6 contains the DOE form for the Sellwood Bridge.

Final Section 4(f) Use Determination for the Preferred Alternative The preferred alternative (Alternative D Refined) would result in a Section 4(f) use of this historical resource. However, as discussed in Section 3, there are no feasible and prudent alternatives that would not use this resource but would meet the purpose and need of the project. The preferred alternative (Alternative D Refined) 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’s Section 4(f) Policy Paper (2005, p. 15, Question 4A) 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. 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 with the preferred alternative (Alternative D Refined).

Attachment 7 contains the FOE form for the Sellwood Bridge.

All Possible Planning to Minimize Harm The following measures will be employed to minimize harm to the Sellwood Bridge historic site:

 ODOT will prepare a supplemental recordation of the Sellwood Bridge in accordance with the standards set forth by the Historic American Engineering Record (HAER), a division of the National Park Service, for Documentation Level 2. Previous HAER recordation was prepared as HAER OR-103, Sellwood Bridge. The supplemental HAER documentation of the Sellwood Bridge would provide a documentation of the changes to the Sellwood Bridge since it was recorded as part of the Willamette River Bridges Project in 1999. This would include the production of a written report, measured drawings showing the bridge’s significant engineering components, and large format photographs that record the current conditions. This material would be added to the existing context and would provide supplementation documentation. Copies of this document will be distributed to local depositories, including ODOT, the University of Oregon Architecture and Allied Arts Library, the Multnomah County archives, and the Central and Sellwood-Moreland branches of the Multnomah County library system, as well as the City of Portland archives, the Oregon Historical Society, and the Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division, if they choose to accept the copies.

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-87 Historic and Archaeological Resources Section 4. Section 4(f) Resources, Uses, and Measures to Minimize Harm

 ODOT will place interpretive signage at the east and west ends of the new bridge or in Sellwood Riverfront Park that will provide information regarding the history of river crossings in the immediate area and the history of the Sellwood neighborhood and River View Cemetery.

 ODOT will clean, treat, and store the existing (original) dedication plaques until completion of the new bridge. These plaques will then be reinstalled at a location near the east end of the bridge. ODOT will also endeavor to employ individuals or companies with experience in producing museum-quality plaques.

 ODOT will provide for the creation and upkeep of a Web site during project construction that provides information regarding the Sellwood Bridge and its historic context. Information for the Web site will be obtained by a qualified researcher and the Web site will be developed by a qualified Web site designer.

 ODOT will assess existing bridge materials to determine what materials, if any, are salvageable and will be made available to interested parties. Salvageable materials may include, but are not limited to, character-defining features of the bridge that may be identified for display or re-use. A list of potential interested parties will be prepared in advance of any proposed salvage or advertisement thereof. An advertisement announcing the availability of salvageable materials from the Sellwood Bridge will also be prepared, which will run in local newspapers and trade publications for a maximum of 3 months. This announcement will also be provided to those on the list of potentially interested parties. Interested parties will contact ODOT regarding material that they wish to procure and the parties will be responsible for moving said material from the site after it has been removed from the bridge. This task will be accomplished using individuals or companies with experience in historic materials preservation and rehabilitation. ODOT will endeavor to identify what materials, if any, could be incorporated into the new bridge and will provide SHPO the opportunity to provide comments at appropriate times during project construction regarding interpretive materials and use of salvage. An MOA between FHWA, SHPO, ODOT, and Multnomah County (included in Attachment 8) memorializes measures Multnomah County would implement to offset this use of a Section 4(f) historic resource (Sellwood Bridge).

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.

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)-88 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation Historic and Archaeological Resources 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 is extant or identified.

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 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

Two views of Willamette Shoreline Trolley Line.

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.

Attachment 6 contains the DOE form for the Willamette Shoreline Trolley.

Final Section 4(f) Use Determination for the Preferred Alternative No Section 4(f) use of the Willamette Shoreline Trolley historical resource would result from the preferred alternative (Alternative D Refined). No permanent incorporation of property from the site would result from the preferred alternative.

The Section 106 process for DEIS Alternative D concluded with a 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]). The refinement of Alternative D (to the current preferred alternative) did not entail any changes with respect to this historical resource.

Attachment 7 contains the FOE form for the Willamette Shoreline Trolley.

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-89 Section 4(f) Assessment Summary Section 4. Section 4(f) Resources, Uses, and Measures to Minimize Harm

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

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 Table 4.3-1 provides a least harm analysis for each Section 4(f) resource. 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. For further detailed information on the impacts to Section 4(f) resources associated with each of the respective DEIS Build alternatives, see Section 4 of the Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation.

B/TDB No The finding of “no use” for Alternative D Refined per CFR 774.13(d) temporary occupation exception criteria C No would be the same as for all the DEIS Build D No alternatives. E No D Refined No

Willamette A No The finding of “no use” for Alternative D Refined per Greenway Trail CFR 774.13(d) temporary occupation exception criteria B No (East Bank) would be the same as for all the DEIS Build B/TDB No alternatives.

4(f)-90 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation Section 4(f) Assessment Summary Section 4. Section 4(f) Resources, Uses, and Measures to Minimize Harm

Willamette A No None Greenway Trail (SE Spokane Street B No None Section) B/TDB No None C No None D No None E No None D Refined No None

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

Oaks Pioneer Park A Yes Greater overall project impacts than the other Build alternatives B No Not a Section 4(f) use; overall project impacts equal to Alternatives C, D, and D Refined, but less than Alternatives A, B (with temporary detour bridge), and E B/TDB Yes Less overall project impacts than Alternative A, but greater than Alternatives B, C, D, D Refined, and E C No Not a Section 4(f) use; overall project impacts equal to Alternatives B, D, and D Refined, but less than Alternatives A, B (with temporary detour bridge), and E

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-91 Section 4(f) Assessment Summary Section 4. Section 4(f) Resources, Uses, and Measures to Minimize Harm

TABLE 4.3-1 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 No Not a Section 4(f) use; overall project impacts equal to Alternatives B, C, and D Refined, but less than Alternatives A, B (with temporary detour bridge), and E E No Not a Section 4(f) use; overall project impacts greater than Alternatives B, C, D and D Refined, but less than Alternatives A and B (with temporary detour bridge) D Refined No Not a Section 4(f) use; overall project impacts equal to Alternatives B, C and D, but less than Alternatives A, B (with temporary detour bridge), and E

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

Powers Marine A Yes Overall project impacts equal to Alternatives B, B Park (with temporary detour bridge), and D; less than Alternative C, but greater than Alternatives D Refined and E B Yes Overall project impacts equal to Alternatives A, B (with temporary detour bridge), and D; less than Alternative C, but greater than Alternatives D Refined and E

4(f)-92 Sellwood Bridge Project Final 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 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 B/TDB Yes Overall project impacts equal to Alternatives A, B, and D; less than Alternative C, but greater than Alternatives D Refined and E C Yes Overall project impacts greater than the other Build alternatives D Yes Overall project impacts equal to Alternatives A, B, and B (with temporary detour bridge); less than Alternative C, but greater than Alternatives D Refined and E E Yes Overall project impacts less than Alternatives A through D; greater than Alternative D Refined D Refined Yes Overall project impacts less than all DEIS Build alternatives; de minimis impact finding

Willamette A Yes Overall project impacts equal among all Build Greenway Trail alternatives (West Bank) B Yes Overall project impacts equal among all Build alternatives B/TDB Yes Overall project impacts equal among all Build alternatives C Yes Overall project impacts equal among all Build alternatives D Yes Overall project impacts equal among all Build alternatives E Yes Overall project impacts equal among all Build alternatives D Refined No None; finding of “no use” per CFR 774.13(d) temporary occupation exception criteria

Willamette A Yes Overall project impacts greater than Alternatives B, Moorage Park B (with temporary detour bridge), D, and D Refined, but less than Alternatives C and E B Yes Overall project impacts equal to Alternatives B (with temporary detour bridge) and D, less than Alternatives A, C, and E, and greater than Alternative D Refined B/TDB Yes Overall project impacts equal to Alternatives B and D, less than Alternatives A, C, and E, and greater than Alternative D Refined

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-93 Section 4(f) Assessment Summary Section 4. Section 4(f) Resources, Uses, and Measures to Minimize Harm

TABLE 4.3-1 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 C Yes Overall project impacts equal to Alternative E, but greater than Alternatives A, B, B (with temporary detour bridge), D, and D Refined D Yes Overall project impacts equal to Alternatives B and B (with temporary detour bridge), less than Alternatives A, C, and E, and greater than Alternative D Refined E Yes Overall project impacts equal to Alternative C, but greater than Alternatives A, B, B (with temporary detour bridge), and D D Refined Yes Overall project impacts less than all other Build alternatives; de minimis impact finding

Oaks Pioneer A No None Church B No None B/TDB No None C No None D No None E No None D Refined No None

River View A Yes Overall project impacts equal to Alternatives B, B Cemetery (with temporary detour bridge), D, D Refined, and E, but less than Alternative C B Yes Overall project impacts equal to Alternatives A, B (with temporary detour bridge), D, D Refined, and E, but less than Alternative C B/TDB Yes Overall project impacts equal to Alternatives A, B, D, D Refined, and E, but less than Alternative C C Yes Overall project impacts greater than the other Build alternatives (due to closure of access road and displacement of cemetery gates) D Yes Overall project impacts equal to Alternatives A, B, B (with temporary detour bridge), D Refined, and E, but less than Alternative C E Yes Overall project impacts equal to Alternatives A, B, B (with temporary detour bridge), D, and D Refined, but less than Alternative C

4(f)-94 Sellwood Bridge Project Final 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 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 Refined Yes Overall project impacts equal to Alternatives A, B, B (with temporary detour bridge), D, and E, but less than Alternative C

River View A No Overall project impacts equal among all Build Cemetery alternatives, except C Superintendent’s House B No Overall project impacts equal among all Build alternatives, except C B/TDB No Overall project impacts equal among all Build alternatives, except C C No Greater overall project impacts that all other Build alternatives due to the closure of the existing access road. D No Overall project impacts equal among all Build alternatives E No Overall project impacts equal among all Build alternatives D Refined No Overall project impacts equal among all Build alternatives

Sellwood Bridge A Yes Overall project impacts equal among all Build (Historical Site) alternatives B Yes Overall project impacts equal among all Build alternatives B/TDB Yes Overall project impacts equal among all Build alternatives C Yes Overall project impacts equal among all Build alternatives D Yes Overall project impacts equal among all Build alternatives E Yes Overall project impacts equal among all Build alternatives D Refined Yes Overall project impacts equal among all Build alternatives

Willamette A No None Shoreline Trolley B No None B/TDB No None C No None

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-95 Section 4(f) Assessment Summary Section 4. Section 4(f) Resources, Uses, and Measures to Minimize Harm

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 8 7.87 B 6 7.48 B/TDB 6 7.48 C 9 6.39 D 5 7.46 E 5 7.24 D Refined 4 5.36 B/TDB = Alternative B with temporary detour bridge

The narrative analysis in Sections 4.1 and 4.2, along with the comparative analysis in Tables 4.3-1 and 4.3-2, provide the substantive information needed to address the 23 CFR 774.3(c)(3) “least harm analysis factors.” Table 4.3-3 summarizes this discussion.

TABLE 4.3-3 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 among Build alternatives with 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. All Build alternatives would result in the same finding of “no use” per CFR 774.13(d) temporary occupation exception criteria as has occurred with the preferred alternative (Alternative D Refined).

4(f)-96 Sellwood Bridge Project Final 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 Least Harm Analysis by 23 CFR 774 Factorsa  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. All Build alternatives would result in the same finding of “no use” per CFR 774.13(d) temporary occupation exception criteria as has occurred with the preferred alternative (Alternative D Refined).

 Willamette Greenway Trail (Spokane Street Section). No Build Alternative would result in a Section 4(f) use of this resource.

 Oaks Pioneer Church. No Build alternative would result in a Section 4(f) use of this resource.

 Willamette Shoreline Trolley. No Build alternative would result in a Section 4(f) use of this resource.

 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, D, and D Refined would have no Section 4(f) use or other impacts. Therefore, these five alternatives would have an equal least harm impact to the park with respect to Factors 1 and 2. At Oaks Pioneer Park, Alternatives B, C, D, and D Refined would have no Section 4(f) use or other impacts. Therefore, these four alternatives would have an equal least harm impact to the park with 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 Recreational 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. Although Alternatives B (with temporary detour bridge), D, and D Refined would provide river-crossing accommodations for bicyclists and pedestrians, they would subject users to using detours and traversing through construction zones (with potential associated temporary trail closures and so forth). Alternatives A, B, and C would equally cause the greatest harm because none of these would provide right-of-way to accommodate the continuity of the trail during the 3- to 4-year construction period. At Powers Marine Park, Alternative D Refined would have the least overall harm with respect to Factors 1 and 2 based on the minimal conversion of park land coupled with the performance of the measures to minimize harm that led to a de minimis impact finding (described in Section 4.1.7). At Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank), Alternative D Refined would have the least harm. Unlike all the other Build alternatives, it would not result in a Section 4(f) use. At Willamette Moorage Park, Alternative D Refined would have the least overall harm with respect to Factors 1 and 2 based on the minimal conversion of park land coupled with the performance of the measures to minimize harm that led to a de minimis impact finding (described in Section 4.1.9). At River View Cemetery, all Build alternatives (other than Alternative C) would equally cause the least harm with 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: Alternative D Refined would cause the least overall harm to Section 4(f) properties with respect to Factors 1 and 2.

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-97 Section 4(f) Assessment Summary Section 4. Section 4(f) Resources, Uses, and Measures to Minimize Harm

TABLE 4.3-3 Least Harm Analysis by 23 CFR 774 Factorsa 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: The following categorization in regard to the “significance” of the five publicb Section 4(f) resources where a least harm differentiation comparison can be made is based on the views of agency officials with jurisdiction over the respective Section 4(f) resources. This categorization was developed following discussions with jurisdictional agency officials while conducting coordination activities over the course of the Sellwood Bridge project.

 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 Recreational 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: Based on the above discussion, Alternatives D and D Refined would cause the least harm with respect to Factors 3 and 4. Alternatives D and D Refined would both have no Section 4(f) use at the five significant Section 4(f) resource sites noted above. Alternatives D and D Refined 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 need for 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 meet the four major needs listed above. The “degree” to which the respective Build alternatives would do this is a consideration that was comprehensively assessed subsequent to the publication and agency comment period for the Sellwood Bridge Project DEIS. The result of the overall assessment of DEIS alternatives was that Alternative D best achieved the purpose and need of the project, leading to its selection as the locally preferred alternative. Alternative D Refined has not been revised in any way that would lessen the degree to which the project’s purpose and need would be achieved, but rather has increased the potential for achieving the project’s purpose and need.

4(f)-98 Sellwood Bridge Project Final 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 Least Harm Analysis by 23 CFR 774 Factorsa Conclusion: Based on the preceding discussion, Alternative D Refined ranks highest among all alternatives with respect to Factor 5.

Factor 6: “After reasonable mitigation, the magnitude of any adverse impacts to resources not protected by Section 4(f)” Discussion: Based on the assessment of the totality of impacts to non-Section 4(f) resources, decision-makers for the Sellwood Bridge Project concluded that Alternative D Refined would have the least impact on natural and human resources in the project area. The reader is directed to the Executive Summary of the Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation for further detail regarding the superior benefits of Alternative D Refined (compared to the other Build alternatives studied) with regard to overall project impacts to natural, built, and human resources in the project area. Conclusion: Based on the preceding discussion, Alternative D Refined ranks highest among all alternatives with respect to Factor 6.

Factor 7: “Substantial differences in costs among the alternatives” Discussion: The following lists the respective Build alternative construction cost estimates (including right-of-way acquisition costs):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

 Alternative D Refined: $290–$299 million Conclusion: Alternative C clearly would be the least costly Build alternative. However, the percentage difference between Alternative C and Alternative D Refined would be between 3.5% (for an Alternative D Refined construction cost of $290 million) and 6.4% (for an Alternative D Refined construction cost of $299 million). It is not evident that this cost difference would be considered “substantial” in nature. 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.

Based on an overall assessment of the seven factors in CFR 774.3, the preferred alternative (Alternative D Refined) would result in the least overall harm.

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-99

Section 5. Coordination

The development of the 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 agencies and entities include the following:

 Portland Parks & Recreation (PP&R)  Portland Bureau of Environmental Services (BES)  Metro  River View Cemetery  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 closely with PP&R. The County provided draft sections of the Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation report for review and comment and worked with both PP&R and BES to establish suitable mitigation concepts. During the FEIS phase of the project, Multnomah County engaged in a series of meetings with PP&R, BES, the City of Portland Bureau of Development Services (BDS), and the Portland Bureau of Transportation (PBOT) to arrive at memorandums of agreement (MOAs) for mitigation measures at Powers Marine Park and Willamette Moorage Park, as well as MOAs regarding temporary occupation at the Willamette Greenway Trail (East Bank) and the Springwater Corridor Trail. Multnomah County also engaged in a series of meetings with ODOT historical staff and SHPO to arrive at an MOA for River View Cemetery, the River View Cemetery Superintendent’s House, and the Sellwood Bridge. Table 5-1 lists the meetings that were held with Section 4(f) resource stakeholders over the course of the DEIS and FEIS processes, in addition to the regular transmission of project-related communication between Multnomah County and stakeholders.

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-101

Section 5. Coordination

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, PBOT Portland, OR October 23, 2007 Portland Parks & Recreation FHWA, ODOT, Multnomah Portland Building County, PP&R, PBOT, CH2M HILL Portland, OR 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 July 22, 2009 CH2MHILL Center PP&R, BES, PBOT, Portland Water Portland, OR Bureau, Multnomah County, CH2M HILL July 23, 2009 CH2MHILL Center ODOT, SHPO, Multnomah Portland, OR County, CH2M HILL August 12, 2009 CH2MHILL Center PP&R, BES, PBOT, Multnomah Portland, OR County, CH2M HILL August 24, 2009 Sellwood Bridge Project Site PP&R, BES, PBOT, Portland Water Portland, OR Bureau, BDS, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW),Multnomah County, CH2M HILL August 26, 2009 CH2MHILL Center River View Cemetery Board, Portland, OR Multnomah County, CH2M HILL September 24, 2009 CH2MHILL Center ODOT, SHPO, Multnomah Portland, OR County, CH2M HILL October 7, 2009 Portland Parks & Recreation PP&R, Multnomah County, Portland Building CH2M HILL Portland, OR

4(f)-102 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation

Section 6. References

CH2M HILL. 2008. Sellwood Bridge Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Multnomah County, Oregon, Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation Technical Report. Prepared for Multnomah County, Oregon. Prepared by Michael Hoffmann. October 2008. CH2M HILL. 2009. Sellwood Bridge Project Identification and Refinement of the Preferred Alternative Technical Memorandum. September 2009. City of Portland. 2004, updated in 2007. Transportation System Plan. http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?c=diidi.

City of Portland. 2006. Freight Master Plan. City of Portland. Bureau of Planning. 1987. Willamette Greenway Plan. http://www.metro- region.org/library_docs/trans/willamette_greenway_plan_w.pdf.

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

City of Portland. Portland Office of Transportation. 2001. Tacoma Main Street Plan.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2005. Section 4(f) Policy Paper.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2009. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), and Multnomah County. 2008. Sellwood Bridge SE Tacoma Street and Oregon State Highway 43 Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation. Prepared by CH2M HILL. November 2008.

Metro. 1992. Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan. Metro. 1999. South Willamette River Crossing Study. May 1999. http://www.sellwoodbridge.org/ProjectLibrary/SouthWillametteRiverCrossingStudy- May1999.pdf.

Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). 2010. OR 43: Sellwood Bridge Interchange Area Management Plan, Portland, Oregon.

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

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-103

Index

Alternative A, 4(f)-13 Alternative D, 4(f)-38 construction activities, 4(f)-18, 4(f)-36 Alternative D Refined, 4(f)-53 Alternative B, 4(f)-18 Alternative E, 4(f)-38 construction activities, 4(f)-22, 4(f)-37 bridge foundation, 4(f)-35 Alternative C, 4(f)-22 cofferdam method, 4(f)-56 construction activities, 4(f)-26, 4(f)-37 cost, 4(f)-52 Alternative D, 4(f)-26 dredging, 4(f)-35, 4(f)-57 construction activities, 4(f)-29, 4(f)-38 duration, 4(f)-57 Alternative D Refined, 4(f)-39 in-water, 4(f)-35 access to properties adjacent to OR 43, land-based, 4(f)-34 4(f)-49 perched method, 4(f)-57 access to River View Cemetery, Powers rock excavation, 4(f)-34 Marine Park, and the Staff Jennings staging, 4(f)-57 Property, 4(f)-50 storage and fabrication areas, 4(f)-34 access to Willamette Moorage Park and the west-side interchange, 4(f)-34 Macadam Bay Club, 4(f)-50 coordination, 4(f)-101 construction activities, 4(f)-53 decision points cross-section, 4(f)-45 6 Identify preferred alternative, 4(f)-39 description, 4(f)-40 impacts summary, 4(f)-96 east-side connection, 4(f)-49 least harm analysis, 4(f)-90, 4(f)-96 in-water construction, 4(f)-56 Macadam Bay Club, 4(f)-13 land-based construction, 4(f)-55 No Build Alternative, 4(f)-59 mitigation and enhancements, 4(f)-52 Oaks Pioneer Church, 4(f)-81 relation to Section 4(f) resources, 4(f)-52 Oaks Pioneer Park, 4(f)-72 replacement bridge, 4(f)-45 Powers Marine Park, 4(f)-73 west-side interchange, 4(f)-47 project, 4(f)-9 Alternative E, 4(f)-30 location, 4(f)-3 construction activities, 4(f)-33, 4(f)-38 need, 4(f)-4 bicyclists and pedestrians, 4(f)-6 purpose, 4(f)-2, 4(f)-4 bridge River View Cemetery, 4(f)-82 bicycle/pedestrian, 4(f)-37 Superintendent’s House, 4(f)-84 box-girder, 4(f)-39 roadways cross-sections, 4(f)-13 substandard and unsafe, 4(f)-6 deck-arch, 4(f)-38 Section 4(f) evaluation, 4(f)-1 delta-frame, 4(f)-38 area of potential effect, 4(f)-7 structural integrity, 4(f)-4 Avoidance Concept 1: No Build Alternative, through-arch, 4(f)-39 4(f)-59 bridge design Avoidance Concept 2: Improve the deck-arch, 4(f)-55 transportation facility without the use of delta-frame, 4(f)-55 Section 4(f) property, 4(f)-60 Build alternatives, 4(f)-9 Avoidance Concept 3: Build a new bridge construction activities, 4(f)-34 facility at a new location without use of Alternative A, 4(f)-36 Section 4(f) resource, 4(f)-61 Alternative B, 4(f)-37 Avoidance Concept 4: Tunnel alignment, Alternative C, 4(f)-37 4(f)-61

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 4(f)-105

Index

description, 4(f)-1 temporary detour bridge, 4(f)-21 historic and archaeological resources, 4(f)-80 traffic parks and recreational resources, 4(f)-65 capacity, 4(f)-6 prudence and feasibility, 4(f)-2 trolley. See Willamette Shoreline Trolley resources, 4(f)-7, 4(f)-52 Willamette Greenway Trail Sellwood Bridge, 4(f)-86 East Bank, 4(f)-68 Sellwood Bridge Recreational Trail, 4(f)-72 SE Spokane Street section, 4(f)-71 Sellwood Riverfront Park, 4(f)-71 West Bank, 4(f)-9, 4(f)-75 Springwater Corridor Trail, 4(f)-65 Willamette Moorage Park, 4(f)-13, 4(f)-78 streetcar, 4(f)-9 Willamette Shoreline Trolley, 4(f)-9, 4(f)-88

4(f)-106 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Section 4(f) Evaluation