FEISand 4 F

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
AND FINAL SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION
Sellwood Bridge
SE Tacoma Street and Oregon 43
Multnomah County, Oregon
Federal Highway Administration | Oregon Department of Transportation | Multnomah County

August 2010
In compliance with the Americans with
Disabilities Act, alternative formats of this
document will be made available upon request.
Printed on recycled
and recyclable paper
Fact Sheet
Project Title Two public briefings, an open house, and a public

hearing were held in November and December
Sellwood Bridge Project
2008. After public and agency comments were
fully considered and evaluated, Alternative D was
Project Description
identified as the preferred alternative.
The Sellwood Bridge project would rehabilitate
Alternative D, which has been refined to address
or replace the Sellwood Bridge located in
public and agency comments and minimize
Portland, Multnomah County, Oregon. The
impacts, is evaluated as Alternative D Refined in
bridge crosses the Willamette River on
the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS).
SE Tacoma Street on the east end and intersects
Therefore, the FEIS evaluates a No Build
with Oregon 43 (OR 43, also known as
Alternative, the five Build alternatives evaluated in
SW Macadam Avenue) on the west end. The
the DEIS, and the preferred alternative
following four main issues identify the need for
(Alternative D Refined).
this project:
Under the No Build Alternative, the existing
• Inadequate structural integrity to safely infrastructure would remain the same and the
accommodate various vehicle types (including bridge would continue to operate as it does
transit vehicles, trucks, and emergency today. The bridge, west-side interchange
vehicles) and to withstand moderate seismic configuration, and east-side bridge approach
events would not change. Multnomah County has
• Substandard and unsafe roadway design identified maintenance activities under the No
Build Alternative that would be necessary to keep
• Substandard pedestrian and bicycle facilities the bridge operational and in as good a condition
across the river as possible for the next 20 years.
• Existing and future travel demands between The following list identifies the Build alternatives
origins and destinations served by the evaluated in the FEIS.
Sellwood Bridge exceed available capacity
• Alternative A would rehabilitate the existing
A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), bridge for motorized vehicles and would add
which was distributed in November 2008, a separate bicycle/pedestrian bridge 300 feet
evaluated a No Build Alternative and five Build north of the existing bridge. The river
alternatives, lettered A through E. The Build crossing would be closed during
alternatives were assembled from compatible construction.
combinations of alignments, bridge cross-
sections, bridge design types, west-end • Alternative B would rehabilitate the existing
interchange types, and east-end intersection bridge and widen it on the north side. It
types. These features were evaluated within the would include the option for a temporary
context of individual Build alternatives. However, detour bridge to keep the river crossing open
some features could be substituted into other during construction.
alternatives. • Alternative C would consist of a double-
deck bridge replacement on the existing
Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3

Fact Sheet
alignment. The river crossing would be closed can be obtained free of charge by contacting
during construction. Multnomah County at:
• Alternative D would consist of a Mike Pullen

replacement bridge on the existing alignment, Multnomah County Public Affairs Office
widened to the south. The river crossing (503) 988-6804
would remain open during construction.
Printed copies of the FEIS are available at select
• Alternative E would replace the existing Multnomah County and Clackamas County
bridge on a new alignment to the north. The libraries, and other locations (see the
river crossing would remain open during Distribution List in Appendix E of the FEIS).
construction.
Anticipated Permits and
• Alternative D Refined (the preferred
Approvals
alternative) includes design refinements to
Anticipated permits and approvals that would be
Alternative D to address public and agency
required for the project include the following:
comments received on the DEIS, and to
minimize environmental impacts, which Federal
included the refinement of:
• Federal Highway Administration
− OR 43 footprint to reduce park impacts − Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of
Transportation Act of 1966
− Pedestrian and bicyclist facilities to
• National Park Service
improve access, improve safety, and
− Section 6(f) of the Land and Water
reduce park and natural resource impacts
Conservation Act (Alternative A only)
− A driveway access to improve safety and • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/Oregon
reduce park impacts Department of State Lands
− Clean Water Act, Section 404
− The width of the bridge deck on the
− Oregon's Removal-Fill Law
west-end
− Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act
− An access roadway footprint to • U.S. Coast Guard
accommodate a future streetcar line − Section 9 of the Rivers and Harbors Act
For a complete description of the alternatives, • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/National Marine
see Chapter 2 of the FEIS. Fisheries Service
− Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act
Lead Agencies Consultation; Biological Opinion
Multnomah County − Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
Federal Highway Administration − Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
Oregon Department of Transportation and Management Act
− Migratory Bird Treaty Act
Document Availability
State
The FEIS can be accessed at
www.sellwoodbridge.org. Readers can follow a • Oregon Department of Agriculture
link from that page to a page to submit comments − Oregon Endangered Species Act (Plants)
online. The FEIS is also available on CD-ROM and • Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality
4 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Fact Sheet
− Clean Water Act Section 401: Water − Harbor Master Permit

Quality Certification
FEIS Appendix F, Summary of Permits and
− Clean Water Act Section 402: National
Clearances Needed, summarizes required
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
permits and clearances for this project.
(NPDES) Program
− Clean Water Act Section 402: NPDES The Federal Highway Administration, in
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System cooperation with the Oregon Department of
(MS4) Program Transportation and Multnomah County, intends
− Conformance with Oregon Department to issue a “statute of limitations” (SOL) notice in
the Federal Register, pursuant to 23 United
of Environmental Quality’s National
States Code (U.S.C.) Section 139(l), indicating
Ambient Air Quality Standards
that one or more federal agencies have taken final
• Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife action on permits, licenses, or approvals for this
− Oregon Endangered Species Act transportation project. This SOL notice
(Wildlife) establishes that claims seeking judicial review of
− Fish Passage Plan Approval (Oregon those federal agency actions will be barred unless
Administrative Rule [OAR] 635-012) such claims are filed within 180 days after the
• Oregon Department of Transportation date of publication of the notice in the Federal
Register. Multnomah County will also make the
− Access spacing deviation (OAR 734-051)
SOL notice available on the project website at
• Oregon State Marine Board http://www.sellwoodbridge.org.
− Recreational Waters Coordination
Requirements Authors and Principal
• State Historic Preservation Office Contributors
− Section 106 Consultation, National The names of authors and principal contributors
Historic Preservation Act are listed in FEIS Appendix C, List of Preparers.
Local Record of Decision

• City of Portland Following issuance of the FEIS, the Federal
− Floodplain Development Permit Highway Administration will issue a Record of
− Type II Greenway Permit Decision. This approval, and a Financial Plan
− Type II Environmental Permit demonstrating how the project will be funded,
− Type II Historic Design Review would allow Multnomah County to move ahead
− Conditional Use Permit with the project.
− Non Park Use Permit
− Noise Ordinance Variance
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act,

alternative formats of this document will be made
available upon request.
Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 5

Final Environmental Impact Statement
Table of Contents
Summary .................................................................................................... S-1

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

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

Table of Contents (Continued)
Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts,

and Mitigation............................................................................................. 3-1
3.1 Transportation ................................................................................................................................................ 3-1
3.1.1 Affected Environment ..................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1.2 No Build Alternative Environmental Consequences ............................................................... 3-8
3.1.3 Build Alternatives Environmental Consequences .................................................................. 3-10
3.1.4 Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Transportation Impact ................................. 3-30
3.2 Bicyclists and Pedestrians............................................................................................................................ 3-34
3.2.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................................................... 3-34
3.2.2 Bicyclist and Pedestrian Demand ............................................................................................... 3-36
3.2.3 No Build Alternative Environmental Consequences ............................................................. 3-38
3.2.5 Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Bicyclist and Pedestrian Impact ............... 3-53
3.3 Right-of-Way and Relocation..................................................................................................................... 3-56
3.3.4 Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Right-of-Way Impact .................................... 3-70
3.4 Utilities ............................................................................................................................................................ 3-71
3.4.4 Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Utilities Impact ............................................... 3-73
3.5 Land Use ......................................................................................................................................................... 3-74
3.5.4 Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Land-use Impact ............................................. 3-80
3.6 Economic ........................................................................................................................................................ 3-82
3.6.4 Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Economic Impact ........................................... 3-91
3.6.5 Impacts of Project Financing ....................................................................................................... 3-92
3.7 Social Elements .............................................................................................................................................. 3-94
3.7.2 No Build Alternative Environmental Consequences ........................................................... 3-101
3.7.3 Build Alternatives Environmental Consequences ................................................................ 3-101
3.7.4 Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Social Impact ................................................. 3-107
3.8 Environmental Justice................................................................................................................................. 3-109
3.8.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................................................. 3-109
3.8.4 Benefits ........................................................................................................................................... 3-117
3.8.5 Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Environmental Justice Impact ................... 3-118
ii Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3.9 Parks and Recreation ................................................................................................................................. 3-119

3.9.4 Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Park and Recreation Impact ...................... 3-128
3.9.5 Section 6(f) .................................................................................................................................... 3-132
3.10 Archaeological and Historic Resources ................................................................................................ 3-133
3.10.4 Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Archaeological and Historic
Resources Impact ........................................................................................................................ 3-147
3.11 Visual Resources ......................................................................................................................................... 3-149
3.11.4 Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Visual Resources Impact ............................ 3-158
3.12 Geology ......................................................................................................................................................... 3-160
3.12.4 Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Geology Impact ............................................ 3-166
3.13 Water Quality ............................................................................................................................................. 3-168
3.13.4 Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Water Quality Impact ................................ 3-171
3.14 Hydraulics ..................................................................................................................................................... 3-172
3.14.4 Floodplain Finding ........................................................................................................................ 3-174
3.14.5 Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Hydraulics Impact ........................................ 3-175
3.15 Aquatic Resources ...................................................................................................................................... 3-176
3.16 Vegetation..................................................................................................................................................... 3-188
3.16.4 Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Vegetation Impact ....................................... 3-192
3.17 Wetlands ....................................................................................................................................................... 3-193
Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement iii

3.17.4 Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Wetlands Impact ......................................... 3-196

3.18 Wildlife .......................................................................................................................................................... 3-197
3.18.4 Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Wildlife Impact ............................................. 3-203
3.19 Noise ............................................................................................................................................................. 3-204
3.19.4 Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Traffic Noise Impact ................................... 3-211
3.20 Energy ............................................................................................................................................................ 3-212
3.20.4 Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Energy Impact ............................................... 3-213
3.21 Air Quality .................................................................................................................................................... 3-214
3.21.2 No Build Alternative and Build Alternatives Environmental Consequences ................. 3-216
3.21.3 Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Air Quality Impact ....................................... 3-220
3.22 Hazardous Materials................................................................................................................................... 3-221
3.22.4 Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Hazardous Materials Impact ..................... 3-225
3.23 Relationship of Short-term Uses of the Environment and Long-term Productivity ................... 3-226
3.23.1 No Build Alternative ................................................................................................................... 3-226
3.23.2 Build Alternatives ......................................................................................................................... 3-226
3.24 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ............................................................... 3-228
3.24.1 No Build Alternative ................................................................................................................... 3-228
3.24.2 Build Alternatives ......................................................................................................................... 3-228
3.25 Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................................................................... 3-230
3.25.1 Past and Present Actions ........................................................................................................... 3-230
3.25.2 Foreseeable Actions .................................................................................................................... 3-233
3.25.3 Future Cumulative Impacts ....................................................................................................... 3-233
3.25.4 Future Cumulative Impacts by Discipline............................................................................... 3-235
Chapter 4. Comparison of Alternatives ................................................... 4-1

4.1 Key Differentiators between the No Build Alternative and the Build Alternatives ....................... 4-1
4.1.1 Structural Integrity and Motorized Vehicle Safety ................................................................... 4-1
4.1.2 OR 43 Traffic Flow .......................................................................................................................... 4-2
4.1.3 Transit and Freight Use .................................................................................................................. 4-2
4.1.4 Bicyclist and Pedestrian Use.......................................................................................................... 4-2
4.1.5 Visual Impacts ................................................................................................................................... 4-4
4.2 Key Differentiators among Build Alternatives ......................................................................................... 4-4
4.2.1 Bridge Closure.................................................................................................................................. 4-4
iv Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

4.2.2 Construction Cost .......................................................................................................................... 4-5

4.2.3 Ability to Phase Construction ...................................................................................................... 4-6
4.2.4 Bicyclists and Pedestrians............................................................................................................... 4-9
4.2.5 Transit ................................................................................................................................................ 4-9
4.2.6 Residential Displacements ........................................................................................................... 4-11
4.2.7 Business Displacements................................................................................................................ 4-11
4.2.8 Maintenance of Access to Businesses and Residences ......................................................... 4-17
4.2.9 Park and Recreational Facility Impacts ..................................................................................... 4-17
4.2.10 Section 4(f) ...................................................................................................................................... 4-17
4.2.11 Regulated Floodway ...................................................................................................................... 4-19
4.3 Key Differentiators among Build Alternative Elements ....................................................................... 4-20
4.3.1 Alignment ......................................................................................................................................... 4-20
4.3.2 West-side Interchange Type ....................................................................................................... 4-21
4.3.3 Basic Bridge Cross-section .......................................................................................................... 4-24
4.3.4 SE 6th Avenue Intersection—Neighborhood Cut-through Traffic versus Traffic
Operations ...................................................................................................................................... 4-26
4.3.5 Rehabilitation versus Replacement ............................................................................................ 4-29
4.4 Section 4(f) Preliminary Least Harm Analysis ........................................................................................ 4-31
Chapter 5. Public Involvement and Agency Coordination .................... 5-1

5.1 Decision Structure and Public Involvement Process .............................................................................. 5-1
5.1.1 Project Groups ................................................................................................................................. 5-2
5.1.2 Decision Process and Structure ................................................................................................... 5-4
5.2 Key Issues and Themes ................................................................................................................................. 5-6
5.3 Agency Review and Coordination ............................................................................................................ 5-11
5.3.1 Collaborative Environmental and Transportation Agreement for Streamlining
Process ............................................................................................................................................. 5-11
5.3.2 Lead, Cooperating, and Participating Agencies....................................................................... 5-12
5.4 Comments on the DEIS .............................................................................................................................. 5-14
5.4.1 Public Briefings, Hearing, and Open House............................................................................. 5-14
5.4.2 DEIS Comment Summary ............................................................................................................ 5-14
5.5 Activities Completed after Distribution of the DEIS ........................................................................... 5-15
5.5.1 Identification of a Preferred Alternative .................................................................................. 5-15
5.5.2 Local Jurisdiction Adoption of a Preferred Alternative ........................................................ 5-17
5.5.3 Agency Coordination .................................................................................................................... 5-17
5.5.4 Refinement of the Preferred Alternative ................................................................................. 5-20
5.5.5 Other Federal, State, and Local Actions Required for the Proposed Action ................. 5-20
5.5.6 Record of Decision ....................................................................................................................... 5-21
Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement v

Final Section 4(f) Evaluation

Section 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 4(f)-1
Section 2. Proposed Actions ................................................................................................................................... 4(f)-9
Section 3. Avoidance Alternatives ....................................................................................................................... 4(f)-59
Section 4. Section 4(f) Resources, Uses, and Measures to Minimize Harm .............................................. 4(f)-65
Section 5. Coordination ....................................................................................................................................... 4(f)-101
Section 6. References ........................................................................................................................................... 4(f)-103
Index ............................................................................................................................................................... 4(f)-105
Attachments:
1. Section 4(f) Temporary Use Documentation: Springwater Corridor Trail
2. Section 4(f) Temporary Use Documentation: Willamette Greenway Trail (East Bank)
3. De minimis Findings Documentation: Powers Marine Park
4. Section 4(f) Temporary Use Documentation: Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank)
5. De minimis Findings Documentation: Willamette Moorage Park
6. Section 106 Determination of Eligibility (DOE) Forms
7. Section 106 Findings of Effect (FOE) Forms
8. Historic Resources Memorandum of Agreement: Riverview Cemetery and Sellwood Bridge
Appendixes
Appendix A. Acronyms and Abbreviations
Appendix B. References
Appendix C. List of Preparers
Appendix D. List of Supporting Technical Documentation
Appendix E. Distribution and Notice of Availability Lists
Appendix F. Summary of Permits and Clearances Needed
Appendix G. Summary of Mitigation and Environmental Commitments
Appendix H. SHPO Findings of Effect (FOE) Concurrence Letter
Appendix I. Responses to DEIS Comments
Appendix J. Original Comments on the DEIS
Appendix K. Index
vi Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figures
1.2-1 Project Vicinity ............................................................................................................................................... 1-3
1.2-2 Existing Conditions ...................................................................................................................................... 1-3
2.1-1 Decision Points in the Evaluation Process .............................................................................................. 2-1

2.1-2 Bridge Alignment Concepts Evaluated .................................................................................................... 2-7
2.2-1 Alternative A: Rehabilitation Bridge with Separate Bike/Ped Bridge............................................... 2-19
2.2-2 Alternative A Bridge Configuration ....................................................................................................... 2-20
2.2-3 Rehabilitated Bridge Cross-section ........................................................................................................ 2-21
2.2-4 Alternative B: Rehabilitation Bridge with Temporary Detour Bridge ............................................ 2-23
2.2-5 Alternative B Bridge Configuration ........................................................................................................ 2-24
2.2-6 Temporary Detour Bridge Cross-section ............................................................................................ 2-25
2.2-7 Alternative C: Replacement Bridge on Existing Alignment .............................................................. 2-27
2.2-8 Alternative C Bridge Configuration ....................................................................................................... 2-28
2.2-9 Through-arch Bridge .................................................................................................................................. 2-29
2.2-10 Alternative D: Replacement Bridge, Widened to the South ............................................................ 2-30
2.2-11 Alternative D Bridge Configuration ....................................................................................................... 2-32
2.2-12 Delta-frame Bridge ..................................................................................................................................... 2-33
2.2-13 Deck-arch Bridge ........................................................................................................................................ 2-33
2.2-14 Alternative E: Replacement Bridge, Relocated to the North with Transit Lanes ....................... 2-35
2.2-15 Alternative E Bridge Configuration ........................................................................................................ 2-36
2.2-16 Box-girder Bridge ....................................................................................................................................... 2-37
2.2-17 Through-arch Bridge .................................................................................................................................. 2-37
2.3-1 Preferred Alternative – Alternative D Refined .................................................................................... 2-44
2.3-2 Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) Bridge Configuration ............................................. 2-48
2.3-3 West End Bridge Configuration – Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined)
and Alternative D ........................................................................................................................................ 2-49
2.3-4 West-side Interchange – Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) and Alternative D .... 2-50
2.3-5 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities – Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined)
and Alternative D ........................................................................................................................................ 2-52
2.3-6 East-side Connection – Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) ......................................... 2-53
2.3-7 Willamette Moorage Park and Macadam Bay Club Driveway Access – Preferred
Alternative (Alternative D Refined) ........................................................................................................ 2-54
2.3-8 Willamette Moorage Park/Stephens Creek Mitigation Area and Powers Marine
Park Mitigation Area – Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) .......................................... 2-56
3.1-1 Study Area Roadways .................................................................................................................................. 3-2

3.1-2 Existing OR 43/Sellwood Bridge Interchange ........................................................................................ 3-4
3.1-3 Alternative A West-side Interchange .................................................................................................... 3-17
3.1-4 Alternative B West-side Interchange ..................................................................................................... 3-19
3.1-5 Alternative C West-side Interchange .................................................................................................... 3-22
3.1-6 Alternative D West-side Interchange .................................................................................................... 3-24
3.1-7 Alternative E West-side Interchange ..................................................................................................... 3-26
3.1-8 Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) West-side Interchange ......................................... 3-29
3.2-1 Alternative A Bridge Cross-sections ..................................................................................................... 3-39
Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement vii

3.2-2 Alternative A West-side and East-side Bicyclist and Pedestrian Facilities ..................................... 3-40
3.2-3 Alternative B Bridge Cross-section ....................................................................................................... 3-42
3.2-4 Alternative B West-side and East-side Bicyclist and Pedestrian Facilities ...................................... 3-43
3.2-5 Alternative C Bridge Cross-section ....................................................................................................... 3-44
3.2-6 Alternative C West-side and East-side Bicyclist and Pedestrian Facilities ..................................... 3-45
3.2-7 Alternative D Bridge Cross-section ....................................................................................................... 3-47
3.2-8 Alternative D West-side and East-side Bicyclist and Pedestrian Facilities .................................... 3-47
3.2-9 Alternative E Bridge Cross-section ......................................................................................................... 3-48
3.2-10 Alternative E West-side and East-side Bicyclist and Pedestrian Facilities ..................................... 3-49
3.2-11 Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) West-side and East-side Bicyclist and Pedestrian
Facilities ......................................................................................................................................................... 3-52
3.3-1 Residential and Commercial Properties ............................................................................................... 3-56
3.3-2 Impacted Tax Lots ...................................................................................................................................... 3-60
3.3-3 Alternative A Right-of-Way Impacts ...................................................................................................... 3-62
3.3-4 Alternative B Right-of-Way Impacts ...................................................................................................... 3-63
3.3-5 Alternative C Right-of-Way Impacts ..................................................................................................... 3-64
3.3-6 Alternative D Right-of-Way Impacts ..................................................................................................... 3-66
3.3-7 Alternative E Right-of-Way Impacts ...................................................................................................... 3-68
3.3-8 Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) Right-of-Way Impacts .......................................... 3-69
3.4-1 Existing Utilities ........................................................................................................................................... 3-71
3.5-1 Generalized Land Uses .............................................................................................................................. 3-75
3.5-2 Greenway and Environmental Overlay Zones .................................................................................... 3-76
3.6-1 West-side Economic Analysis Study Area ............................................................................................ 3-82
3.6-2 East-side Economic Analysis Study Area .............................................................................................. 3-83
3.7-1 Selected Social Elements ........................................................................................................................... 3-95
3.7-2 Transit and Emergency Vehicle Routes ............................................................................................... 3-100
3.8-1 Environmental Justice Direct Impact Study Area ............................................................................. 3-110
3.8-2 Environmental Justice Indirect Impact Study Area ........................................................................... 3-111
3.9-1 Park and Recreation Facilities ................................................................................................................ 3-119
3.9-2 Willamette Moorage Park/Stephens Creek Mitigation Area and Powers Marine
Park Mitigation Area – Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) ........................................ 3-125
3.10-1 Area of Potential Resources Effect and Historic Resources ........................................................... 3-133
3.10-2 Existing Condition and Alternative D Refined .................................................................................... 3-145
3.11-1 Protected Scenic Viewpoints and Key Viewpoints for Visual Analysis ........................................ 3-150
3.11-2 Alternative A Cable-stayed Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge from Sellwood Riverfront Park .......... 3-152
3.11-3 Alternative A Roundabout Interchange and Bicycle/Pedestrian Path............................................ 3-152
3.11-4 Alternative C Through-arch Bridge from SE Tacoma Street .......................................................... 3-154
3.11-5 Alternative C Trumpet Interchange ..................................................................................................... 3-154
3.11-6 Alternative D and Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) Deck-arch Bridge from SE
Tacoma Street ............................................................................................................................................ 3-156
3.11-7 Alternative D and Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) Deck-arch Bridge from
Sellwood Riverfront Park......................................................................................................................... 3-156
3.11-8 Alternative E Through-arch Bridge from Sellwood Riverfront Park ............................................. 3-157
3.11-9 Alternative E Signalized Interchange and South Ramps from above West Bank in
Mid-Air (Demolished Existing Bridge) .................................................................................................. 3-157
3.12-1 Sellwood Slide ........................................................................................................................................... 3-161
viii Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3.12-2 Geologic Cross-Section ........................................................................................................................... 3-161

3.12-3 Geologic Mitigation Techniques ............................................................................................................ 3-163
3.13-1 Potential Water Quality Swale Locations along SE Tacoma Street .............................................. 3-170
3.17-1 Location of Stephens Creek Wetland ................................................................................................... 3-194
3.19-1 2035 Noise Levels for the No Build Alternative and the Build Alternatives ............................. 3-207
3.22-1 Features of Environmental Concern .................................................................................................... 3-223
4.2-1 Total Construction Cost in 2012 Millions of Dollars by Alternative and Bridge Type ................ 4-7
4.2-2 Bridge Construction Cost in 2012 Millions of Dollars by Alternative and Bridge Type .............. 4-7
4.2-3 West-side Interchange Construction Cost in 2012 Millions of Dollars by Alternative ............... 4-8
4.2-4 East-side Connection Construction Cost in 2012 Millions of Dollars by Alternative .................. 4-8
4.2-5 Build Alternative Alignments ..................................................................................................................... 4-9
4.2-6 Residences Displaced by Build Alternatives ......................................................................................... 4-13
4.2-7 Businesses Displaced by Build Alternatives .......................................................................................... 4-14
4.3-1 West-side Interchange Types .................................................................................................................. 4-22
4.3-2 East-side Connection ................................................................................................................................. 4-28
5.1-1 Sellwood Bridge Project Decision Structure ......................................................................................... 5-2
5.1-2 Project Schedule and Decision Points ...................................................................................................... 5-4
Tables
S-1 Cooperating and Participating Agencies ...................................................................................................S-5
S-2 Build Alternative Characteristics ................................................................................................................ S-9
S-3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts of the No Build Alternative and the Build Alternatives ......... S-12
S-4 Areas of Controversy and Resolution ................................................................................................... S-32
S-5 Other Federal, State, and Local Actions Required .............................................................................. S-36
2.1-1 Reason(s) for Eliminating Six Alignments in Decision Point 4 ........................................................... 2-8
2.1-2 Primary Reason(s) for Eliminating Four Alignments in Decision Point 5 ...................................... 2-10
2.2-1 Build Alternative Characteristics ............................................................................................................ 2-14
2.3-1 Build Alternative Characteristics including Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) ...... 2-45
3.1-1 Travel Markets of Existing Sellwood Bridge Users .............................................................................. 3-4

3.1-2 Travel Markets of Existing and Future Sellwood Bridge Users ......................................................... 3-8
3.1-3 Existing and 2035 Weekday Traffic Demands ....................................................................................... 3-9
3.1-4 No Build Alternative: Summary of Potential Impacts ........................................................................ 3-11
3.1-5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures Common to All Build Alternatives ........................................... 3-15
3.1-6 Alternative A: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ......................................................... 3-18
3.1-7 Alternative B: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures .......................................................... 3-20
3.1-8 Alternative C: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ......................................................... 3-23
3.1-9 Alternative D: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ......................................................... 3-25
3.1-10 Alternative E: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures .......................................................... 3-28
3.1-11 Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined): Summary of Impacts
and Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................................................ 3-30
3.1-12 Summary of Alternatives by Potential Differentiating Roadway Impacts ....................................... 3-32
Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement ix

3.1-13 Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Construction-related Traffic Impacts ..................... 3-33

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

3.14-1 Summary of Hydraulic Conditions by Alternative, Bridge Type, and Bridge

Foundation Method ................................................................................................................................... 3-175
3.15-1 Seasonal Average Water Quality Index Results for the Lower Willamette Basin
(Water Year 1986–1995) ....................................................................................................................... 3-177
3.15-2 Willamette River Mouth to Willamette Falls—Resident Salmonid Species Life History
and Timing ................................................................................................................................................... 3-179
3.15-3 Willamette River Mouth to Willamette Falls—Anadromous Species Life History
and Timing .................................................................................................................................................. 3-180
3.15-4 Potential Riverine Impacts ...................................................................................................................... 3-183
3.15-5 Sellwood Bridge Build Alternatives Overall Aquatic Resources Sensitivity Score..................... 3-185
3.16-1 Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Vegetation Impact .................................................... 3-192
3.17-1 Stephens Creek Wetland ....................................................................................................................... 3-194
3.17-2 Potential Impacts to Wetland Area and Functions .......................................................................... 3-195
3.17-3 Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Wetlands Impact ....................................................... 3-196
3.18-1 Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Wildlife Impact .......................................................... 3-203
3.19-1 Comparative Sound Levels ..................................................................................................................... 3-205
3.19-2 Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Traffic Noise Impact ................................................ 3-211
3.20-1 Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Energy Impact ............................................................. 3-213
3.21-1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) ........................................................................ 3-214
3.21-2 Maximum Carbon Monoxide Concentrations (in ppm) at the SW Taylors Ferry
Road/OR 43 Intersection ....................................................................................................................... 3-217
3.22-1 Features of Potential Environmental Concern .................................................................................. 3-222
3.22-2 Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Hazardous Materials Impact .................................. 3-225
4.1-1 Structural Integrity and Safety by No Build Alternative and Build Alternatives ............................ 4-3
4.1-2 OR 43 Traffic Flow by No Build Alternative and Build Alternatives ............................................... 4-3
4.1-3 Transit and Freight Use Questions by No Build Alternative and Build Alternatives .................... 4-3
4.1-4 Bicyclist and Pedestrian Use by No Build Alternative and Build Alternatives ............................... 4-3
4.2-1 Bridge Closure, Duration, Business Loss, and Commuter Cost ...................................................... 4-5
4.2-2 Can Construction Be Phased? ................................................................................................................... 4-9
4.2-3 Bicyclist and Pedestrian Elements by Build Alternative ..................................................................... 4-10
4.2-4 Transit Elements by Build Alternative ................................................................................................... 4-12
4.2-5 Residential Displacements by Build Alternative .................................................................................. 4-12
4.2-6 Business Displacements by Build Alternative ...................................................................................... 4-12
4.2-7 Status of River View Cemetery Access from OR 43 ......................................................................... 4-17
4.2-8 Alternative-specific Adverse Impacts to Park and Recreational Facilities .................................... 4-18
4.2-9 Change in Base Flood Elevation by Build Alternative and Bridge Type ......................................... 4-20
4.3-1 Traffic Operations by Interchange Type at the Sellwood Bridge/OR 43 Interchange ................ 4-23
4.3-2 Potential Bicyclist and Pedestrian Conflict Points with Vehicles and Transit
Access by West-side Interchange Type ................................................................................................ 4-24
4.3-3 Basic Bridge Cross-section Elements by Alternative ......................................................................... 4-27
4.3-4 Potential for Neighborhood Cut-through Traffic Increases by Build Alternative ........................ 4-30
4.3-5 Vehicular Bridge Design Types and Cost Ranges (2012 Dollars) of Rehabilitation and
Replacement Alternatives .......................................................................................................................... 4-30
5.1-1 Sellwood Bridge Project Policy Advisory Group Members and Agencies/Jurisdictions ............... 5-3
Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement xi

5.2-1 Key Issues, Themes, and Associated Responses ................................................................................... 5-7

5.3-1 Cooperating and Participating Agencies ............................................................................................... 5-13
5.5-1 Agency Coordination Meetings ................................................................................................................. 5-19

5.5-2 Other Federal, State, and Local Actions Required ............................................................................... 5-22
xii Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Summary
Summary
This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) the No Build Alternative, the five Build
is prepared to comply with the National alternatives evaluated in the DEIS, and the
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), a preferred alternative (Alternative D Refined).
federal law that governs all projects receiving
Following distribution of this FEIS, if any
federal funding or receiving permits from federal
comments received on this FEIS can be satisfied
agencies. Three agencies are leading the NEPA
within the context of the preferred alternative,
process for this project—the Federal Highway
FHWA will issue a Record of Decision. FHWA
Administration (FHWA), the Oregon
approval of any of the Build alternatives, including
Department of Transportation (ODOT), and
the preferred alternative, would allow Multnomah
Multnomah County, Oregon. This FEIS, which
County to move ahead with selection of a bridge
was prepared following FHWA’s environmental
type and project design.
process and guidelines for preparing an FEIS,
complies with FHWA NEPA regulations. FHWA
has approved this document. Description of the
A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS),
Proposed Action
distributed in November 2008 (FHWA et al., The Sellwood Bridge project would rehabilitate
2008), evaluated a No Build Alternative and five or replace the Sellwood Bridge located in
Build alternatives, lettered A through E. Two Portland, Multnomah County, Oregon. After
public briefings, an open house, and a public more than 80 years, the Sellwood Bridge has
hearing were held in November and December reached the end of its useful service life. The
2008. After fully considering and evaluating public bridge was constructed in 1925 to replace the
and agency comments, the project’s Policy Spokane Street Ferry, which shuttled passengers
Advisory Group (PAG) recommended across the Willamette River between Sellwood
Alternative D as the preferred alternative. (The and southwest Portland. The bridge, approxi-
PAG is described later in this summary.) The mately 1,900 feet in length, is extremely
Multnomah County Board of Commissioners, narrow—two lanes, no shoulders or median, and
Clackamas County Board of Commissioners, one narrow sidewalk that must accommodate
Metro Council, Portland City Council, and light poles, pedestrians, and bicyclists. The bridge
ODOT adopted Alternative D as the preferred crosses the Willamette River on SE Tacoma
alternative in February and March of 2009. Street on the east end and intersects with
Oregon 43 (OR 43, also known as SW Macadam
Alternative D, which has been refined to address Avenue within the city limits of Portland) on the
public and agency comments and minimize west end. The following four main issues identify
impacts, is evaluated as Alternative D Refined in the need for this project:
this FEIS. Therefore, this FEIS evaluates the
economic, social, and natural resource effects of
The Sellwood Bridge was constructed in 1925 to replace the Spokane Street Ferry.
Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement S-1

Summary of All Reasonable Actions Considered
Summary
 Inadequate structural integrity to safely This process helped to direct community input
accommodate various vehicle types (including related to key project milestones, referred to as
transit vehicles, trucks, and emergency major “decision points.” Primary groups involved
vehicles) and to withstand moderate seismic in the decision-making process included the
events following:
 Substandard and unsafe roadway design
 Project Management Team (PMT).
 Substandard pedestrian and bicycle facilities Guided the day-to-day execution of the
across the river project. The PMT included staff from
Multnomah County, Metro, City of Portland,
 Existing and future travel demands between ODOT, FHWA, and the consulting team.
origins and destinations served by the
Sellwood Bridge exceed available capacity  Community Task Force (CTF). Made
recommendations to the PAG at each
Summary of All Reasonable decision point. The CTF was comprised of
representatives from neighborhoods on both
Actions Considered sides of the bridge; local and regional
business groups; advocates for different
Decision-Making Process bridge user groups (such as commuters,
A key element of the project was creating a freight and transit users, river users,
decision-making process. Because the Sellwood pedestrians, and bicyclists); and
representatives of natural resource, historic
Bridge project is complex, with many
resource, and aesthetic interests.
stakeholders and interest groups wanting to
participate, the project team established a  Policy Advisory Group (PAG). Made
structured decision-making process at the outset. decisions at each decision point. The PAG
was comprised of elected and appointed
A key element of this project was a structured

decision-making process.
S-2 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Summary
officials of local agencies and jurisdictions and about the roles, responsibilities, and
with regulatory responsibility for the project membership of the various project groups
or those who had a strong interest in the (PAG, CTF, PMT, and SAS and working
outcome. These officials included individuals groups).
from Multnomah County, Clackamas County,
City of Portland, City of Milwaukie, Metro, 2. Define Purpose and Need. The second
ODOT, TriMet, FHWA, and the Oregon major decision point, conducted in the
Legislature. summer and fall of 2006, established the need
for the project and defined the problems the
 Senior Agency Staff (SAS). Advised the project was expected to address.
PMT and the PAG. The SAS was comprised
of senior level staff from each of the PAG 3. Establish Evaluation Framework. The
member organizations. third major decision point, conducted in late
2006 and early 2007, established threshold
 Working Groups. Provided input to the and evaluation criteria that were used in
CTF and PMT on particular issues. Each subsequent decision points for screening and
working group was comprised of consultants, identifying alternatives for further study. The
agency staff, and experts who volunteered evaluation framework set criteria and
their services. quantitative performance measures to gauge
Chapter 5 of this FEIS describes the composition, the effectiveness of alternatives—how well
they solved the identified problems and how
roles, and responsibilities of these five groups in
well they performed against the broad range
more detail. While these groups provided input
of stakeholder values. Through this process,
and were involved in identifying a preferred the stakeholders adopted threshold and
alternative, FHWA will select an alternative when evaluation criteria (project goals).
it issues the Record of Decision.
4. Develop Alternatives. The fourth major
The CTF, PAG, and PMT guided this process, decision point, conducted in the spring of
charting a logical path through the six major 2007, developed a broad range of alternatives
decision points. The public involvement program to address the purpose and need of the
was established around each of the decision project (Decision Point 2). The aim of this
points: step was to ensure that the stakeholders
were consulted and their ideas were
1. Establish Decision Process and considered. After a broad range of concepts
Structure. The first major decision point were identified, concepts were screened
ensured understanding and agreement about against the threshold criteria, alternatives
the project’s decision process and structure, were developed, and a range of alternatives
The project included six major decision points through an alternatives development and evaluation
process.

Summary
were adopted for more detailed evaluation. produced over 100 unique alternatives for
Alternatives consisted of the following three evaluation.
elements and, if applicable, other concepts:
5. Screen Alternatives. The fifth major
 Bridge Alignments. Refers to the decision point, conducted in the summer of
location of the river crossing. The project 2007, identified alternatives for analysis in the
team developed seven bridge alignments DEIS. A team of technical experts rated the
and a tunnel alignment, and the public performance of the over 100 unique
suggested four additional bridge alternatives against each of 37 evaluation
alignments. All alignments started on criteria. Performance ratings were either
SE Tacoma Street on the east side of the qualitative or quantitative. Input from the
Willamette River, but the location of the public and CTF was used to eliminate
connection to OR 43 on the west bank alignments and cross-section types and
varied by alignment. identify alternatives for further evaluation in
the DEIS. Next, the CTF and PAG screened
 Interchange Types. Refers to the
alternatives using the evaluation criteria and
connection of the Sellwood Bridge with
selected five alternatives (that the PAG
OR 43 on the west side of the river. The
adopted) to be carried forward for additional
project team developed ten interchange/
analysis in the DEIS.
intersection-type concepts to connect
the west end of the bridge with OR 43. The project team then prepared the DEIS to
These concepts included a mix of at- analyze the selected alternatives. FHWA
grade, two-level, and three-level approved the DEIS before it was released in
configurations, as well as a mix of November 2008. The project team provided
signalized and unsignalized interchange the results of the DEIS to the stakeholders,
forms. the public, and elected officials for use in
identifying a preferred alternative.
 Basic Bridge Cross-sections. Refers to
the various configurations of the bridge 6. Identify Preferred Alternative. The
deck, including travel/transit lanes, bicycle project completed the sixth and final major
lanes, sidewalks, and shared-use paths. decision point, identification of the preferred
Initially, over 40 possible basic bridge alternative, in early 2009. A formal public
cross-section concepts were developed. comment period and a formal public hearing
were held following distribution of the DEIS.
 Other Concepts. Refers to other
The PAG considered the analysis
concepts that were advanced, including:
documented in the DEIS, CTF input, and
 Using a temporary detour bridge for public comments when identifying a preferred
traffic access across the river during alternative. The Multnomah County Board of
construction. Commissioners, Clackamas County Board of
 Using the existing bridge for bicyclist Commissioners, Metro Council, Portland
and pedestrian facilities with a City Council, and ODOT adopted the
replacement bridge for motorized preferred alternative. FHWA will ultimately
vehicles on a separate alignment. select the preferred alternative when it issues
the Record of Decision.
The feasible concepts were combined to
form project alternatives. The various All major decision points featured public
combinations of alignments, cross-sections, involvement activities that included the following
interchange types, and other concepts elements: briefings, newsletters, open houses, an

Lead, Cooperating, and Participating Agencies
Summary
TABLE S-1
Cooperating and Participating Agencies
Federal Agencies
Federal Emergency Management Agency (p) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (c)
National Marine Fisheries Service (c) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (c)
U.S. Coast Guard (c) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (c)
State Agencies
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (p) Oregon Division of State Lands (p)
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (p) Oregon State Historic Preservation Office (p)
Oregon Department of Land Conservation and
Development (p)
Tribes and Local Agencies
Confederated Tribes of Siletz (p) Clackamas County (p)
City of Milwaukie (p) Metro (p)
City of Portland (p) TriMet (p)
c = cooperating agency
p = participating agency
interactive project Web site, online surveys, and Section 6002 of SAFETEA-LU, various agencies
a speakers’ bureau. were invited to participate in the project as
cooperating or participating agencies. The
Lead, Cooperating, and cooperating and participating agencies involved in
the project are listed in Table S-1. Each of these
Participating Agencies agencies was afforded the opportunity to
The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient comment at each of the six decision points in the
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users project. Chapter 5 of this FEIS describes the
(SAFETEA-LU) authorizes federal surface agency coordination process in more detail.
transportation programs through fiscal year 2009.
(The United States Congress has extended
SAFETEA-LU into fiscal year 2010.) Section 6002 Alternatives Evaluated in the
of SAFETEA-LU created consolidated and DEIS
enhanced environmental streamlining regulations.
The DEIS, distributed in November 2008,
It requires transportation agencies to work
evaluated a No Build Alternative and five Build
together with the public, resource agencies, and
alternatives, lettered A through E. The Build
other interested parties to establish timeframes
alternatives were assembled from compatible
for the environmental review of transportation
combinations of alignments, bridge cross-
projects. The efficient and effective coordination
sections, bridge design types, west-end
of multiple environmental reviews, analysis, and
interchange types, and east-end intersection
permitting actions is essential for meeting the
types. These features were evaluated within the
environmental streamlining mandates under
context of individual Build alternatives. However,
SAFETEA-LU.
some features could be substituted into other
The lead agencies for this project are Multnomah Build alternatives.
County, FHWA, and ODOT. In accordance with

Summary of the Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined)
Summary
Under the No Build Alternative, the existing of 2008. After public and agency comments were
infrastructure would remain the same and the fully considered and evaluated, local elected
bridge would continue to operate as it does officials recommended, and the Multnomah
today. The bridge, west-side interchange County Board of Commissioners, Clackamas
configuration, and east-side bridge approach County Board of Commissioners, Metro Council,
would not change. Multnomah County has Portland City Council, and ODOT adopted,
identified maintenance activities under the No Alternative D as the preferred alternative.
Build Alternative that would be necessary to keep (Alternative D as evaluated in the DEIS with a
the bridge operational and in as good a condition bicyclist/pedestrian-activated signal at the
as possible for the next 20 years. SE Tacoma Street/SE 6th Avenue intersection.)
Alternative D, which has been refined to address
The following Build alternatives were evaluated in
public and agency comments and minimize
the DEIS.
environmental impacts, is evaluated as Alternative
 Alternative A would rehabilitate the existing D Refined in this FEIS. Therefore, this FEIS
bridge for motorized vehicles and would add evaluates a No Build Alternative, the five Build
a separate bicycle/pedestrian bridge 300 feet alternatives evaluated in the DEIS, and the
north of the existing bridge. The river preferred alternative (Alternative D Refined).
crossing would be closed during The following refinements to Alternative D
construction. address public and agency comments received on
 Alternative B would rehabilitate the existing the DEIS and minimize environmental impacts:
bridge and widen it on the north side. It  Revised the bicycle/pedestrian ramps on the
would include the option for a temporary west end of the bridge from a spiral design
detour bridge to keep the river crossing open on both sides of the bridge to a single, long
during construction. switchback on both sides of the bridge
connecting to the existing north-south trail
 Alternative C would consist of a double- network to reduce impacts to Powers Marine
deck bridge replacement on the existing Park and natural resource areas. This
alignment. The river crossing would be closed refinement shifted the interchange footprint
during construction. slightly to the west.
 Alternative D would consist of a  Refined the OR 43 roadway footprint to

replacement bridge on the existing alignment, reduce impacts to Willamette Moorage Park
widened to the south. The river crossing and Powers Marine Park.
would remain open during construction.  Reduced the width of the bridge on the west
end from five lanes to four lanes to narrow
 Alternative E would replace the existing
the bridge.
bridge on a new alignment to the north. The
river crossing would remain open during  Realigned the roadway from the west side of
construction. the signalized intersection providing access to
the Superintendent’s House at River View
Summary of the Preferred Cemetery, Powers Marine Park, and the Staff
Jennings property to accommodate a future
Alternative (Alternative D streetcar line, as preferred by the City of
Refined) Portland. The realigned access would cross
on the west side, behind the Superintendent’s
Two public briefings, an open house, and a public House, instead of on the east side, in front of
hearing were held in November and December

Summary of Major Environmental Impacts
Summary
it. The River View Cemetery owners alternatives by social or natural environment
supported the realignment of this roadway. discipline and element. Appendix G of this FEIS
provides a summary of proposed and committed
 Removed the bicycle/pedestrian trail south of
the bridge to reduce park and natural mitigation and environmental measures.
resource impacts within Powers Marine Park.
Extended the bicycle/pedestrian path north Areas of Controversy
to SW Miles Street to provide continuity.
Thousands of public comments were received
 Moved the driveway access to Willamette throughout the public involvement process. The
Moorage Park and Macadam Bay Club further comments included issues and themes that have
north to improve safety and reduce park influenced project decision-making, directly
impacts. shaping the range of alternatives and, ultimately,
 Refined the cross-section of SE Tacoma the elements of the alternatives analyzed in this
Street between the east end of the Sellwood document. This FEIS addresses many of the issues
Bridge and SE 6th Avenue to provide the raised. The other comments are outside the
same bicycle and pedestrian facilities as the scope of the project and, therefore, are not
Sellwood Bridge (12-foot-wide sidewalks and discussed in this FEIS. However, the project team
6.5-foot-wide shoulders/bicycle lanes). has attempted to respond to the most frequently
Between the east end of the Sellwood Bridge voiced issues through community meetings and in
and SE 6th Avenue, water quality swales for public outreach information, such as the project
stormwater treatment could also be Web site and newsletters. Table S-4 lists the
incorporated. most frequently voiced issues from public
involvement activities, along with the associated
Alternative D with these design refinements responses. Appendix I provides the responses to
constitutes the preferred alternative. Similar to formal comments submitted by individuals and
Alternative D, the preferred alternative agencies on the DEIS, and Appendix J provides
(Alternative D Refined) would consist of a copies of the original comments received via the
replacement bridge on the existing alignment, Open House and mailed in.
widened to the south. The river crossing would
be constructed in stages to maintain traffic across Major Unresolved Issues with
the river during construction. However, traffic
access across the bridge would be affected
Other Agencies
periodically by interim closures to replace the The major unresolved issues are:
existing bridge and construct the new bridge.
 Funding sources for the No Build Alternative
Table S-2 summarizes the characteristics of or any of the Build alternatives. Multnomah
Alternative D Refined and the Build alternatives County has identified a preliminary financial
evaluated in the DEIS (Alternatives A through E). plan to fund construction of the Sellwood
Section 2.3 in Chapter 2 of this FEIS describes the Bridge project from various funding sources.
differences between Alternative D and For Multnomah County to move ahead with
Alternative D Refined in more detail. construction of the project, FHWA would
have to approve a Financial Plan that
Summary of Major demonstrated how the project would be
Environmental Impacts funded.
Table S-3 summarizes major environmental  Because accesses near the Sellwood
impacts among the No Build Alternative and Build Bridge/OR 43 interchange would be in

Other Federal, State, and Local Actions Required for the Proposed Action
Summary
violation of state access management spacing access concepts during the project’s final
standards, ODOT would need to grant a design phase.
deviation from access management spacing
standards for Build alternatives A, B, D, and  Inter-governmental agreements between
Multnomah County and Metro for the
D Refined. Multnomah County, ODOT, and
Willamette Shoreline Trolley, the streetcar
the City of Portland collaboratively undergoing planning, and the Willamette
developed the OR 43: Sellwood Bridge IAMP Greenway Trail (West Bank). The cost
(ODOT, 2010) for the proposed OR 43/ included in this project is for the replacement
Sellwood Bridge reconstructed interchange of existing right-of-way; the track
to address access to Willamette Moorage replacement; any fill or structure required;
Park, Macadam Bay Club, River View and the construction of any necessary
Cemetery, Powers Marine Park, and the Staff retaining walls.
Jennings property.  Approvals from various federal, state, and
 ODOT agreed to grant a deviation from local actions (listed in the next subsection).
the access spacing standard for the
relocated Macadam Bay Club driveway Other Federal, State, and
subject to conditions stipulated in the
IAMP that changes could be made if
Local Actions Required for
safety problems were to arise in the the Proposed Action
future.
A number of actions are required before final
 The IAMP provides for a future alley, project approval would occur, as shown in
easement, or tract connecting to Table S-5.
SW Miles Street that would provide the
Macadam Bay Club and the other FHWA, in cooperation with ODOT and
businesses in the area an alternative Multnomah County, intends to issue a “statute of
access. This would be constructed upon limitations” (SOL) notice in the Federal Register,
redevelopment. pursuant to 23 United States Code (USC) Section
 ODOT agreed to grant a deviation for 139(l). This notice would indicate that one or
the new roadway providing access to more federal agencies have taken final action on
River View Cemetery, Powers Marine permits, licenses, or approvals for this
Park, and the Staff Jennings property from transportation project. This SOL notice would
the new interchange. The volume of establish that claims seeking judicial review of
traffic that would use this road is those federal-agency actions would be barred
expected to be very low and would not unless such claims were filed within 180 days
adversely affect traffic operations or after the date of publication of the notice in the
safety in the interchange. Federal Register. Multnomah County will also
Because details of project designs will make the SOL notice available on the project
continue to evolve until construction, ODOT website at http://www.sellwoodbridge.org.
will evaluate the appropriateness of the

Summary
TABLE S-2
Build Alternative Characteristics
Alternative A B C D E 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  Two 12-foot-wide  Two 12-foot-wide travel
lanes lanes travel lanes travel lanes travel 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  Two 6.5-foot-wide
shoulders shoulders/ bike lanes shoulders shoulders/ bike lanes travel lanes for transit shoulders/bike lanes
 Two 1.5-foot-wide railings  Two 1.5-foot-wide  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  Double-deck bridge  Meets seismic standards  Meets seismic standards  Meets seismic standards
bike/ pedestrian bridge a  20-foot-wide shared-
equivalent to Phase II
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
a 23 feet)
to Phase II
 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  Relocates  Relocates approximately
900 linear feet of railway 900 linear feet of railway approximately 1,700 approximately 1,000 approximately 800 1,000 linear feet of railway
right-of-way right-of-way linear feet of railway linear feet of railway linear feet of railway right-of-way
right-of-way right-of-way right-of-way
East-side  Same as existing  Same as existing  Eastbound left turn  Signal at SE Tacoma  Signal at SE Tacoma  Bicyclist/pedestrian-
Intersection (eastbound left turn (eastbound left turn to SE 6th Avenue Street/SE 6th Avenue Street/SE 6th Avenue activated signal at
permitted at SE 6th permitted at SE 6th restricted intersection intersection SE Tacoma Street/SE 6th
Avenue) Avenue)  Right turn to loop  Bicyclist/pedestrian- Avenue intersection
under bridge activated signal at
SE Tacoma Street/SE
6th Avenue intersection

Summary
TABLE S-2
Potential Bridge  Retain existing bridge  Retain existing bridge  Through-arch  Delta-frame or deck-  Box-girder or through-  Delta-frame or deck-arch
b (i.e., continuous-truss (i.e., continuous-truss arch arch
Type
span) 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 Cemetery, Powers to River View View Cemetery, Powers View Cemetery, Powers View Cemetery, Powers
Marine 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 maintained on existing to maintain traffic access
Construction  Traffic diverted to other access  Traffic diverted to traffic access during bridge during during construction
c
existing bridges other existing bridges c construction of the new

construction
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)
d,e bridge)
dollars) temporary detour bridge) $20.9 million
f  $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) f
$15.8 million ;  Right-of-way cost of  Right-of-way cost of  Right-of-way cost of
 Right-of-way cost of $17.1 million including $25.8 million
f
$35.7 million
f
$27.0 million
f
f
$15.8 million temporary detour bridge
f
S - 10 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Summary
TABLE S-2
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)
d,e (deck-arch) (through-arch)
dollars) $52 million (stress- bridge: $30 million interchange:  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 $89 million $88 million  East-side intersection: $2.1
 West-side interchange:  East-side intersection: intersection:  East-side intersection:  East-side intersection: million
$93 million $1.6 million $5.4 million $1.9 million $3.9 million  Cost includes approximately
 East-side intersection: $4 million for mitigation
e,f
$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 this FEIS 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 DEIS reported 2009 right-of-way costs for Alternatives A through E. The right-of-way costs have been updated.
Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement S - 11

Summary
TABLE S-3
Summary of Anticipated Impacts of the No Build Alternative and the Build Alternatives
Alternative B and
Alternative B with
No Build Temporary Detour Bridge
Discipline Element Alternative Alternative A (if different from Alt. B)
3.1 Bridge closure Traffic would be Traffic would be Traffic would be detoured
Transportation during detoured for up to 8 detoured for 24 for up to 24 months during
construction months for months during construction.
maintenance construction. A temporary detour bridge
activities. would provide a river crossing
West-side Same interchange as Would operate at Would operate at LOS B

interchange existing conditions. LOS B under most under most conditions.
impacts conditions. However, However, because of
because of capacity capacity constraints on SE
constraints on SE Tacoma Street, congested
Tacoma Street, eastbound traffic across the
congested eastbound Sellwood Bridge could back
traffic across the up into the roundabout
Sellwood Bridge could during the afternoon/evening
back up into the peak period, blocking all
roundabout during the movements through the
afternoon/evening interchange. For this reason,
peak period, blocking ramp meters would be
all movements through added to the ramps to avoid
the interchange. For the condition where all
this reason, ramp movements were blocked.
meters would be
added to the ramps to
avoid the condition
where all movements
were blocked.
East-side Same as existing Same as existing Same as existing conditions.
connection – conditions. conditions.
SE Tacoma
Street/SE 6th
Avenue
intersection

Summary
Preferred Alternative
(Alternative D
Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Refined)
Traffic would be detoured Staged construction would Traffic would be Staged construction would
for 42 months during allow traffic to continue to maintained on the existing allow traffic to continue to
construction. cross the river during bridge during construction cross the river during
construction, except for of the new bridge. construction, except for
interim closures to interim closures to
replace the existing bridge replace the existing bridge
and construct the new and construct the new
bridge. bridge.
Would operate at LOS B Would operate at LOS D Would operate at LOS D Would operate at LOS D
or better. Trumpet or better. Signalized or better. Signalized or better. Signalized
interchange would provide intersection on upper intersection on upper intersection on upper
better mobility and level would provide better level would provide better level would provide better
queuing than the mobility and queuing than mobility and queuing than mobility and queuing than
roundabout interchange the roundabout the roundabout the roundabout
type. This interchange interchange type under interchange type under interchange type under
type is a free-flow design, peak-hour conditions. peak-hour conditions. peak-hour conditions.
but would operate within Would provide free flow Would provide free flow Would provide free flow
the constraints on on OR 43, but would on OR 43, but would on OR 43, but would
SE Tacoma Street and operate within the operate within the operate within the
OR 43. constraints on OR 43. constraints on OR 43. constraints on OR 43.
The SE Grand Avenue Signalization would result Signalization would result Same as existing
extension would improve in LOS F conditions with in LOS F conditions with conditions, except when
accessibility between traffic demands exceeding traffic demands exceeding the bicyclist/pedestrian
Sellwood Bridge and areas the intersection’s capacity the intersection’s capacity signal is activated. When
north of SE Tacoma Street by about 40 percent. This by about 40 percent. This activated, traffic on SE
and west of SE 13th would cause unacceptable would cause unacceptable Tacoma Street would be
Avenue. Minimal to vehicle delays and queues, vehicle delays and queues, impeded. The City of
moderate levels of and moderate to and moderate to Portland would monitor
increased neighborhood substantial increases in substantial increases in the effects on traffic
cut-through traffic could neighborhood cut-through neighborhood cut-through operations and make
result. traffic. traffic. adjustments as necessary
to ensure safe and
efficient conditions.

Summary
TABLE S-3, Cont.

Alternative B and
Alternative B with
3.2 Facilities Limited facilities on Accommodates bi- Railing provides separation
Bicyclists and bridge structure. directional traffic on from motorized traffic.
Pedestrians Single sidewalk on separate 20-foot-wide Challenging crossing
north side, varies in bicycle/pedestrian environment for visually
width from 4 feet bridge. impaired at roundabout
3 inches to 3 feet at crossings.
light poles.
Safety Dangerous passing Bicyclists and Difficult crossings of SE

maneuvers because pedestrians on Tacoma Street because of
of sharing the narrow separate structure heavy traffic volumes and
bridge sidewalk. eliminates conflicts lack of crossing treatments.
Unsafe connections with vehicles on
through west-side bridge and in the
interchange area. west-side interchange
Unsafe connections Security concerns
to TriMet bus stop at because of complete
OR 43/River View separation from other
Cemetery. bridge users.
Connections Difficult connections Difficult crossings of Two 10-foot-wide

between bridge SE Tacoma Street sidewalks/shared-use paths
sidewalk and because of heavy would accommodate bi-
surrounding facilities, traffic volumes and directional pedestrian traffic
through west-side lack of crossing and one-way bicycle traffic.
interchange area, to treatments. 5-foot-wide shoulders on the
the OR 43/ River bridge structure could be
View Cemetery bus used as bicycle lanes, but
stop, and crossing of with minimal “shy distance.”
SE Tacoma Street
because of heavy
traffic and minimal
crossing treatments.

Summary
(Alternative D
Bicyclists and pedestrians Potential conflicts with Potential conflicts with Potential conflicts with
on lower bridge deck motorists making turning motorists making turning motorists making turning
eliminates conflicts with movements in west-side movements in west-side movements in west-side
vehicles on bridge and in interchange area, but interchange area, but interchange area, but
the west-side interchange. better and safer bicyclist better and safer bicyclist better and safer bicyclist
Security concerns because and pedestrian crossings and pedestrian crossings and pedestrian crossings
of complete separation than the No Build than the No Build than the No Build
from other bridge users. Alternative. Alternative. Alternative.
None. None. Lack of south spiral ramp None.
on west-side creates
circuitous routing for
some users.
Accommodates bi- Two 12-foot-wide 8-foot-wide south shared- Two 12-foot-wide

directional traffic on a sidewalks/shared use paths use path would sidewalks/shared use paths
20-foot-wide shared-use would accommodate bi- accommodate one-way would accommodate bi-
path on lower bridge directional pedestrians eastbound bicycle traffic directional pedestrians
deck. and bicyclists and two-way pedestrian and bicyclists
6.5-foot-wide on-street traffic. 6.5-foot-wide on-street
bicycle lanes in each 16-foot-wide north shared bicycle lanes in each
direction. used path would direction.
accommodate bi-
directional traffic

Summary
TABLE S-3, Cont.

Alternative B and
Alternative B with
3.3 Total land area 0 acres 10.5 acres 10.5 acres
Right-of-Way acquired for 10.8 acres
and Relocation right-of-way
Number of 0 units 1 unit 1 unit
displaced
residential
condominiums
units
Number of 0 businesses 9 businesses 9 businesses
displaced (The viability of these (The viability of these
businesses businesses is not businesses is not dependent
dependent on their on their specific locations)
specific locations) 10 businesses
(The viability of these
businesses is not dependent
on their specific locations)
Right-of-way $0 $15.8 million $15.8 million
cost (included $17.1 million
in total
construction
cost)
3.4 Utility $0.14 million $2.87 million $3.20 million
Utilities relocation cost $4.60 million
3.5 Consistent with Yes Yes Yes

Land Use all applicable
regulations,
plans, and
guidance
documents?

Summary
(Alternative D
10.8 acres 10.7 acres 11.6 acres 8.9 acres
1 unit 5 units 6 units 5 units
10 businesses 9 businesses 48 businesses 9 businesses

(The viability of these (The viability of these (The viability of these (The viability of these
businesses is not businesses is not businesses is not businesses is not
dependent on their dependent on their dependent on their dependent on their
specific locations) specific locations) specific locations) specific locations)
$20.9 million $25.8 million $35.7 million $27.0 million
$3.19 million $3.28 million $3.61 million $3.28 million
No Yes No Yes
(More than two through (Bridge crosses a
lanes on bridge; designated view corridor
inconsistent with South on SE Spokane Street in
Willamette River Crossing the City of Portland
Study). Two through lanes Comprehensive Plan [City
merge to one lane of Portland, 2006])
eastbound before the SE
6th Avenue intersection.

Summary
TABLE S-3, Cont.

Alternative B and
Alternative B with
3.6 Employees 0 employees 30 employees 30 employees
Economic displaced 62 employees
Construction $54 million $331 million (stress- $326 million

costs (2012 (for maintenance ribbon bike/ped $356 million
million dollars) activities) bridge)
$337 million (cable-
stayed bike/ped
bridge)
Construction 12 months 36 months 36 months
duration 39 months
Bridge closure 6 to 8 months 24 months 24 months

during (for maintenance No closure
construction activities)
Travel time and $19.1 million $63.3 million $63.3 million
vehicle No closure
operating cost
of bridge
closure
Owner and $1.9 to $4.9 million $3.8 to $9.8 million $3.8 to 9.8 million
labor income No closure
losses because
of bridge
closure

Summary
(Alternative D
46 employees 30 employees 216 employees 30 employees
$280 million $293 million $281 million (box-girder $290 million

(delta-frame bridge) bridge) (delta-frame bridge)
$311 million (deck-arch $361 million (through- $299 million (deck-arch
bridge) arch bridge) bridge)
42 months 51 months (deck-arch) 36 months (box-girder) 51 months

45 months (delta-frame) 42 months (through-arch)
42 months No long-term closure; No closure No long-term closure;

bridge bridge
$110.8 million No long-term closure; No closure No long-term closure;
bridge bridge
$6.7 to 17.0 million No long-term closure; No closure No long-term closure;
bridge bridge

Summary
TABLE S-3, Cont.

Alternative B and
Alternative B with
3.7 Potential None to Minimal None to Minimal None to Minimal
Social increase in (Same intersection (Same intersection (Same intersection
Elements neighborhood configuration as configuration as configuration as existing at
cut-through existing at SE 6th existing at SE 6th SE 6th Avenue/SE Tacoma
traffic (to avoid Avenue/SE Tacoma Avenue/SE Tacoma Street intersection)
SE Tacoma Street intersection) Street intersection)
Street)
Emergency No No No
services – (6 to 8-month (24-month closure) (24-month closure)
provides river closure) Temporary detour bridge
crossing during would maintain river crossing
construction?
Community Access limitation for Access limitation for Access limitation for west-
facility impact – west-side customers west-side customers side customers (during
access to (during 6-8 month (during 24-month 24-month closure);
businesses closure) closure) No impact with temporary
detour bridge
Access to River No change; access Modified access from Modified access from
View Cemetery provided through a OR 43, provided OR 43 through the
and funeral signalized through the new interchange; access
home intersection with OR west-side interchange; maintained during
43. access maintained construction
during construction
3.8 Impact to No change No disproportionately No disproportionately high

Environmental environmental high and adverse and adverse effects on
Justice justice effects on environmental justice
populations environmental justice populations
populations
3.9 Total parkland 0 acres 4.3 acres 3.9 acres
Parks and acres converted
Recreation

Summary
(Alternative D
Minimal to Moderate Moderate to Substantial Moderate to Substantial None to Minimal
(Eastbound left-turn (Signalized intersection at (Signalized intersection at (Same intersection
restricted; right-turn loop SE 6th Avenue/SE Tacoma SE 6th Avenue/SE Tacoma configuration as existing at
under bridge from SE Street allows for Street allows for SE 6th Avenue/SE Tacoma
Tacoma Street to SE 6th dedicated turning dedicated turning Street intersection, except
Avenue could encourage movements) movements) with a bicyclist/pedestrian-
cut-through traffic) activated signal
No Yes (except for interim Yes Yes (except for interim
(42-month closure) closures to replace the closures to replace the
existing bridge and existing bridge and
construct the new bridge) construct the new bridge)
Access limitation for west- None (except interim None None (except interim
side customers (during 42- access limitation for west- access limitation for west-
month closure) side customers to replace side customers to replace
the existing bridge and the existing bridge and
construct the new bridge) construct the new bridge)
Removal of access from Modified access from Modified access from OR Modified access from
OR 43 OR 43 through the new 43 through the new OR 43 through the new
Access from SW Taylors interchange; access interchange; access interchange; access
Ferry Road and circuitous maintained during maintained during maintained during
route through cemetery. construction construction construction
Customers would have
difficulty finding the
funeral home.
No disproportionately No disproportionately No disproportionately No disproportionately
high and adverse effects high and adverse effects high and adverse effects high and adverse effects
on environmental justice on environmental justice on environmental justice on environmental justice
populations populations populations populations

Summary
TABLE S-3, Cont.

Alternative B and
Alternative B with
Number of 1 facility 8 facilities 6 facilities
park/ (Sellwood Bridge (Sellwood Riverfront (Powers Marine Park,
recreational Recreational Trail) Park, Oaks Pioneer Willamette Moorage Park,
facilities Park, Powers Marine Springwater Corridor Trail,
impacted Park, Willamette Willamette Greenway Trail
Moorage Park, [East Bank], Willamette
Springwater Corridor Greenway Trail [West
Trail, Willamette Bank], Sellwood Bridge
Greenway Trail [East Recreational Trail)
Bank], Willamette 6 facilities
Greenway Trail [West (Oaks Pioneer Park and all
Bank], Sellwood the above except Sellwood
Bridge Recreational Bridge Recreational Trail)
Trail)
3.10 Adverse impacts No Yes, adversely alters Yes, adversely alters the
Archaeological to River View the setting of a setting of a historic
and Historic Cemetery? historic resource resource
Resources
Adverse impacts No Yes, adversely alters Yes, adversely alters the
to cemetery’s the setting of a setting of a historic
Superintendent’s historic resource resource
House?
Adverse impacts Yes, Yes, Yes
to Sellwood Bridge deteriorates Bridge significantly Bridge significantly altered,
Bridge? altered, no longer no longer eligible for the
eligible for the National Register of
National Register of Historic Places
Historic Places
3.11 Presence of 0 lineal feet 930 lineal feet 580 lineal feet
Visual retaining walls
Resources 10 feet or
higher in lineal
feet (OR 43
southbound exit
ramp)
Presence of 0 lineal feet 600 lineal feet 600 lineal feet
retaining walls
10 feet or
higher in lineal
feet (OR 43
southbound
entrance ramp)

Summary
(Alternative D
7 facilities 6 facilities 7 facilities 5 facilities
(Powers Marine Park, (Powers Marine Park, (Oaks Pioneer Park, (Powers Marine Park,
Willamette Moorage Park, Willamette Moorage Park, Powers Marine Park, Willamette Moorage Park,
Springwater Corridor Springwater Corridor Willamette Moorage Park, Springwater Corridor
Trail, Willamette Trail, Willamette Springwater Corridor Trail, Willamette
Greenway Trail [East Greenway Trail [East Trail, Willamette Greenway Trail [East
Bank], Willamette Bank], Willamette Greenway Trail [East Bank], Willamette
Greenway Trail [West Greenway Trail [West Bank], Willamette Greenway Trail [West
Bank], Sellwood Bridge Bank], Willamette Greenway Trail [West Bank])
Recreational Trail, Greenway Trail [SE Bank], Willamette
Willamette Greenway Spokane Street Section]) Greenway Trail [SE
Trail [SE Spokane Street Spokane Street Section])
Section])
Yes, adversely alters the Yes, adversely alters the Yes, adversely alters the Yes, adversely alters the
setting of a historic setting of a historic setting of a historic setting of a historic
resource resource resource resource
Yes, adversely alters the Yes, adversely alters the Yes, adversely alters the Yes, adversely alters the
setting of a historic setting of a historic setting of a historic setting of a historic
resource resource resource resource
Yes Yes, Yes, Yes,

Bridge replaced Bridge replaced Bridge replaced Bridge replaced
400 lineal feet 660 lineal feet 800 lineal feet 750 lineal feet
450 lineal feet 650 lineal feet 950 lineal feet 1,200 lineal feet

Summary
TABLE S-3, Cont.

Alternative B and
Alternative B with
Significant east- No Yes No
side visual (new
change? bicyclist/pedestrian
bridge)
Significant west- No Yes Yes
side visual
change?
3.12 Maximum fill 0 feet 36 feet 21 feet
Geology height
Maximum cut 0 feet 49 feet 38 feet

height
Fill height in 0 feet 0 feet 0 feet

Sellwood
landslide
Cut height in 0 feet 18 feet 18 feet
Sellwood
landslide
3.13 Impervious 7.0 acres 13.7 acres 13.8 acres
Water surface area (None treated) (96% increase from (97% increase from existing
Resources and existing condition; all condition; all stormwater
Water Quality stormwater treated) treated)
Improves water No Yes Yes

quality
compared to
existing
conditions?

Summary
(Alternative D
No No Yes No
(bridge on new alignment)
Yes Yes Yes Yes
38 feet 28 feet 30 feet 20 feet

(80% increase from (98% increase from (94% increase from (98% increase from
existing condition; all existing condition; all existing condition; all existing condition; all
stormwater treated) stormwater treated) stormwater treated) stormwater treated)
Yes Yes Yes Yes

Summary
TABLE S-3, Cont.

Alternative B and
Alternative B with
3.14 100-year base 33.91 feet 0.06 foot higher than 0.03 foot higher than No
Hydraulics flood elevation No Build Alternative Build Alternative
(cable-stayed bike/ped Would require design
bridge) change or regulated
0.07 foot higher than floodway modification.
No Build Alternative 2.81 feet higher than No
(stress-ribbon Build Alternative during
bike/ped bridge) construction.
Would require design
change or regulated
floodway modification.
Maximum 7.33 feet per second 3.5% faster than No 3.7% faster than No Build
average water Build Alternative Alternative
velocity at (cable-stayed and 13.6% faster than No Build
bridge stress-ribbon bike/ped Alternative during construction
bridge)
3.15 Overall Aquatic Not applicable 2.0 (stress-ribbon 2.6

Aquatic Resources bike/ped bridge)
Resources Sensitivity Score 2.4 (cable-stayed
(the higher the bike/ped bridge)
score, the
lower the
overall impacts)
3.16 Area of 0 acres 9.6 acres 9.4 acres

Vegetation Lowland
Conifer-
Hardwood
Forest removed
Area of 0 acres 0.5 acre 0.6 acre
Westside 0.7 acre
Riparian habitat
removed
Area of noxious 0 acres 0.1 acre 0.1 acre
weeds removed

Summary
(Alternative D
0.02 foot higher than No Same as No Build 0.02 foot higher than No Up to 0.08 foot higher
Build Alternative Alternative (deck-arch Build Alternative (box- than No Build Alternative
Would require design bridge) girder and through-arch (deck-arch and delta-
change or regulated 0.02 foot lower than No bridge) frame bridges)
floodway modification. Build Alternative (delta- Would require design
frame bridge) change or regulated
floodway modification.
2.3% faster than No Build Same as No Build 3.1% faster than No Build Up to 0.56 feet per
Alternative Alternative (deck-arch Alternative (box-girder second slower than No
bridge) bridge) Build Alternative
2.6% slower than No Build 2.3% faster than No Build
Alternative (delta-frame Alternative (through-arch
bridge) bridge)
3.5 1.5 (deck-arch bridge) 2.5 (through-arch bridge) 3.6
2.6 (delta-frame bridge) 4.7 (box-girder bridge)
0.5 acre 0.6 acre 0.5 acre 0.5 acre
0.3 acre 0.2 acre 0.1 acre 0.2 acre

Summary
TABLE S-3, Cont.

Alternative B and
Alternative B with
3.17 Disturbed acres 0 acres 0.1 acre 0.1 acre
Wetlands of wetland
3.18 Disturbed acres 0 acres 11.2 acres 10.9 acres

Wildlife of wildlife 11.2 acres
Habitat habitat
3.19 Number of 24 residences 18 residences 20 residences
Noise residences 16 residences
impacted (noise
level of 65
decibels or
higher)
Impacts to Yes Yes No

interior of Oaks 50 decibels 50 decibels 49 decibels
Pioneer
Church? (That Yes
is, noise level 54 decibels, during
50 decibels or construction
higher when
doors and
windows are
open)
Number of 1 business 1 business 1 business
businesses
impacted (noise
level of 70
decibels or
higher)
Noise level Up to 2 decibels Up to 1 decibel Up to 1 decibel

increase from Up to 5 decibels
existing
conditions

Summary
(Alternative D
0.1 acre 0.1 acre 0.1 acre None
18 residences 18 residences 16 residences 18 residences
Yes Yes Yes Yes

50 decibels 50 decibels 51 decibels 50 decibels
1 business 1 business 1 business 1 business
Up to 1 decibel Up to 3 decibels Up to 2 decibels Up to 3 decibels

Summary
TABLE S-3, Cont.

Alternative B and
Alternative B with
3.20 Energy used 182,000 million 834,800 million Btu 808,100 million Btu
Energy during British thermal units (cable-stayed bike/ped 888,000 million Btu
construction (Btu) bridge)
817,000 million Btu
(stress-ribbon
bike/ped bridge)
Energy used 1,666 million Btu 2,177 million Btu 2,177 million Btu
during
operation
(annual)
3.21 Carbon 3.9 parts per million 3.9 parts per million 3.9 parts per million
Air Quality monoxide (meets applicable (meets applicable (meets applicable standard)
emissions in standard) standard)
parts per
million over an
8-hour period
3.22 Number of 0 sites 7 sites 6 sites
Hazardous potentially 7 sites
Materials hazardous sites
directly
impacted

Summary
(Alternative D
688,200 million Btu 759,300 million Btu 634,900 million Btu 714,800 million Btu
(deck-arch bridge) (box-girder bridge) (deck-arch bridge)
706,000 million Btu 852,500 million Btu 692,600 million Btu
(delta-frame bridge) (through-arch bridge) (delta-frame bridge)
2,177 million Btu 2,177 million Btu 2,177 million Btu 2,177 million Btu
3.9 parts per million 3.9 parts per million 3.9 parts per million 3.9 parts per million
(meets applicable (meets applicable (meets applicable (meets applicable
standard) standard) standard) standard)
10 sites 6 sites 7 sites 6 sites

Summary
TABLE S-4
Areas of Controversy and Resolution
Issue/Theme Resolution
Build a new bridge in another corridor Metro’s 1999 South Willamette River Crossing Study
concluded that improvements were needed to the
existing Sellwood Bridge or the existing bridge would
need to be rebuilt in the existing east-west corridor.
Additional project studies confirmed that the
assumptions of this study are still valid.
Neighborhood livability in Sellwood The community linked livability to maintaining two
travel lanes on the bridge, making bridge improvements
compatible with the Tacoma Main Street Plan (City of
Portland, 2001), and reducing commuter and
neighborhood cut-through traffic impacts. In this FEIS,
Alternatives A, B, D, and D Refined are two-lane
options for a new or rehabilitated bridge. Alternative A
also features a narrow cross-section width (39 feet) to
reduce right-of-way impacts. Alternative C is a three-
lane bridge. Alternative E includes four lanes, but two
are limited to transit vehicles.
Neighborhood cut-through traffic The No Build Alternative would maintain existing
conditions on SE Tacoma Street east of the bridge. The
Build alternatives include four different options for the
intersection of SE Tacoma Street and SE 6th Avenue—
existing conditions, a right-turn loop under the bridge, a
signal, and a bicyclist/pedestrian-activated signal—that
would have different effects on neighborhood cut-
through traffic analyzed in this FEIS.
Consistency with the policies, goals, and objectives in The adopted Tacoma Main Street Plan (City of
the Tacoma Main Street Plan (City of Portland, 2001) Portland, 2001) and other approved planning
documents call for two travel lanes on the Sellwood
Bridge and two travel lanes on SE Tacoma Street.
Alternatives A, B, D, E, and D Refined would include
two travel lanes on the Sellwood Bridge. Alternative E
would include two additional lanes limited to transit
use. Alternative C would include three travel lanes (one
lane westbound and two eastbound). The No Build
Alternative and the Build alternatives would maintain
two travel lanes on SE Tacoma Street.
Private property impacts Property impact evaluation criteria were included in the
evaluation framework to screen the range of
alternatives. Multnomah County communicated and
coordinated with private property owners in the area
to minimize private property impacts throughout this
phase of the project.
Residential and business impacts Residential and business impact evaluation criteria were
included in the evaluation framework to screen the
range of alternatives.

Summary
TABLE S-4
Route a new bridge to the north to reduce residential The project team developed and analyzed three
impacts alignments to the north of the existing alignment to
address public comments. Alternative E, a northern
alignment that would minimize impacts to the
residential units immediately north and south of the
existing bridge, is analyzed in the DEIS and this FEIS.
Bicycle and pedestrian access and connections to area The Build alternatives include wider facilities for
trails bicyclists and pedestrians and improve connections to
the trail facilities on the east and west sides of the river.
The No Build Alternative would maintain existing
bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
Build for the long-term future and ensure adequate The 2035 traffic demands in the study area are
bridge capacity for all users estimated to be similar under the No Build Alternative
and each of the Build alternatives because none of the
Build alternatives would increase vehicle-traffic-carrying
capacity along OR 43 beyond the immediate area of the
bridge or along SE Tacoma Street east of the bridge.
However, the Build alternatives would provide
substantially increased person-throughput in the project
corridor because the Build alternatives could serve
mass transit and dramatically increase bicyclist and
pedestrian trips. Alternatives with two travel lanes
(Alternatives A, B, D, and D Refined) and three travel
lanes (Alternative C) are analyzed in this FEIS to
evaluate the tradeoffs (benefits and impacts) of the
number of travel lanes on the bridge. Alternative E
includes four lanes, but two are dedicated transit lanes.
Because only transit vehicles would be allowed to use
these lanes, Alternative E is categorized as a two-lane
bridge. No alternatives consider four travel lanes for
automobiles and trucks.
Bus transit on the bridge and/or future streetcar Each of the Build alternatives would restore TriMet bus
service across the Sellwood Bridge and would include
building the bridge strong enough to accommodate
streetcar transit in the future, if this mode is pursued.
The existing 10-ton weight restriction would continue
under the No Build Alternative, precluding buses and
streetcars from crossing the bridge.
Accommodate large vehicles, including transit, trucks, The Build alternatives would meet applicable geometric
and emergency vehicles roadway design standards to safely accommodate
various vehicle types (including transit vehicles, trucks,
and emergency vehicles) in the Sellwood Bridge/OR 43
interchange on the west side and on the bridge. The No
Build Alternative would not improve geometric
roadway deficiencies or remove the 10-ton weight
restriction that precludes large vehicles from crossing
the bridge.

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

Summary
TABLE S-4
Historic resource impacts Historic resource impact evaluation criteria were
included in the evaluation framework to screen the
range of alternatives. On the west side, the Build
alternatives were designed to minimize impacts to River
View Cemetery and the Superintendent’s House. The
Build alternatives would avoid direct impacts to Oaks
Pioneer Church. All Build alternatives, including the
rehabilitation alternatives, would adversely affect the
historic status of the Sellwood Bridge. The No Build
Alternative would not impact historic resources.
Natural environment impacts, including riparian Natural environment evaluation criteria were included
vegetation, fish, water quality, and wetlands in the evaluation framework to screen the range of
alternatives. Water quality, hydraulics, aquatic
resources, vegetation, wetlands, and wildlife are
addressed in this FEIS.
River users and navigation The No Build Alternative and the Build alternatives
would maintain or improve the existing vertical
clearance between the Willamette River and the
bottom of the bridge.
Bridge aesthetics and visual impacts Aesthetic evaluation criteria were included in the
alternatives. The public commented on proposed bridge
types through an online survey in November 2007.
Include all of SE Tacoma Street in the project This project is aimed at developing a solution to the
structurally deficient Sellwood Bridge (owned and
maintained by Multnomah County) and its
interconnection with OR 43 (owned by ODOT).
Because SE Tacoma Street (owned and maintained by
the City of Portland) is not part of the bridge structure,
it is out of scope for this project. Improvements on
SE Tacoma Street for any of the Build alternatives
would include the necessary transition and approach
work to match with the new or rehabilitated Sellwood
Bridge.

Summary
TABLE S-5
Other Federal, State, and Local Actions Required
Agency Regulation or Approval
Federal Highway Administration Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of
1966
National Park Service Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Act
(Alternative A only)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/Oregon Clean Water Act, Section 404
Department of State Lands
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/Oregon Oregon’s Removal-Fill Law
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/Oregon Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act
U.S. Coast Guard Section 9 of the Rivers and Harbors Act
National Marine Fisheries Service Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act Consultation;
Biological Opinion
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/National Marine Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
Fisheries Service
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/National Marine Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
Fisheries Service
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/National Marine Migratory Bird Treaty Act
Fisheries Service
Oregon Department of Agriculture Oregon Endangered Species Act (Plants)
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Clean Water Act Section 401: Water Quality Certification
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Clean Water Act Section 402: National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Program
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Clean Water Act Section 402: NPDES Municipal Separate
Storm Sewer System (MS4) Program
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Conformance with Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality’s National Ambient Air Quality Standards
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Oregon Endangered Species Act (Wildlife)
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Fish Passage Plan Approval (Oregon Administrative Rule
[OAR] 635-012)
Oregon Department of Transportation Access spacing deviation (OAR 734-051)
Oregon State Marine Board Recreational Waters Coordination Requirements
State Historic Preservation Office Section 106 Consultation, National Historic Preservation Act
City of Portland Floodplain Development Permit
City of Portland Type II Greenway Permit

Major Actions Proposed by Other Governmental Agencies
Summary
TABLE S-5
City of Portland Type II Environmental Permit
City of Portland Type II Historic Design Review
City of Portland Conditional Use Permit
City of Portland Non Park Use Permit
City of Portland Noise Ordinance Variance
City of Portland Harbor Master Permit
north of the existing bridge that closed in March

Major Actions Proposed by 2010). The existing rail facility is a single track.
Other Governmental However, current planning is for a streetcar with
Agencies a second track in this area and space for the
Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank) along
Currently, the Willamette Shoreline Trolley the tracks. The ground level slopes steeply down
operates on tracks that are immediately east of to the river east of OR 43. Therefore, moving the
the existing west-side interchange and parallel to rail tracks to the east would require placing them
OR 43. All Build alternatives would require on fill or structure and building a retaining wall to
moving the railroad right-of-way eastward into support the fill and minimize encroachment into
Powers Marine Park and toward the Staff Jennings the park. The replacement right-of-way provided
property (a former commercial boat dealership and presented in this FEIS would replace the
Thousands of public comments were received throughout the public involvement process.

Major Actions Proposed by Other Governmental Agencies
Summary
existing right-of-way. The cost included in this  Provision of Intelligent Transportation System
project is for the replacement of existing right-of- (ITS) enhancements on OR 43 between
way; the track replacement; any fill or structure Sellwood Bridge and SW Hood Street/
required; and the construction of any necessary SW Bancroft Street
retaining walls.  Construction of bicyclist and pedestrian
Major actions proposed by other governmental improvements on SW Taylors Ferry Road
between SW 35th Street and OR 43
agencies have been taken into account and are
consistent with the Build alternatives. These  Provision of ITS enhancements to four traffic
actions include: signals on SE Tacoma Street between the
Sellwood Bridge and SE 45th Street
 Provision of light rail transit service on
Oregon 99E (Portland—Milwaukie Light Rail  Construction of a shared-use path segment
Project) to complete the Springwater Corridor Trail
between SE Umatilla Street and SE 19th
 Multi-modal improvements to Oregon 99E Avenue at SE Ochoco Street
between the Ross Island Bridge and
Milwaukie  Improvements to the SE Spokane Street and
SE Umatilla Street bicycle boulevards
 Multi-modal improvements to SE Tacoma
Street between the Sellwood Bridge and The City of Portland identifies the OR 43
Oregon 99E (SW Macadam Avenue) corridor and the
Sellwood Bridge as streetcar transit corridors in
 Improvements to the Willamette Greenway the Portland Streetcar System Concept Plan (City of
Trail (West Bank) between the Sellwood Portland Bureau of Transportation, 2009).
Bridge and Portland city limits Although a streetcar project on the Sellwood
The existing Sellwood Bridge.

Appendixes in this FEIS
Summary
Bridge is not a formal project at this time, Appendix E – Distribution and Notice of
Alternative D Refined has been designed to Availability Lists
accommodate a future streetcar project in this
location. Appendix F – Summary of Permits and
Clearances Needed
Appendixes in this FEIS Appendix G – Summary of Mitigation and
The following appendixes provide supporting Environmental Commitments
information to this FEIS:
Appendix H – SHPO FOE Concurrence Letter
Appendix A – Acronyms and Abbreviations
Appendix I – Responses to DEIS Comments
Appendix B – References
Appendix J – Original Comments on the DEIS
Appendix C – List of Preparers
Appendix K – Index
Appendix D – List of Supporting Technical
Documentation

Chapter 1. Purpose and Need
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need
1.1 Why are we

considering the
Sellwood Bridge
project?
After 80 years, the Sellwood Bridge
has reached the end of its useful
service life. The purpose of the
Sellwood Bridge project is to
rehabilitate or replace the bridge to
make it structurally safe.
Additionally, the project would
improve connections, operations,
and safety for vehicles, bicycles, and Existing Sellwood Bridge.
pedestrians. The bridge carries more than Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT),
30,000 vehicles per day, making it Oregon’s the City of Portland, and Metro (the Portland
busiest two-lane bridge. Congested conditions area metropolitan planning organization) to find a
and slow travel speeds occur because the travel solution.
demand served by the Sellwood Bridge exceeds
the available capacity for several hours each day, 1.2 Where is the project
primarily during the morning and evening peak
located?
hours. Multnomah County, which owns and
maintains the bridge, has been working with the The bridge crosses the Willamette River in
Portland, Oregon. It connects Oregon 43
(OR 43) on the west side of the river with
Project Purpose
To rehabilitate or replace the Sellwood Oregon 99E (OR 99E) by way of SE Tacoma
Bridge within its existing east-west Street on the east side of the river. OR 43 runs
corridor to provide a structurally safe north-south between the cities of Portland and
Project Purpose and Need
bridge and connections that Oregon City, traveling through Lake Oswego and
accommodate multi-modal mobility
West Linn. OR 43 is referred to as SW Macadam
needs
Avenue within the city limits of Portland. On the
Project Need
The need for the proposed action is as east side of the river, the bridge transitions into
follows: SE Tacoma Street. At its east end, SE Tacoma
 Inadequate structural integrity Street connects with OR 99E (SE McLoughlin
 Substandard and unsafe roadway Boulevard).
design
 Substandard pedestrian and bicycle The next closest crossings over the Willamette
facilities across the river River are about 2.5 miles north at the Ross Island
 Existing and future travel demands Bridge and about 8 miles south at the
exceed available capacity Interstate 205 (I-205) Abernathy Bridge. The
Sellwood B ri dge Project Fi nal Envi ronment al I mp act Stat ement 1-1
What is t he p roject setting ?
Chapte r 1 . Pu rpose an d Need
Sellwood Bridge links the Sellwood, with the bridge. Staff Jennings, a former
Westmoreland, and Milwaukie areas with OR 43 commercial boating business (closed in March
and southwest Portland, downtown Portland, and 2010), is located along the west side of the river
Lake Oswego. between the interchange and the river, north of
the bridge and Powers Marine Park. To the north
Figure 1.2-1, Project Vicinity, shows the location
of the Staff Jennings property is Willamette
of the project. Figure 1.2-2, Existing Conditions,
Moorage Park. The Willamette Shoreline Trolley
shows existing land uses near the bridge.
track, a publicly owned right-of-way, also runs the
length of the project north and south between
1.3 What is the project OR 43 and both Powers Marine Park and
setting? Willamette Moorage Park, as does the
Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank).
The bridge is located in an urban setting with
mixed residential, commercial, recreational, and
historical uses. Strips of land adjacent to the
1.4 What is the history of the
Willamette River near the bridge, particularly on project?
the west side, are natural and undeveloped,
though with significant recreational use. 1.4.1 Built in 1925
The bridge was constructed in 1925 to replace
On the east bank, the Sellwood Bridge is a the Spokane Street Ferry, which shuttled
gateway to the Sellwood-Moreland passengers across the Willamette River between
neighborhood. Many of the properties on the Sellwood and southwest Portland. The bridge
east bank along the river are condominiums, designer was Gustav Lindenthal, a noted bridge
apartments, or commercial buildings. The engineer of the time. Like the Ross Island and
Springwater Corridor Trail passes below the Burnside bridges in Portland, the Sellwood Bridge
bridge, as does the Willamette Greenway Trail was built with funds from a $4.5 million local
(East Bank). Sellwood Riverfront Park, Oaks bond measure. In response to public outcry at
Pioneer Park, Oaks Amusement Park, and the budget overruns on the Burnside Bridge, the
Springwater Corridor Trail are accessed from the Sellwood Bridge design was scaled back to
intersection of SE Tacoma Street and SE 6th minimize cost. With a construction cost of just
Avenue on the east bridge approach. $541,000, the scaled-down design resulted in a
On the west bank, the bridge approach crosses number of limitations. The bridge is extremely
over Powers Marine Park, a linear river park, and narrow—two lanes, no shoulders or median, and
ends in an interchange with OR 43. The one narrow sidewalk that must accommodate
interchange is adjacent to the east entrance to light poles, pedestrians, and bicyclists. Because it
River View Cemetery, a large pioneer and was not designed for the additional weight of
working cemetery that is on the hillside above streetcars, the bridge cannot withstand as much
the highway. The historic Superintendent’s weight as the other Willamette River crossings in
House, which is associated with the cemetery and Portland, such as the Hawthorne and Steel
currently functions as a funeral home, is accessed bridges.
from OR 43, just south of the OR 43 intersection
The Sellwood Bridge was constructed in 1925 to replace the Spokane Street Ferry.
1-2 Sell wood B rid ge P roject Final Enviro nmenta l I mp act Stateme nt
What is t he history o f the p roject?
Chapte r 1 . Purpose and Need
FIGURE 1.2-1
Project Vicinity
FIGURE 1.2-2
Existing Conditions
What is t he history o f the p roject?
1.4.2 Oregon’s First-Ever Four- for the bridge; cracks in the girders and columns
were injected with epoxy in 2008. The County is
Span, Continuous-truss inspecting the bridge every 3 months to monitor
Bridge the cracks and the slope on the west side of the
The Sellwood Bridge is the only four-span, bridge to ensure continued safe use of the bridge.
continuous-truss highway bridge in Oregon, and
possibly in the nation. (A continuous-truss 1.4.5 Planning Framework
requires fewer parts and costs less than other 1999 Metro Study
bridge types to construct. At the time of the
In May 1999, Metro made recommendations for
Sellwood Bridge’s construction, the
the South Willamette River Crossing Study, which
computational technique for this design was
included the Sellwood Bridge. The study, initiated
newly developed.) As one of Portland’s first
by Metro’s Joint Policy Advisory Committee on
“fixed-span” bridges across the Willamette River,
Transportation, identified needed improvements
the bridge was high enough to avoid the need to
for cars, transit, bikes, and pedestrian traffic
“open” for river traffic. It was also Portland’s first
crossing the Willamette River between southeast
Willamette River bridge without trolley tracks.
Portland and Oregon City. One of the study’s
recommendations was to preserve the existing
1.4.3 Topographic Challenges
Sellwood Bridge, or replace it as a two-lane
In addition to these design limitations, the bridge bridge with better service for bicyclists and
also has topographical challenges. The west end pedestrians.
of the bridge was constructed on fill material and
it is located in a geologically unstable area. The Regional Transportation Plan
hillside above the bridge is slowly sliding toward Metro’s 2004 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) is
the Willamette River, exerting pressure on the a 20-year blueprint for the Portland metropolitan
west end of the bridge. In the late 1950s, the region’s transportation system and an adopted
hillside slid several feet toward the bridge. As a “Functional Plan” integrated into the Regional
result, a 3-foot segment of the bridge deck had to Framework Plan. The plan addresses the
be removed and foundations were reinforced. movement of people and goods in and through
The west-side interchange with OR 43 was the region. The plan identifies the region’s
completely rebuilt in 1980. Since then, ground transportation needs, including the need to limit
movement has caused the west-side approach the amount of congestion experienced and to
girders to crack. maintain access for national and international
freight to reach its destination with limited delays.
1.4.4 Recent Safety Measures The Sellwood Bridge project is listed as Project
Multnomah County continues to take steps to 1012 on the 2004 RTP financially constrained
prolong the safe use of the bridge until a long- project list for the RTP program years 2004 to
term solution is identified. In June 2003, cracks in 2009. The RTP is currently being updated, and its
both the east and west concrete approaches adoption is anticipated in June of 2010. Future
were discovered and restrained with external project phases, including the purchase of right-of-
steel clamps. In June 2004, the weight limit for way, is expected to be included in the list of
vehicles traveling across the bridge was reduced financially constrained projects in the updated
from 32 tons to 10 tons. This weight limit caused RTP. Right-of-way purchase must be included in
the diversion of 94 daily TriMet bus trips (a the financially constrained RTP before the Federal
loaded bus weighs about 19 tons). The weight Highway Administration (FHWA) can issue a
limit is still in effect. In 2005, an engineering study
recommended short-term safety improvements
What is t he p urpose of t he project?
Project Purpose (Section 1.5)

Record of Decision on the Sellwood Bridge  Defines the transportation problem
Project Purpose, Need,

project. Tacoma Main Street Plan to be solved, but does not identify a
solution, and allows for
Completed in 2001, the City of Portland’s consideration of multiple modes
and Goals
Tacoma Main Street Plan was developed to and alternatives.
implement the vision of a multi-modal, Project Need (Section 1.6)
neighborhood-oriented street in the Sellwood-  Establishes evidence that the
Moreland neighborhood. A basic assumption transportation problem exists.
carried into the planning process (according to Project Goals (Section 1.7)
recommendations from the South Willamette River  Defines broad vision statements
intended to influence the character
Crossing Study [Metro, 1999]) was that providing of the project solution.
adequate regional traffic capacity in the Sellwood
Bridge/SE Tacoma Street travelshed is not the
responsibility of SE Tacoma Street. 1.6 Why is the project
The plan supports “regional efforts to carry out needed?
the recommendations of the South Willamette The following four major issues define the need
River Crossing Study that reduce travel demand on for the Sellwood Bridge project:
the Sellwood Bridge.” Action items to meet this
recommendation include mitigating traffic growth  Inadequate structural integrity to safely
on SE Tacoma Street, increasing transit services, accommodate various vehicle types (including
increasing motor vehicle capacity on appropriate transit vehicles, trucks, and emergency
vehicles) and to withstand moderate seismic
regional facilities “in order to direct traffic away
events
from areas of conflict with land use goals,” and
supporting “improvements to the west end of the  Substandard and unsafe roadway design
Sellwood Bridge that mitigate congestion
 Substandard pedestrian and bicycle facilities
impacts.”
across the river
1.5 What is the purpose of  Existing and future travel demands between
origins and destinations served by the
the project? Sellwood Bridge exceed available capacity
The purpose of the project, as approved by the The following subsections provide further
project’s Policy Advisory Group, is to descriptions of these issues.
“rehabilitate or replace the
Sellwood Bridge within its The yellow line indicates a sag in the southern bridge railing.
existing east-west corridor to
provide a structurally safe bridge
and connections that
accommodate multi-modal
mobility needs.”
Why is t he p roject needed ?
1.6.1 Inadequate Structural The bridge’s lightweight deck system is

inadequate to handle current vehicular demands.
Integrity Concrete is falling off the bridge because the
The bridge has inadequate structural integrity to reinforcing steel is corroded and expansion joints
safely accommodate various types of heavy are weakening. The existing lead-based paint
vehicles (including transit vehicles, trucks, and coating has largely failed and widespread
emergency vehicles) and to withstand moderate corrosion is attacking the steel truss.
seismic events. The bridge continues to
deteriorate and cannot adequately accommodate The bridge was opened to traffic in 1925.
today’s traffic needs because of its structural However, the steel girders of the bridge
condition. Load restrictions have eliminated bus approaches are actually more than 100 years old
service, restricted freight loads, and prohibited because steel girders from the Burnside Bridge
large emergency vehicles from using the bridge. (circa 1894) were reused on this bridge. Earth
The bridge does not meet current seismic movements caused the development of cracks in
standards. the west approach concrete girders. Vehicle
loads were restricted to a maximum of 32 tons in
The bridge is no longer adequate to sufficiently 1985 after calculations showed that higher
accommodate traffic because of its structural and weights would overstress critical bridge elements.
geometric deficiencies. Its sufficiency rating (a Further weight restrictions were imposed in
measure based on bridge inspection reports that 2004, when large cracks were discovered in the
indicates a bridge’s ability to provide service) is concrete girders. Vehicle weight was limited to
only 2 on a scale of 0 to 100. The sufficiency 10 tons and buses and large emergency vehicles
rating measures both the physical condition of a and trucks were prohibited from using the bridge.
bridge and the ability of the bridge to perform
operationally. Portland’s Freight Master Plan (2006) designates
the bridge as a Truck Access Street in
recognition of its service as an access and
circulation route for the delivery of goods and
services to neighborhood-serving commercial and
employment land uses. This includes truck trips
between Sellwood, Westmoreland, and
Milwaukie on the east side of the Willamette
River and the southwest Portland area on the
west side, via OR 43. However, because of
current load restrictions and the physical
geometry of the west-side interchange, large
trucks must avoid the bridge, thereby
substantially impeding freight movement between
these areas. This out-of-direction travel for
businesses located in the commercial districts on
both sides of the river has resulted in increased
freight costs and delays. Freight mobility and
reliability, currently affected by load limits on the
bridge, will be further impacted as travel demands
continue to rise.
Side of the bridge, which shows that
concrete has fallen off the bridge.
Why is t he p roject needed ?
The existing lead-based paint coating has largely

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

and Bicycle Facilities
across the River
The bridge’s only sidewalk, on the structure’s
Transit service has been discontinued across the north side, is just 4 feet 3 inches wide. This leaves
bridge because of the structural deficiencies. only a 3-foot-wide passage for two-way traffic
Before the weight restriction was imposed in next to each of its 22 light poles. The sidewalk
2004, bus usage across the bridge was substantial. width is not safe for bicyclists and pedestrians,
(SE Tacoma Street is a Major Transit Street in the and the sidewalk cannot accommodate some
City of Portland’s Transportation System Plan disabled users. The existing sidewalk and
[updated in 2007].) Bus routes that previously connections at either end of the bridge do not
crossed the bridge served many travel markets, meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
including those between the Sellwood, requirements. There is no sidewalk on the south
Westmoreland, and Milwaukie areas and side of the bridge.
southwest Portland and the city center. Since the
The bridge does not provide designated bicycle
weight restriction, the bus routes have been
rerouted, making use of public transportation facilities. Some bicyclists try to use the sidewalk;
others intermingle with traffic. The bridge could
unattractive between key markets. Transit use in
the bridge corridor (which is expected to rise provide bicyclists and pedestrians with a critical
link between the west and east sides of the
substantially by 2035) and increased traffic levels
could affect the reliability and mobility of public The bridge’s sidewalk width is not safe for
transportation service. bicyclists and pedestrians.
Finally, the bridge is located in a seismically active
zone, does not meet current seismic standards,
and is vulnerable to failure in the event of an
earthquake.
1.6.2 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.
What a re the goals of t he p roject?
Willamette River and with established shared-use Daily traffic demand will increase substantially in
paths. However, the bridge’s connections with the future, leading to increased durations of
shared-use paths are deficient, unsafe, and often congestion along approach roadways, including
avoided. both directions of OR 43, SW Taylors Ferry
Road, and SE Tacoma Street. Increased
There are no sidewalks, crosswalks, or bicycle
congestion levels will affect emergency service
lanes on OR 43 in the bridge interchange.
accessibility, transit service, freight movements,
Pedestrian and bicyclist connections between the
and general vehicular traffic.
highway and the bridge are circuitous, unpaved,
and, in some areas, force users to mix with The two key facilities affecting Sellwood Bridge
vehicle traffic. Most of these facilities do not operations are the OR 43 interchange and
comply with ADA guidelines. In addition, the SE Tacoma Street. Both create bottlenecks that
bridge’s connection to the Willamette Greenway increased capacity or operational improvements
Trail (West Bank) is narrow; has deficient on the bridge itself cannot relieve. For example,
horizontal curves and limited sight distances; and on the east side, SE Tacoma Street is controlled
does not meet ADA standards. by a single through lane in each direction and the
capacity-constraining traffic signals at SE 13th and
1.6.4 Travel Demands Exceed SE 17th avenues. It is the intention of the City of
Available Capacity Portland’s land use and transportation plans, as
Capacity is defined as the number of vehicles expressed in the adopted Tacoma Main Street Plan
over a given time period that can be served by a (2001), that the Sellwood area maintain
section of roadway. Capacity is a function of the SE Tacoma Street as a two-lane facility, with a
facility’s lane capacity, travel speeds, and turning lane, but improve the operations of the
operations of intersections, as well as those of signalized intersections on SE Tacoma Street to
upstream and downstream facilities. The existing improve the operating capacity of the corridor.
and future travel demands served by the On OR 43, the slow speed on-ramps to the
Sellwood Bridge exceed the bridge’s available bridge from OR 43 both merge into a single lane
capacity as well as the capacity of its interchange on the bridge, leading to congestion on OR 43.
with OR 43. The bridge provides a direct This interchange is not addressed in a plan except
connection across the Willamette River for as part of the bridge project.
several key travel origins and destinations. Travel
demands are expected to increase in the future, 1.7 What are the goals of
leading to decreased accessibility for motorized the project?
vehicles. The bridge’s closest alternative crossings
over the Willamette River are about 2.5 miles Through a public involvement process, a diverse
north at the Ross Island Bridge and about 8 miles group of concerned stakeholders defined the
south at the I-205 Abernathy Bridge. goals for the project that addressed the assessed
needs and defined the criteria for a successful
Travel demands at the bridge and west-side solution. A Community Task Force (comprised of
interchange exceed the available capacity for residents and business owners in adjacent
several hours each day, resulting in congested neighborhoods; bicycle and pedestrian users;
conditions, slow travel speeds, and travel delays. freight and transit advocates; commuters;
During peak conditions, particularly during the citywide business and community interests; river
afternoon, vehicles waiting to get on the bridge users; and historic resource, aesthetic, and
and go eastbound often extend onto OR 43 natural resource protection supporters)
beyond the SW Taylors Ferry Road intersection.
What a re m ini m um req ui rements for meeti ng project p ur pose and need?
articulated the perspectives of their  Mass Transit. Improve mass transit

constituencies during this process. circulation, capacity, connectivity, and local
access to and across the bridge.
Improving the safety of the bridge is the primary
goal. An important secondary goal is to balance  Seismic. Provide a solution that can resist
environmental and transportation values over the moderate earthquakes.
long-term while meeting the purpose and need
for the proposed action. The project goals are addressed in the analysis of
impacts, the mitigation for impacts, and the
The project goals are further defined as follows: project design.
 Aesthetics. Ensure an aesthetically pleasing
solution that enhances visual quality of the
1.8 What are minimum
bridge, on the bridge, and from the requirements for
communities on both sides of the river. meeting project
 Bike and Pedestrian. Improve pedestrian purpose and need?
and bicycle connectivity, mobility, and safety
Once the goals for the project were established,
to and across the Sellwood Bridge.
decision-makers defined a set of threshold
 Community Quality of Life. Protect and criteria to serve as minimum requirements for
preserve the existing quality of life of the reasonable project alternatives. Chapter 2
neighborhoods in the Sellwood Bridge summarizes the threshold criteria. These
influence area on both sides of the threshold criteria (design standards and
Willamette River. performance measures) have been used
throughout the alternative development and
 Automobiles, Freight, and Emergency screening process to ensure that the project
Vehicles. Improve freight and commuter needs as expressed in the project goals are met.
mobility and safety. Minimize bottlenecks for (See Appendix D for a list of supporting technical
freight, automobiles, and emergency services. documentation.)
 Construction. Minimize construction
impacts and construction risks.
A diverse group of concerned
 Cost and Economic Impacts. Design, stakeholders developed the goals for
Stakeholders
build, and maintain a cost-effective project. the project. These stakeholders

include the project team, project
Project
 Natural Environment. Preserve or decision-making bodies (described in

improve the natural environment. Chapter 5), various interest groups,
and the public who raised issues
 Material Resources. Use material throughout the public involvement
resources as efficiently as possible. process.
Chapter 2. Concept Development,
Project Alternatives, and the
Chapter 2. Concept Development,
Project Alternatives, and the Preferred
Alternative
This chapter summarizes the development, subsequently refined, based on comments
screening, and selection of project alternatives submitted on the DEIS and a public hearing.
for evaluation in this Final Environmental Impact Therefore, this FEIS evaluates a No Build
Statement (FEIS), along with associated Alternative, the five Build alternatives evaluated in
construction activities. This FEIS was prepared the DEIS, and the preferred alternative—
following the Federal Highway Administration’s Alternative D Refined.
(FHWA’s) environmental process and guidelines
This chapter is divided into the following
for preparing an FEIS. FHWA will be the final
sections:
approver of this document.
A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) • Section 2.1 (Overview of the Process
was distributed in November 2008 (FHWA et al., Used to Identify and Narrow
2008) that evaluated a No Build Alternative and Concepts). Summarizes the process used to
five Build Alternatives, lettered A through E. The identify and narrow concepts (alignments,
Build alternatives were
assembled from compatible
combinations of alignments,
bridge cross-sections, bridge
design types, west-end
interchange types, and east-end
intersection types. These
features were evaluated within
the context of individual Build
alternatives. However, some
features were interchangeable
among some of the alternatives
(for example interchange type,
deck width, bridge type, and
treatment of the SE 6th
Avenue intersection.)
After public and agency

comments were fully
considered and evaluated,
Alternative D was identified as
the preferred alternative
(Section 5.5 of this FEIS
outlines the process used to
identify the preferred
alternative). Features of
Alternative D were
FIGURE 2.1-1
Decision Points in the Evaluation Process
Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 2-1

Overview of the Process Used to Identify and Narrow Concepts
Chapter 2. Concept Development, Project Alternatives, and the Preferred Alternative
cross-sections, and interchange types) to  Decision Point 3 – Establish Evaluation

address the project purpose and need, as Framework
identified in Chapter 1, and summarizes the
 Adopted threshold and evaluation criteria
preliminary concepts developed but not
(project goals).
carried forward for further analysis in the
DEIS  Decision Point 4 – Develop Alternatives
 Section 2.2 (Alternatives Carried  Identified a broad range of concepts.

Forward to and Evaluated in the DEIS).  Screened concepts against the threshold
Describes the alternatives evaluated in the criteria.
DEIS  Developed alternatives.
 Adopted a range of alternatives for more
 Section 2.3 (Preferred Alternative). detailed evaluation.
Describes the preferred alternative
 Decision Point 5 – Screen Alternatives
(Alternative D Refined)
 Screened alternatives using the evaluation
2.1 Overview of the Process criteria.
Used to Identify and  Selected alternatives for evaluation in the
DEIS.
Narrow Concepts
 Decision Point 6 – Identify Preferred
This section summarizes the decision points used
Alternative
by the project’s local elected/appointed officials
to identify and narrow concepts to the five Build  Prepared a DEIS to analyze the selected
alternatives evaluated in the DEIS (Figure 2.1-1). alternatives.
Each decision point of this evaluation process
 Had FHWA approve the DEIS before it
included technical analyses, public input, and
was published.
stakeholder reviews. Chapter 5 summarizes
information about the project groups and public  Published and distributed the DEIS for
and agency involvement. The evaluation process project stakeholders, the public, and
included the following six decision points: elected officials.
 Decision Point 1 – Establish Decision  Had a formal public comment period and
Process and Structure held a formal public hearing following
distribution of the DEIS.
 Ensured understanding and agreement
about the process, and about the roles,  Had the PAG consider the analysis
responsibilities, and membership of the documented in the DEIS, CTF input, and
various project groups (Policy Advisory public and agency comments to identify a
Group [PAG], Community Task Force preferred alternative.
[CTF], Project Management Team [PMT],  Had the Multnomah County Board of
and Senior Agency Staff [SAS]). Commissioners, Clackamas County
 Decision Point 2 – Define Purpose and Board of Commissioners, Metro Council,
Need and Portland City Council adopt the
 Established the need for the project and
defined the problems the project was  Have FHWA select a preferred
expected to address. alternative.
2-2 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

2.1.1 Decision Point 1: Establish staff, and experts who volunteered their
services.
Decision Process and
Structure Chapter 5 describes the composition, roles, and
The first decision point ensured understanding responsibilities of these five groups in more
and agreement about the project’s decision detail. While these groups provided input and
process and structure, and about the roles, were involved in identifying the preferred
responsibilities, and membership of the various alternative, FHWA will select an alternative when
project groups. The project team also established it publishes the Record of Decision (ROD).
a project schedule during this decision point.
2.1.2 Decision Point 2: Define
Primary groups involved in the decision process Purpose and Need
included the following: The second decision point, conducted in the
 Policy Advisory Group (PAG). Made summer and fall of 2006, established the need for
decisions at each decision point. The PAG the project and defined the problems the project
was comprised of elected and appointed was expected to address. Chapter 1 defines the
officials of local agencies and jurisdictions project purpose and need.
with regulatory responsibility for the project
or those who had a strong interest in the 2.1.3 Decision Point 3: Establish
outcome. Evaluation Framework
The third decision point, conducted in late 2006
 Community Task Force (CTF). Made and early 2007, established threshold and
recommendations to the PAG at each evaluation criteria that were used in subsequent
decision point. The CTF was comprised of decision points for screening and selecting
representatives from neighborhoods, local alternatives for further review. This section
and regional business groups, advocates for summarizes the Sellwood Bridge Project Evaluation
different bridge user groups (such as Framework Technical Memorandum (CH2M HILL,
commuters, freight and transit users, river 2007a), which describes the adopted evaluation
users, pedestrians, and bicyclists), and framework and documents the threshold and
representatives of natural resource, historic evaluation criteria and their performance
resource, and aesthetic interests. measures.
 Project Management Team (PMT). The threshold criteria represent a set of
Guided the day-to-day execution of the requirements that all bridge concepts must meet
project. The PMT included staff from to be reasonable. Design standards and
Multnomah County, Metro, City of Portland, performance measures established for each
Oregon Department of Transportation threshold criterion defined these feasibility
(ODOT), FHWA, and the consulting team. requirements in detail.
 Senior Agency Staff (SAS). Advised the Threshold criteria categories included providing
PMT and the PAG. The SAS was comprised for the following:
of senior level staff from each of the PAG
member organizations.  Structural Integrity. To safely
accommodate various vehicle types (including
 Working Groups. Provided input to the transit vehicles, trucks, and emergency
CTF and PMT on particular issues. Each vehicles) and to withstand moderate seismic
group was comprised of consultants, agency events

 Design and Safety Standards. To design a  Basic Bridge Cross-sections. Refers to

geometrically functional and safe roadway the various configurations of the bridge deck,
including travel/transit lanes, bicycle lanes,
 Travel Demand. To accommodate existing
sidewalks, and shared-use paths
and future travel demands between origins
and destinations served by the Sellwood Identifying a broad range of concepts assured that
Bridge numerous ideas were considered early in the
project that met the project’s purpose and need.
 Transit Service. To enable connectivity,
The concepts that did not meet the minimum
reliability, and operations of existing and
requirements of the threshold criteria in the third
future public transit
decision point were eliminated from
 Freight. To improve freight mobility to and consideration. Concepts that met the minimum
across the bridge requirements were then compared against each
 Pedestrians and Bicyclists. To enable other to eliminate clearly inferior concepts from
pedestrian and bicycle connectivity, mobility, further consideration.
and safety to and across the river in the The following subsections summarize the Sellwood
existing bridge corridor Bridge Project Range of Alternatives Technical
The evaluation framework also included Memorandum (CH2M HILL, 2007b). They
determining evaluation criteria categories that describe the bridge alignment, interchange type,
would set performance measures for gauging the basic bridge cross-section, and other concepts
effectiveness of the reasonable alternatives. These considered and the reasons for eliminating
categories of evaluation criteria differentiate and various concepts.
identify tradeoffs (benefits and impacts) among
the reasonable alternatives. The criteria Alignment Concepts
categories were developed following discussion From January to May 2007, the Sellwood Bridge
with a wide variety of stakeholders, who team developed preliminary alignment concepts
identified the project features they considered and added additional alignment concepts
most important and valuable. Among these ten
suggested by the public through an online survey,
evaluation criteria categories, 37 evaluation
criteria were developed. public open house, and meetings with the PAG
and CTF. Chapter 5 summarizes the public
2.1.4 Decision Point 4: Develop involvement process.
Alternatives The project team confirmed that alignment
At the outset of this decision point, a broad concepts met the minimum requirements for the
range of concepts was developed to address the project (the threshold criteria described
purpose and need of the project (Decision previously). The project team recommended
Point 2). Concepts included: eliminating alignment concepts that did not meet
 Bridge Alignments. Refers to the location these minimum requirements or were not
of the river crossing, including the existing consistent with the purpose and need
alignment (Chapter 1). The remaining alignment concepts
still represented a broad range of alternatives for
 Interchange Types. Refers to the further evaluation.
connection of the Sellwood Bridge with
OR 43 on the west side of the river

Over view of t he Process Used to Ide ntify an d Na rro w Co ncepts
Chapte r 2 . Co ncept De velop ment, P roject Alter nati ves, an d the P refer red Alter nati ve
The 10 evaluation criteria categories, listed in alphabetical order, include 37 evaluation

criteria.
 Aesthetics. Ensure an aesthetically pleasing solution that enhances visual quality of the
bridge, on the bridge, and from the communities on both sides of the Willamette
River.
 Maximize flexibility in bridge design types
 Preserve, enhance, or create views from the bridge
 Provide aesthetically pleasing interchange/intersection designs that instill a sense
of community pride
 Automobiles, Freight, and Emergency Vehicles. Improve freight and commuter mobility
and safety and minimize bottlenecks for freight, automobiles, and emergency services.
 Minimize congestion delay in the bridge area
 Improve accessibility to residences and businesses
 Minimize impact of incidents and allow the passing of emergency vehicles
 Accommodate trucks
 Retain flexibility to respond to future transportation needs along the corridor
 Remain open to traffic during periods of required maintenance
 Bicyclist and Pedestrian. Improve bicyclist and pedestrian connectivity, mobility, and
safety to and across the Sellwood Bridge.
Evaluation Criteria
 Maximize bicyclist and pedestrian safety

 Maximize convenient and direct connections for bicyclists and pedestrians
 Community Quality of Life. Protect and preserve the existing quality of life of the
neighborhoods in the Sellwood Bridge influence area on both sides of the Willamette
River.
 Minimize noise impacts caused by traffic on residents, businesses, bridge users,
and visitors
 Minimize through-traffic intrusion in Sellwood and other south Portland
neighborhoods
 Minimize impacts to recreational facilities
 Preserve historic and archaeological resources along the project corridor
 Minimize residential relocations
 Minimize residential impacts
 Minimize business relocations
 Improve or avoid negative impacts to the viability of existing businesses within the
bridge impact area
 Achieve consistency with adopted community plans
 Construction. Minimize construction impacts and risks.
 Minimize closure time
 Minimize construction time
 Minimize travel impacts during construction
 Cost and Economic Impacts. Design, build, and maintain a cost-effective project.
 Minimize life cycle cost
 Material Resources. Use material resources as efficiently as possible.
 Maximize use of materials from existing bridge
 Natural Environment. Preserve or improve the natural environment.

 Minimize impacts to the floodplain and meet Oregon Transportation Investment
Act (OTIA) III floodplain/ fluvial standards to the greatest extent practical
 Maximize benefits to threatened and endangered fish species and to other fish
habitat and minimize impacts
 Maximize benefits to threatened and endangered terrestrial species and minimize
impacts
Evaluation Criteria
 Maximize benefits to wildlife habitats and minimize wildlife impacts

 Maximize benefits to riparian areas and minimize tree loss
 Maximize benefits to air quality and minimize air quality impacts
 Preserve recreational fishing and maintain in-stream structure and cover
 Mass Transit. Improve mass transit circulation, capacity, connectivity, and local access
to and across the bridge.
 Increase mass transit reliability
 Accommodate future streetcar or express transit alternatives
 Ensure efficient cohabitation of mass transit and auto/truck traffic
 Ensure effective transit connectivity
 Seismic. Make bridge resistant to moderate earthquakes.
 Minimize loss of life, loss of property, and damages from an earthquake
The alignment concepts, which were designated this analysis and public input on the alignments,
by color, are illustrated on Figure 2.1-2. Eleven the PAG removed six alignments from
general alignments were considered, including consideration for the reasons described
three variations of the existing bridge alignment in Table 2.1-1.
(called the Yellow alignment):
The PAG selected the Purple, Yellow-South,
 Yellow-North. Existing bridge alignment and Yellow-Center, Blue, Pink, and Teal alignments to
area immediately adjacent to the north side be carried forward for further analysis.
 Yellow-Center. Existing bridge alignment Interchange-type Concepts

The project team developed 10 interchange/
 Yellow-South. Existing bridge alignment and
intersection-type concepts to connect the west
area immediately adjacent to the south side
end of the bridge with OR 43. These concepts
Based on public input, the project team included a mix of at-grade, two-level, and three-
developed seven bridge alignments (the Blue, level configurations, as well as a mix of signalized
Green, Orange, Purple, Yellow-North, Yellow- and unsignalized interchange forms. All
Center, and Yellow-South alignments) and a interchange/intersection-type concepts were
tunnel alignment, and the public suggested four designed to minimize park impacts and to avoid
additional alignments (the Burgundy, Gold, Pink, relocation and direct and indirect impacts to the
and Teal alignments). All alignments started on Superintendent’s House (a historic resource) and
SE Tacoma Street on the east side of the burial sites at River View Cemetery.
Willamette River, but the location of the bridge
The following items were the primary
connection to OR 43 on the west bank varied
considerations regarding the choices between
by alignment.
these interchange concepts:
The project team qualitatively analyzed the
alignments. After the CTF and PAG considered

 Future-year traffic performance. The  Cost. Two interchange-type concepts were

future year for traffic analysis was 2035, advanced for further consideration:
consistent with FHWA requirements.
 Two-level, single-point signalized
 Interchange design. Ability to meet intersection. Offered the best opportunity
adopted design and safety standards. for access to River View Cemetery, worked
well from a traffic perspective, provided
 Bicycle and pedestrian safety. signalized crossings for bicyclists and
pedestrians, took into account driver
 Interchange footprint. To minimize
expectations with regard to signal timing, and
impacts to recreation (Powers Marine Park,
provided for transit stop locations.
Willamette Greenway Trail [West Bank], and
Willamette Moorage Park), historic  Two-level roundabout. Provided
properties (River View Cemetery and its opportunities for free-flow traffic movement
Superintendent’s House), and private (no signal) through the intersection.
property (the Staff Jennings property).
 Flexibility for transit stop locations and

connections.
FIGURE 2.1-2
Bridge Alignment Concepts Evaluated
TABLE 2.1-1
Reason(s) for Eliminating Six Alignments in Decision Point 4
Alignment Reason(s) for Elimination
Gold A longer alignment than all other alignments, the Gold alignment would have led to substantially
higher cost and had a greater impact on Sellwood Riverfront Park than any other alignment. The
bridge structure, which would have been approximately 1,250 feet longer than the other
alignments, would have cost approximately $125 million more than the bridge structure for the
other alignments. Approximately 1,200 feet of the bridge would have crossed or been directly
adjacent to Sellwood Riverfront Park, and would have crossed the natural (undeveloped) area of
the park. The Gold alignment also would have provided a direct connection between SW Taylors
Ferry Road and SE Tacoma Street, which would have encouraged increased traffic in the corridor.
Green The Green alignment is similar to the Teal alignment (which was not eliminated in Decision
Point 4), but would have had higher residential and commercial impacts. The Green and Teal
alignments would have had the same number of residential displacements. However, the Green
alignment would have been located on SE Spokane Street, directly adjacent to single-family
residences and the River Park condominium complex, and would not have supported the “Local
Service Traffic Street” designation of SE Spokane Street in the City of Portland Comprehensive Plan
(City of Portland, 2006) and the recommendations of the Tacoma Main Street Plan (City of
Portland, 2001). The Green alignment would have displaced up to 37 businesses in the River Park
Center. The Teal alignment would avoid this building. Commercial acquisition was estimated to be
approximately $8.5 million for the Green alignment, compared to less than $1 million for the Teal
alignment.
Orange The Orange alignment is similar to the Pink alignment (which was not eliminated in Decision
Point 4), but would have had higher residential impacts than the Pink alignment. While the Orange
and Pink alignments would have had the same number of residential displacements, the Orange
alignment would have been located on SE Spokane Street, directly adjacent to single-family
residences and the River Park condominium complex, and would not have supported the “Local
Service Traffic Street” designation of SE Spokane Street in the City of Portland Comprehensive Plan
(City of Portland, 2006) and the recommendations of the Tacoma Main Street Plan (City of
Portland, 2001).
Yellow- The Yellow-North alignment is similar to the Pink alignment (which was not eliminated in Decision
North Point 4), but the Yellow-North alignment would have displaced 48 residential units, compared to
the displacement of 6 units for the Pink alignment.
Burgundy The Burgundy alignment would have increased right-of-way impacts and would have had higher
cost because of its longer length (approximately 750 feet longer than all alignments other than the
Gold alignment). The total cost for the bridge structure would have been approximately
$75 million more than any of the other alignments except for the Gold alignment. The Burgundy
alignment also would have required out-of-direction travel.
Tunnel The tunnel alignment is a long alignment (approximately 7,000 feet) that would have been costly
and would not have accommodated bicyclists and pedestrians. The lineal-foot cost would have
been a minimum of five times the lineal-foot cost for a bridge structure. Therefore, the total cost
for the tunnel would have exceeded $1 billion. This alignment would not have accommodated
existing and future travel demands between the same origins and destinations served by the
Sellwood Bridge. The tunnel alignment would have required out-of-direction travel because it
could not have been accessed between the tunnel portals. Therefore, it would have served
primarily through traffic and not local Sellwood traffic.
The minimum design criteria for the bridge cross-section are based on adopted standards.
The desirable design criteria are based on input from project-specific working groups (defined
in Section 2.1.1 and Chapter 5).
Design Criteria
Bridge Cross-section Minimum Design Criteria
Design Feature Minimum Desirable

Travel-lane Width 11 feet 12 feet
Source: City of Portland Source: Roadway Working Group
Bicycle-lane Width 5 feet 6.5 feet
Source: Bicycle Master Plan (City Source: Roadway Working Group
of Portland, 1998a)
Sidewalk Width 8 feet clear of obstructions 12 feet clear of obstructions
(6 feet through pedestrian (6 feet through pedestrian zone
zone plus 2 feet for plus 2.5 feet for furnishings
furnishings zone/curb zone) zone/curb zone plus 1.5 feet for
Source: Portland Pedestrian Design frontage zone adjacent to
Guide (City of Portland, 1998b) bridge rail)
Source: Roadway Working Group
Shared-use Path 16 feet clear of obstructions 20 feet clear of obstructions
(if bicycle and pedestrian for a two-way path for a two-way path
facilities are combined) (12 feet plus 2 feet of shy on (16 feet plus 2 feet of shy on
both sides) both sides)
Source: Bicycle Master Plan (City Source: Roadway Working Group
of Portland, 1998a)
Shoulder Width 3 feet on bridges longer than 100 feet
(without a bicycle lane) Source: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO)
Basic Bridge Cross-section Concepts Other Concepts

Initially, the public and CTF developed over Other concepts that were advanced included:
40 possible basic bridge cross-section concepts.  Using a temporary detour bridge for access
These consisted of travel/transit lanes, bicycle across the river during construction
lanes, sidewalks, and shared-use paths. Next, the
PAG and CTF selected 12 cross-section  Using the existing bridge for bicyclist and
configurations to consider in more detail. These pedestrian facilities with a replacement bridge
configurations represented various width for motorized vehicles on a separate
categories ranging between 31 feet and 92 feet. alignment
Most cross-sections applied to any of the
alignments, although a few were proposed Project Alternatives
primarily for the rehabilitation of the existing The feasible concepts (bridge alignment,
bridge (e.g., Yellow-Center alignment). Nine of interchange type, bridge cross-section, and other)
the 12 concepts advanced for further were combined to form project alternatives.
consideration were single-level, and the other Combined, the varying options for the
3 employed a two-level design with bicycle and alignments, cross-sections, and interchange types
pedestrian facilities on the lower deck. produced over 100 unique alternatives for
evaluation in Decision Point 5.
alternatives for further analysis in the DEIS.

TABLE 2.1-2 Section 2.2 summarizes the alternatives carried
Primary Reason(s) for Eliminating Four
forward to the DEIS.
Alignments in Decision Point 5
Primary Reason(s) for Alignment Concepts
Alignment Elimination Primary considerations for choices among
Purple Would have displaced 12 residences, alignments included consistency with the project
which was more residential purpose and need (Chapter 1); relative bridge
displacements than with other, similar costs; number of residential units requiring
alignments (Yellow-Center and relocation; cost of residential acquisition; impacts
Yellow-South) that displaced fewer
than 12 residences. to businesses; cost of commercial acquisition;
maintenance of traffic during construction; and
Blue Because of its impact to the River potential impacts to protected historic resources,
Park residential development north of
the existing bridge, would have
recreation facilities, and the natural environment.
displaced 51 residences, the highest of Considering the performance of the alignments
any alignment. against these considerations, the PAG eliminated
four alignments from consideration, as
Teal Was combined with the Pink
alignment to form the Pink-Teal summarized in Table 2.1-2.
Hybrid alignment.
The Yellow-South and Yellow-Center alignments
Pink Was combined with the Teal were advanced for further consideration. Input
alignment to form the Pink-Teal from the public and PAG refined the Pink
Hybrid alignment.
alternative on the west side to develop a 12th
alignment (Pink-Teal Hybrid). The Pink-Teal
Hybrid alignment avoided Sellwood Riverfront
2.1.5 Decision Point 5: Screen Park and minimized impacts to Powers Marine
Alternatives Park. This alignment was called the Pink-Teal
Hybrid because the east end of the bridge was
A team of technical experts rated the
similar to the Pink alignment and the west end of
performance of the over 100 unique alternatives
the bridge was similar to the Teal alignment. In
against each of the 37 evaluation criteria.
summary, three alignments were advanced for
Performance ratings were either qualitative or
further evaluation in the DEIS:
quantitative. The combination of over 100 unique
alternatives and 37 evaluation criteria resulted in  Yellow-Center alignment
more than 4,000 performance scores. Input from  Yellow-South alignment
the public and CTF was used to eliminate  Pink-Teal Hybrid alignment
alignments and cross-section types and identify
alternatives for further evaluation in the DEIS. Interchange-type Concepts
Two interchange-type concepts were initially
The following subsections summarize the Final evaluated (that is, two-level, single-point
Alternatives Evaluation Findings Technical signalized intersection and two-level roundabout).
Memorandum (CH2M HILL, 2007c), which After further consideration in Decision Point 5,
provides the results of this analysis, and the the PAG also advanced the trumpet interchange
Alternatives Adopted by the Policy Advisory Group for concept because it provided opportunities for
Analysis in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement free-flow traffic movement through the corridor.
Technical Memorandum (CH2M HILL, 2007d), Therefore, three interchange types were
which describes the rationale for selection of advanced for further evaluation in the DEIS:
2-10 Sellwood Bri dge Project Fi nal E nvi ronment al Im pac t Stateme nt
Over view of t he Process Used to Ide ntify an d Na rro w C o ncepts
Generally, at the time of any structure rehabilitation, an evaluation is made to determine

whether a seismic retrofit is necessary. One or both of the following approaches can be
Seismic Strengthening
taken to retrofit a bridge to resist an earthquake:

 Tie together bridge members to prevent them from coming apart during an earthquake
(Phase I seismic upgrade)
 Strengthen bridge members to allow them to resist the forces and movements occurring
during an earthquake (Phase II seismic upgrade)
Most seismic retrofits in the state of Oregon consist only of connecting the members
(Phase I), because this approach greatly reduces loss of life from an earthquake at a fraction
of the cost of strengthening. However, the rehabilitation concepts that have been advanced
in this FEIS require expansion of foundations, footings, columns, superstructure, and deck,
all of which must be built to Phase II standards.
 Two-level, single-point signalized intersection alternatives that would be studied in the DEIS.
 Two-level roundabout These other concepts included the following:
 Trumpet
 To build a separate bicycle and pedestrian
Basic Bridge Cross-section Concepts bridge
The 12 basic bridge cross-section concepts  To rehabilitate the existing bridge and use a
evaluated were refined based on input from the temporary detour bridge during construction
public and CTF. The five basic bridge cross-
 To rehabilitate the existing bridge with a
section concepts the CTF and PAG
recommended for advancement to the DEIS Phase II seismic retrofit
incorporated various configurations of The CTF and PAG did not advance retaining the
travel/transit lanes, bicycle lanes, sidewalks, and existing bridge for bicyclist and pedestrian use
shared-use paths. with a replacement bridge for motorized vehicles
on a separate alignment as an alternative to be
Bridge Design Types studied in the DEIS for the following reasons:
For analysis purposes, bridge design types were
identified for the replacement alternatives. For  The total cost of rehabilitating and
each of the replacement alternatives, the PAG maintaining the existing bridge structure and
and CTF advanced a moderately-priced bridge constructing and maintaining a new bridge
design type and, where feasible, a higher-priced structure was higher than:
(“signature”) bridge design type for evaluation in
 Including bicyclist and pedestrian facilities
the DEIS. Some alternatives precluded certain
in a new or rehabilitated bridge
bridge types. The final bridge type, size, and
 Rehabilitating the existing bridge
location will be determined and approved after
completing the National Environmental Policy Act  Constructing a new bridge with a new,
of 1969 (NEPA) process. Bridge design types are smaller, separate bicycle/pedestrian
specified in this FEIS for analysis purposes only to bridge
identify impacts, estimate costs, and describe  If available funding were less than the full
kinds of construction activities. project cost, construction could not be
phased (that is, building first the new bridge,
Other Concepts
then the interchange, using the existing
After further consideration, the PAG and CTF
interchange in the interim) because the new
decided to include other concepts in the
Alter nati ves Ca rrie d For wa rd to a nd Ev al uated in the DE I S
bridge would simultaneously need to be on a Under the No Build Alternative, the existing
new location and have a new interchange. infrastructure would remain the same and the
bridge would continue to operate as it does
 The total impacts to the natural resources
today. The bridge, west-side interchange
and park and recreational facilities of the
configuration, and east-side bridge approach
existing bridge plus a new vehicular bridge
would not change. The existing bridge cross-
would be higher than the impacts of other
section (31 feet wide with two 12-foot-wide
alternatives with a new or rehabilitated
travel lanes and a single narrow sidewalk with
bridge structure.
light pole constrictions) would remain.
 Transfer points between vehicular traffic on
the new bridge and bicyclist and pedestrian Maintenance Activities
facilities on the existing bridge would be Multnomah County has identified the following
more difficult. maintenance activities under the No Build
Alternative that would be necessary to keep the
2.1.6 Decision Point 6: Identify bridge operational and in as good a condition as
Preferred Alternative possible for the next 20 years:
The final decision point in this process involved  Remove and replace west approach spans
preparing a DEIS to analyze the selected  Remove existing failed lead-based paint
alternatives and to identify a preferred  Paint all steel
alternative. FHWA approved the DEIS before it
 Replace expansion joints
was published in November 2008.
 Remove and replace asphalt deck overlay
Chapter 5 provides additional information about  Repair concrete cracks
this step .
No Build Alternative maintenance activities would
take approximately 12 months. Traffic would not
2.2 Alternatives Carried be allowed across the bridge during construction
Forward to and of the west approach spans (approximately 6 to
Evaluated in the DEIS 8 months), but traffic would be maintained on
OR 43. The east approach and the main bridge
Six alternatives were forwarded to and evaluated spans would receive a new structural deck
in the DEIS—a No Build Alternative and five overlay. Deck joints would be replaced with new
Build alternatives. joint materials. Temporary closure of the bridge
would be required during preparation and
2.2.1 No Build Alternative construction of the deck overlay. Painting of the
State and federal regulations require the existing trusses and deck-support system would
evaluation of the No Build Alternative in an be completed concurrent with replacement of
environmental impact statement. The No Build the west approach and the deck overlay.
Alternative provides a baseline against which to
measure and compare the effects of all of the The estimated cost to perform this maintenance
project’s Build alternatives. This baseline helps work is $54 million (in 2012 dollars). The No
local elected/appointed officials and decision- Build Alternative would provide for continuation
makers assess what would happen to the of the bridge life for approximately 20 years.
environment in the future if nothing were done However, the following restrictions related to
to address the problem that the project is the No Build Alternative would apply:
designed to solve.
 Would not eliminate the existing 10-ton temporary detour bridge. This FEIS evaluates the
weight limit (that is, trucks, buses, and impacts of the temporary detour bridge
emergency vehicles would continue to be separately (Alternative B impacts and
restricted). Alternative B with temporary detour bridge
option). The impacts of the temporary detour
 Would not improve the geometric
bridge for Alternatives A and C would be the
deficiencies of the interchange with OR 43 on
same as the temporary bridge impacts presented
the west side.
for the Alternative B with temporary detour
 Would not improve the existing limited bridge option.
facilities on the bridge for pedestrians and
The following sections describe elements
bicyclists.
common to all Build alternatives.
 Would not retrofit the bridge to existing
seismic standards. Willamette Shoreline Trolley, Future
Streetcar, and Willamette Greenway
 Would not provide the 75-year design life of
Trail (West Bank)
the Build alternatives. Additional investments
Currently, the Willamette Shoreline Trolley
would be required to continue use of the
operates on tracks that are immediately east of
bridge beyond the 20-year period.
the existing west-side interchange and parallel to
2.2.2 Build Alternatives OR 43. In 1988, local governments formed the
Willamette Shoreline Consortium, which
Table 2.2-1 summarizes the five Build alternatives
purchased from Southern Pacific Railroad the
studied in the DEIS. The Build alternatives are
railroad right-of-way on which the trolley
lettered A through E. The Build alternatives were
operates. The consortium (comprised of ODOT,
assembled from compatible combinations of
Metro, the cities of Portland and Lake Oswego,
alignments, basic bridge cross-sections, bridge
Clackamas and Multnomah counties, and TriMet)
types, and interchange types to form the most
manages the 7-mile right-of-way between River
effective combination for each set of features.
Place in downtown Portland and Lake Oswego.
These features have been evaluated within the
The Oregon Electric Railroad Historical Society
context of individual Build alternatives.
operates an excursion trolley service on the rail
However, some features might be substituted line. The Willamette Shoreline Consortium
into other Build alternatives. These features maintains and manages the right-of-way. TriMet
include west-end interchange type, bridge cross- holds the title to the right-of-way on behalf of the
sections, treatments at the SE 6th Avenue and SE consortium and the City of Lake Oswego
Tacoma Street intersection, and use of a maintains the operations of the 7-mile right-of-
temporary detour bridge during construction. way between River Place and Lake Oswego. The
right-of-way was purchased to prevent the
Temporary Detour Bridge Option abandonment of the line and to preserve it for
Although the option of a temporary detour future passenger rail service.
bridge is presented with Alternative B, a
temporary detour bridge could also be used with
Alternatives A and C. (Neither of these two Build
alternatives would maintain access across the
river during construction.) Alternatives D and E
would maintain access across the river during
construction, so they would not need a
TABLE 2.2-1
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 travel  Two 11-foot-wide travel  Three 12-foot-wide travel  Two 12-foot-wide travel  Two 12-foot-wide travel
lanes lanes lanes lanes lanes for traffic
 Two 6-foot-wide  Two 5-foot-wide  Two 3-foot-wide  Two 6.5-foot-wide  Two 12-foot-wide travel
shoulders shoulders/ bike lanes shoulders shoulders/ bike lanes lanes for transit
 Two 1.5-foot-wide railings  Two 1.5-foot-wide inner  Two 1.5-foot-wide railings  Two 12-foot-wide shared-  16-foot- and 8-foot-wide
railings use sidewalks shared-use sidewalks
 Two 10-foot-wide  Two 1.5-foot-wide railings  Two 1.5-foot-wide railings
sidewalks
 Two 1-foot-wide outer
railings
Other Features  Separate 20-foot-wide  Seismic retrofit equivalent  Double-deck bridge  Meets seismic standards  Meets seismic standards
bike/ pedestrian bridge to Phase IIa  20-foot-wide shared-use
with two 1.5-foot-wide  Meets seismic standards path on lower deck with
railings (total width of two 1.5-foot-wide railings
23 feet) (total width of 23 feet)
 Seismic retrofit equivalent  Meets seismic standards
to Phase IIa
 Meets seismic standards
West-side  Roundabout on upper  Roundabout on upper  Trumpet (free-flow)  Signalized intersection on  Signalized intersection on
Interchange level level interchange upper level upper level
 Free-flow OR 43 on lower  Free-flow OR 43 on lower  Free-flow OR 43 on lower  Free-flow OR 43 on lower  Free-flow OR 43 on lower
level of two-level level of two-level level of two-level level of two-level level of two-level
interchange interchange interchange interchange interchange
 Relocates approximately  Relocates approximately  Relocates approximately  Relocates approximately  Relocates approximately
900 linear feet of railway 900 linear feet of railway 1,700 linear feet of railway 1,000 linear feet of railway 800 linear feet of railway
right-of-way right-of-way right-of-way right-of-way right-of-way
East-side  Same as existing  Same as existing  Eastbound left turn to SE  Signal at SE Tacoma  Signal at SE Tacoma
Intersection (eastbound left turn (eastbound left turn 6th Avenue restricted Street/SE 6th Avenue Street/SE 6th Avenue
permitted at SE 6th permitted at SE 6th  Right turn to loop under intersection intersection
Avenue) Avenue) bridge
TABLE 2.2-1
Potential Bridge  Retain existing bridge  Retain existing bridge  Through-arch  Delta-frame or deck-arch  Box-girder or through-
Typeb (i.e., continuous-truss (i.e., continuous-truss arch
span) span)
bridge
Property Access  New roadway to provide  New roadway to provide  No motor vehicle access  New roadway to provide  New roadway to provide
access to River View access to River View from OR 43 to River View access to River View access to River View
Cemetery, Powers Marine Cemetery, Powers Marine Cemetery or Powers Cemetery, Powers Marine Cemetery, Powers Marine
Park, and the Staff Park, and the Staff Marine Park Park, and the Staff Park, and the Staff
Jennings property Jennings property  Relocated access to Jennings property Jennings property
 Relocated access to  Relocated access to Willamette Moorage Park  Relocated access to  Relocated access to
Willamette Moorage Park Willamette Moorage Park and Macadam Bay Club Willamette Moorage Park Willamette Moorage Park
and Macadam Bay Club and Macadam Bay Club  Powers Marine Park and Macadam Bay Club and Macadam Bay Club
accessed by footpath from
Willamette Moorage Park
Traffic Access  No traffic access during  Temporary detour bridge  No traffic access during  Bridge construction  Traffic access maintained
during construction option to maintain traffic construction staged to maintain traffic on existing bridge during
Construction  Traffic diverted to other access  Traffic diverted to other access during construction of the new
existing bridges existing bridges constructionc bridge
Construction  $331 million (stress-  $326 million  $280 million  $293 million (delta-frame  $281 million (box-girder
Cost (in 2012 ribbon bike/pedestrian  $356 million (including  Right-of-way cost of bridge) bridge)
dollars)d,e bridge) temporary detour bridge) $20.9 millionf  $311 million (deck-arch  $361 million (through-
 $337 million (cable-stayed  Right-of-way cost of bridge) arch bridge)
bike/pedestrian bridge) $15.8 millione;  Right-of-way cost of  Right-of-way cost of
 Right-of-way cost of $17.1 million including $25.8 millionf $35.7 millionf
$15.8 millionf temporary detour bridgef
Construction  Rehabilitated vehicle  Rehabilitated vehicle  Replacement bridge:  Replacement bridge:  Replacement bridge:
Cost Breakdown bridge: $185 million bridge: $222 million $185 million $202 million (delta-frame); $189 million (box-girder);
(in 2012 dollars)d,e  Bike/pedestrian bridge:  Temporary detour bridge:  West-side interchange: $220 million (deck-arch) $269 million (through-
$52 million (stress- $30 million $90 million  West-side interchange: arch)
ribbon);  West-side interchange:  East-side intersection: $89 million  West-side interchange:
$58 million (cable-stayed) $102 million $5.4 million  East-side intersection: $88 million
 West-side interchange:  East-side intersection: $1.9 million  East-side intersection:
$93 million $1.6 million $3.9 million
 East-side intersection:
$1.6 million
TABLE 2.2-1
NOTES
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
c
Traffic access across the bridge would be affected periodically 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 DEIS reported 2009 right-of-way costs for Alternatives A through E. The right-of-way costs have been updated to 2012 costs. The right-of-way costs are included in the total
construction costs.
Since 1990, the Oregon Electric Railroad improvements (approximately 1,000 feet south of
Historical Society has operated an excursion the existing bridge).
trolley service on the rail line during the spring,
summer, and fall months on a limited schedule. Access to Willamette Moorage Park
Continuing the trolley operation is a viable means and Macadam Bay Club
of preserving the corridor. The Willamette The existing access to Willamette Moorage Park
Shoreline Trolley consists of a single railroad and the Macadam Bay Club would be moved to
track on the west bank of the Willamette River the north (approximately 250 feet for
beneath the Sellwood Bridge, just east of OR 43. Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E, and farther north
In this area, the right-of-way ranges from for Alternative D Refined) to increase spacing
approximately 30 to 40 feet (or more) in width. between this access point and the northbound
ramp from the west-side interchange. An access
All Build alternatives would require moving the
spacing exception from ODOT would be
railway right-of-way eastward into Powers Marine required because the distance between this
Park and toward the Staff Jennings property (a
access point and the end of the ramp from the
former commercial boat dealership north of the west-side interchange would not meet standards.
existing bridge that closed in March 2010). The
existing rail facility is a single track; however, Cross-sections of the Build Alternatives
current planning is for a streetcar with a second All Build alternatives are presented with a basic
track in this area and space for the Willamette bridge cross-section. However, to accommodate
Greenway Trail (West Bank) along the tracks. traffic operations at the west-side interchange,
The ground level slopes steeply down to the river auxiliary lanes would be required to separate left-
east of OR 43. Therefore, moving the rail tracks from right-turning traffic, and to accommodate
to the east would require placing them on fill or through traffic to the west-side access to River
structure and building a retaining wall to support View Cemetery, Powers Marine Park, and the
the fill and minimize encroachment into the park. Staff Jennings property. Accommodating the
The replacement right-of-way provided and west-end auxiliary lanes means that all Build
presented in this FEIS would replace the existing alternatives would have a wider deck on the west
right-of-way. The cost included in this project is end than in the middle of the span, where the
for the replacement of existing right-of-way; the additional lanes would either merge or diverge.
track replacement; any fill or structure required; On the east end of the bridge, some Build
and the construction of any necessary retaining alternatives would have auxiliary lanes to
walls. These improvements would extend from accommodate left or right turns at the
the north end of the Staff Jennings property intersection of SE 6th Avenue with SE Tacoma
(approximately 500 feet north of the existing Street. All cross-sections would result in only
bridge) to the south end of project
Basic cross-section of the proposed streetcar and Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank) (Metro, 2008)
two through lanes as they joined SE Tacoma  West end. The bridge would include two
Street east of the SE 6th Avenue intersection. 12-foot-wide travel lanes eastbound to
facilitate movements from the west-side
Alternative A: Rehabilitation of Bridge roundabout, which would merge into one
with Separate Bicycle/Pedestrian travel lane eastbound. Likewise, one travel
Bridge lane westbound on the bridge would widen
Alternative A would rehabilitate the existing to two 12-foot-wide travel lanes approaching
bridge for motorized vehicles and would add a the west-side roundabout to separate
separate bicycle/pedestrian bridge 300 feet north northbound and southbound movements and
of the existing bridge (Figure 2.2-1). Alternative A to provide for queuing.
as analyzed does not include a temporary detour
bridge during construction. However, a  East end. There would be one travel lane in
both directions. An eastbound left-turn lane
temporary detour bridge could be added to
would be provided at the intersection of
Alternative A, but with additional cost and
SE 6th Avenue with SE Tacoma Street. East
impacts similar to those described for the of SE 6th Avenue, SE Tacoma Street would
Alternative B with temporary detour bridge be one travel lane in both directions with a
option. center-turn lane (the same as the existing
conditions).
Rehabilitation would include replacing the deck
and deck-support system with a new and wider Bridge Rehabilitation
deck and deck-support system; repairing and When the Build alternatives were approved for
painting the trusses; adding new trusses outside the DEIS, the project team planned to look at
the existing trusses (shadow trusses) to support two separate seismic retrofit options for
the added width of the deck; and widening the Alternative A—a Phase I retrofit and a combined
existing pier columns and footings to support the Phase I and Phase II retrofit. As the project team
added trusses. The widened pier columns and explored the approach to rehabilitate the bridge
footings would be designed to the current seismic in more detail, it was determined that the
code and would support both the existing and equivalent of a combined Phase I and Phase II
new trusses by adding width at each end. Drilled retrofit would need to be incorporated into the
shafts would be added to support the additional design to allow for bridge widening and structural
width of the piers. The existing concrete integrity to accommodate trucks, transit, and
approach spans on each side of the truss spans emergency vehicles. Therefore, the equivalent of
over the river would be replaced. a Phase II seismic retrofit would be incorporated
into the design for Alternative A. The
Basic Bridge Cross-section rehabilitated bridge under Alternative A would be
Figure 2.2-2 shows the motorized vehicle bridge
structurally equivalent to a new bridge.
configuration and cross-sections for
Alternative A.
The basic motorized vehicle bridge cross-section,

which would be 39 feet wide, would include two
12-foot-wide travel lanes, two 6-foot-wide
shoulders to allow emergency vehicles to pass,
and 1.5-foot-wide railings on both sides of the
bridge. However, on each end of the bridge, the
number of travel lanes would differ from this
basic cross-section:
FIGURE 2.2-2
Alternative A Bridge Configuration
Because Alternative A would rehabilitate the A (Figure 2.2-1). The bicycle/pedestrian bridge
existing bridge, the bridge type would continue to would be 23 feet wide, with 20 feet for
be a continuous-truss span. Although Alternative bicycle/pedestrian use and 1.5-foot-wide railings
A is called a bridge rehabilitation, most of the (Figure 2.2-2). The alignment would extend from
elements of the existing bridge would require SE Grand Avenue at Oaks Pioneer Park on the
replacement. The only elements of the bridge east side, above Oaks Pioneer Park and the
that would be retained would be the steel truss Sellwood Riverfront Park parking lot, across the
and piers. A new truss would parallel the existing river to north of the Staff Jennings property, and
truss on each side of the bridge to create a across OR 43 to connect to a River View
“shadow truss” (Figure 2.2-3). The five existing Cemetery access road on the west end of the
bridge piers would be within the ordinary high roundabout. A spiral ramp from the
water elevation and would be extended to bicycle/pedestrian bridge would also connect to
provide structural support to accommodate the Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank). On
heavier vehicles. the east side, the bridge would connect with the
Springwater Corridor Trail via SE Spokane Street.
West-side Interchange with OR 43 Bicyclists and pedestrians would access the bridge
The west-side interchange configuration would
via SE Spokane Street or SE 6th Avenue to
consist of a roundabout on the upper level of the
interchange to control traffic
entering and exiting the vehicular FIGURE 2.2-3
Rehabilitated Bridge Cross-section
bridge and River View Cemetery
(Figure 2.2-1). OR 43 would pass
under the roundabout on the
lower level. Ramps from the
roundabout would provide access
to and from OR 43. A roadway
would diverge from the new River
View Cemetery access and would
pass under OR 43 south of the
roundabout to provide access to
Powers Marine Park and the Staff
Jennings property. The loop for
this access would be similar to that
of Alternatives B or D.
East-side Connection with SE

Tacoma Street
The connection on the east side of
the bridge would be the same as
the existing connection (i.e.,
eastbound left turn permitted at
SE 6th Avenue).
Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge
Bicyclists and pedestrians would be
accommodated on a separate
bridge structure under Alternative
SE Grand Avenue. The bridge types being support both the existing and new trusses by
evaluated for the bicycle/pedestrian bridge are adding width at each end. Drilled shafts would be
the stress-ribbon and the cable-stayed. Both of added to support the additional width of the
these bridge types would have four bridge piers piers. The existing concrete approach spans on
and one smaller pier for the bicycle/pedestrian each side of the truss spans over the river would
spiral ramp on the west side within the ordinary be replaced.
high water elevation.
Bridge Cross-sections
Construction Impacts and Phasing Figure 2.2-5 shows the bridge configuration and
During bridge construction, the bridge would be cross-sections for Alternative B.
closed to all modes of traffic; no temporary
The basic bridge cross-section, which would be
detour bridge is proposed in Alternative A.
57 feet wide, would consist of two 11-foot-wide
Traffic would be diverted to other existing
travel lanes, two 5-foot-wide shoulders/bicycle
bridges.
lanes, two 10-foot-wide sidewalks, 1.5-foot-wide
The three main elements of Alternative A (i.e., inner railings on each side, and 1-foot-wide outer
vehicular bridge, west-side interchange, and railings on each side. However, on each end of
bicycle/pedestrian bridge) could be phased so the bridge, the number of travel lanes would
they could be constructed at different times differ from this basic cross-section:
during a 20-year timeframe.
 West end. The bridge would include two
Section 2.2.3 documents construction activities travel lanes eastbound to facilitate
for Alternative A. movements from the west-side roundabout,
which would merge into one travel lane
Construction Cost eastbound. Likewise, one travel lane
The estimated cost to construct Alternative A
westbound on the bridge would widen to
would be $331 million (in 2012 dollars) if the
two travel lanes approaching the west-side
stress-ribbon bridge were selected for the
roundabout to separate northbound and
bicycle/pedestrian bridge, or $337 million (in
southbound movements and to provide for
2012 dollars) if the cable-stayed bridge were
queuing.
selected for the bicycle/pedestrian bridge. The
construction cost includes $15.8 million for  East end. There would be one travel lane in
right-of-way. both directions. An eastbound left-turn lane
would be provided at the intersection of
Alternative B: Rehabilitation of Bridge SE 6th Avenue with SE Tacoma Street. East
with Temporary Detour Bridge of SE 6th Avenue, SE Tacoma Street would
Alternative B would rehabilitate the existing be one travel lane in both directions with a
bridge and widen it on the north side center-turn lane (the same as the existing
(Figure 2.2-4). Rehabilitation would include conditions).
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
FIGURE 2.2-5
Alternative B Bridge Configuration
Bridge Rehabilitation under the roundabout on the lower level. Ramps

When the Build alternatives were approved for from the roundabout would provide access to
the DEIS, the project team planned to look at and from OR 43. A roadway would diverge from
two separate seismic retrofit options for the new River View Cemetery access and pass
Alternative B—a Phase I retrofit and a combined under OR 43 south of the roundabout to provide
Phase I and Phase II retrofit. As the project team access to Powers Marine Park and the Staff
explored the approach to rehabilitate the bridge Jennings property. The loop for this access would
in more detail, it was determined that the be similar to that of Alternatives A or D.
equivalent of a combined Phase I and Phase II
retrofit would need to be incorporated into the East-side Connection with SE Tacoma
design to allow for bridge widening and structural Street
The connection on the east side of the bridge
integrity to accommodate trucks, transit, and
would be the same as the existing connection
emergency vehicles. Therefore, the equivalent of
(i.e., eastbound left turn permitted at SE 6th
a Phase II seismic retrofit would be incorporated
Avenue).
into the design for Alternative B. The
rehabilitated bridge under Alternative B would be Temporary Detour Bridge
structurally equivalent to a new bridge. Alternative B would include the option for a
temporary detour bridge (Figure 2.2-4). This
Because Alternative B would rehabilitate the
temporary detour bridge would be 36 feet wide
existing bridge, the bridge type would continue to
with two 12-foot-wide travel lanes; two 2-foot-
be a continuous-truss span. Although
wide barriers on the outside of the travel lanes; a
Alternative B is called a bridge rehabilitation,
5-foot-wide sidewalk (for bicyclists and
most of the elements of the existing bridge would
pedestrians) with a 1-foot-wide railing on one
require replacement. The only elements of the
side of the bridge; and a 2-foot-wide buffer on
bridge that would be retained would be the steel
the side of the bridge without a sidewalk
truss and piers. A new truss would parallel the
(Figure 2.2-6). The temporary detour bridge
existing truss on each side of the bridge to create
would intersect OR 43 at an at-grade signalized
a “shadow truss” (Figure 2.2-3). The five existing
intersection. On the east side, the temporary
bridge piers would be within the ordinary high
detour bridge would be elevated above
water elevation and would be extended to
SE Spokane Street between the river and SE
provide structural support to accommodate
Grand Avenue. Existing accesses on SE Spokane
heavier vehicles. Five smaller piers for the
Street would be maintained. The temporary
bicycle/pedestrian spiral ramps on the west side
detour bridge would be on fill as it crossed the
would also be within the ordinary high water
block bounded by SE Tacoma Street to the south,
elevation.
West-side Interchange with OR 43 FIGURE 2.2-6

The west-side interchange configuration would Temporary Detour Bridge Cross-section
consist of a roundabout on the upper level of the
interchange to control traffic entering and exiting
the vehicular bridge and River View Cemetery
(Figure 2.2-4). The roundabout would provide
marked bicyclist and pedestrian crossings on the
north, south, and west legs, and would include
pedestrian-activated signals at the OR 43
northbound entrance and exit ramps, and at the
OR 43 southbound exit ramp. OR 43 would pass
SE Grand Avenue to the west, SE Spokane Street [AASHTO] guidance) and a 1.5-foot-wide railing
to the north, and SE 6th Avenue to the east. The on each side. However, on each end of the
temporary detour bridge would have seven bridge, the number of travel lanes would differ
bridge piers and two smaller piers within the from this basic cross-section:
ordinary high water elevation.
 West end. The bridge would include two
Construction Impacts and Phasing travel lanes eastbound. One travel lane
A temporary detour bridge would maintain traffic westbound on the bridge would widen to
over the river during construction and then be two travel lanes approaching the west-side
removed. The permanent bridge and interchange interchange to separate northbound and
with OR 43 could be phased so they could be southbound movements and to provide
for queuing.
constructed at different times over a 20-year
timeframe.  East end. There would be one travel lane in
both directions. The two travel lanes
Section 2.2.3 documents construction activities eastbound would merge into one travel lane
for Alternative B. with a 12-foot wide median. East of SE 6th
Avenue, SE Tacoma Street would be one
Construction Cost travel lane in both directions with a center-
The estimated cost to construct Alternative B
turn lane (the same as the existing
would be $326 million (in 2012 dollars), or conditions).
$356 million (in 2012 dollars) if the temporary
detour bridge were included. The construction Replacement Bridge
cost includes $15.8 million for right-of-way The bridge type being evaluated for Alternative C
($17.1 million if the temporary detour bridge is the through-arch, which would have four
were included). bridge piers and one smaller pier within the
ordinary high water elevation. Figure 2.2-9 shows
Alternative C: Replacement Bridge on the through-arch bridge type; this illustration is
Existing Alignment conceptual and not based on design.
Alternative C would consist of a double-deck
bridge replacement on the existing alignment
West-side Interchange with OR 43
(Figure 2.2-7). The interchange design on the west side, called a
Basic Bridge Cross-section trumpet interchange, would provide free flow of
Figure 2.2-8 shows the bridge configuration and traffic in all directions from the lower level
cross-sections for Alternative C, which would (Figure 2.2-7). The existing access to River View
have two bridge decks. Motorized vehicles would Cemetery from OR 43 would be removed.
be on the upper bridge deck. A 23-foot-wide Visitors would need to use the existing cemetery
lower deck would provide a 20-foot-wide shared- access from SW Taylors Ferry Road. A left-turn
use path for bicyclists and pedestrians with a refuge would be added to SW Taylors Ferry
1.5-foot-wide railing on each side. Road to facilitate the increase in traffic using this
access to the cemetery resulting from closure of
The basic bridge cross-section for the upper the OR 43 entrance. A ramp from the shared-use
bridge deck, which would be 45 feet wide, would path on the lower deck of the bridge would
consist of three 12-foot-wide travel lanes (two provide access to the Willamette Greenway Trail
travel lanes eastbound and one travel lane (West Bank), and an underpass on the south side
westbound) with 3-foot-wide shoulders (the of the interchange below OR 43 would provide
minimum width allowed in American Association access between River View Cemetery and the
of State Highway and Transportation Officials Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank) for
FIGURE 2.2-8
Alternative C Bridge Configuration
FIGURE 2.2-9
Through-arch Bridge
pedestrians and bicyclists. The relocated access added to Alternative C, but with additional cost
point to Willamette Moorage Park and the and impacts similar to those described for the
Macadam Bay Club would also provide access to Alternative B with temporary detour bridge
Powers Marine Park. option. Traffic would need to use other existing
bridges. The bridge and interchange with OR 43
East-side Connection with SE Tacoma could be phased so they could be constructed at
Street different times over a 20-year timeframe.
On the east side of the bridge, eastbound left-
turn movements from SE Tacoma Street to Section 2.2.3 documents construction activities
SE 6th Avenue would be rerouted to a right-turn for Alternative C.
loop (Figure 2.2-7). Vehicles would turn right at
SE 6th Avenue, turn right at SE Tenino Street, Construction Cost
The estimated cost to construct Alternative C
pass under the bridge via SE Grand Avenue
would be $280 million (in 2012 dollars). The
(lowered and extended to SE Tenino Street), and
construction cost includes $20.9 million for right-
intersect with SE Spokane Street.
of-way.
A spiral ramp on the east end of the bridge
would provide access from the shared-use path Alternative D: Replacement Bridge,
on the lower deck of the bridge to the Widened to the South
Springwater Corridor Trail and local streets. Alternative D would consist of a replacement
bridge on the existing alignment, widened to the
Construction Impacts and Phasing south (Figure 2.2-10).
Alternative C as analyzed does not include a
temporary detour bridge during construction.
However, a temporary detour bridge could be
Basic Bridge Cross-section West-side Interchange with OR 43

Figure 2.2-11 shows the bridge configuration and The west-side interchange configuration would
cross-sections for Alternative D. consist of a signalized intersection on the upper
level of the interchange to control traffic entering
and exiting the Sellwood Bridge and River View
Cemetery (Figure 2.2-10). OR 43 would pass
travel lanes, two 6.5-foot-wide shoulders/bicycle
under this intersection on the lower level. Ramps
lanes, two 12-foot-wide shared-use sidewalks,
from the signalized intersection would provide
and 1.5-foot-wide railings on each side. However,
access to and from OR 43. Signalized crosswalks
on each end of the bridge, the number of travel
at the intersection would accommodate bicyclist
lanes would differ from this basic cross-section:
and pedestrian access to west-side destinations.
 West end. The bridge would include two Spiral ramps on the north and south sides of the
travel lanes eastbound to facilitate bridge would provide access to the Willamette
movements from the west-side interchange, Greenway Trail (West Bank). A roadway that
which would merge into one travel lane would diverge from the new River View
eastbound. Likewise, one travel lane Cemetery access and pass under OR 43 south of
westbound on the bridge would widen to the roundabout would provide access to Powers
three travel lanes approaching the west-side Marine Park and the Staff Jennings property. The
interchange to separate northbound and loop for this access would be similar to that of
southbound movements and to provide for Alternatives A or B.
queuing.
East-side Connection with SE Tacoma
 East end. There would be one travel lane in Street
each direction. An eastbound left-turn lane On the east side of the bridge, the intersection of
would be provided at the intersection of SE Tacoma Street/SE 6th Avenue would include
SE 6th Avenue with SE Tacoma Street. East a signal.
of SE 6th Avenue, SE Tacoma Street would
Construction Impacts and Phasing
be one travel lane in each direction with a Alternative D would be constructed in stages to
center-turn lane (the same as the existing maintain traffic across the river during
conditions). construction. However, traffic access across the
bridge would be affected periodically by interim
Replacement Bridge
The bridge types being evaluated with closures to replace the existing bridge and
Alternative D are the delta-frame and the deck- construct the new bridge. Half of the bridge
arch. Figures 2.2-12 and 2.2-13 show the bridge would be constructed alongside the existing
types; these illustrations are conceptual and not bridge. Traffic would be switched to the new half-
based on design. A delta-frame bridge would have bridge, and the existing bridge would be
eight bridge piers within the ordinary high water demolished. Then the second half of the bridge
elevation; a deck-arch bridge would have seven would be constructed, and traffic would be
bridge piers within the ordinary high water centered on the new structure. Sidewalks and
elevation. Both bridge types would have five bike lanes would also be added.
smaller piers within the ordinary high water
elevation for the bicycle/pedestrian spiral ramps
on the west side.
Alternatives Carried Forward to and Evaluated in the DEIS
FIGURE 2.2-11
Alternative D Bridge Configuration

FIGURE 2.2-12
Delta-frame Bridge
FIGURE 2.2-13
Deck-arch Bridge
The bridge and interchange with OR 43 could be provided at the intersection of SE 6th Avenue
phased so that they could be constructed at with SE Tacoma Street. East of SE 6th
different times over a 20-year timeframe. Avenue, SE Tacoma Street would be one
travel lane in both directions with a center-
Section 2.2.3 documents construction activities
turn lane (the same as the existing
for Alternative D.
conditions).
Construction Cost
The estimated cost to construct Alternative D Replacement Bridge
The bridge types being evaluated with
would be $293 million (in 2012 dollars) if the
Alternative E are the box-girder and the through-
delta-frame bridge were selected, or $311 million
arch. Figures 2.2-16 and 2.2-17 show the bridge
(in 2012 dollars) if the deck-arch bridge were
types; these illustrations are conceptual and not
selected. The construction cost includes
based on design. The box-girder bridge would
$25.8 million for right-of-way.
have two bridge piers and the through-arch
Alternative E: Replacement Bridge bridge would have four bridge piers within the
Relocated to the North with Transit
Lanes After the new bridge was constructed, the
Alternative E would replace the existing bridge existing bridge would be demolished.
on a new alignment to the north (Figure 2.2-14).
Basic Bridge Cross-section The west-side interchange configuration would
Figure 2.2-15 shows the bridge configuration and consist of a signalized intersection on the upper
cross-sections for Alternative E. level of the interchange to control traffic entering
and exiting the Sellwood Bridge and River View
Cemetery (Figure 2.2-14). OR 43 would pass
under this intersection on the lower level. Ramps
travel lanes for cars and trucks; two 12-foot-wide
from the signalized intersection would provide
lanes dedicated to transit vehicles; an 8-foot-wide
access to and from OR 43. Signalized crosswalks
shared-use sidewalk for bicyclists and pedestrians
at the intersection would accommodate bicyclist
on the south side of the bridge; a 16-foot-wide
and pedestrian access to west-side destinations.
shared-use sidewalk on the north side of the
A spiral ramp on the north side of the bridge
bridge; and 1.5-foot-wide railings on each side.
would provide access to the Willamette
However, on each end of the bridge, the number
Greenway Trail (West Bank). A roadway that
of travel lanes would differ from this basic
would diverge from the new River View
cross-section:
Cemetery access and pass under OR 43 south of
 West end. The bridge would include two the roundabout would provide access to Powers
travel lanes eastbound. Two travel lanes Marine Park and the Staff Jennings property. The
westbound on the bridge would widen to loop for this access would be similar to that of
three travel lanes approaching the west-side Alternatives A, B, or D, but more elongated.
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
FIGURE 2.2-15
Alternative E Bridge Configuration
FIGURE 2.2-16
Box-girder Bridge
FIGURE 2.2-17
Through-arch Bridge
East-side Connection with SE Tacoma minimize instability on the existing landslide

Street at the west end of the existing bridge.
On the east side, the bridge would curve to the
southeast to tie in with SE Tacoma Street.  Access to River View Cemetery and the Staff
A signalized intersection of SE Tacoma Street/ Jennings property would remain open during
SE 6th Avenue would be considered with construction, with possible shifts in access
Alternative E. point locations.
Rock Excavation
Traffic could be maintained on the existing bridge  Rock cut slopes on the west-bank hillside
during construction. Because the new bridge would be shaped using blasting techniques.
would be aligned north of the existing west-side Proper inspection, monitoring, and shoring of
interchange, phasing the construction of the the existing bridge would occur before and
bridge and west-side interchange would not be after blasting to ensure stability.
feasible under Alternative E. The bridge and the  Traffic control would be required on OR 43
interchange would need to be built together. during blasting activities. Nights and
Section 2.2.3 documents construction activities weekends would be the most likely times to
for Alternative E. perform the work, coupled with temporary
detours to manage the traffic.
Construction Cost
The estimated cost to construct Alternative E Construction Storage and Fabrication Areas
would be $281 million (in 2012 dollars) if the  The construction contractor would need
box-girder bridge type were selected, or laydown areas for construction of the
$361 million (in 2012 dollars) if the through-arch project. These laydown areas, located on
bridge type were selected. The construction cost private properties, would be negotiated
includes $35.7 million for right-of-way. The between the contractor and the property
through-arch bridge type for Alternative E would owners at the time of the contractor’s bid
cost more than the through-arch bridge type for preparation. No specific laydown areas have
Alternative C primarily because of higher right- been located or specified for use. However,
of-way acquisition costs ($24.6 million compared these private properties are expected to be
to $20.9 million) and the wider (75 feet outside the right-of-way required by the
compared to 45 feet at the middle) and longer project. Approximately a 0.5- to 1.0-acre site
bridge. near the proposed bridge construction would
be needed for the contractor’s field office,
2.2.3 Construction Activities storage of construction materials, and
equipment.
Land-Based Construction
West-side Interchange Reconstruction  The exact size of the laydown areas and the
 Reconstruction of the interchange at the duration of occupation by the contractor
west approach of the bridge would include would depend on the contractor’s approach
multiple bridge structures for the ramps at to staging the bridge construction and the
the west-side interchange. As detailed design type of bridge construction techniques
progresses, the use of bridge structures, required for the project.
light-weight fill, or standard fill on the
 The contractor would need river access near
interchange ramps would be evaluated to
the bridge site. SE Spokane Street near the
determine the most cost-effective way to
east roadway approach of the existing bridge,
one block north of SE Tacoma Street, has Bridge Foundation

been identified as a possible location where Drilled shaft foundations have been assumed for
the contractor could establish access to the the piers for each Build alternative. Concrete
river. On the west side, access would be at footings for each bridge pier in the river would
or near the existing boat ramp south of the be supported on drilled shafts. The in-water
Staff Jennings property. construction activities for the river piers would
include the following:
 Approximately a 5.0- to 8.0-acre site outside
the project area would be needed for storage  Cofferdams would be constructed around
of bridge components and additional pieces the perimeter of the proposed concrete
of equipment, and for assembly of bridge footings. Cofferdams would be constructed
members. Materials and equipment are and removed during the in-water work
expected to be assembled, stored, period window. The National Marine
transported, and shipped by barge to the Fisheries Service (NMFS) in-water work
project area from this staging area. The period window is July 1 to October 31.
contractor would need a temporary loading
 Drilling equipment would be used to advance
dock facility for assembly or loading of bridge
6-foot- or 8-foot-diameter steel pipe casings
members onto a barge.
into the river bottom. The steel casings
In-Water Construction would extend above the river surface for
Piers in the River access.
The existing river crossing has five piers within
the ordinary high water elevation. For Dredging
Dredging would not occur for any of the Build
Alternatives A and B, all five of the existing bridge
alternatives.
piers would be widened and strengthened. Both
bicycle/pedestrian bridge types for Alternative A Construction Staging and Duration
would have four piers and one smaller pier within
The construction staging and duration for each
the ordinary high water elevation. Alternative B
alternative and bridge type are based on a
would have five smaller piers for the
conceptual level of development for the bridge
bicycle/pedestrian spiral ramps on the west side
layout. The footprint, piers, and abutments for
would also be within the ordinary high water
each bridge would be built in stages to minimize
elevation. The temporary detour bridge for
disruption to traffic. The following are general
Alternative B would have seven piers and two
guidelines for the development of the
smaller piers. Alternative C would have four piers
construction staging for each Build alternative:
and one smaller pier within the ordinary high
water elevation. Alternative D would have seven  At least one lane of traffic in each direction
or eight piers within the ordinary high water would remain open on OR 43 during
elevation, depending on bridge type and both construction. Short-term closures might be
bridge types would have five smaller piers within necessary during blasting operations.
the ordinary high water elevation for the
bicycle/pedestrian spiral ramps on the west side.  Temporary roadway and retaining walls
Alternative E would have two or four piers within would be required during construction of the
the ordinary high water elevation, depending on new west-side interchange.
bridge type. The maximum spans for each  Operation of the Willamette Shoreline
alternative would be large enough to provide the Trolley on the west bank of the river would
required 200 feet of horizontal navigation be suspended for up to 6 months while its
clearance. tracks were being realigned and constructed.
If the Portland to Lake Oswego Streetcar simultaneously with the erection of the steel
Project were in service before construction trusses. Temporary closures would be required
of the Sellwood Bridge project began, during removal of the concrete deck and girder
Multnomah County would plan construction span over OR 43. Temporary widening of OR 43
activities to minimize streetcar service would be required to maintain one lane in each
disruption.
direction.
 Operation of the Oregon Pacific Railroad
Construction of Alternative A would take
would be temporarily halted for the
approximately 36 months to complete (24
construction of overpass structures and
months of closure). Modification of the
other construction activities.
substructure and new steel fabrication is
 Construction work in the river would be anticipated to occur simultaneously in the first
restricted to the in-water work period 12 months of construction. This would allow
window. The NMFS in-water work period traffic closure of the existing bridge to be limited
window is July 1 to October 31. to the final 24 months while the main span
superstructure and the approach spans were
Alternative A Construction Activities reconstructed.
For Alternative A, modification of the existing
piers would be required to accommodate the Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge
widening and strengthening of the existing Construction of the bicycle/pedestrian bridge
footings. This work would be performed inside a could be accomplished in parallel with the
temporary cofferdam. The existing river piers rehabilitation work on the existing bridge. The
would be reused, widened, and strengthened to bicycle/pedestrian bridge construction for both
support the addition of one truss panel on each bridge types would take approximately 24
side of the existing trusses. The widened sections months, with approximately 12 months to
of the piers would be supported on drilled shaft construct the bridge foundation. The deck for
foundations. Construction of the pier extensions either type of bicycle/pedestrian bridge would be
would take approximately 12 months to constructed without in-water false-work.
complete and could be performed with the
bridge open to traffic. Alternative B Construction Activities
Alternative B would close the existing bridge
After 12 months of construction, the bridge during construction. However, Alternative B
would be closed to traffic. Following the closure would include the option of a temporary detour
of the bridge to traffic, the concrete deck of the bridge to maintain traffic across the river during
existing truss spans would be removed without construction.
damage to the existing trusses. This would take
approximately 9 months to complete. The new With the temporary detour bridge, access to
steel-truss shadow panels would be transported properties adjacent to SE Spokane Street,
by barge to the site. The erection of the new SE Oaks Park Way, and Sellwood Riverfront Park
steel trusses could be completed without the use would be maintained during construction with
of in-water false-work. Construction of the new short-term closures during construction of the
trusses and the new deck would take temporary detour bridge. A signalized
approximately 12 months. The approach spans on “T-intersection” would be installed at the west
each side of the river would be replaced. approach to the bridge to accommodate
Construction of the approach concrete spans on vehicular movements to and from the temporary
each side of the river and the cleaning and detour bridge while the new west-side
painting of the existing trusses would proceed interchange was constructed. This would require
temporary widening of OR 43 to the west to Alternative D Construction Activities

maintain one southbound through lane, one Alternative D would be constructed in stages to
southbound-to-eastbound left-turn lane, and one maintain traffic across the river during
northbound lane during construction. construction. However, traffic access across the
Construction methods would be the same as bridge would be affected periodically by interim
those for Alternative A, except Alternative B closures to replace the existing bridge and
would have a wider bridge cross-section. construct the new bridge. The first stage would
Construction of Alternative B would take construct the new bridge wide enough to
36 months (12 months to widen the existing accommodate temporary traffic after its
piers and new structural steel fabrication and completion. Two 12-foot-wide traffic lanes and a
24 months for superstructure modifications and 4-foot-wide sidewalk would be maintained on the
replacement of the approach spans). The bridge existing bridge. The second stage would be built
would be closed for the final 24 months of the while traffic was shifted to the first stage. Once
36 months of construction. traffic was shifted to the new half of the bridge,
the existing bridge would be demolished. The
With the temporary detour bridge option, main spans would be removed first, followed by
construction of Alternative B would take the approach concrete girder spans. Once the
approximately 39 months (12 months to two halves of the new bridge were built, a
construct the temporary detour bridge, which closure strip would tie the two stages together.
would be concurrent with the widening of the A signalized “T-intersection” would be installed at
existing piers and new structural steel fabrication; the west approach to the bridge to accommodate
24 months for superstructure modifications and vehicular movements to and from the bridge
replacement of the approach spans; and 3 months while the new west-side interchange was
to remove the temporary detour bridge). The constructed. This would require temporary
temporary detour bridge would enable a river widening of OR 43 to the west to maintain one
crossing during all of the 39 months of southbound through lane, one southbound-to-
construction. eastbound left-turn lane, and one northbound
lane during construction.
Alternative C Construction Activities
The through-arch bridge type is evaluated with The delta-frame and deck-arch bridge types are
Alternative C. A cable-stayed bridge could also evaluated with Alternative D. Construction
be constructed with Alternative C. Construction activities by bridge type are summarized in the
of Alternative C would take approximately following subsections. A box-girder bridge could
42 months (3 months to remove the existing also be constructed with Alternative D.
bridge, 15 months to construct the foundations,
Delta-frame Bridge
and 24 months to construct the arch
A delta-frame bridge would be constructed using
superstructure). There would be no river
temporary false-work in the river. This option
crossing during the 42 months of construction.
could also be built on false-work by sequencing
Temporary false-work in the river would be
the order of construction of the spans. This could
required for construction of the pier supporting
be accomplished in three steps: (1) building the
the steel arch. The steel arch rib and deck
side spans flanking the east and west banks,
sections might be fabricated offsite and floated
(2) removing the false-work for those spans, and
into place using barges. Temporary widening of
(3) building the center span. This method would
OR 43 would be required to maintain one lane in require false-work across the entire river, but
each direction.
not all at the same time. Staged construction of a
Prefer red Alte rn ative
delta-frame bridge would be approximately take approximately 36 months (15 months for
45 months (21 months for the first stage, foundation work, 18 months for superstructure
3 months for removal of the existing bridge, and work, and 3 months for removal of the existing
21 months for the third stage). The bridge would bridge). The bridge would be open during all
be open during all 45 months of construction. 36 months of construction.
Deck-arch Bridge Through-arch Bridge

A deck-arch bridge would be constructed using The steel arch for a through-arch bridge would
temporary false-work in the river. The concrete be fabricated and assembled off-site and pieces of
arch ribs would be constructed on temporary the arch rib would be transported on barges.
false-work provided in each span. Once one arch Construction of a through-arch bridge would
rib and box-girder deck were completed, traffic take approximately 42 months (15 months for
would be diverted from the existing bridge to the foundation work, 24 months for superstructure
newly constructed section. The existing bridge work, and 3 months for removal of the existing
would then be demolished to accommodate the bridge). The bridge would be open during all
second arch rib and box-girder deck. Staged 42 months of construction.
construction of a concrete deck-arch bridge
would take approximately 51 months (24 months 2.3 Preferred Alternative
for the first stage, 3 months for removal of the
existing bridge, and 24 months for the second 2.3.1 Identification and
stage). The bridge would be open during all Refinement of the Preferred
51 months of construction. Alternative
Alternative E Construction Activities In early 2009, after fully considering and
evaluating public and agency comments on the
The existing Sellwood Bridge would be
DEIS and from the public hearing, the project’s
maintained for traffic during construction of
CTF identified, and the PAG recommended, the
Alternative E. A signalized “T-intersection” would
following elements as the preferred alternative:
be installed at the west approach to the bridge to
accommodate vehicular movements to and from  Alignment “D” (existing bridge alignment and
the existing Sellwood Bridge while the new west- widen to the south)
side interchange was constructed. This would
require temporary widening of OR 43 to the  A bicyclist/pedestrian-activated signal at the
SE Tacoma Street/SE 6th Avenue intersection
west to maintain one southbound through lane,
as the east-side connection
one southbound-to-eastbound left-turn lane, and
one northbound lane during construction.  A grade-separated and signalized interchange
on the west side at the intersection with
The box-girder and through-arch bridge types are OR 43 (SW Macadam Avenue)
evaluated with Alternative E. Construction
activities by bridge type are summarized in the  A bridge cross-section of 64 feet or less at its
following subsections. A cable-stayed, deck-arch, narrowest point
delta-frame, or through-arch bridge could also be This preferred alternative is Alternative D as
constructed with Alternative E. evaluated in the DEIS, except for the east-side
connection. The PAG recommended a
Box-girder Bridge
False-work in the river would not be required to bicyclist/pedestrian-activated signal at the
construct a box-girder (concrete segmental) SE Tacoma Street/SE 6th Avenue intersection as
bridge. Construction of this bridge type would a refinement to Alternative D. (In the DEIS,
Alternative D included a full signal at the  Refined the OR 43 roadway footprint to

SE Tacoma Street/SE 6th Avenue intersection.) reduce impacts to Willamette Moorage Park
and Powers Marine Park.
The primary concern for the CTF in identifying,
and the PAG in recommending, Alternative D as  Reduced the width of the bridge on the west
the preferred alternative was to maintain traffic end from five lanes to four lanes to narrow
across the river during construction. The the bridge.
temporary detour bridge was not preferred  Realigned the roadway from the west side of
because of its social and natural environmental the signalized intersection providing access to
impacts during construction. While Alternative E the Superintendent’s House at River View
would have also maintained traffic across the Cemetery, Powers Marine Park, and the Staff
river during construction, it would have been Jennings property to accommodate a future
located on a new alignment. Therefore, streetcar line, as preferred by the City of
construction could not have been phased (for Portland. The realigned access would cross
on the west side, behind the Superintendent’s
example, constructing the bridge and the
House, instead of on the east side, in front of
interchange in separate phases) if full funding for it.
the project were not available.
 Removed the bicycle/pedestrian trail south of
The CTF and PAG processes to identify a the bridge within Powers Marine Park to
preferred alternative are outlined in the reduce park and natural resource impacts
Identification and Refinement of the Preferred within Powers Marine Park. Extended the
Alternative Technical Memorandum (CH2M HILL, bicycle/pedestrian path north to SW Miles
2009b). Section 5.5 of this FEIS also outlines the Street to provide continuity.
process to identify the preferred alternative.
 Moved the driveway access to Willamette
Moorage Park and Macadam Bay Club further
2.3.2 Description of the Preferred north to improve safety and reduce park
Alternative (Alternative D impacts.
Refined) Refined the cross-section of SE Tacoma
After the PAG recommended a preferred Street between the east end of the Sellwood
alternative (Alternative D evaluated in the DEIS Bridge and SE 6th Avenue to provide the
with a bicyclist/pedestrian-activated signal at the same bicycle and pedestrian facilities as the
SE Tacoma Street/SE 6th Avenue intersection), Sellwood Bridge (12-foot-wide sidewalks and
the project team made various design 6.5-foot-wide shoulders/bicycle lanes).
refinements to Alternative D. The following Between the east end of the Sellwood Bridge
refinements address public and agency comments and SE 6th Avenue, water quality swales for
received on the DEIS and minimize environmental stormwater treatment could also be
impacts: incorporated.
 Revised the bicycle/pedestrian ramps on the Alternative D with these design refinements
west end of the bridge from a spiral design constitutes the preferred alternative. Figure 2.3-1
on both sides of the bridge to a single, long shows Alternative D Refined. Table 2.3-1
switchback on both sides of the bridge summarizes the characteristics of Alternative D
connecting to the existing north-south trail
Refined and the Build alternatives evaluated in the
network to reduce impacts to Powers Marine
DEIS (Alternatives A through E). The following
Park and natural resource areas. This
refinement shifted the interchange footprint sections describe Alternative D Refined in more
slightly to the west. detail.
TABLE 2.3-1
Build Alternative Characteristics including Preferred Alternative (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  Two 12-foot-wide  Two 12-foot-wide travel
lanes lanes travel lanes travel lanes travel 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  Two 6.5-foot-wide
shoulders shoulders/ bike lanes shoulders shoulders/ bike lanes travel lanes for transit shoulders/ bike lanes
 Two 1.5-foot-wide  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 railings shared-use sidewalks wide shared-use use sidewalks
railings
Other Features
 Separate 20-foot-wide  Seismic retrofit  Double-deck bridge  Meets seismic standards  Meets seismic standards  Meets seismic standards
bike/ pedestrian bridge a
equivalent to Phase II  20-foot-wide shared-
railings (total width of deck with two
23 feet) 1.5-foot-wide railings
a 23 feet)
to Phase II
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
 Relocates approximately  Relocates approximately  Relocates  Relocates  Relocates  Relocates approximately
900 linear feet of railway 900 linear feet of railway approximately 1,700 approximately 1,000 approximately 800 1,000 linear feet of railway
right-of-way right-of-way linear feet of railway linear feet of railway linear feet of railway right-of-way
right-of-way right-of-way right-of-way
East-side
 Same as existing  Same as existing  Eastbound left turn  Signal at SE Tacoma  Signal at SE Tacoma  Bicyclist/pedestrian-
Intersection
(eastbound left turn (eastbound left turn to SE 6th Avenue Street/SE 6th Avenue Street/SE 6th Avenue activated signal at
permitted at SE 6th permitted at SE 6th restricted intersection intersection SE Tacoma Street/SE 6th
Avenue) Avenue)  Right turn to loop  Bicyclist/pedestrian- Avenue intersection
SE Tacoma Street/SE
TABLE 2.3-1
Potential Bridge
b  Retain existing bridge  Retain existing bridge  Through-arch  Delta-frame or deck-  Box-girder or through-  Delta-frame or deck-arch
Type (i.e., continuous-truss (i.e., continuous-truss arch arch
span) span)
bridge
Property Access
 New roadway to provide  New roadway to provide  No motor vehicle  New roadway to  New roadway to  Revised new roadway to
Cemetery, Powers Cemetery, Powers to River View View Cemetery, Powers View Cemetery, Powers View Cemetery, Powers
Marine 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
Bay Club Club Club
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 maintained on existing to maintain traffic access
Construction c
 Traffic diverted to other access  Traffic diverted to traffic access during bridge during during construction
c construction of the new
existing bridges other existing bridges construction
bridge
Construction
 $331 million (stress-  $326 million  $280 million  $293 million (delta-  $281 million (box-girder  $299 million (deck-arch
Cost (in 2012
d,e ribbon bike/pedestrian  $356 million (including  Right-of-way cost of frame bridge) bridge) bridge)
dollars) bridge) temporary detour bridge) f  $311 million (deck-arch  $361 million (through-  $290 million (delta-frame
$20.9 million
bike/pedestrian bridge) f  Right-of-way cost of  Right-of-way cost of  Right-of-way cost of
$15.8 million ;
 Right-of-way cost of f f f
$17.1 million including $25.8 million $35.7 million $27.0 million
f
$15.8 million temporary detour
e
bridge
TABLE 2.3-1
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
d,e  Bike/pedestrian bridge:  Temporary detour  West-side frame); $220 million girder; $269 million $180 million (deck-arch)
dollars) (deck-arch) (through-arch)
$52 million (stress- bridge: $30 million interchange:  West-side interchange:
ribbon);  West-side interchange: $90 million  West-side interchange:  West-side interchange: $113 million
$58 million (cable-stayed) $102 million  East-side $89 million $88 million  East-side intersection:
 West-side interchange:  East-side intersection: intersection:  East-side intersection:  East-side intersection: $2.1 million
$93 million $1.6 million $5.4 million $1.9 million $3.9 million  Cost includes approximately
 East-side intersection: $4 million for mitigation and
$1.6 million e
enhancements
a
b
c
Traffic access across the bridge would be affected periodically 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
e
f
The DEIS reported 2009 right-of-way costs for Alternatives A through E. The right-of-way costs have been updated to 2012 costs. The right-of-way costs are included in the total construction costs.
FIGURE 2.3-2
Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) Bridge Configuration

Basic Bridge Cross-section interchange to separate northbound from

through and southbound movements and to
Figure 2.3-2 shows the bridge configuration and
provide for queuing. The reduction by one
cross-sections for Alternative D Refined.
lane in the number of travel lanes westbound
The basic bridge cross-section would be the same at the west-side interchange is the only
as for Alternative D. The cross-section would be difference between Alternative D Refined and
Alternative D (Figure 2.3-3).
64 feet wide, and would consist of two 12-foot-
wide travel lanes, two 6.5-foot-wide shoulders/ • East end. The east end would have one
bicycle lanes, two 12-foot-wide shared-use travel lane in each direction. An eastbound
sidewalks, and 1.5-foot-wide railings on each side. left-turn lane would be provided at the
The west and east ends of the bridge would have intersection of SE 6th Avenue with
different configurations than the basic bridge SE Tacoma Street. East of SE 6th Avenue,
cross-section shown on Figure 2.3-2. These SE Tacoma Street would be one travel lane in
each direction with a center-turn lane (the
configurations would be as follows:
same as the existing conditions). A
• West end. The bridge would include two bicyclist/pedestrian-activated signal would be
travel lanes eastbound to facilitate located at the SE Tacoma Street/SE 6th
movements from the west-side interchange, Avenue intersection. This bicyclist/
which would merge into one travel lane pedestrian-activated signal is the only
eastbound. Likewise, one travel lane difference on the east side between
westbound on the bridge would widen to Alternative D Refined and Alternative D
two travel lanes approaching the west-side (which included a full signal).
FIGURE 2.3-3
West End Bridge Configuration – Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) and Alternative D

Replacement Bridge new roadway would pass under OR 43 south of

The bridge types being evaluated with the signalized intersection to provide access to
Alternative D Refined are the delta-frame and Powers Marine Park and the Staff Jennings
deck-arch (the same bridge types as those for property. This roadway, as shown on Figure 2.3-
Alternative D). Figures 2.2-12 and 2.2-13 show 4, has been refined to pass behind (west of) the
these bridge types (these illustrations are Superintendent’s House. The City of Portland
conceptual and not based on design). preferred this location so this roadway could
accommodate possible future streetcar tracks.
West-side Interchange with OR 43 This roadway and the west-side signalized
The west-side interchange configuration would intersection have been designed to accommodate
consist of a signalized intersection on the upper future streetcar tracks. (The City of Portland
level of the interchange to control traffic entering identifies the OR 43/SW Macadam Avenue
and exiting the Sellwood Bridge and River View corridor and the Sellwood Bridge as streetcar
Cemetery (Figure 2.3-4). OR 43 would pass transit corridors in the Portland Streetcar System
under this intersection on the lower level. Ramps Concept Plan [City of Portland Bureau of
from the signalized intersection would provide Transportation, 2009]. Portland City Council
access to and from OR 43. adopted a resolution to accept the plan in
September 2009.) The River View Cemetery
A new roadway originating on the west side of owners also preferred this realignment because
the signalized intersection would provide access they felt that this route would reduce adverse
to River View Cemetery and the visual impacts to the Superintendent’s House.
Superintendent’s House at the cemetery. The
FIGURE 2.3-4
West-side Interchange – Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) and Alternative D

As shown on Figure 2.3-5, the spiral ramps under Management Plan (IAMP) be prepared for any
Alternative D that provided access from the new or substantially reconstructed interchange.
bridge to the north-south trail network and The purpose of an IAMP is to:
future streetcar station have been eliminated
under Alternative D Refined to minimize  Ensure safe and efficient operations between
connecting roadways to protect the function
environmental impacts (riparian area and in-water
of the interchange.
pier impacts). Figure 2.3-5 shows how bicyclists
and pedestrians would travel through the west-  Protect the function of the interchange over
side intersection and access the trail system and time. Because modified interchanges are very
future streetcar station. Two switchback ramps costly, ODOT, local governments and
originating north of the bridge would provide citizens have an interest in ensuring that they
access to the north and south sides of the bridge function as intended for the long-term.
deck. These switchback ramps would be similar An IAMP is required because the Sellwood Bridge
to the switchback ramps on the Eastbank Project would reconstruct the interchange on
Esplanade at the Rose Quarter, and would be OR 43 at the Sellwood Bridge. Multnomah
American with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant. County, ODOT, and the City of Portland
In the intersection area, pedestrian-activated collaboratively developed an IAMP for this
signalized crosswalks at the signalized intersection proposed reconstructed interchange to address
would accommodate bicyclist and pedestrian access to Willamette Moorage Park, Macadam
access to River View Cemetery and across the Bay Club, River View Cemetery, Powers Marine
Sellwood Bridge. Because OR 43 would be Park, and the Staff Jennings property. The
reconstructed within an urban area, a sidewalk following sections describe the provisions of the
along the east side of OR 43 would be OR 43/Sellwood Bridge IAMP (ODOT, 2009).
constructed between the switchback ramp on the ODOT and the City of Portland adopted the
south end of the bridge and the south end of IAMP in spring 2010. Because details of project
project improvements to accommodate bicyclists designs will continue to evolve between the
and pedestrians. adoption of the IAMP and project construction,
ODOT will evaluate the appropriateness of the
East-side Connection with SE Tacoma following access concepts during the project final
Street design phase.
On the east side of the bridge, the SE Tacoma
Street/SE 6th Avenue intersection would have a Access to Willamette Moorage Park and
bicyclist/pedestrian-activated signal (Figure 2.3-6). the Macadam Bay Club
The signal would allow bicyclists and pedestrians The IAMP process identified several options for
to safely cross SE Tacoma Street to access the the access to Willamette Moorage Park and the
Springwater Corridor Trail (via SE Spokane Macadam Bay Club. Multnomah County, ODOT,
Street) and the City of Portland-designated and the City of Portland have agreed on the
bicycle boulevards on SE Spokane and SE Umatilla location of the driveway access to Willamette
streets. The signal would allow vehicles on SE 6th Moorage Park and the Macadam Bay Club. The
Avenue to cross or turn onto SE Tacoma Street existing access to Willamette Moorage Park and
when a bicyclist or pedestrian activates it. the Macadam Bay Club would be closed to all but
emergency vehicles. The new driveway access
Access to Properties Adjacent to would be relocated approximately 300 feet north
OR 43 of the existing driveway access to increase the
Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 734-051- spacing from the northbound OR 43 on-ramp at
0155(6) requires that an Interchange Area the west-side interchange. The northernmost
FIGURE 2.3-5
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities – Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) and Alternative D
FIGURE 2.3-6
East-side Connection – Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined)
driveway into the commercial area on the east detail would be determined during the project’s
side of OR 43 south of the OR 43/SW Taylors engineering phase.
Ferry Road intersection would be closed.
Although this configuration (shown on Access to River View Cemetery, Powers
Figure 2.3-7) would improve safety, the distance Marine Park, and the Staff Jennings
between the new driveway access location to the Property
The IAMP also addressed access to River View
Macadam Bay Club and both the OR 43
Cemetery, Powers Marine Park, and the Staff
northbound on-ramp and a number of accesses
Jennings property. Despite the proximity of the
to the north, would be less than the ODOT
River View Cemetery driveway to the new
spacing standard. ODOT agreed to grant a
interchange, ODOT agreed to grant a deviation
deviation from the access spacing standard for
from its access spacing standard to permit access
this driveway access subject to conditions
to these three properties via the new roadway
stipulated in the IAMP that changes could be
shown on Figure 2.3-4 (as specified in the IAMP).
made if safety problems were to arise in
The volume of traffic that would use this road is
the future. The IAMP also provides for a future
expected to be very low and would not adversely
alley, easement, or tract connecting to SW Miles
affect traffic operations or safety in the
Street that would provide the Macadam Bay Club
interchange.
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
FIGURE 2.3-7
Willamette Moorage Park and Macadam Bay Club Driveway Access – Preferred Alternative

Construction Cost  Design and implement stream restoration

The estimated cost to construct the preferred along two streams to provide an off-river
habitat for juvenile salmonids and
alternative (Alternative D Refined) would be
floodplain functions. Figure 2.3-8 shows
$299 million (in 2012 dollars) if a deck-arch the general location of these streams
bridge type were selected, or $290 million (in within the park.
2012 dollars) if a delta-frame bridge type were
selected. The construction cost includes  Design and implement a parking and
$27.0 million for right-of-way. pedestrian access plan for Powers Marine
Park that would include provision of a
Mitigation and Enhancements minimum of seven vehicle parking spaces.
Alternative D Refined would have fewer  Provide seven parking spaces for Powers
environmental impacts than the Alternative D Marine Park along the roadway to the
evaluated in the DEIS. The project team worked Staff Jennings property
with Portland Parks & Recreation (PP&R) and the  Compensate PP&R at fair market value
Portland Bureau of Environmental Services to for parkland incorporated into a
identify mitigation and enhancements for park transportation use.
impacts. Multnomah County and the City of
Because these mitigation and enhancement
Portland have agreed to the following mitigation
activities have been defined, they are considered
and enhancement activities:
part of Alternative D Refined and are taken into
 Willamette Moorage Park account in the impact evaluation of this
alternative.
 Construct a 14-foot-wide paved multi-
use trail between the Sellwood Bridge
and SW Miles Street. 2.3.3 Preferred Alternative
Construction Activities
Replace the existing Stephens Creek
The bridge and interchange with OR 43 could be
culvert (which is beneath the Willamette
phased so that they could be constructed at
Shoreline Trolley, the new multi-use trail
different times over a 20-year timeframe.
described above, and the Willamette
Moorage Park and Macadam Bay Club The preferred alternative (Alternative D Refined)
driveway access) with a fish-and-wildlife- would be constructed in stages to maintain traffic
friendly passage. Figure 2.3-8 shows the across the river during construction, but traffic
general location of this passage. access across the bridge would be affected
periodically by interim closures to replace the
 Construct sloped, stepped, vegetated
walls along the new multi-use trail existing bridge and construct the new bridge. Half
(described above), where feasible, to of the bridge would be constructed alongside the
minimize visual and aesthetic impacts to existing bridge. The existing bridge would be
the park, and to provide for wildlife use maintained for traffic while the new bridge was
and passage. being constructed. Two 12-foot-wide traffic lanes
and a 4-foot-wide sidewalk would be maintained
 Multnomah County would work with
Freeman Motors to come to an agreement on the existing bridge. Traffic would be switched
on the shared use of the PP&R parking lot to the new half-bridge, the existing bridge would
adjacent to Willamette Moorage Park, and be demolished, and the second half of the bridge
would work with PP&R on renegotiating the would be constructed. Once traffic had been
lease. shifted to the new half of the bridge, the existing
bridge would be demolished.
FIGURE 2.3-8
Willamette Moorage Park/Stephens Creek and Powers Marine Park Mitigation and Enhancement Areas
– Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined)
Once the two halves of the new bridge were construction of a delta-frame bridge would
built, a closure strip would tie the two stages take approximately 51 months (24 months
together. A signalized “T-intersection” would be for the first stage, 3 months for removal of
installed at the west approach of the bridge to the existing bridge, and 24 months for the
accommodate vehicular movements to and from second stage). The bridge would be open
during all 51 months of construction.
the bridge while the new west-side interchange
was constructed. This would require temporary Land-Based Construction
widening of OR 43 to the west to maintain one
West-side Interchange Reconstruction
southbound through lane, one southbound-to-  Reconstruction of the interchange at the
eastbound left-turn lane, and one northbound west approach of the bridge would include
lane during construction. multiple bridge structures for the ramps at
the west-side interchange. As detailed design
Bridge Types progressed, the use of bridge structures,
The bridge types being evaluated with the light-weight fill, or standard fill on the
preferred alternative (Alternative D Refined) are interchange ramps would be evaluated to
the deck-arch and the delta-frame. Both would determine the most cost-effective way to
have three bridge piers within the ordinary high minimize instability on the existing landslide
water elevation and would meet United States at the west end of the existing bridge.
Coast Guard navigational horizontal and vertical  Access to the River View Cemetery, Powers
clearance requirements. Marine Park, and the Staff Jennings property
would remain open during construction, with
 Deck-arch bridge. A deck-arch bridge possible shifts in access point locations.
would be constructed using temporary false-
work in the river. The concrete arch ribs Rock Excavation
would be constructed on temporary false-  Rock cut slopes on the west-bank hillside
work provided in each span. Once one arch would be shaped using blasting techniques.
rib and box-girder deck were completed, A blasting specialist would design the blasting
traffic would be diverted from the existing activities so that small shots, adjusted in a
bridge to the newly constructed section. The delay pattern, were used. This technique
existing bridge would then be demolished to would reduce air blast, vibration, and, to
accommodate the second arch rib and some extent, noise. Blasting mats would be
box-girder deck. Staged construction of a used to control fly rock. Proper inspection,
concrete deck-arch bridge would take monitoring, and shoring of the existing bridge
approximately 51 months (24 months for the would occur before and after blasting to
first stage, 3 months for removal of the ensure stability.
existing bridge, and 24 months for the second
stage). The bridge would be open during all  Traffic control would be required on OR 43
51 months of construction. during blasting activities. Nights and
weekends would be the most likely times to
 Delta-frame bridge. A delta-frame bridge perform the work, coupled with temporary
would be constructed using temporary false- detours to manage the traffic. Ten to
work in the river near each pier location. 20 sessions would likely be required to
Temporary work platforms would be excavate the rock.
constructed first along the south side of the
bridge and then along the north side. The Construction Storage and Fabrication
temporary work platforms would be Areas
constructed out from each bank, but would  The construction contractor would need
have a 250-foot opening in the middle of the laydown areas for construction of the
river for a navigation channel. Staged project. These laydown areas, located on
private properties, would be negotiated In-Water Construction

between the contractor and the property
owners at the time of the contractor’s bid Piers in the River
The existing river crossing has five piers within
preparation. No specific laydown areas have
been located or specified for use. However, the ordinary high water elevation. Both bridge
these private properties are expected to be types (deck-arch and delta-frame) would have
outside the right-of-way required by the three piers within the ordinary high water
project. The contractor would need elevation. The maximum spans for each bridge
approximately a 0.5- to 1.0-acre site near the type would be large enough to provide the
proposed bridge construction for a field required 200 feet of horizontal navigation
office, storage of construction materials, and clearance.
equipment.
Bridge Foundation
 The exact size of the laydown areas and the Concrete footings for each bridge pier in the
duration the contractor would occupy them river would be supported on drilled shafts. Two
would depend on the contractor’s approach
construction methods for the piers are being
to staging the bridge construction and the
type of bridge construction techniques considered—the cofferdam method and the
required for the project. perched method. Both would require temporary
work platforms.
 The contractor would need river access near
the bridge site. SE Spokane Street near the Temporary work platforms and associated
east roadway approach of the existing bridge, temporary pilings placed below the ordinary high
one block north of SE Tacoma Street, has water elevation would remove habitat, but only
been identified as a possible location where minimally and until the piling is removed. In some
the contractor could establish access to the instances, the temporary pilings below the
river. On the west side, access would be at ordinary high water elevation could be left in
or near the existing boat ramp south of the
place for up to 51 weeks. Although the piling may
Staff Jennings property.
only remove a minimal amount of habitat,
 An approximately 5.0- to 8.0-acre site potential effects from placement of the piling
outside the project area would be needed to below the ordinary high water elevation can
store bridge components and additional remove additional habitat by erosion and
pieces of equipment, and for assembly of sedimentation in downstream areas. In addition,
bridge members. Materials and equipment are depending on where the piling is located and
expected to be assembled, stored,
changes to flow, velocities could reduce the use
transported, and shipped by barge to the
of an area. Implementation of conservation
project area from this staging area. The
contractor would need a temporary loading measures and specification of the spacing and
dock facility for assembly or loading of bridge general location of pilings would minimize these
members onto a barge. potential adverse effects.
 No mandatory construction storage, Suspended sediment from in-water construction

fabrication, or staging areas have been activities could potentially be transported
identified. The contractor would be downstream to the confluence of the Willamette
responsible for all environmental and Columbia rivers where any suspended
investigation, permitting, and mitigation. sediment would then approach background
concentrations and would not be detectable
physically or chemically. All larger suspended
sediment would be expected to settle out of the
water column within 1,000 feet in the cofferdam would float just below the river
downstream area. surface. Concrete would then be placed
inside the shafts and the floating cofferdam.
The in-water construction activities for the river
piers would include the following: Dredging
Alternative D Refined would not require
Cofferdam Method dredging.
 Temporary work platforms would be
constructed in the river for construction Construction Staging and Duration
equipment to access the pier locations. Piles Construction staging and duration are based on a
driven into the river bottom would support conceptual level of development for the bridge
these platforms.
layout. The footprint, piers, and abutments for
 Cofferdams (that is, enclosures within a each bridge would be built in stages to minimize
water environment for allowing air to disruption to traffic. The following are general
displace water to create a dry work guidelines for developing the construction staging:
environment) would be constructed around
the perimeters of the proposed concrete  At least one lane of traffic in each direction
footings. Cofferdams would be installed and would remain open on OR 43 during
removed during the in-water work period construction. Short-term closures might be
window. necessary during blasting operations.
 Work on the shafts and piers would then be  Temporary roadway and retaining walls
contained within the cofferdams, isolated would be required during construction of the
from the river, which would allow the work new west-side interchange.
to continue outside of the in-water work
period window.  The Willamette Shoreline Trolley on the
west bank would be suspended for up to 6
Perched Method months while its tracks were being realigned
 Temporary work platforms would be and constructed. If the Portland to Lake
constructed in the river for construction Oswego streetcar project were in service
equipment to access the pier locations. Piles before construction of the Sellwood Bridge
driven into the river bottom would support project began, Multnomah County would plan
these platforms. construction activities to minimize streetcar
service disruption.
 Drilling equipment, working from the
platforms or barges, would be used to  Operation of the Oregon Pacific Railroad
advance 6-foot- or 8-foot-diameter steel pipe would be temporarily halted for the
casings into the river bottom. The steel construction of overpass structures and
casings would extend above the river surface other construction activities.
for access. The contents of the shaft casings
would be excavated up to the river surface  Construction work in the river would be
and removed by barge or by trucks on the restricted to the in-water work period
work platforms. window. The NMFS in-water work period
window is July 1 to October 31.
 A precast concrete cofferdam would be
floated over the shafts. The floating
Chapter 3. Existing Environment,
Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation
Chapter 3. Existing Environment,
Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation
This chapter describes the affected environment  Wildlife (Section 3.18)
in the proposed project area and the anticipated
environmental consequences for the No Build  Noise (Section 3.19)
Alternative and Build alternatives—Alternatives  Energy (Section 3.20)
A, B, C, D, E, and D Refined (the preferred
alternative). This section also includes ways to  Air Quality (Section 3.21)
mitigate for potential impacts to the social and
 Hazardous Materials (Section 3.22)
natural environments. (Appendix G provides a
summary of proposed and committed mitigation For more information about each of these
and environmental measures.) resources and the impacts to them, please see
the technical reports, which are listed in
The impacts are analyzed for the following social
Appendix D of this Final Environmental Impact
and natural environmental resource topics:
Statement (FEIS). These technical reports are
 Transportation (Section 3.1) available upon request. This chapter summarizes
these technical reports, which are incorporated
 Bicyclists and Pedestrians (Section 3.2) by reference into this chapter. In addition, this
 Right-of-way and Relocation (Section 3.3) chapter includes information about the
relationship of short-term uses of the
 Utilities (Section 3.4) environment and long-term productivity
(Section 3.23), the irreversible and irretrievable
 Land Use (Section 3.5)
commitment of resources (Section 3.24), and
 Economic (Section 3.6) cumulative impacts (Section 3.25).
 Social Elements (Section 3.7) 3.1 Transportation

 Environmental Justice (Section 3.8) The transportation analysis considers roadways,
transit, navigation of the Willamette River, and
 Parks and Recreation (Section 3.9)
railroad/trolley tracks in the project area.
 Archaeological and Historic Resources Because of the large commitment to bicyclists
(Section 3.10) and pedestrians made within the design of the
project, bicyclist and pedestrian facilities are
 Visual Resources (Section 3.11) covered extensively in Section 3.2, Bicyclists and
Pedestrians. They are mentioned briefly within
 Geology (Section 3.12)
this section only with respect to operations of
 Water Quality (Section 3.13) interchange designs.
 Hydraulics (Section 3.14) 3.1.1 Affected Environment

 Aquatic Resources (Section 3.15) The transportation study area (Figure 3.1-1)
includes the Sellwood Bridge; SE Tacoma Street
 Vegetation (Section 3.16) between the Sellwood Bridge and Oregon 99E
(OR 99E; SE McLoughlin Boulevard); OR 99E
 Wetlands (Section 3.17)
between SE Nehalem Street and SE Umatilla
Transportation
Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts, and Mitigation
Street; and Oregon 43 (OR 43) between Study Area Roadways

SW Nevada Street and SW Riverdale Road
Sellwood Bridge
(south of the Sellwood Bridge). A portion of The current configuration of the Sellwood Bridge
SW Taylors Ferry Road is also in the study area is a cross-section of 31 feet in width, including
(approximately a 0.3-mile section of the roadway two 12-foot-wide travel lanes and one 4-foot-
just south of the intersection with OR 43 to 3-inch-wide sidewalk on the north side for
approximately the access point to River View bicyclist and pedestrian travel. The remaining
Cemetery). It also encompasses key intersecting cross-section is devoted to bridge railings.
roadways, including:
The Sellwood Bridge and SE Tacoma Street are
• OR 43 at SW Nevada Street designated as “Major Transit Streets” in the City
of Portland’s Transportation System Plan (2004,
• OR 43 at SW Taylors Ferry Road–SW Miles
updated in 2007). However, transit service has
Street
been discontinued across the bridge because of
• OR 43 at River View Cemetery access road structural deficiencies. Before the weight
restriction was imposed in June 2004, bus usage
• SE Tacoma Street at SE 6th Avenue across the bridge was substantial. Currently, no
• SE Tacoma Street at SE 13th Avenue vehicles weighing more than 10 tons, including
trucks, are permitted to use the Sellwood Bridge.
• SE Tacoma Street at SE 17th Avenue
Portland’s Freight Master Plan (2006) designates
Each of these intersections with these roadways, the bridge as a Truck Access Street in
except SE Tacoma Street/SE 6th Avenue, is recognition of its service as an access and
currently signalized. 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
FIGURE 3.1-1
Study Area Roadways

Tra nspo rtatio n
Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ronment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation
geometry of the west-side interchange, large

trucks must avoid the bridge, thereby
substantially impeding freight movement between
these areas.
The bridge has no shoulders to provide access

for emergency vehicles, accommodate vehicular
breakdowns, or facilitate maintenance. In
addition, the bridge’s vertical curves limit
motorist sight distance. The interchange of the
bridge and OR 43 (west-side interchange) also
has many substandard features, including
horizontal and vertical curves that limit motorist
sight distance and reduce the ability of trucks to
safely turn. Several ramp connections also
provide insufficient vertical clearances, narrow or
nonexistent shoulders, and excessive grades.
OR 43
OR 43 (also referred to as SW Macadam Avenue
in the city of Portland) runs north-south between
Portland and Oregon City, traveling through Lake
Oswego and West Linn. The facility has two
Vehicles weighing more than 10 tons, including vehicle travel lanes in each direction. Figure 3.1-2
trucks and buses, are prohibited from using the
shows the existing interchange of OR 43 with the
Sellwood Bridge. Sellwood Bridge. Vehicles traveling northbound
on OR 43 toward downtown Portland must use a
Milwaukie on the east side of the Willamette
one-lane bypass ramp. The southbound-loop
River and the southwest Portland area on the
ramp from the Sellwood Bridge to OR 43 is a
west side (via OR 43). However, because of
single-lane one-way ramp that enables westbound
current load restrictions and the physical
Vertical Curve
The vertical curve is the curvature of a road with respect to the vertical plane (flat vs.
mountainous). Shorter-crest curves can create sight problems if drivers cannot see a sufficient
distance ahead of their vehicles
Horizontal Curve
The horizontal curve is the curvature of a road with respect to the horizontal plane (straight
vs. curved). Substandard horizontal curves affect safe vehicle operating speeds, sight distance,
and capacity.
Tra nspo rtatio n
bridge vehicles to enter southbound OR 43. The Two traffic signals are located on SE Tacoma
ramp splits off to the right from OR 43, loops Street—at SE 13th Avenue and SE 17th Avenue.
under the Sellwood Bridge structure immediately
adjacent to the northbound bypass ramp, and Other Study Area Roadways
Other study area roadways considered in the
reconnects to OR 43’s mainline. A traffic signal at
transportation analysis include SE Spokane Street,
this intersection facilitates vehicle movements.
SE Tenino Street, and SE Umatilla Street (which
This ramp also provides access to northbound
run parallel to SE Tacoma Street) and SE 13th
OR 43 along the mainline segment, which merges
Avenue and SE 17th Avenue/SE Milwaukie
with the northbound bypass.
Avenue (which cross SE Tacoma Street). In
SE Tacoma Street addition, OR 43’s intersection with SW Taylors
SE Tacoma Street is one of Sellwood’s Ferry Road is included.
Community Main Streets. It serves motor vehicle
traffic, public transportation, bicyclists, and Roadway Performance
pedestrians. Between the Sellwood Bridge and Traffic Levels
SE 17th Avenue, SE Tacoma Street generally Currently, about 30,000 vehicles cross the
provides one through lane in each direction and a Sellwood Bridge each weekday. The majority
center left-turn lane/two-way left-turn lane. (52 percent) of these trips are between
On-street parking is allowed along portions of Clackamas County and Portland (Table 3.1-1).
the south side of SE Tacoma Street in this
segment. Between SE 17th Avenue and OR 99E, TABLE 3.1-1
SE Tacoma Street has one travel lane, a bike lane, Travel Markets of Existing Sellwood Bridge Users
and an on-street parking lane in each direction. Vehicle Trips
Between (percent)
FIGURE 3.1-2 East side of Portland and west side 17

Existing OR 43/Sellwood Bridge Interchange of Portland
Portland and Washington County 11
Clackamas County and 13
Washington County
Clackamas County and Portland 52
East side of Clackamas County and 7
west side of Clackamas County
Source: Portland Bureau of Transportation (PBOT).
OR 43 serves over 34,000 vehicles each weekday

north of the Sellwood Bridge and 26,000 vehicles
south of the bridge. SE Tacoma Street serves
about 28,000 vehicles between the bridge and
SE 13th Avenue, 20,000 vehicles between SE 13th
Avenue and SE 17th Avenue, and 14,000 vehicles
between SE 17th Avenue and OR 99E.
During the weekday-morning peak hour, the

westbound travel lane on the Sellwood Bridge
serves about 1,700 vehicles per hour, while the
Tra nspo rtatio n
eastbound lane serves almost 900 vehicles per are passenger cars; other types of two-axle, four-
hour. However, the hourly westbound travel tire, single-unit vehicles; and motorcycles.
demand is actually higher than 1,700 vehicles per
hour; it is limited to this amount because of the Transit Service
The vehicle weight limit now prohibits bus
capacity constraint associated with the
service across the bridge because a loaded bus
interchange at OR 43 and the interaction with
weighs about 19 tons. Prior to the restrictions in
northbound OR 43 traffic. This condition results
2004, two bus routes traveled across the bridge.
in westbound vehicle queuing across the
While no buses currently travel along the
Sellwood Bridge.
Sellwood Bridge, four bus routes traverse the
study area. Two routes travel along OR 43, but
The peak hour refers to the highest hour
neither route has a stop in the vicinity of the
of traffic during a certain time period,
such as the morning and afternoon. The Sellwood Bridge. The 35–Macadam route
Peak Hour
typical morning and afternoon connects Oregon City with Portland City Center
commuter hours on weekdays are and the 36–South Shore serves Tualatin and
considered the peak hour of traffic and Portland City Center. A high-capacity transit
are the time periods typically evaluated
for transportation operations. The
study is under way for the OR 43 corridor to
afternoon peak generally has more determine whether bus rapid transit (BRT) or
vehicle activity than the morning peak. streetcar service would provide the best service
for this corridor.
In the afternoon, the eastbound travel lane on the
Level of Service and Congestion
Sellwood Bridge serves about 1,500 vehicles per Currently, all the signalized study intersections
hour and the westbound lane serves 1,100 operate at level of service (LOS) D or better
vehicles per hour. The eastbound travel demand during the weekday-morning peak hour. The
is higher than 1,500 vehicles per hour, but the SE Tacoma Street/SE 13th Avenue intersection,
actual travel demand is constrained by traffic however, functions at near-capacity conditions.
operations along SE Tacoma Street, particularly Northbound and southbound stop-sign-
the traffic signals at SE 13th Avenue and SE 17th controlled movements on the SE 6th Avenue
Avenue. These conditions result in eastbound approaches to SE Tacoma Street operate at
vehicle queuing across the Sellwood Bridge. LOS F (severely congested).
During weekdays, northbound traffic volumes
(toward downtown Portland) on OR 43 are Level of service (LOS) is a term used to
qualitatively describe the operating
heaviest in the morning, while the highway’s conditions of a roadway or intersection.
Level of Service
southbound traffic volumes (from downtown The LOS concept requires the
Portland) are heaviest in the afternoon. During consideration of several factors,
the morning peak hour, north of the Sellwood including travel speed, delay, and
Bridge, over 2,600 vehicles per hour travel along frequency of interruptions in traffic flow.
The LOS of a facility is designated with
northbound OR 43 and 1,000 vehicles travel letters A through F, with A representing
southbound. In the afternoon peak hour, the best operating conditions and F the
1,900 vehicles per hour travel southerly on worst.
OR 43 and 1,200 vehicles travel northerly.
During the afternoon peak hour, each of the
In June 2004, vehicle weights across the Sellwood
signalized intersections in the study area, except
Bridge were limited to 10 tons. Currently, over
the SE Tacoma Street/SE 17th Avenue
95 percent of all vehicles traversing the bridge
intersection, operates at LOS C (moderate
Tra nspo rtatio n
congestion) or better. The SE Tacoma Street/ for improvement in the access spacing and seek a
SE 17th Avenue intersection functions at LOS F deviation from the standard. The project
(severely congested), with extensive delays and interchange falls into the category of a
backups along SE Tacoma Street and SE 17th non-freeway interchange with two-lane or multi-
Avenue. The SE Tacoma Street/SE 13th Avenue lane crossroads in a fully developed urban area.
intersection is approaching its capacity. Stop-sign- Along District Highways such as OR 43, the
controlled movements from SE 6th Avenue onto minimum access spacing dimension between the
or across SE Tacoma Street operate at LOS E end-of-the-ramp acceleration lane and the
(congested). nearest at-grade intersection required by ODOT
is 1 mile. The existing Willamette Moorage
During the morning peak hour, vehicles traveling
Park/Macadam Bay Club access is only 1,130 feet
westbound along SE Tacoma Street and the
from the existing end of the acceleration lane,
Sellwood Bridge average 9 miles per hour (mph),
and the next intersection at SW Taylors Ferry
while those traveling along northbound OR 43
Road is less than 1 mile away. Because all Build
average 18 mph. During the afternoon peak hour,
alternatives have shorter distances between these
vehicles on southbound OR 43 average 8 mph,
two points, all alternatives would require a
while those traveling along eastbound on the
deviation from the standards for approval.
Sellwood Bridge and SE Tacoma Street average
7 mph. These speeds reflect the current nearly ODOT also specifies a 1,320-foot spacing
over-capacity conditions along SE Tacoma Street standard for the distance between interchange
and at the Sellwood Bridge-OR 43 interchange. terminals and the nearest at-grade intersection.
Cut-through Traffic Traffic Safety

Cut-through traffic (also known as traffic Over the 5-year period between January 2001
diversion) is a common byproduct of congestion. and December 2005, 68 crashes were reported
Motorists, faced with delays at congestion points, on the Sellwood Bridge and OR 43 within a half-
seek out alternative routes on the local street mile of the bridge. No fatalities were reported.
network to avoid delays. Existing cut-through Sixty-nine percent, or 48 crashes, were rear-
traffic problems on the east side include those ending-type collisions. The highest amount of
caused by motorists trying to avoid congestion rear-end crashes was along OR 43, where
on SE Tacoma Street by using SE 6th Avenue or 18 rear-end crashes were reported over the
other north-south local streets to reach and use 5-year period. Eleven rear-end crashes were
SE Spokane Street, or other streets that parallel reported on the Sellwood Bridge.
SE Tacoma Street. Portland Bureau of
Transportation (PBOT) has worked with the Vehicle crash rates experienced for the Sellwood
neighborhood over the years to address some of Bridge and OR 43 are higher than the average
these problems (for example, by implementing crash rates of comparable roadway facilities in
speed bumps). Oregon. Most of the reported crashes occurred
in locations where substandard geometric
Access Management conditions exist and during congested traffic
Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT)
periods.
requires the preparation of an Interchange Area
Management Plan (IAMP) with an Access ODOT has identified OR 43 within the project’s
Management Plan when interchanges are limits as a state highway with potential safety
upgraded. The IAMP must demonstrate that the problems. According to ODOT’s Safety Priority
interchange and accesses meet access spacing Index System (SPIS), OR 43 at the Sellwood
standards set out in OAR 734-051-0155 or plan Bridge interchange and north of and south of the
Tra nspo rtatio n
Sellwood Bridge is in the top 10 percent of passengers, and total revenue of $53,756. The
statewide SPIS sites based on a combination of revenue is used for maintenance and operation,
crash frequency, severity, and rate. For more and profits benefit the Oregon Electric Railway
information about crash history in the study area, Museum.
please refer to the Sellwood Bridge Project
The trolley line is the subject of a current study
Transportation Technical Report (CH2M HILL et al.,
to convert the track to full daily streetcar service
2008; updated 2010).
between Lake Oswego and the South Waterfront
Railroad, Trolley Services, and Future District in Portland, where an existing streetcar
Streetcar line now ends. Metro, along with the Portland to
The East Portland Branch of the Oregon Pacific Lake Oswego Transit and Trail project partners,
Railroad runs beneath the Sellwood Bridge along concluded an alternatives analysis to identify the
feasibility of a transit and trail project in this
the east shoreline of the Willamette River,
alongside the Springwater Corridor Trail. The corridor. Metro is currently preparing an
environmental impact statement to evaluate
owner of the East Portland Traction Company
now operates the East Portland Branch of the streetcar and enhanced bus transit options in this
corridor. During the project development
Oregon Pacific Railroad and transports engines,
cars, and equipment from the Oregon Pacific process, Metro will obtain input from the
community on the project and the alternatives to
Railroad offices south of the Sellwood Bridge in
Milwaukie to the East Portland Yard north of the be considered. The proposed cross-section for
the streetcar through the project area is two
Ross Island Bridge. There are typically two trips
(one round trip) per day. tracks co-located with an improved and paved
Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank). (For
The Willamette Shoreline Trolley runs along a more information on this trail, see Section 3.8,
single set of railroad tracks on the west bank of Parks and Recreation.) A streetcar station is
the Willamette River, just east of OR 43. The proposed for the interchange area at the west
trolley, which is in operation from May through end of the Sellwood Bridge.
October, travels between the Lake Oswego
station at State Street and Avenue A and the The City of Portland identifies the OR 43
(SW Macadam Avenue) corridor and the
Portland station at SW Bancroft Avenue and
SW Moody Street. In May, the trolley makes two Sellwood Bridge as streetcar transit corridors in
the Draft Portland Streetcar System Concept Plan
round trips each Saturday and Sunday; in June
through September, it makes four to five round (2009). The Sellwood Bridge project assumes the
trips on Thursdays through Sundays; and in streetcar will be adopted, and the streetcar has
October, it makes two round trips on Saturdays. been accommodated in the project design. For
Passengers can take a one-way trip or a round more information about how the Sellwood Bridge
trip. The trolley does not have a station in the project would accommodate potential future
vicinity of the Sellwood Bridge. streetcar plans, see “Willamette Shoreline
Trolley, Future Streetcar, and Willamette
A consortium of local government agencies owns Greenway Trail (West Bank)” in Section 2.2.2.
the Willamette Shoreline Trolley. TriMet holds
the title to the right-of-way on behalf of the River Navigation
consortium, and the City of Lake Oswego On navigable waters such as the Willamette
maintains the operations of the 7-mile right-of- River, the U.S. Coast Guard sets requirements
way between River Place in downtown Portland for vertical and horizontal clearances over a
and Lake Oswego. For 2007, the General navigation channel within the river to ensure the
Manager reported 378 total trips, 5,780 total safe operation of boats. The current vertical
Tra nspo rtatio n
clearance of the Sellwood Bridge over the subject reach. The largest of the fireboats has a
navigation channel is 75 feet Columbia River vertical waterline-to-top-of-vessel measurement
Datum (CRD), and horizontal clearance of the of 20 feet.
channel is 270 feet. This clearance serves
Recreational users include sailboat owners,
navigational needs along the river, including
yachting associations and clubs, marinas, floating
vessels serving Ross Island Sand & Gravel and
home moorages, and public and private launch
Zidell Marine Corporation. These uses, however,
and transient boat facilities.
are downstream of the bridge, and these vessels
rarely need to travel upstream under the
Sellwood Bridge. The current vertical clearance
3.1.2 No Build Alternative
of 75 feet is adequate. According to the Columbia Environmental
River Towboat Association, businesses and Consequences
clients depend on their ability to respond to By 2035, travel demand across the Sellwood
whatever unique river transport is required, Bridge is expected to increase to 39,000 vehicles
recognizing existing limitations. Towboats with per day, an increase of 33 percent over current
tows operate as far south as West Linn. traffic volumes, or about 1 percent per year. As
shown in Table 3.1-2, compared to existing travel
The cruise, excursion, and chartered boat market
patterns, a slightly higher percentage of bridge
on the Willamette River has experienced strong
traffic is expected to originate from or be
growth in recent years. At least seven passenger-
destined to Clackamas County.
and excursion-vessel companies operate on the
Willamette River, using about a dozen vessels. Table 3.1-3 shows the 2035 traffic demand
The heaviest times for excursion trips are during percent increase compared to existing conditions.
the Rose Festival in late May and early June, and
in December when Christmas boats are sailing. More detailed daily and peak-hour traffic
forecasts are provided in the Sellwood Bridge
City of Portland Fire and Rescue operates three Project Transportation Technical Report
fireboats and two rescue boats that respond to (CH2M HILL et al., 2008; updated 2010).
situations involving fires, vessels in distress, water
rescues, navigational hazards, and environmental Under the No Build Alternative, it is assumed
concerns. The City’s Harbormaster reports that the current vehicle weight-limit restrictions
fireboats make four to five weekly trips through would remain in place through at least 2035. No
the subject reach. The largest of the fireboats buses or heavy trucks would be allowed to use
makes four to five weekly trips through the the bridge.
TABLE 3.1-2
Travel Markets of Existing and Future Sellwood Bridge Users
Existing 2035
Vehicle Trips Vehicle Trips
Between (percent) (percent)
East side of Portland and west side of Portland 17 16
Portland and Washington County 11 8
Clackamas County and Washington County 13 12
Clackamas County and Portland 52 55
East side of Clackamas County and west side of Clackamas County 7 9
Source: PBOT.
Tra nspo rtatio n
TABLE 3.1-3
Existing and 2035 Weekday Traffic Demands
a.m. Peak Hour p.m. Peak Hour 24-Hour
NB/ SB/ NB/ SB/ NB/ SB/
Location Year EB WB Total EB WB Total EB WB Total
OR 43 Exist. 1,800 950 2,750 925 1,275 2,200 12,750 13,400 26,150
south of
2035 2,475 1,125 3,600 1,200 1,750 2,950 17,100 16,975 34,075
Sellwood
Bridge % Diff. 38% 18% 31% 30% 37% 34% 34% 27% 30%
OR 43 Exist. 2,650 975 3,625 1,225 1,900 3,125 17,825 16,600 34,425
north of
2035 3,175 1,275 4,450 1,550 2,250 3,800 21,875 20,575 42,450
Sellwood
Bridge % Diff. 20% 31% 23% 27% 18% 22% 18% 24% 23%
Sellwood Exist. 875 1,700 2,575 1,475 1,100 2,575 14,625 15,000 29,625
Bridge
2035 1,450 2,000 3,450 1,675 1,475 3,150 20,475 18,875 39,350
% Diff. 66% 18% 34% 14% 34% 22% 40% 26% 33%
SE Tacoma Exist. 775 1,375 2,150 1,275 950 2,225 13,525 14,100 27,625
Street west
2035 1,350 1,625 2,975 1,450 1,325 2,775 19,275 18,075 37,350
of SE 11th
Avenue % Diff. 74% 18% 38% 14% 39% 25% 43% 28% 35%
SE Tacoma Exist. 650 800 1,450 1,025 725 1,750 11,125 8,975 20,100
Street east
2035 900 1,000 1,900 1,150 950 2,100 13,950 11,475 25,425
of SE 15th
Avenue % Diff. 38% 25% 31% 12% 31% 20% 25% 28% 26%
SE Tacoma Exist. 375 700 1,075 650 550 1,200 6,900 7,050 13,950
Street west
2035 500 875 1,375 750 675 1,425 8,400 8,700 17,100
of SE 23rd
Avenue % Diff. 33% 25% 28% 15% 23% 19% 22% 23% 26%
% Diff. = Percent difference between existing and 2035 weekday traffic demands
EB = eastbound
Exist. = Existing
NB = northbound
SB = southbound
WB = westbound
Source: PBOT.
Transit Service Level of Service and Congestion

The existing bus routes (35–Macadam, 36–South With increased traffic demands in 2035, the
Shore, 41–Tacoma, and 70–12th Avenue) are roadways and intersections in the study area are
expected to continue serving the area under the expected to become more congested.
No Build Alternative. The existing Willamette
Shoreline Trolley would continue to operate
along the single-track railway line on the west
bank of the Willamette River.
Tra nspo rtatio n
By 2035, both the SE Tacoma Street/SE 13th would increase crash frequency along the bridge
Avenue and SE Tacoma Street/SE 17th Avenue and at the OR 43 interchange.
intersections are predicted to be severely
Table 3.1-4 summarizes potential impacts for the
congested (LOS F) for over an hour during the
No Build Alternative. No mitigation measures are
weekday-morning peak period. Backups are
planned for these impacts.
predicted to extend along the length of
westbound SE Tacoma Street, as well as to the
side-street approaches to SE Tacoma Street. In
3.1.3 Build Alternatives
addition, by 2035, the OR 43/SW Taylors Ferry Environmental
Road intersection is expected to be severely Consequences
congested (LOS F). Impacts and Mitigation Common to
During the 2035 weekday-afternoon peak hour, All Build Alternatives
severely congested (LOS F) conditions are Direct Impacts. Direct impacts common to all
expected to worsen at SE Tacoma Street/SE 17th Build alternatives include: impacts to vehicle-
Avenue, with average delays increasing to almost traffic-carrying capacity; intersection LOS; access
3 minutes. SE Tacoma Street/SE 13th Avenue is to properties from OR 43; connections of the
forecasted to degrade to LOS F. These Sellwood Bridge to SE Tacoma Street on the east
conditions would lead to long eastbound vehicle and to OR 43 on the west; availability of transit
queues along SE Tacoma Street, as well as at services; mix of the types of vehicles using the
most side-street approaches to SE Tacoma bridge; traffic safety; railroad, trolley services, and
Street. By 2035, the signalized intersection on future streetcar use; and bicyclist and pedestrian
OR 43 (which serves the Sellwood Bridge’s facilities. Bridge closure during construction and
southbound connection to OR 43 and provides impacts to river navigation are also discussed.
access to the River View Cemetery) is also
Vehicle-Traffic-Carrying Capacity. None of
expected to be severely congested (LOS F). The
the Build alternatives would improve congested
OR 43/SW Taylors Ferry Road intersection
conditions on SE Tacoma Street compared to the
would also approach capacity conditions.
No Build Alternative. SE Tacoma Street is
Traffic Safety presently capacity-constrained. It serves one
through traffic lane in each direction and its
Under No Build Alternative conditions, all the
signalized intersections at SE 13th Avenue and
substandard roadway conditions that currently
SE 17th Avenue are performing at near-capacity
exist would remain. These include the lack of
or at over-capacity conditions during peak
shoulders on the Sellwood Bridge and at the
periods. By 2035, the SE Tacoma Street corridor
OR 43 interchange, horizontal curve deficiencies
will continue to function at congested conditions
at the interchange, and horizontal and vertical
for several hours each day, thereby limiting the
sight distance limitations along the bridge and at
traffic that can travel in either direction across
several points within the interchange. These
the Sellwood Bridge. Adopted City of Portland
attributes are related to the frequency of crashes,
and Metro transportation policies indicate no
particularly during periods of congested traffic.
changes will be made to the number of through
Under future No Build Alternative conditions, the travel lanes on SE Tacoma Street, so none of the
duration of congestion is expected to increase Build alternatives for this project would be able
over current conditions. The presence of the to increase vehicle-traffic-carrying capacity along
substandard roadway conditions in conjunction SE Tacoma Street.
with the increased traffic levels and congestion
Tra nspo rtatio n
TABLE 3.1-4
No Build Alternative: Summary of Potential Impacts
Direct Impacts
Roadway and Safety Impacts
 Continues to prohibit buses and heavy trucks from using Sellwood Bridge
 Results in unacceptable mobility (LOS) at the OR 43 interchange with Sellwood Bridge
 Decreases travel speeds along OR 43, Sellwood Bridge, and SE Tacoma Street
 Increases vehicle hours of delay throughout the study area
 The continued presence of nonstandard geometric and safety features results in high crash potential
along the Sellwood Bridge and at its interchange with OR 43
Railroad and Trolley Impacts
 Does not impact existing or planned improvements to railroad and trolley services
River Navigation Impacts
 Does not impact existing river navigation

Indirect Impacts
 The continued weight restriction impedes transit solutions

Cumulative Impacts
 Impedes a sustainable solution for traffic, transit, pedestrian, and bicyclist circulation and connectivity;
bridge would eventually need to be closed
In addition, vehicle-traffic-carrying capacity and the bridge would merge to one to provide a
performance on the Sellwood Bridge would not transition into the existing cross-section of SE
be substantially improved by any of the Build Tacoma Street, limiting eastbound throughput.
alternatives. However, the provision of shoulders
Similarly, capacity would be constrained for all
or bicycle lanes would provide relief when a
Build alternatives on OR 43 in the corridor
vehicle needed to pull over for servicing or when
between Lake Oswego and Portland. This
an emergency vehicle needed to pass by. For this
corridor is limited by the two-lane cross-section
reason, vehicle travel speeds across the bridge
south of the bridge and the configuration of the
under all the Build alternatives would increase by
SW Taylors Ferry Road intersection north of the
only 1 to 2 mph during peak periods.
bridge. However, under any Build alternative, the
Even Alternative C, the only Build alternative that Sellwood Bridge project would improve traffic
would provide an additional lane for mixed operations for vehicle trips along OR 43 just
vehicles across the entire length of the bridge, north of and south of the Sellwood Bridge. The
would operate nearly the same as the other Build additional vehicular-turning lanes on the west end
alternatives. Alternative C would provide a of the Sellwood Bridge would facilitate
second eastbound lane extending from the movements to and from the various interchange
interchange with OR 43 to just west of SE 6th options. This would improve vehicular operations
Avenue. However, the two eastbound lanes on by relieving traffic congestion along OR 43’s
Tra nspo rtatio n
off-ramps to the Sellwood Bridge and along Access to Properties from OR 43. For
OR 43’s mainline itself, as well as for traffic Alternatives A through E, the driveway serving
traveling west on the Sellwood Bridge bound for the Macadam Bay Club and Willamette Moorage
northbound or southbound OR 43. In addition, Park would be relocated approximately 300 feet
providing standard-length ramps; adding ramps north of its existing location. The existing
entering and exiting from the right side of OR 43 driveway is located about 1,130 feet north of the
(instead of from the left, as they currently do); existing northbound on-ramp junction. At its
and removing the traffic signal on OR 43 would existing location, the driveway would be between
increase OR 43 travel speeds near the Sellwood 400 and 930 feet north of the new ramp junction
Bridge compared to the No Build Alternative. (775 feet for the roundabout interchange options
These speeds would increase by 3 to 6 mph in Alternatives A and B; 820 feet for the trumpet
during the morning peak period and by 7 to interchange option in Alternative C; 930 feet for
8 mph during the afternoon peak period. the single-point signalized option in Alternative D;
and 400 feet for the single-point signalized option
Higher speeds would mean less delay. Coupled
in Alternative E). Because the distance would
with the modest time savings afforded motorists
affect northbound traffic weaving on OR 43, the
traveling through the west-side interchange, the
driveway would be relocated as far north as
total vehicle hours of delay during peak periods
possible. Along District Highways such as OR 43,
would be reduced by about 5 percent for the
ODOT’s minimum access spacing dimension
Build alternatives compared to the No Build
between the end-of-the-ramp acceleration lane
Alternative.
and the nearest at-grade intersection is 1 mile.
The 2035 traffic demands in the study area are Neither the current 1,130-foot spacing nor the
estimated to be similar under the No Build shorter spacing (400 feet to 930 feet) for
Alternative and each of the Build alternatives Alternatives A through E would satisfy this
because none of the Build alternatives would standard. A deviation from ODOT’s access
increase vehicle-traffic-carrying capacity along standards would be required to build the access
OR 43 beyond the immediate area of the bridge at the proposed location.
or along SE Tacoma Street east of the bridge.
This access point was reevaluated as part of the
Therefore, the peak-hour vehicle miles traveled
IAMP process that took place after the release of
on study area roadways under each of the Build
the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
alternatives would be similar to those of the No
and the public hearing for the project.
Build Alternative. However, the Build alternatives
Reconsideration after further analysis of the
would provide substantially increased person-
proposed access point resulted in a modification
throughput in the project corridor because the
to make the access an additional 50 feet farther
Build alternatives could serve mass transit and
north than the access proposed in the DEIS.
dramatically increase pedestrian and bicycle trips
(as discussed in Section 3.2, Bicyclists and Multnomah County, ODOT, and the City of
Pedestrians). Portland have agreed on the location of the
driveway access to Willamette Moorage Park and
Intersection Level of Service. For all Build
the Macadam Bay Club for the preferred
alternatives, the intersections of SE Tacoma
alternative (Alternative D Refined). The existing
Street and SE 13th Avenue, SE Tacoma Street
access to Willamette Moorage Park and the
and SE 17th Avenue, and OR 43 and SW Taylors
Macadam Bay Club would be closed to all but
Ferry Road would be expected to operate at
emergency vehicles. The new driveway access
LOS F during the 2035 weekday peak hours.
would be relocated approximately 300 feet north
of the existing driveway access to increase the
Tra nspo rtatio n
spacing from the northbound OR 43 on-ramp at roundabout on Alternatives A and B; trumpet on

the west-side interchange. However, the spacing Alternative C; and single-point signalized on
of this driveway would still be less than the Alternatives D, E, and D Refined. Any of the
ODOT access spacing standard. A deviation from options could be integrated with Alternatives A,
ODOT’s access spacing standards would be B, C, D, and D Refined. The trumpet could not
required to build the access at the proposed be combined with Alternative E.
location. See Section 2.3.2 of this FEIS for more
information. Transit Services. For the proposed Build
alternatives, it is assumed that all the existing bus
Under all Build alternatives except Alternative C, routes serving the study area (35–Macadam, 36–
a new roadway from the west side of the South Shore, 41–Tacoma, and 70–12th Avenue)
interchange would provide access to the River would continue to operate and that the two bus
View Cemetery, the Superintendent’s House in routes that were discontinued when weight limit
the cemetery, Powers Marine Park, and the Staff restrictions were placed on the bridge (40–
Jennings property. ODOT spacing standards Tacoma and 65X–Marquam Hill-Milwaukie
require a minimum of 1,320 feet from an Transit Center) would be reinstated. Resumption
interchange terminal to the nearest at-grade of the 40–Tacoma and 65X–Marquam Hill-
access point. All accesses along this roadway Milwaukie Transit Center bus routes would add
would require deviations from ODOT’s access up to five bus trips in each direction along the
management standards. bridge, SE Tacoma Street, and OR 43 north of
the bridge.
East-side Intersection. The intersection of SE
Tacoma Street and SE 6th Avenue would be Vehicle Mix. The reintroduction of bus routes
impacted under all the Build alternatives and is 40–Tacoma and 65X–Marquam Hill-Milwaukie
discussed with respect to each alternative. Four Transit Center under the Build alternatives would
options were evaluated: result in a lower percentage of automobile trips
along these routes. This change in traffic mix is
 No treatment on Alternatives A and B
based on the assumption that greater accessibility
 Extension of Grand Avenue to create a loop to transit routes would trigger a slight mode shift
under the bridge on Alternative C from automobiles to transit, particularly
considering the future congestion levels expected
 A signal at the SE Tacoma Street at 6th along connecting roadways, as discussed
Avenue intersection on Alternatives D and E previously.
 A bicyclist/pedestrian-activated signal at the In addition to allowing buses to use the bridge,
SE Tacoma Street/SE 6th Avenue intersection removal of the 10-ton weight restriction would
on Alternative D Refined also increase the number of trucks using the
bridge. On a daily basis, about 1,600 heavy trucks
Each option could be integrated into any of the
(three-axle, single-unit trucks and larger) would
Build alternatives (except the Grand Avenue
be expected to use the bridge.
extension, which could not be integrated into
Alternative E). Together, trucks and buses would be expected to
compose about 4 percent of all vehicles using the
West-side Interchange. The interchange
bridge each day.
connecting the Sellwood Bridge with OR 43
would be impacted under all Build alternatives Traffic Safety. Almost all geometric features
and is discussed with respect to each alternative. under the Build alternatives would be designed to
Three interchange options were evaluated: meet current standards. These features would
Tra nspo rtatio n
include provision of shoulders on the Sellwood the retaining wall needed to support the fill or
Bridge and at the OR 43 interchange, standard structure at the appropriate railway elevation.
horizontal curves, and adequate horizontal and Use of the tracks could be disrupted for as long
vertical sight distances. The assumed design as 6 months during construction of the
speeds would be 40 mph for OR 43, 35 mph for replacement tracks.
the Sellwood Bridge, and 25 mph for all ramps
The bicycle/pedestrian paths associated with the
between OR 43 and the bridge.
bridge and interchange construction are
Compared to the No Build Alternative, the integrated with the Willamette Greenway Trail
provision of standard features should reduce the (West Bank) planned along the railway, enabling
crash potential along the Sellwood Bridge and at full integration of travel modes. All Build
the interchange with OR 43. alternatives, except Alternative C, would also
offer integration with bus service near the same
Access spacing between the interchange and the
west-side location.
Macadam Bay Club would continue to violate
ODOT spacing standards. In addition, spacing Bicyclist and Pedestrian Facilities. Bicyclist
between the western access road of the and pedestrian facilities would be improved under
roundabout interchange and private driveways all Build alternatives. Because of the large
would also violate ODOT spacing standards. commitment to bicyclists and pedestrians made
within the design of the project, bicyclist and
Railroad, Trolley Services, and Future
pedestrian facilities are covered extensively in
Streetcar. No direct, permanent impacts are
Section 3.2, Bicyclists and Pedestrians.
anticipated to the Oregon Pacific Railroad as a
result of any of the Build alternatives. Current Bridge Closures during Construction. During
uses would be accommodated in the future with construction of Alternatives A, B, and C, lengthy
no impacts to current operations. Construction closures of the bridge crossing would be needed
over the tracks would likely require new if no temporary detour bridge were provided.
easements and agreements for operation and During closures, traffic would divert south to the
maintenance. Interstate 205 (I-205) Abernathy Bridge and
north to several bridge crossings of the
All Build alternatives would require realignment
Willamette River, including the Ross Island,
of the Willamette Shoreline Trolley tracks. Track
Marquam, Hawthorne, Morrison, Burnside, Steel,
realignment would cause a temporary disruption
Broadway, and Fremont bridges. Of these
during construction for as long as 6 months, but
bridges, the Ross Island, Hawthorne, and
would not result in a permanent impact to trolley
Burnside bridges would see the greatest increases
operations. The realignment would take into
in traffic. Increases on these bridges for the
consideration the degree of curvature tolerances
morning and evening peak hours would be as
for rail stock and the proposed future use of the
follows: Ross Island—15.4 percent in morning
tracks for streetcar operations. The cross-section
and 12.5 percent in evening traffic; Hawthorne—
of the replacement is for two tracks and a paved
9.2 percent in morning and 6.3 percent in evening
Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank). The
traffic; and Burnside—6.0 percent in morning and
project team anticipates purchase of replacement
14.9 percent in evening traffic. Increases on the
right-of-way plus sufficient additional right-of-way
I-205 Abernathy Bridge would be 5.5 percent in
to complete the streetcar project. Sellwood
morning and 5.9 percent in evening traffic. All
Bridge project costs include rail replacement
other bridges would experience less than a
right-of-way, construction of one replacement rail
5 percent increase in either the morning or
line and the fill to support it, and construction of
evening traffic. This same traffic dispersion would
Tra nspo rtatio n
apply to the No Build Alternative, when Willamette River is navigable, U.S. Coast Guard
replacement of the approach was undertaken, approval would be required for all Build
and to intermittent temporary closures that alternatives.
could be required during construction of any
Build alternative. Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors
Act requires authorization from the
No designated detour is planned for the closure U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
because no one route would apply to the for the construction of any structure in
Section 10 of the Rivers

majority of travelers and a robust alternative or over any navigable water in the
network exists. However, most alternatives United States, the excavation/dredging
and Harbors Act

or deposition of material in these
would require longer travel in both distance and
waters, or any obstruction or alteration
time, out-of-direction travel, or travel on more in a “navigable water.” The Willamette
congested routes. Cost impacts of the detour are River at the existing Sellwood Bridge is
assessed in Section 3.6, Economic. a navigable water. Section 10 of the
Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404
River Navigation. The Build alternatives, of the Clean Water Act do overlap in
including the bicycle/pedestrian bridge proposed some activities involving wetlands.
under Alternative A, would have a vertical Consultation with the USACE, once
project details have been established,
clearance of 75 feet CRD and a horizontal will determine the necessary permit
clearance of 270 feet. These vertical and requirements.
horizontal clearances characterize the existing
Sellwood Bridge. The temporary detour bridge Potential Impacts and Mitigation
on Alternative B would have a horizontal Measures Common to All Build
clearance of 200 feet. None of the Build Alternatives
alternatives would create a new, permanent Table 3.1-5 summarizes potential impacts and
constraint to river navigation; all would meet the mitigation measures common to the Build
minimum clearance requirements. Because the alternatives.
TABLE 3.1-5
Impacts and Mitigation Measures Common to All Build Alternatives
Impact Mitigation Measure
Would restore bus service to the Sellwood Bridge and SE Positive impact; no mitigation needed.
Tacoma Street (i.e., 40–Tacoma and 65X– Marquam Hill-
Milwaukie Transit Center).
Compared to No Build Alternative conditions, motorists using PBOT to monitor performance of SE Tacoma
the SE Tacoma Street/SE 13th Avenue intersection would Street/SE 13th Avenue intersection. Consider
experience a 6- to 8-second increase in delay during 2035 part-time or full-time removal of on-street
peak periods (LOS F conditions under both No Build parking on west side of northern (southbound)
Alternative and Build alternatives conditions). leg of intersection.
Compared to No Build Alternative conditions, average peak- Positive impact; no mitigation needed.
period travel speeds on the Sellwood Bridge and SE Tacoma
Street would increase by 1 to 2 mph. Average travel speeds
on OR 43 would increase by 3 to 8 mph.
Tra nspo rtatio n
TABLE 3.1-5
Impacts and Mitigation Measures Common to All Build Alternatives
Compared to No Build Alternative conditions, study area Positive impact; no mitigation needed.
peak-period vehicle hours of delay would decrease by about
5 percent.
The provision of standard geometric and safety features would Positive impact; no mitigation needed.
reduce crash potential along the Sellwood Bridge and at its
interchange with OR 43.
The spacing on OR 43 between the Sellwood Bridge ODOT has agreed to grant a deviation from the
northbound on-ramp junction and the Macadam Bay Club access spacing standard for the driveway access
driveway would be substandard for the ODOT access subject to conditions stipulated in the IAMP
management spacing standard of 1 mile (ODOT, 1999), which that changes could be made if safety problems
potentially would result in unsafe northbound merging, arise in the future.
weaving, and/or diverging conditions.
The Build alternatives would require realignment of the Disruption to trolley operations during
Willamette Shoreline Trolley tracks. Track realignment would construction would likely be unavoidable.
cause a temporary disruption during construction (up to 6 However, establishing a safe work zone and
months), but no permanent impact to the trolley operations. flagging the trolley through the construction
The trolley alignment is currently under study for conversion area might be safely accommodated during
to a daily streetcar service with two tracks, a station near the some points of construction.
interchange, and an enhanced Willamette Greenway Trail Replacement is planned for existing right-of-way
(West Bank). The plan calls for integration of bicyclists and plus sufficient additional right-of-way for the
pedestrians, providing intermodal connections. enhanced plan. The project has assumed the
cost for replacing one track; fill or structure
associated with one track; and retaining walls
for the future plan.
No direct, permanent impacts are anticipated to the Oregon Coordination with the Oregon Pacific Railroad
Pacific Railroad. However, during construction, uses would be would ensure efficient maintenance of
temporarily halted for the construction of overpass structures operations through the project area. New
and other construction activities. easement and operations and maintenance
agreements would likely be required.
River Navigation Impacts
None of the Build alternatives would create a new, permanent No mitigation needed.
constraint to river navigation.
Indirect Impacts
Bus use would increase on routes serving Sellwood Bridge and Positive impact; no mitigation needed.
SE Tacoma Street. Design provides for bus stops and
integrated pathways to bicyclist and pedestrian facilities, as
well as a future streetcar station.
Tra nspo rtatio n
Alternative-specific Impacts and to serve Powers Marine Park and the Staff
Mitigation Jennings property.
Alternative A Under all Build alternatives, eastbound traffic
West-side Interchange. In Alternative A, the during the afternoon and evening peak periods
interchange of OR 43 and the Sellwood Bridge would be expected to continue to back up across
would be in a grade-separated and roundabout the Sellwood Bridge. However, under
configuration (Figure 3.1-3). Ramps from the Alternative A, such backups, when reaching the
outside lanes of OR 43 would converge at a west-side interchange, would impede traffic flow
multi-lane roundabout intersection. This within the roundabout’s circulatory roadway.
roundabout would be located above OR 43 This would cause intersection gridlock that might
between the northbound off-ramp and on-ramp not occur in other types of controlled
and between the southbound off-ramp and on- intersections. This gridlock could exacerbate
ramp. OR 43 would have two travel lanes—one traffic backups extending from each approach to
in each direction. the roundabout. Introduction of metering lights
To facilitate movements from the west-side to control traffic flow into the roundabout from
roundabout, there would be two travel lanes OR 43 off-ramps and installation of vehicle queue
eastbound, which would merge into one travel detectors on the Sellwood Bridge, tied to the
lane on the bridge. Likewise, one travel lane traffic signals at SE Tacoma Street/SE 13th
westbound on the bridge would widen to two Avenue and SE Tacoma Street/SE 17th Avenue,
travel lanes approaching the west-side would be expected to mitigate these impacts. It
roundabout to separate northbound and should be noted that metering lights are not
southbound movements and to provide for traditionally elements included in roundabouts,
queuing. The roundabout would provide a truck and inclusion of metering lights would extend
apron on the inside of the inside lane to traffic queues along OR 43’s off-ramps and
accommodate off-tracking during truck potentially onto OR 43.
movement through the
interchange. The northbound off- FIGURE 3.1-3
ramp, northbound on-ramp, and Alternative A West-side Interchange
southbound off-ramp would each
widen out to provide two lanes
approaching/departing the
roundabout. The southbound on-
ramp would have one lane. The
westbound-to-northbound
movement would be provided in
separate channelized lanes that
would not require motorists
making this maneuver to enter
the roundabout’s circular
roadway. The western approach
to the roundabout would serve
River View Cemetery and a
roadway that would go under the
new southern ramps and OR 43
Tra nspo rtatio n
East-side Intersection. Under Alternative A, on SE 6th Avenue very difficult during peak
the Sellwood Bridge would have two traffic lanes hours. Essentially, only right turns could be made
on its east end. These two lanes would transition with ease. Traffic levels and operations at the
to three lanes easterly along SE Tacoma Street. intersection of SE Tacoma Street and SE 6th
Eastbound and westbound left-turn lanes would Avenue would be similar to those expected
serve SE 6th Avenue, similar to current under No Build Alternative conditions. Stop-sign-
conditions. The SE Tacoma Street/SE 6th Avenue controlled traffic on SE 6th Avenue would
intersection would continue to be unsignalized, experience LOS F conditions during the
with stop signs controlling SE 6th Avenue traffic. weekday-morning peak hour and LOS E
Maintaining existing conditions would either not conditions during the afternoon peak hour.
affect or minimally increase cut-through traffic. It
Table 3.1-6 summarizes potential impacts and
would continue to make north-south operations
mitigation measures for Alternative A.
TABLE 3.1-6
Alternative A: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Capacity constraints on SE Tacoma Street would Metering lights to control traffic flow into the
extend eastbound traffic across the Sellwood Bridge roundabout from OR 43’s off-ramps and vehicle queue
into the roundabout during the afternoon/evening peak detectors on the Sellwood Bridge, tied to the traffic
period. This would impede traffic flow and cause signals at SE Tacoma Street/SE 13th Avenue and SE
additional traffic delays and queues. Tacoma Street/SE 17th Avenue, would be expected to
mitigate these impacts. It should be noted that metering
lights are not traditionally elements included in
roundabouts, and inclusion of metering lights would
extend traffic queues along OR 43’s off-ramps and
potentially onto OR 43.
The spacing on the western access roadway between As part of an IAMP for this alternative, safe driveway
the roundabout and the driveways serving River View access provisions could be developed. Note that
Cemetery, Powers Marine Park, and the Staff Jennings driveways are currently accessed directly from OR 43.
property would violate ODOT’s access management These driveways have light traffic, so conflicts are not
spacing standard. expected. A deviation from the standard would be
required.
Compared to No Build Alternative conditions, PBOT to monitor performance of SE Tacoma Street/
motorists using the SE Tacoma Street/SE 13th Avenue SE 13th Avenue intersection. Consider part-time or full-
intersection would experience a 6- to 8-second time removal of on-street parking on west side of
increase in delay during 2035 peak periods (LOS F northern (southbound) leg of intersection.
conditions under both No Build Alternative and Build
alternatives conditions).
Because of capacity constraints on SE Tacoma Street, Metering lights to control traffic flow into the
eastbound traffic across the Sellwood Bridge would roundabout from OR 43’s off-ramps would be
extend into the roundabout during the considered. In addition, vehicle queue detectors on the
afternoon/evening peak period. This would impede Sellwood Bridge, tied to the traffic signals at SE Tacoma
traffic flow and cause additional traffic delays and Street/SE 13th Avenue and SE Tacoma Street/SE 17th
queues. Avenue, would be considered.
Tra nspo rtatio n
TABLE 3.1-6
Alternative A: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Construction Impacts
No traffic would be allowed over the existing bridge Traffic would be diverted north to the Ross Island
during construction. Traffic would be detoured for 24 Bridge or other bridges to the north, and south to the
months during construction. I-205 Abernathy Bridge and the Oregon City Bridge.
Alternative B each widen out to provide two lanes

West-side Interchange. With Alternative B, the approaching/departing the roundabout. The
interchange of OR 43 and the Sellwood Bridge southbound on-ramp would have one lane. The
would be in a grade-separated and roundabout westbound-to-northbound movement would be
configuration (Figure 3.1-4). Ramps coming from provided in separate channelized lanes that would
the outside lanes of OR 43 would converge at a not require motorists making this maneuver to
multi-lane roundabout intersection. This enter the roundabout’s circular roadway. The
roundabout would be located above OR 43 western approach to the roundabout would
between the northbound off-ramp and on-ramp serve River View Cemetery and a roadway that
and between the southbound off-ramp and on- would go under the new southern ramps and OR
ramp, OR 43 would have two travel lanes—one 43 to serve Powers Marine Park and the Staff
in each direction. Jennings property.
To facilitate movements
from the west-side FIGURE 3.1-4
roundabout, there would be Alternative B West-side Interchange
two travel lanes eastbound,
which would merge into one
travel lane on the bridge.
Likewise, one travel lane
westbound on the bridge
would widen to two travel
lanes approaching the west-
side roundabout to separate
northbound and southbound
movements and to provide
for queuing. The
roundabout would provide a
truck apron on the inside of
the inside lane to
accommodate off-tracking
during truck movement
through the interchange.
The northbound off-ramp,
northbound on-ramp, and
southbound off-ramp would
Tra nspo rtatio n
Under all Build alternatives, eastbound traffic challenges to bicyclists and pedestrians are
during the afternoon peak period would be discussed in Section 3.2, Bicyclists and
expected to continue to back up across the Pedestrians.
Sellwood Bridge. However, under Alternative B,
East-side Intersection. Under Alternative B,
such backups, when reaching the west-side
the Sellwood Bridge would have two traffic lanes
interchange, would impede traffic flow within the
on its east end. These two lanes would transition
roundabout’s circulatory roadway. This would
to three lanes easterly along SE Tacoma Street.
cause intersection gridlock that might not occur
Eastbound and westbound left-turn lanes would
in other types of controlled intersections. This
serve SE 6th Avenue, similar to current
gridlock could exacerbate traffic backups
conditions. The SE Tacoma Street/SE 6th Avenue
extending from each approach to the
intersection would continue to be unsignalized,
roundabout. Introduction of metering lights to
with stop signs controlling SE 6th Avenue traffic.
control traffic flow into the roundabout from OR
Maintaining existing conditions would either not
43 off-ramps and installation of vehicle queue
detectors on the Sellwood Bridge, tied to the
would continue to make north-south operations
traffic signals at SE Tacoma Street/SE 13th
on SE 6th Avenue very difficult during peak
Avenue and SE Tacoma Street/SE 17th Avenue,
hours. Essentially, only right turns could be made
would be expected to mitigate these impacts. It
with ease. Traffic levels and operations at the
should be noted that metering lights are not
SE Tacoma Street/SE 6th Avenue intersection
traditionally elements included in roundabouts,
would be similar to those expected under No
and inclusion of metering lights would extend
Build Alternative conditions. Stop-sign-controlled
traffic queues along OR 43’s off-ramps and
traffic on SE 6th Avenue would experience LOS F
conditions during the weekday-morning peak
Alternative B would require bicyclist/pedestrian- hour and LOS E conditions during the afternoon
activated signals for access to points across the peak hour.
interchange. These signals would impede traffic
flow in the interchange, which is designed for a
mitigation measures for Alternative B.
more free-flow condition. Potential safety
TABLE 3.1-7
Alternative B: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact Mitigation Measures
Because of capacity constraints on SE Tacoma Metering lights to control traffic flow into the roundabout
Street, eastbound traffic across the Sellwood Bridge from OR 43 off-ramps and vehicle queue detectors on the
would extend into the roundabout during the Sellwood Bridge, tied to the traffic signals at SE Tacoma
afternoon/evening peak period. This would impede Street/SE 13th Avenue and SE Tacoma Street/SE 17th
traffic flow and cause additional traffic delays and Avenue, would be expected to mitigate these impacts. It
queues. should be noted that metering lights are not traditionally
elements included in roundabouts, and inclusion of metering
lights would extend traffic queues along OR 43’s off-ramps
and potentially onto OR 43.
Bicyclist/pedestrian-activated signals for access to None anticipated; signals required for bicyclist and
points across the interchange would impede traffic pedestrian safety.
flow in the interchange.
Tra nspo rtatio n
TABLE 3.1-7
Alternative B: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The spacing on the western access roadway As part of an IAMP for this alternative, safe driveway access
between the roundabout and the driveways serving provisions would be developed. Note that driveways are
River View Cemetery, Powers Marine Park, and the currently accessed directly from OR 43. These driveways
Staff Jennings property would violate ODOT’s have light traffic, so conflicts are not expected. A deviation
access management spacing standard (ODOT, from the standard would be required.
1999).
No traffic would be allowed over the existing Traffic would be diverted north to the Ross Island Bridge or
bridge during construction if no temporary detour other bridges to the north, and south to the I-205 Abernathy
bridge were provided. Traffic would be detoured Bridge and the Oregon City Bridge.
for 24 months during construction.
Temporary Detour Bridge Option Based on year 2035 traffic projections, traffic
An optional temporary detour bridge would would flow unimpeded, except when
maintain a river crossing during construction. afternoon/evening peak-period traffic would back
Unlike other bridge spans under the Build up across the Sellwood Bridge. However, under
alternatives, the temporary detour bridge would the trumpet interchange configuration, compared
have a horizontal clearance of 200 feet, less than to the roundabout design, this condition would
the current Sellwood Bridge horizontal clearance not affect westbound bridge movements.
of 270 feet. The 200-foot clearance would meet
Under Alternative C, the Sellwood Bridge would
current U.S. Coast Guard requirements, and a
have three midspan traffic lanes—one westbound
river-user survey conducted for this project did
lane and two eastbound lanes. One travel lane
not indicate that any users would be specifically
westbound on the bridge would widen to two
impacted from reducing the horizontal clearance
travel lanes entering the west-side interchange
through the Sellwood Bridge to 200 feet.
with OR 43 to facilitate movements. The two
Alternative C eastbound lanes would merge into one eastbound
West-side Interchange. In Alternative C, the lane west of the bridge’s overcrossing of SE
interchange of OR 43 and the Sellwood Bridge Grand Avenue.
would be in a trumpet configuration
This alternative would also relocate the existing
(Figure 3.1-5). All movements through the grade-
trolley line farthest to the east, limiting and
separated interchange would have free-flowing
complicating options for future trolley line
movements and would not be controlled through
expansion and improvements to the Willamette
a central intersection or traffic signal. The outside
Greenway Trail (West Bank). It would reduce
traffic lanes on OR 43 approaching the Sellwood
operating speed of the streetcar and make future
Bridge would diverge from the highway as they
location of a station more difficult.
ascended to the bridge. The bridge’s ramps to
OR 43 would transition to OR 43’s outside lanes.
Between the northbound off-ramp and on-ramp
and between the southbound off-ramp and on-
ramp, OR 43 would have two travel lanes—one
in each direction.
Tra nspo rtatio n
East-side Intersection The existing eastbound Because the SE Grand Avenue extension would
left-turn lane at SE 6th Avenue would be enable more convenient access for eastbound
removed. Eastbound traffic on the bridge traffic to streets north of SE Tacoma Street, it
destined for the north side of SE Tacoma Street, follows that some traffic levels would increase on
just east of the bridge, would be directed to turn neighborhood streets north of SE Tacoma Street
right onto SE 6th Avenue, and then loop in a in the vicinity of SE 6th Avenue to SE 11th
clockwise direction around SE 6th Avenue, SE Avenue. For example, based on projected 2035
Tenino Street, a new SE Grand Avenue extension evening peak-hour traffic volumes, traffic on
under the Sellwood Bridge, to SE Spokane Street. SE Spokane Street near SE 6th Avenue could
Westbound left turns from SE Tacoma Street increase by about 75 vehicles during the peak
onto SE 6th Avenue would still be allowed via an period.
uncontrolled left-turn lane. SE 6th Avenue’s
The SE Grand Avenue extension, coupled with
approaches to SE Tacoma Street would remain
the elimination of the eastbound left-turn lane at
controlled with stop signs. The extension of SE
SE 6th Avenue, as well as perhaps at SE 7th
Grand Avenue would improve accessibility
Avenue, would enable the provision of in-street
between the Sellwood Bridge and the areas north
pedestrian refuge islands on SE Tacoma Street’s
of SE Tacoma Street and west of SE 13th Avenue,
western legs at SE 6th Avenue and SE 7th
but could moderately increase cut-through traffic.
Avenue. These pedestrian refuge islands could be
North-south traffic could also use the SE Grand
similar to the existing island on SE Tacoma
Avenue undercrossing of the bridge to freely
Street’s eastern leg at SE 7th Avenue. Inclusion of
move north and south of SE Tacoma Street
the pedestrian refuge islands would substantially
without engaging a signal or SE Tacoma Street
enhance pedestrian movements across
itself.
SE Tacoma Street at SE 6th Avenue and SE 7th
Avenue. Pedestrians crossing at these locations
FIGURE 3.1-5 would be able to cross one lane of traffic at a
Alternative C West-side Interchange time instead of three lanes with
traffic approaching in both
directions. Pedestrians would
benefit because the number of
available gaps between
approaching vehicles would
increase substantially with the
provision of in-street pedestrian
refuge islands.
Table 3.1-8 summarizes potential

impacts and mitigation measures
for Alternative C.
Alternative D
West-side Interchange. In
Alternative D, the interchange of
OR 43 and the Sellwood Bridge
would be in a grade-separated and
signalized configuration
(Figure 3.1-6). Ramps coming
Tra nspo rtatio n
TABLE 3.1-8
Alternative C: Summary of l Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Direct access between River View Cemetery and OR Provide, via pavement marking, a left-turn lane on SW
43 would be removed. Taylors Ferry Road at River View Cemetery’s access
roadway. Provide signage on OR 43 guiding motorists
to SW Taylors Ferry Road to access River View
Cemetery.
The SE Grand Avenue extension would provide PBOT to monitor traffic volumes along neighborhood
improved accessibility between Sellwood Bridge and roadways, including SE Spokane Street, SE Nehalem
areas north of SE Tacoma Street and west of SE 13th Street, and SE 7th Avenue. City to consider
Avenue. Moderate levels of increased traffic volumes implementation of additional traffic calming measures, if
could result. appropriate.
SE Grand Avenue extension would enable provision of
pedestrian refuge islands on SE Tacoma Street’s
western legs at SE 6th Avenue and SE 7th Avenue,
substantially improving pedestrian mobility and safety in
crossing SE Tacoma Street.
No traffic would be allowed over the existing bridge Traffic would be diverted north to the Ross Island
during construction. Traffic would be detoured for Bridge or other bridges to the north, and south to the
42 months during construction. I-205 Abernathy Bridge and the Oregon City Bridge.
Would relocate the existing trolley line farthest to the None proposed.
east, limiting and complicating options for future trolley
line expansion and trail improvements.
from the outside lanes of OR 43 would converge the 2035 morning peak hour and LOS D
at a signalized intersection, located above OR 43 operations during the afternoon peak hour.
between the northbound off-ramp and on-ramp During afternoon/evening peak-period traffic
and between the southbound off-ramp and conditions, when eastbound traffic backed up on
on-ramp. OR 43 would have two travel lanes; the Sellwood Bridge, westbound bridge
one in each direction. movements would not be affected under the
single-point signalized interchange option
The ramps would widen out to provide turning
compared to the roundabout option.
lanes at the intersection. The western approach
to the intersection would serve River View To facilitate movements from the west-side
Cemetery and a roadway that would go under interchange with OR 43, two travel lanes
the new southern ramps and OR 43 to serve eastbound would merge into one travel lane on
Powers Marine Park and the Staff Jennings the bridge. Likewise, one travel lane westbound
property. on the bridge would widen to two travel lanes to
facilitate movements and queuing at the west-side
The signalized intersection would operate
interchange.
acceptably, providing LOS C operations during
Tra nspo rtatio n
FIGURE 3.1-6
Alternative D West-side Interchange
East-side Intersection. Under Alternative D, the street were prohibited and if the existing in-
eastbound and westbound left-turn lanes would street pedestrian refuge islands at SE 7th Avenue
serve SE 6th Avenue, similar to the No Build and SE 8th Avenue were removed. Retaining the
Alternative. A traffic signal would be installed to left-turn lanes would allow three through-traffic
control all movements at the intersection of SE lanes—one lane in one direction and two lanes in
Tacoma Street and SE 6th Avenue. Traffic analysis the other direction. Under this condition, the
indicated that a signal at this location would intersection capacity would still be exceeded
operate at LOS F, the lowest level. The during peak periods (by up to 20 percent). This
intersection would be 40 percent over capacity, condition would continue to cause substantial
meaning that vehicles on the bridge would vehicle delays and queuing along SE Tacoma
require more than one signal cycle to clear the Street and unacceptable intersection
intersection. The effect of the signal on performance.
operations on SE Tacoma would be to back up
Acceptable intersection performance with a signal
traffic into the OR 43 interchange. This condition
at SE Tacoma Street and SE 6th Avenue could
would result in substantial vehicle delays and
likely be accomplished by providing two through
queuing along SE Tacoma Street and unacceptable
lanes in each direction on SE Tacoma Street. This
intersection performance.
configuration would require either (1) removing
To alleviate this condition and still provide a the left-turn lanes (in addition to removing
traffic signal, additional traffic lanes on SE Tacoma on-street parking and the pedestrian refuge
Street would be needed. The existing curb-to- islands), resulting in modified traffic circulation
curb width on SE Tacoma Street could allow up patterns and increased traffic on several of the
to four traffic lanes if parking on the south side of local streets near the east end of the bridge, or
Tra nspo rtatio n
(2) widening the street, which would require the If a traffic signal were installed at SE 7th Avenue
acquisition of private property on one or both or SE 8th Avenue instead of at SE 6th Avenue,
sides of SE Tacoma Street between SE Grand effects similar to those described previously
Avenue and SE 8th Avenue. would be expected. In addition, it is likely that
along SE Tacoma Street more on-street parking
Another consequence of installing a signal at
or right-of-way acquisition to the east, or both,
SE Tacoma Street/SE 6th Avenue is the extra
would be required.
traffic that would be attracted to entering or
exiting SE Tacoma Street at the signalized Because of the negative performance of the
location instead of at the various uncontrolled signalized intersection option, Alternative D was
and more delayed locations between SE 6th also evaluated with no signal in the Sellwood Bridge
Avenue and SE 13th Avenue. Provision of a traffic Project Transportation Technical Report
signal would increase traffic levels along the local (CH2M HILL et al., 2008; updated 2010). Level of
streets parallel to SE Tacoma Street between service and congestion estimates for
SE 6th Avenue and SE 13th Avenue: SE Spokane Alternative D reported throughout this section
Street, SE Nehalem Street, SE Tenino Street, and relate to the east-side intersection with no signal.
SE Umatilla Street.
mitigation measures for Alternative D.
TABLE 3.1-9
Alternative D: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The spacing on the western access roadway between As part of an IAMP for this alternative, safe driveway
the signalized ramp terminal and the driveways serving access provisions would be developed. Note that
River View Cemetery, Powers Marine Park, and the driveways are currently accessed directly from OR 43.
Staff Jennings property would violate ODOT’s access A deviation from the standard would be required.
management spacing standard.
Signalization of the SE Tacoma Street/SE 6th Avenue To obtain acceptable LOS conditions with a traffic
(or SE Tacoma Street/SE 7th Avenue) intersection signal, SE Tacoma Street would require either
would result in LOS F conditions with traffic demands (1) removal of left-turn lanes, on-street parking, and
exceeding the intersection’s capacity by about pedestrian refuge islands, or (2) widening SE Tacoma
40 percent. This would cause unacceptable vehicle Street to one or both sides. Both options would
delays and queues, as well as substantial increases in increase traffic levels along local streets parallel to SE
neighborhood cut-through traffic. Tacoma Street west of SE 13th Avenue.
Note: Because of poor performance of this east-side
intersection option, Alternative D was also evaluated
with no signal (the east-side intersection option in
Alternatives A and B). Level of service and congestion
estimates reported in this section for Alternative D relate
to the east-side intersection with no signal.
Tra nspo rtatio n
TABLE 3.1-9
Alternative D: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Staged construction would allow traffic to continue to Not a negative impact, no mitigation is required.
cross the river during construction. Half of the new
bridge would be built alongside the old bridge, traffic
would be maintained on the old bridge, switched to the
new half bridge, and the old bridge would be removed.
Then the second half of the new bridge would be
constructed.
Alternative E and between the southbound off-ramp and on-

West-side Interchange. In Alternative E, the ramp, OR 43 would have two travel lanes; one in
interchange of OR 43 and the Sellwood Bridge each direction.)
would be in a grade-separated and signalized
The ramps would widen out to provide turning
configuration (Figure 3.1-7). Ramps coming from
lanes at the intersection. The western approach
the outside lanes of OR 43 would converge at a
to the intersection would serve River View
signalized intersection, located above OR 43.
Cemetery and a roadway that would go under
(Between the northbound off-ramp and on-ramp
the new southern ramps and OR 43 to serve
FIGURE 3.1-7
Alternative E West-side Interchange
Tra nspo rtatio n
Powers Marine Park and the Staff Jennings intersection’s capacity would still be exceeded
property. during peak periods (by up to 20 percent). This
condition would continue to cause substantial
The signalized intersection would operate
vehicle delays and queuing along SE Tacoma
acceptably, providing LOS C operations during
Street and unacceptable intersection
the 2035 morning peak hour and LOS D
performance.
operations during the afternoon peak hour.
During afternoon/evening peak-period traffic Acceptable intersection performance with a signal
conditions, when eastbound traffic backed up on at SE Tacoma Street and SE 6th Avenue could
the Sellwood Bridge, westbound bridge likely be accomplished by providing two through
movements would not be affected under the lanes in each direction of SE Tacoma Street. This
single-point signalized interchange option configuration would require either (1) removing
compared to the roundabout option. the left-turn lanes (in addition to removing on-
street parking and the pedestrian refuge islands),
To facilitate movements and queuing at the west-
resulting in modified traffic circulation patterns
side travel lane, a right-turn lane would be
and increased traffic on several of the local
provided approaching the west-side interchange.
streets near the east end of the bridge, or
East-side Intersection. Under Alternative E, (2) widening the street, which would require the
eastbound and westbound left-turn lanes would acquisition of private property on one or both
serve SE 6th Avenue, similar to the No Build sides of SE Tacoma Street between SE Grand
Alternative. A traffic signal would be installed to Avenue and SE 8th Avenue.
control all movements at the intersection of
Another consequence of installing a signal at
SE Tacoma Street and SE 6th Avenue. Traffic
SE Tacoma Street/SE 6th Avenue is the extra
analysis indicated that a signal at this location
traffic that would be attracted to entering or
would operate at LOS F, the lowest level. The
exiting SE Tacoma Street at the signalized
intersection would be 40 percent over capacity,
location instead of at the various uncontrolled
meaning that vehicles on the bridge would
and more delayed locations between SE 6th
require more than one signal cycle to clear the
Avenue and SE 13th Avenue. Provision of a traffic
intersection. The effect of the signal on
signal would increase traffic levels along the local
operations on SE Tacoma Street would be to
streets parallel to SE Tacoma Street between
back up traffic into the OR 43 interchange. This
SE 6th Avenue and SE 13th Avenue: SE Spokane
condition would result in substantial vehicle
Street, SE Nehalem Street, SE Tenino Street, and
delays and queuing along SE Tacoma Street and
SE Umatilla Street.
unacceptable intersection performance.
If a traffic signal were installed at SE 7th Avenue
To alleviate this condition and still provide a
or SE 8th Avenue instead of at SE 6th Avenue,
traffic signal, additional traffic lanes on SE Tacoma
effects similar to those described previously
Street would be needed. The existing curb-to-
would be expected. In addition, it is likely that
curb width on SE Tacoma Street could allow up
along SE Tacoma Street more on-street parking
to four traffic lanes if parking on the south side of
or right-of-way acquisition to the east, or both,
the street were prohibited and if the existing in-
would be required.
street pedestrian refuge islands at SE 7th Avenue
and SE 8th Avenue were removed. Retaining the Because of the negative performance of the
left-turn lanes would allow three through traffic signalized intersection option, Alternative E was
lanes—one lane in one direction and two lanes in also evaluated with no signal in the Sellwood Bridge
the other direction. Under this condition, the Project Transportation Technical Report
Tra nspo rtatio n
(CH2M HILL et al., 2008; updated 2010). Level of The ramps would widen out to provide turning
service and congestion estimates for lanes at the intersection. The western approach
Alternative E reported throughout this section to the intersection would serve River View
relate to the east-side intersection with no signal. Cemetery and a roadway that would go under
the new southern ramps and OR 43 to serve
Powers Marine Park and the Staff Jennings
mitigation measures for Alternative E.
property.
Alternative D Refined The signalized intersection would operate
(Preferred Alternative) acceptably, providing LOS C operations during
West-side Interchange. In Alternative D
the 2035 morning peak hour and LOS D
Refined, the interchange of OR 43 and the
operations during the afternoon peak hour.
Sellwood Bridge would be in a grade-separated
During afternoon/ evening peak-period traffic
and signalized configuration (Figure 3.1-8). Ramps
conditions, when eastbound traffic backed up on
coming from the outside lanes of OR 43 would
the Sellwood Bridge, westbound bridge
converge at a signalized intersection, located
movements would not be affected under the
above OR 43 between the northbound off-ramp
single-point signalized interchange option
and on-ramp and between the southbound off-
(compared to the roundabout option).
ramp and on-ramp. OR 43 would have two travel
lanes (one in each direction), with space to widen To facilitate movements from the west-side
to four lanes (two in each direction), if required interchange with OR 43, two travel lanes
in the future. eastbound would merge into one travel lane on
the bridge. Likewise, one travel lane westbound
TABLE 3.1-10
Alternative E: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures

The spacing on the western access roadway As part of an IAMP for this alternative, safe driveway
between the signalized ramp terminal and the access provisions would be developed. Note that
driveways serving River View Cemetery, Powers driveways are currently accessed directly from OR 43.
Marine Park, and the Staff Jennings property This access would be the longest of the alternatives
would be less than 1,320 feet, violating ODOT’s proposed. A deviation from the standard would be
access management spacing standard. required.
Signalization of the SE Tacoma Street/SE 6th To obtain acceptable LOS conditions with a traffic
Avenue (or SE Tacoma Street/SE 7th Avenue) signal, SE Tacoma Street would require either
intersection would result in LOS F conditions, (1) removing left-turn lanes in addition to on-street
with traffic demands exceeding the parking and pedestrian refuge islands, or (2) widening
intersection’s capacity by about 40 percent. This SE Tacoma Street to one or both sides. Both options
would cause unacceptable vehicle delays and would result in increased traffic levels along local streets
queues, as well as substantial increases in parallel to SE Tacoma Street west of SE 13th Avenue.
neighborhood cut-through traffic levels.
Traffic would be maintained on the existing Positive impact; no mitigation needed.
bridge during construction of the new bridge.
Tra nspo rtatio n
on the bridge would widen to two travel lanes to south operations on SE 6th Avenue very difficult
facilitate movements and queuing at the west-side during peak hours. Essentially, only right turns
interchange. could be made with ease. Traffic levels and
operations at the SE Tacoma Street/SE 6th
East-side Intersection. Under Alternative D
Avenue intersection would operate worse than
Refined, eastbound and westbound left-turn lanes
those expected under No Build Alternative
would serve SE 6th Avenue, similar to the No
conditions because traffic on SE Tacoma Street
Build Alternative. The SE Tacoma Street/SE 6th
would need to stop when the signal was
Avenue intersection would have a bicyclist/
activated. PBOT would monitor the effects on
pedestrian-activated signal. The signal would
traffic operations. It would make adjustments, as
allow bicyclists and pedestrians to safely cross
necessary, to ensure safe and efficient conditions
SE Tacoma Street to access the Springwater
for motorists traveling along SE 6th Avenue and
Corridor Trail (via SE Spokane Street) and the
the Sellwood Bridge, as well as for bicyclists,
City of Portland-designated bicycle boulevards on
pedestrians, and vehicular traffic on SE 6th
SE Spokane and SE Umatilla streets. The signal
Avenue.
would allow vehicles on SE 6th Avenue to cross
or turn onto SE Tacoma Street when a bicyclist Table 3.1-11 summarizes potential impacts and
or pedestrian activated it. mitigation measures for the preferred alternative
A bicyclist/pedestrian-activated signal would
either not affect, or minimally increase, cut-
through traffic. It would continue to make north-
FIGURE 3.1-8
Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) West-side Interchange
Tra nspo rtatio n
TABLE 3.1-11
Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined): Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The spacing on the western access roadway between An IAMP has been developed that addresses access to
the signalized ramp terminal and the driveways serving River View Cemetery, Powers Marine Park, and the
River View Cemetery, Powers Marine Park, and the Staff Jennings property. Despite the proximity of the
Staff Jennings property would violate ODOT’s access River View Cemetery driveway to the new
management spacing standard. interchange, ODOT has agreed to grant a deviation
from its access spacing standard to permit access to
these three properties via the new roadway (as
specified in the IAMP). The volume of traffic on the
roadway is expected to be very low and would not
adversely affect traffic operations or safety in the
interchange. For more information on the IAMP, see
“Access to Properties Adjacent to OR 43” in Section
2.3 of this FEIS.
According to PBOT, a bicyclist/pedestrian-activated PBOT would monitor the effects on traffic operations.
signal at the SE Tacoma Street/SE 6th Avenue It would make adjustments, as necessary, to ensure
intersection could result in a slight decrease in safe and efficient conditions for motorists traveling
performance of SE Tacoma Street when the signal was along SE 6th Avenue and the Sellwood Bridge, as well
activated during congested times. It is not expected as for bicycles, pedestrians, and vehicular traffic on SE
that this decrease in performance would reach 6th Avenue.
unacceptable levels.
Staged construction would allow traffic to continue to Not a negative impact, no mitigation is required.
cross the river during construction. Half of the new
bridge would be built alongside the old bridge, traffic
would be maintained on the old bridge, switched to
the new half bridge, and the old bridge would be
removed. Then the second half of the new bridge
would be constructed.
roundabout (Alternatives A and B), a trumpet

3.1.4 Summary of Alternatives by (Alternative C), and a single-point signalized
Differentiating (Alternatives D, E, and D Refined) interchange. It
Transportation Impact is expected that under all three interchange
Impacts are discussed below in relation to the types, eastbound traffic during the
west-side interchange type and the east-side afternoon/evening peak period would continue to
intersection. Tables 3.1-12 and 3.1-13 summarize back up across the Sellwood Bridge. The impacts
other differentiating impacts by Build alternative. of such backups, when reaching the west-side
interchange, would differ based on the
West-side Interchange Type interchange type.
Three different grade-separated interchange
 Roundabout. Could impede westbound
configurations have been proposed for the west
traffic flow within the roundabout during the
end of the Sellwood Bridge at OR 43—a
afternoon/evening peak period because
Tra nspo rtatio n
eastbound traffic would back up along SE Tacoma Street to SE 6th Avenue would be
SE Tacoma Street and the Sellwood Bridge, rerouted to a right-turn loop. The extension
which would shut down traffic circulation of SE Grand Avenue would improve
within the roundabout. This would cause accessibility between the Sellwood Bridge and
intersection gridlock that might not occur in the areas north of SE Tacoma Street and
the single-point signalized or trumpet west of SE 13th Avenue, but could
interchange types. These impacts could be moderately increase cut-through traffic.
mitigated by installation of metering lights to North-south traffic could also use the
control traffic flow into the roundabout from SE Grand Avenue undercrossing of the bridge
OR 43 off-ramps and vehicle queue detectors to freely move north and south of SE Tacoma
on the Sellwood Bridge, tied to the traffic Street without engaging a signal or
signals at SE Tacoma Street/SE 13th Avenue SE Tacoma Street itself. This option was
and SE Tacoma Street/SE 17th Avenue. evaluated under Alternative C, but could be
Metering lights are not traditionally elements incorporated in any of the Build alternatives
included in roundabouts, and inclusion of except Alternative E.
metering lights would extend traffic queues
along OR 43’s off-ramps and potentially onto  Install a signal. The intersection of
OR 43. SE Tacoma Street and SE 6th Avenue would
include a signal. Installing a signal at the
 Trumpet. Would not create traffic gridlock SE Tacoma Street/SE 6th Avenue intersection
in the interchange during the peak period. would substantially increase neighborhood
This would be a free-flow design in a system cut-through traffic without providing
with inherent bottlenecks. improved access to existing land uses. The
signal would back up traffic along SE Tacoma
 Single-point Signalized. Would not create
Street and the bridge into the OR 43
traffic gridlock in the intersection during the interchange. This option was evaluated under
peak period. Alternatives D and E, but would not provide
acceptable operations under any of the Build
East-side Intersection
alternatives.
At the intersection of SE Tacoma Street and
SE 6th Avenue, four options have been evaluated:  Install a bicyclist/pedestrian-activated
signal. The intersection of SE Tacoma Street
 Maintain existing conditions. An
and SE 6th Avenue would have a bicyclist/
eastbound left-turn would be permitted at
pedestrian-activated signal that would allow
SE 6th Avenue. Maintaining existing
bicyclists and pedestrians to safely cross
conditions would either not affect or
SE Tacoma Street. An eastbound left-turn
minimally increase cut-through traffic. It
would be permitted at SE 6th Avenue. This
would continue to make north-south
option would either not affect, or minimally
operations on SE 6th Avenue very difficult
increase, cut-through traffic. It would
during peak hours. Essentially, only right
continue to make north-south operations on
turns could be made with ease. This option
SE 6th Avenue very difficult during peak
was evaluated under Alternatives A and B,
hours. Essentially, only right turns could be
but could accompany any of the Build
made with ease. This option was evaluated
alternatives.
under Alternative D Refined, but could
 Create a SE Grand Avenue Loop. accompany any of the Build alternatives.
Eastbound left-turn movements from
Transportation
Table 3.1-12 summarizes potential differentiating Table 3.1-13 summarizes potential differentiating
roadway impacts by Build alternative. construction-related traffic impacts of each Build
alternative.
TABLE 3.1-12
Summary of Alternatives by Potential Differentiating Roadway Impacts
Alternative Roadway Impacts
A Capacity constraints on SE Tacoma Street would result in eastbound traffic queuing across
the Sellwood Bridge into the roundabout during the afternoon/evening peak period. This
would impede traffic flow and cause additional traffic delays and queues. Metering lights to
control traffic flow into the roundabout from OR 43’s off-ramps and vehicle queue
detectors on the Sellwood Bridge (tied to the traffic signals at SE Tacoma Street/SE 13th
Avenue and SE Tacoma Street/SE 17th Avenue) would be expected to mitigate these
impacts. It should be noted that metering lights are not traditionally elements included in
roundabouts, and inclusion of metering lights would extend traffic queues along OR 43’s
off-ramps and potentially onto OR 43.
The spacing on the western access roadway between the roundabout and the driveways
serving River View Cemetery, Powers Marine Park, and the Staff Jennings property would
violate ODOT’s access management spacing standard.
Compared to No Build Alternative conditions, motorists using the SE Tacoma Street/
SE 13th Avenue intersection would experience a 6- to 8-second increase in delay during
2035 peak periods (LOS F conditions under both No Build Alternative and Build
alternatives conditions).
B and B with Capacity constraints on SE Tacoma Street would result in eastbound traffic queuing across
Temporary Detour the Sellwood Bridge into the roundabout during the afternoon/evening peak period. This
Bridge would impede traffic flow and cause additional traffic delays and queues. Metering lights to
control traffic flow into the roundabout from OR 43 off-ramps and vehicle queue detectors
on the Sellwood Bridge (tied to the traffic signals at SE Tacoma Street/SE 13th Avenue and
SE Tacoma Street/SE 17th Avenue) would be expected to mitigate these impacts. It should
be noted that metering lights are not traditionally elements included in roundabouts, and
inclusion of metering lights would extend traffic queues along OR 43’s off-ramps and
The spacing on the western access roadway between the roundabout and the driveways
serving River View Cemetery, Powers Marine Park, and the Staff Jennings property would
violate ODOT’s access management spacing standard.
C Direct access between River View Cemetery and OR 43 would be removed.
The SE Grand Avenue extension would provide improved accessibility between Sellwood
Bridge and areas north of SE Tacoma Street and west of SE 13th Avenue. Moderate levels
of increased traffic volumes could result.
D The spacing on the western access roadway between the signalized ramp terminal and the
driveways serving River View Cemetery, Powers Marine Park, and the Staff Jennings
property would violate ODOT’s access management spacing standard.
Signalization of the SE Tacoma Street/SE 6th Avenue (or SE Tacoma Street/SE 7th Avenue)
intersection would result in LOS F conditions, with traffic demands exceeding the
intersection’s capacity by about 40 percent. This would cause unacceptable vehicle delays
and queues, as well as substantial increases in neighborhood cut-through traffic levels.

Transportation
TABLE 3.1-12
Summary of Alternatives by Potential Differentiating Roadway Impacts
Alternative Roadway Impacts
E The spacing on the western access roadway between the signalized ramp terminal and the
driveways serving River View Cemetery, Powers Marine Park, and the Staff Jennings
property would violate ODOT’s access management spacing standard.
Signalization of the SE Tacoma Street/SE 6th Avenue (or SE Tacoma Street/SE 7th Avenue)
intersection would result in LOS F conditions, with traffic demands exceeding the
intersection’s capacity by about 40 percent. This would cause unacceptable vehicle delays
and queues, as well as substantial increases in neighborhood cut-through traffic levels.
D Refined The spacing on the western access roadway between the signalized ramp terminal and the
(Preferred driveways serving River View Cemetery, Powers Marine Park, and the Staff Jennings
Alternative) property would violate ODOT’s access management spacing standard. An IAMP has been
developed that addresses access to River View Cemetery, Powers Marine Park, and the
Staff Jennings property. ODOT has agreed to grant a deviation from its access spacing
standard to permit access to these three properties.
TABLE 3.1-13
Summary of Alternatives by Potential Differentiating Construction-related Traffic Impacts
Alternative Construction-related Traffic Impacts on Sellwood Bridge
A Traffic would be detoured for 24 months during construction. No temporary detour bridge
would be provided.
B and B with Traffic would be detoured for 24 months during construction, unless the temporary detour
Temporary bridge option was included.
Detour Bridge
C Traffic would be detoured for 42 months during construction. No temporary detour bridge
would be provided.
D Staged construction would allow traffic to continue to cross the river during construction. Half
of the new bridge would be built alongside the old bridge, and traffic would be maintained on
the old bridge. Then traffic would be switched to the new half bridge, and the old bridge
would be removed. The second half of the new bridge would be constructed in the location of
the old bridge. Following completion of construction, the two halves of the new bridge would
be connected.
E Traffic would be maintained on the existing bridge during construction of the new bridge.
D Refined Staged construction would allow traffic to continue to cross the river during construction. Half
of the new bridge would be built alongside the old bridge, and traffic would be maintained on
the old bridge. Then traffic would be switched to the new half bridge, and the old bridge
would be removed. The second half of the new bridge would be constructed in the location of
the old bridge. Following completion of construction, the two halves of the new bridge would
be connected.
Note: For each Build alternative, traffic on OR 43 would be maintained north and south.

Bicyclists a nd Pedestri a ns
3.2 Bicyclists and Bicyclists and Pedestrians Summary
Pedestrians While the bicyclist and pedestrian facility

features would differ among the Build
alternatives, all Build alternatives would
3.2.1 Affected Environment substantially improve bicyclist and
Sellwood Bridge Bicyclist and pedestrian conditions compared to the No
Build Alternative. All Build alternatives
Pedestrian Facilities would include wider facilities, new bridge
The Sellwood Bridge provides a critical link connections, and fewer motorist conflict
between the west and east sides of the points with bicyclists and pedestrians.
Willamette River in Portland, but the bicyclist and Compared to the No Build Alternative,
the Build alternatives are projected to
pedestrian facilities on the bridge and its
accommodate a substantial increase in
connections with the Springwater Corridor Trail pedestrians and bicyclists. Alternatives A,
and Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank and B (without temporary detour bridge), and
East Bank) are deficient. The current bicyclist and C would provide no bicyclist or pedestrian
pedestrian facility on the Sellwood Bridge is one access across the river during
construction.
sidewalk on the north side of the bridge that is
4 feet 3 inches wide. There is no sidewalk on the Sellwood Bridge with the Oregon 43 (OR 43)
south side of the bridge. Where light poles are sidewalk, which starts at the bridge’s west end
located on the bridge, the sidewalk is only 3 feet before passing beneath the southbound loop
wide and cannot accommodate some disabled ramp and northbound bypass ramp. The path’s
users. Bicyclists must either use the travel lanes width of 5 to 8 feet does not meet the Oregon
or walk their bikes on the narrow sidewalk. Department of Transportation (ODOT) shared-
use-path-width standard of 12 feet, and the path’s
West-side Bicyclist and Pedestrian grade does not meet Americans with Disabilities
Facilities Act (ADA) requirements (5 percent grade for
While OR 43 lacks sidewalks within the continuous grade). Within the study area, OR 43
interchange area, a 6-foot-wide sidewalk exists on lacks dedicated bicyclist facilities (such as wide
the highway’s east side immediately north of the shoulders or striped bicycle lanes). Bicyclists
interchange. A shared-use path connects the currently share travel lanes with motorists, and
bicyclists and pedestrians share the
Sidewalk on the north side of the Sellwood Bridge. sidewalk immediately north of the
interchange (mentioned previously). The
sidewalk serves as part of the Willamette
Greenway Trail (West Bank), described
subsequently.
OR 43, the northbound bypass ramp, the

southbound loop ramp, and the River
View Cemetery access road intersect at a
signalized intersection just south of the
Sellwood Bridge. Pedestrian signals and a
crosswalk are located on the
intersection’s west side to facilitate north-
south pedestrian crossings. The
intersection lacks crosswalks and
The interchange’s northbound

bypass ramp lacks sidewalks and
bicycle lanes, and has a 2-foot-wide
right-side shoulder. The
interchange’s southbound loop
ramp lacks sidewalks, bicycle lanes,
and a right-side shoulder.
Between downtown Portland and

the Sellwood Bridge, the
Willamette Greenway Trail (West
Bank) follows the Willamette River
shoreline. North of the Sellwood
Bridge, the trail is a narrow
sidewalk on the east side of OR 43
The shared-use path begins at the bridge’s west end and passes immediately north of the Sellwood
beneath the southbound loop ramp and northbound bypass Bridge (described earlier). A
ramp. narrow unpaved segment exists
within Powers Marine Park, south
pedestrian-activated signals for east-west of the Sellwood Bridge. The trail’s vertical
crossings, forcing bicyclists and pedestrians to clearance beneath interchange ramps does not
make judgments about when it is safe to cross meet ODOT standards. Outside the study area,
OR 43. There is a TriMet bus stop at the River the trail has shared-use segments that pass
View Cemetery access road intersection on through Willamette Park and on-street segments
OR 43. Pedestrians and bicyclists use a grass path that pass through Portland’s South Waterfront
west and south of the bridge as an informal path District.
to access this signalized intersection.
East-side Bicyclist and Pedestrian
Facilities
Sidewalks are continuous on SE Tacoma Street
and crosswalks are provided at SE 13th Avenue
and SE 17th Avenue. Immediately east of the
bridge, the intersection of SE Tacoma Street and
SE 6th Avenue lacks marked crosswalks and curb
ramps. SE Tacoma Street does not have
designated bicyclist facilities. Instead, the City of
Portland identifies SE Spokane Street and
SE Umatilla Street as “bicycle boulevards,” which
are low-traffic through streets that bicyclists can
use to avoid SE Tacoma Street. Bicyclists connect
with SE Tacoma Street and the Sellwood Bridge
using a low-volume cross street, such as SE 6th
Avenue. Heavy traffic volumes can pose problems
for bicyclists and pedestrians crossing SE Tacoma
Bicyclists on the shared-use path at the Street.
bridge’s west end.
Shared-use paths on the east side include the team extrapolated the Sellwood Bridge counts to
Springwater Corridor Trail and Willamette estimate daily usage and to adjust for seasonal
Greenway Trail (East Bank). In addition to these variations. Table 3.2-1 presents existing daily
trails, there are internal paths in nearby parks, bicyclist and pedestrian use across the
including the Sellwood Riverfront Park and Sellwood Bridge.
Sellwood Park (northeast of Sellwood Riverfront
Park). Within the study area, the Springwater TABLE 3.2-1
Corridor Trail is 12 feet wide with soft shoulders Sellwood Bridge Existing Daily Bicyclist and
on each side. Users access the trail from Pedestrian Use
SE Spokane and SE Umatilla streets. The trail Bicyclists Pedestrians Total
passes beneath the Sellwood Bridge west of Weekday 440 90 530
SE 6th Avenue. South of the bridge, the trail ends
at SE Umatilla Street, where a gap exists between Weekend
Day 600 210 810
SE Umatilla Street and SE 19th Avenue.
Pedestrians from the Sellwood Bridge can access
the Springwater Corridor Trail via a stairway. The west-side interchange also serves
Some segments of the stairway have handrails on nonmotorized users passing through the
one side only, and the stairway lacks level interchange but not using the bridge (e.g.,
landings. bicyclists traveling between River View Cemetery
The Willamette Greenway Trail (East Bank) and the Willamette Greenway Trail [West
follows the Willamette River shoreline between Bank]). Approximately 80 additional bicyclists and
Sellwood Riverfront Park and SE Linn Street. An pedestrians use the interchange (but not the
uncompleted segment exists between SE Umatilla bridge) on weekdays and weekend days.
Street and SE Sherrett Street.
Future No Build Alternative Demand
To develop an appropriate growth rate for the
The Springwater Corridor Trail
Sellwood Bridge under No Build Alternative
Springwater Corridor Trail
connects downtown Portland with

southeast Portland, Milwaukie, conditions, the project team considered
Gresham, Sandy, and Boring. The similarities and dissimilarities between the
21-mile corridor connects several parks Sellwood Bridge and other downtown Portland
and open spaces, including Tideman bridges. Ultimately, the team assumed a linear
Johnson Nature Park, Beggars-Tick
5 percent growth rate to reflect the continued
Wildlife Refuge, the I-205 Path, Leach
Botanical Garden, Powell Butte Nature presence of substandard bicyclist and pedestrian
Park, and Gresham’s Main City Park. facilities, as well as completion of several planned
The segment of the Springwater bicyclist and pedestrian projects near the
Corridor Trail at the Sellwood Bridge study area.
opened in 2003.
The No Build Alternative year 2035 estimated
3.2.2 Bicyclist and Pedestrian daily bicyclist and pedestrian use is shown in
Demand Table 3.2-2.
Current Bicyclist and Pedestrian Usage
Using bicyclist and pedestrian count data from
the Sellwood Bridge in 2008 (weekday and
weekend counts) and count data from other
Willamette River bridges in Portland, the project
immediate 205 percent bicyclist/pedestrian trip

TABLE 3.2-2
Sellwood Bridge No Build Alternative Year 2035 increase. Beyond this latent demand, each
Daily Bicyclist and Pedestrian Use Projections scenario was assigned an annual growth rate
based on the annual growth rates experienced on
Bicyclists Pedestrians Total
the Broadway, Burnside, Hawthorne, and Steel
Weekday 1,640 330 1,970 bridges over the past 16 years (as documented by
Weekend the Portland Bureau of Transportation). Each
Day 2,270 760 3,030 scenario assumed higher nonmotorized growth
rates during years immediately following Build
alternative completion (because of bridge novelty,
Under the No Build Alternative, the west-side promotional efforts, and increased recreational
interchange area would serve additional bicyclist activity), followed by a leveling-off of growth
and pedestrian traffic that does not cross the through 2035. The scenarios differed in terms
bridge, but that travels between the River View of when the “leveling off” period would take
Cemetery and points north. An additional place.
299 nonmotorized trips are estimated on both
weekdays and weekend days. Bicyclist/Pedestrian Demand as a
Proportion of Vehicle Demand
Future Build Alternatives Demand In addition to the three growth scenario
The project team developed projections using projections completed under the comparative
several of the Federal Highway Administration analysis approach, the project team prepared a
(FHWA)-recommended approaches for projection based on estimated bicyclist/pedestrian
estimating bicyclist and pedestrian demand demand as a proportion of anticipated motor
(FHWA, 1999) to arrive at 2035 projections for vehicle demand. This approach incorporated
bicyclist and pedestrian use under the Build mode share data from the American Community
alternatives. Survey (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006), the City of
Portland Auditor’s Report (City of Portland,
Latent demand means that some 2007a), and Metro Regional Trails strategy, as
Bicyclist and Pedestrian
bicyclists and pedestrians would use well as historical bicyclist/pedestrian mode-share

the Sellwood Bridge but do not use it growth trends citywide and in the Sellwood
Latent Demand
because the walking and bicycling

Bridge’s immediate vicinity. This projection
environment is unsafe and
uncomfortable. In other words, some assumed a 0.5 percent growth rate for both
people who would normally walk or bicyclist and pedestrian mode shares every
bicycle across the Sellwood Bridge 5 years. This translates into bicyclist and
are either using other travel modes or pedestrian commute mode shares in 2035 of
crossing the Willamette River on
about 9 percent and 6 percent, respectively. This
other bridges.
is a low growth rate compared with Portland’s
bicyclist commute mode-share increase in this
Comparative Analysis Approach part of Portland—from less than 2 percent in
To project 2035 bicyclist and pedestrian
2000 to over 4 percent in 2006 (U.S. Census
use under the comparative analysis approach, the
Bureau, 2006) or 6 percent (City of Portland,
project team developed three scenarios. Each
2007a).
scenario included an estimated latent demand
calculated by applying the growth rate To estimate recreational demand under this
experienced on the Steel Bridge (the bridge most scenario, the project team used a 2007 bicycle
resembling the Sellwood Bridge) immediately count on the Springwater Corridor Trail near the
following the Riverwalk opening in 2001—an Sellwood Bridge. Because pedestrian volume data
were not available, the project team assumed challenges would include substandard, narrow
pedestrian volumes equaled roughly 50 percent bicyclist and pedestrian facilities; difficult
of bicyclist volumes. Given the popularity of transitions between the bridge and the
recreational “loops” involving the Springwater surrounding bicyclist and pedestrian network; and
Corridor Trail, Sellwood Bridge, and the potential safety conflicts among vehicles,
Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank), the bicyclists, and pedestrians.
project team estimated that roughly 50 percent
The following bicyclist and pedestrian impacts
of Springwater Corridor Trail users include the
would continue under the No Build Alternative:
Sellwood Bridge on their trips. It was further
estimated that recreational trips would increase  Limited facilities on the bridge structure
roughly 10 percent every 5 years, reflecting (narrow sidewalk on the north side of the
numerous planned recreational trail projects in bridge), which create dangerous and unsafe
the study area’s vicinity. passing maneuvers for bicyclists and
pedestrians sharing this narrow bridge
Total 2035 Bicyclist and Pedestrian sidewalk
Demand
The project team used the average of the  Difficult connections between the bridge
four projections to arrive at the projected 2035 sidewalk and the surrounding bicyclist and
demand under the Build alternatives pedestrian facilities (unclear routing and
(Table 3.2-3). substandard facilities)
TABLE 3.2-3  Difficult and unsafe connections through the
Sellwood Bridge Build Alternatives Year 2035 west-side interchange area, including limited
Daily Bicyclist and Pedestrian Use Projections bicyclist and pedestrian facilities, limited sight
Bicyclists Pedestrians Total distances, circuitous routing, and vehicle
conflicts with bicyclists and pedestrians
Weekday 7,760 1,590 9,350
Weekend  Difficult and unsafe connections to the
Day 10,620 3,730 14,350 TriMet bus stop at the OR 43/River View
Cemetery access road intersection due to
limited bicyclist and pedestrian facilities and
Under the Build alternatives, the west-side neither crosswalks nor a bicyclist/pedestrian-
interchange area would also serve additional activated signal at the intersection
bicyclist and pedestrian traffic that does not cross  Difficult crossings of SE Tacoma Street during
the bridge. An additional 1,420 nonmotorized heavy traffic and minimal bicyclist and
trips are estimated on an average weekday, and pedestrian crossing treatments on SE Tacoma
an additional 1,330 nonmotorized trips are Street
estimated on an average weekend day.
In addition, bridge closure for 6 to 8 months
3.2.3 No Build Alternative during maintenance activities would eliminate the
bicyclist and pedestrian river crossing for that
Environmental
time period.
Consequences
Existing deficiencies in the bicyclist and pedestrian
facilities would continue under the No Build
Alternative. The bridge would continue to
challenge bicyclist and pedestrian circulation,
affecting the overall system. These continued
3.2.4 Build Alternatives on the Willamette Greenway and

Springwater Corridor trails and in area parks
Environmental Consequences
 Increased bicycle and pedestrian use across
Impacts and Mitigation Common
the bridge is expected to increase both “walk
to All Build Alternatives
by” traffic in the Sellwood commercial district
Direct Impacts. The Build alternatives would and commercial activity
substantially improve bicyclist and pedestrian
conditions over the No Build Alternative because Alternative-specific Impacts and
the Build alternatives would include wider Mitigation
facilities, new connections, and fewer conflict Alternative A
points with vehicles. Alternative A would provide a separate
bicycle/pedestrian bridge north of the existing
Construction equipment staging and construction
bridge (Figure 3.2-1). The bicycle/pedestrian
activities in the west-side interchange area could
bridge would have 20 feet of usable space and
necessitate temporary access closures between
accommodate bi-directional bicyclist and
River View Cemetery and the Willamette
pedestrian traffic. The width would be wide
Greenway Trail (West Bank). Bicyclists and
enough to provide separation between bicyclists
pedestrians would be redirected to detour
and pedestrians through striping and pavement
routes, such as SW Taylors Ferry Road. These
markings or informal user patterns. Separation of
routes might be circuitous, and on roadways with
bicyclists and pedestrians from vehicles crossing
high traffic volumes, high vehicle speeds, and
the river would reduce potential conflicts and
limited or no bicyclist and pedestrian facilities.
enhance user comfort. However, a separate
Construction equipment staging and construction bicycle/pedestrian bridge would remove “eyes on
activities could necessitate temporary the street,” which could potentially leave
Springwater Corridor Trail closures near the bicyclists and pedestrians vulnerable to crime or
existing Sellwood Bridge. Bicyclists and unable to receive immediate help during an
pedestrians would be redirected to detour emergency.
routes, which would depend on the location of FIGURE 3.2-1
the trail closure, the topography, and the street Alternative A Bridge Cross-sections
system connectivity. Signage on detour routes
would be added to alert drivers to the presence
of bicyclists and pedestrians.
During final design, Multnomah County would

coordinate bicyclist and pedestrian facilities with
the Portland Bureau of Transportation and the
Portland to Lake Oswego Transit and Trail
project (see “Railroad, Trolley Services, and
Future Streetcar” in Section 3.1.1 for a
description of this project).
Indirect Impacts. Indirect impacts for all Build

A spiral ramp would provide access to the
alternatives include the following:
Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank) from the
 Improved bicycle and pedestrian facilities are west end of the bicycle/pedestrian bridge
expected to attract additional recreation use (Figure 3.2-2). On the east side, access to east-side
trails and parks would be via SE Grand Avenue and
Bicyclists and Pedestrians
SE Spokane Street. Directional signs and pavement Superintendent’s House at River View Cemetery,
markings would aid user access. and to access the roadway leading to Powers
Marine Park and the the Staff Jennings property.
A bicycle/pedestrian overpass from the separate
Traffic volumes would be lower in that location
bridge across OR 43 would allow for direct access
than in the other three approaches of the
to the River View Cemetery access road. The
roundabout.
separate bicycle/pedestrian bridge north of the
west-side interchange would eliminate most Table 3.2-4 summarizes bicyclist and pedestrian
conflicts between vehicles and bicyclists and impacts and potential mitigation.
pedestrians at the west-side interchange. The
roundabout’s west approach is the only potential Alternative B
Alternative B would provide a 10-foot-wide
conflict point (Figure 3.2-2). Nonmotorized users
shared sidewalk on both sides of the bridge to
would cross this approach leg to reach the
FIGURE 3.2-2
Alternative A West-side and East-side Bicyclist and Pedestrian Facilities

TABLE 3.2-4
Alternative A Bicyclist and Pedestrian Impacts and Potential Mitigation
Bicyclist and Pedestrian Impacts Potential Mitigation
Separate bicyclist and pedestrian facility would reduce Positive impact; no mitigation needed
conflicts with vehicles on bridge
Separate bicyclist and pedestrian facility would eliminate Positive impact; no mitigation needed
direct conflicts with vehicles in west-side interchange
Would have bi-directional bicyclist and pedestrian Stripe bicycle/pedestrian bridge and provide pavement
traffic (no separated facilities) markings
Complete separation from other bridge users would Install lighting, emergency call boxes, and security
cause safety and security concerns cameras and conduct routine police patrols
Would have a challenging crossing environment for Install a bicyclist/pedestrian-activated signal (including
visually impaired pedestrians on the roundabout’s west audible signal) or flashing warning lights, marked
leg crosswalk, warning signage, ADA-compliant curb ramps,
and/or detectable warning strips
Would have difficult crossings of SE Tacoma Street Install marked crosswalks, warning signage, pedestrian
during heavy traffic and minimal crossing treatments refuge islands, and/or pedestrian signals at the SE
Tacoma Street/SE 6th Avenue intersection
Would have potentially unclear routing between bridge Install signage and pavement markings
and eastside bicyclist and pedestrian facilities
Bridge closure during construction would eliminate Construct bicycle/pedestrian bridge before closing the
bicyclist and pedestrian river crossing existing bridge
Would have grade changes between Sellwood Bridge/Se Provide way-finding signage and pavement markings;
Tacoma Street corridor and the separate install traffic calming devices on streets connecting with
bicycle/pedestrian bridge bicycle/pedestrian bridge with surface streets to
increase safety
accommodate bicyclist and pedestrian traffic minimize conflicts. Bicyclists would connect with
(Figure 3.2-3). This cross-section would balance the SE Spokane Street and SE Umatilla Street
the space dedicated to motor vehicles and Bicycle Boulevards via SE 6th Avenue
nonmotorized users, enhancing bicyclist and (Figure 3.2-4). This route would also be used to
pedestrian comfort. Alternative B would retain access the Springwater Corridor Trail. However,
the “eyes on the street” by having all modes on bicyclists might encounter difficult crossings of
one bridge deck and structure, which would SE Tacoma Street during heavy traffic and
make bicyclists and pedestrians less vulnerable to because there are minimal crossing treatments
crime and more visible to passing vehicles in the (such as crosswalks or signals). Using a more
event of an emergency. circuitous route on other nearby streets,
nonmotorized users could avoid the at-grade
The 10-foot-wide sidewalks/shared-use paths
crossing of SE Tacoma Street.
could potentially accommodate bi-directional
bicyclist and pedestrian traffic, though 10-foot-
wide shared-use facilities on other Portland
bridges (such as the Hawthorne Bridge) are
marked and signed for one-way bicycle traffic to

crossings would enhance bicyclist and pedestrian

safety and comfort at these conflict points. The
unsignalized crossings could adversely impact
visually impaired pedestrians. A roundabout does
not provide audible cues for traffic breaks, and
sidewalks do not lead directly to perpendicular
crosswalks (which could make movements
potentially unsafe and difficult for visually
impaired pedestrians). If nonmotorized crossings
of the roundabout’s northern legs were
prohibited, bicyclists and pedestrians could
FIGURE 3.2-3 encounter circuitous routing while attempting to
Alternative B Bridge Cross-section pass through the interchange area (e.g., traveling
between the Sellwood Bridge and the
On the west side, bicyclists and pedestrians southbound bus stop).
passing through the roundabout would encounter
The west-side interchange spiral ramps on the
at least one conflict point with vehicles
(Figure 3.2-4). Traveling around the roundabout Sellwood Bridge’s north and south sides would
would create a more circuitous path for bicyclists offer convenient connections for bicyclists and
and pedestrians than with other interchange pedestrians to the Willamette Greenway Trail
types. The roundabout would provide marked (West Bank). The spiral ramps would facilitate
bicyclist and pedestrian crossings on the north, slow but continuous movement for bicyclists by
south, and west legs, and would include minimizing out-of-direction travel.
pedestrian-activated signals at the OR 43 Table 3.2-5 summarizes bicyclist and pedestrian
northbound entrance and exit ramps, and at the impacts and potential mitigation.
OR 43 southbound exit ramp. The signalized
FIGURE 3.2-4
Alternative B West-side and East-side Bicyclist and Pedestrian Facilities
TABLE 3.2-5
Alternative B Bicyclist and Pedestrian Impacts and Potential Mitigation
Shared-use path and bike lanes would separate Positive impact; no mitigation needed
differing user types and reduce conflicts
“Eyes on the street” would provide user safety and Positive impact; no mitigation needed
security
Would have bi-directional pedestrian traffic and one- Install signage and markings for one-way bicycle travel
way bicycle traffic to minimize user conflicts
Would have a challenging crossing environment for Install bicyclist/pedestrian-activated signal (including
visually impaired pedestrians at the unsignalized audible signal) or flashing warning lights, marked
roundabout crossings crosswalk, warning signage, ADA-compliant curb
ramps, and/or detectable warning strips
Would have circuitous routing between the bridge’s Provide bicyclist and pedestrian crossings on
north side and River View Cemetery/southbound bus roundabout’s north leg
stop
Bridge closure during construction would eliminate Construct temporary detour bridge
bicyclist and pedestrian river crossing (without
temporary detour bridge)
Alternative C activities, and dumping. In addition, pigeons find

Alternative C would provide a separate such facilities attractive for their nests, which
bicycle/pedestrian deck below the vehicular causes problems with pigeon droppings.
bridge deck (Figure 3.2-5). The bicycle/pedestrian
deck would have 20 feet of usable space,
accommodate bi-directional bicyclist and
pedestrian traffic, and be wide enough to provide
FIGURE 3.2-5
separation between bicyclists and pedestrians Alternative C Bridge Cross-section
through striping and pavement markings or
informal user patterns. Separation of bicyclists
and pedestrians from vehicles crossing the river
would reduce potential conflicts and enhance
user comfort. However, a separate bridge deck
for bicyclists and pedestrians would remove
“eyes on the street,” which could potentially
leave bicyclists and pedestrians vulnerable to
crime or unable to receive immediate help during
an emergency. Noise from vehicles on the upper
deck would make it difficult for motorists to hear
sounds from the lower deck, increasing the
isolation of bicyclists and pedestrians. The City of
Portland’s experience with similar covered
facilities indicates that these spaces, which
provide weather protection, invite camping, illegal
FIGURE 3.2-6
Alternative C West-side and East-side Bicyclist and Pedestrian Facilities
The separate bicycle/pedestrian deck would Bicyclists and pedestrians traveling between River
eliminate direct conflicts with vehicles in the View Cemetery and the Willamette Greenway
west-side interchange (Figure 3.2-6). Bicyclists Trail (West Bank) would encounter an at-grade
and pedestrians would use a series of grade- streetcar crossing. The availability and extent of
separated linear and switchback ramps below crossing treatments could impact bicyclist and
OR 43 and the west-side interchange to access pedestrian safety. At the east end, a spiral ramp
River View Cemetery. Switchback ramps might would provide a direct and convenient
create the perception of circuitous travel and connection between the bridge and the
greater time to overcome relatively short Springwater Corridor Trail for bicyclists and
distances. Switchback ramps could be difficult to pedestrians. Bicyclists and pedestrians would also
maneuver on a bicycle or in a wheelchair. A ramp use a spiral ramp on the north side of the bridge
would provide access from the bridge to the to connect with SE Spokane Street and
Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank). SE Umatilla Street. Bicyclists and pedestrians
TABLE 3.2-6
Alternative C Bicyclist and Pedestrian Impacts and Potential Mitigation
Separate bicyclist and pedestrian facility would reduce Positive impact; no mitigation needed
conflicts with vehicles on bridge
Separate bicyclist and pedestrian facility would eliminate Positive impact; no mitigation needed
direct conflicts with vehicles in west-side interchange
Would have bi-directional bicyclist and pedestrian Stripe lower bridge deck and provide pavement
traffic (no separated facilities) markings
Complete separation from other bridge users would Install lighting, emergency call boxes, and security
cause safety and security concerns cameras, and conduct routine police patrols
Would have difficult turning maneuvers and a Provide wide switchback ramps to accommodate wide
perception of circuitous routing on switchback ramps turning movements
Would have grade changes between the Sellwood Provide way-finding signage and pavement markings;
Bridge/ SE Tacoma Street corridor and the separate install traffic calming devices on streets connecting the
bicycle/pedestrian bridge deck bicycle/pedestrian bridge deck with surface streets to
increase safety
Bridge closure during construction would eliminate Construct temporary detour bridge
bicyclist and pedestrian river crossing
traveling between the east end of the bridge and The presence of bicycle lanes and
SE Tacoma Street would encounter a circuitous sidewalks/shared-use paths would provide
route, which would involve using the Springwater choices for bicyclists of varying skills and
Corridor Trail, SE Spokane or SE Tenino streets, confidence levels. Alternative D would retain the
and SE 6th Avenue. Users might also encounter “eyes on the street” by having all modes on one
circuitous routing if pedestrian crossings of bridge deck and structure, which would make
SE Tacoma Street at SE 6th Avenue were bicyclists and pedestrians less vulnerable to crime
prohibited in conjunction with proposed left-turn and more visible to passing vehicles in the event
movement restrictions for vehicles. Eastbound of an emergency.
bicyclists might find an easier connection across
Assuming pedestrians would remain on the
SE Tacoma Street to SE Spokane Street by using
bridge’s north or south side while passing
the SE Grand Avenue extension. Table 3.2-6
through the west-side interchange area, they
summarizes bicyclist and pedestrian impacts and
would encounter three to four vehicle conflict
potential mitigation.
points (Figure 3.2-8). Several ramp approaches
Alternative D would include multiple, high-volume vehicle travel
The 12-foot-wide shared sidewalk/path on both lanes. Although pedestrians would use marked
sides of the bridge would accommodate bi- crosswalks with pedestrian-activated signals to
directional bicyclist and pedestrian traffic, cross, heavy vehicle right-turn movements (for
enabling bicyclists and pedestrians to use the example, westbound-to-northbound) could
most convenient side of the bridge (Figure 3.2-7). create uncomfortable crossing conditions and
The sidewalks/shared-use paths would enhance potential conflicts. The signalized interchange
user safety and comfort by providing additional would provide direct routing through the west-
distance from motor vehicle traffic. Alternative D side interchange area between the bridge and
would also provide 6.5-foot-wide bicycle lanes. River View Cemetery.
The west-side interchange spiral ramps on the Table 3.2-7 summarizes bicyclist and pedestrian
Sellwood Bridge’s north and south sides would impacts and potential mitigation.
offer convenient connections for bicyclists and
pedestrians to the Willamette Greenway Trail
(West Bank). The spiral ramps would facilitate FIGURE 3.2-7
slow but continuous movement for bicyclists by Alternative D Bridge Cross-section
minimizing out-of-direction travel. On the east
side, bicyclists would connect with the
SE Spokane Street and SE Umatilla Street bicycle
boulevards via SE 6th Avenue. This route would
also be used to access the Springwater Corridor
Trail. The signalized intersection at SE Tacoma
Street and SE 6th Avenue would improve bicyclist
and pedestrian crossing of SE Tacoma Street.
FIGURE 3.2-8
Alternative D West-side and East-side Bicyclist and Pedestrian Facilities
TABLE 3.2-7
Alternative D Bicyclist and Pedestrian Impacts and Potential Mitigation
Wide paths on both sides of the bridge would Positive impact; no mitigation needed
accommodate bi-directional bicyclist and pedestrian
traffic with no conflicts
Path width would provide separation from vehicles; Positive impact; no mitigation needed
would enhance user safety and comfort
Bicycle lane width would provide sufficient room to Positive impact; no mitigation needed
maneuver around obstructions
security
Would have no long-term bridge closure during Positive impact; no mitigation needed
construction
Signalized intersection would improve bicyclist and Positive impact; no mitigation needed
pedestrian crossing of SE Tacoma Street
Bicyclists and pedestrians would have conflicts with Install high-visibility crosswalks, audible pedestrian
motorists making turning movements in west-side signals, pedestrian countdown signals, and/or leading
interchange area pedestrian interval at west-side interchange signal
Alternative E
The 16-foot-wide sidewalk/shared-use path on
the bridge’s north side would accommodate bi-
directional nonmotorized traffic (Figure 3.2-9).
The 8-foot-wide south sidewalk/shared-use path
could serve one-way eastbound bicycle traffic and
two-way pedestrian traffic. This one-way
bicycle/two-way pedestrian configuration reflects
similar configurations on other Portland-area FIGURE 3.2-9
bridges (such as the Hawthorne Bridge) to Alternative E Bridge Cross-section
minimize user conflicts. However, the 8-foot-
wide facility would be narrow for a shared visible to passing vehicles in the event of an
bicyclist and pedestrian facility and could create a emergency.
visual perception of narrowness and minimal
distance between the sidewalk/shared-use path Assuming pedestrians would remain on the
and vehicles. A curb between the vehicular lanes bridge’s north or south side while passing
and the sidewalks/shared-use paths would through the west-side interchange area,
provide separation from motorized traffic. pedestrians would encounter three to four
Alternative D would retain the “eyes on the vehicle conflict points (Figure 3.2-10). Several
street” by having all modes on one bridge deck ramp approaches would include multiple, high-
and structure, which would make bicyclists and volume vehicle travel lanes. Although pedestrians
pedestrians less vulnerable to crime and more would use marked crosswalks with pedestrian-
activated signals to cross, heavy vehicle right-turn
movements (for example, westbound-to-
northbound) could create uncomfortable crossing direction travel. Alternative E would not provide
conditions and potential conflicts. The signalized a direct connection to the Willamette Greenway
interchange would provide direct routing through (West Bank) from the bridge’s southern
the west-side interchange area between the sidewalk/shared-use path. Therefore, bicyclists
bridge and River View Cemetery. and pedestrians on the south sidewalk would
need to maneuver through the interchange to
On the east side, the signalized intersection at
access the spiral ramp on the north side of the
SE Tacoma Street and SE 6th Avenue would
bridge. This would be a circuitous path and would
improve bicyclist and pedestrian crossings of
increase the number of bicyclist and pedestrian
SE Tacoma Street.
conflict points with vehicles.
The west-side interchange spiral ramp on the
Table 3.2-8 summarizes bicyclist and pedestrian
Sellwood Bridge’s north side would offer
impacts and potential mitigation.
nonmotorized users connections to the
spiral ramp would facilitate slow but continuous
movement for bicyclists by minimizing out-of-
FIGURE 3.2-10
Alternative E West-side and East-side Bicyclist and Pedestrian Facilities
TABLE 3.2-8
Alternative E Bicyclist and Pedestrian Impacts and Potential Mitigation
North path width would accommodate bi-directional Positive impact; no mitigation needed
bicyclist and pedestrian traffic with no conflicts
North path width would provide separation from Positive impact; no mitigation needed
vehicles; would enhance user safety and comfort
security
Would have no bridge closure during construction Positive impact; no mitigation needed
Signalized intersection would improve bicyclist and Positive impact; no mitigation needed
pedestrian crossing of SE Tacoma Street
South path would accommodate one-way bicycle Install signage and markings for one-way bicycle travel
traffic and two-way pedestrian traffic to minimize user conflicts
Lack of south spiral ramp in west-side interchange Install signage at bridge’s east and west ends to direct
would create circuitous routing for some users bicyclists and pedestrians to use the bridge’s north side
to access the Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank)
Alternative D Refined Pedestrians passing through the west-side

(Preferred Alternative) interchange area would encounter three to four
Alternative D Refined would have the same vehicle conflict points (Figure 3.2-11). Several
bicyclist and pedestrian facilities as Alternative D ramp approaches would include multiple, high-
on the bridge (see Figure 3.2-7). The 12-foot- volume vehicle travel lanes.
wide sidewalks/shared-use paths on both sides of
the bridge would accommodate bi-directional Although pedestrians would use marked
bicyclist and pedestrian traffic, enabling bicyclists crosswalks with pedestrian-activated signals to
and pedestrians to use the most convenient side cross, heavy vehicle right-turn movements (for
of the bridge. The sidewalks/ shared-use paths example, westbound-to-northbound) could
would enhance user safety and comfort by create uncomfortable crossing conditions and
providing additional distance from motor vehicle potential conflicts. The signalized interchange
traffic. Alternative D Refined would also provide would provide direct routing through the west-
6.5-foot-wide on-street bicycle lanes. side interchange area between the bridge and
River View Cemetery.
The presence of bicycle lanes and
sidewalks/shared-use paths would provide Alternative D Refined would have switchback
choices for bicyclists of varying skills and ramps along the side of OR 43 that would
confidence levels. Alternative D Refined would connect to the existing north-south trail network
retain the “eyes on the street” by having all rather than the spiral ramps that were included in
modes on one bridge deck and structure, which Alternative D (Figure 3.2-11). These switchback
would make bicyclists and pedestrians less ramps would offer convenient connections for
vulnerable to crime and more visible to passing bicyclists and pedestrians to the Willamette
vehicles in the event of an emergency. Greenway Trail (West Bank). They would
facilitate slow but continuous movement for
bicyclists and pedestrians by minimizing out-of- be used to access the Springwater Corridor Trail.
direction travel. The switchback ramps would The bicyclist/pedestrian-activated crossing signal
comply with the ADA and would be similar to at the intersection of SE Tacoma Street and
the switchback ramps on the Eastbank Esplanade SE 6th Avenue would improve bicyclist and
at the Rose Quarter. pedestrian crossing of SE Tacoma Street.
On the east side, bicyclists would connect with Table 3.2-9 summarizes bicyclist and pedestrian
SE Spokane Street and SE Umatilla Street bicycle impacts and potential mitigation.
boulevards via SE 6th Avenue, which would also
TABLE 3.2-9
Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) Bicyclist and Pedestrian Impacts and Potential Mitigation
Wide paths on both sides of the bridge would Positive impact; no mitigation needed
accommodate bi-directional bicyclist and pedestrian
Path width would provide separation from vehicles; Positive impact; no mitigation needed
would enhance user safety and comfort
Bicycle lane width would provide sufficient room to Positive impact; no mitigation needed
maneuver around obstructions
security
Would have no long-term bridge closure during Positive impact; no mitigation needed
construction
Bicyclist/pedestrian-activated signalized intersection at Positive impact; no mitigation needed
SE 6th Avenue would improve bicyclist and pedestrian
crossing of SE Tacoma Street
FIGURE 3.2-11
Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) West-side and East-side Bicyclist and Pedestrian
Facilities
3.2.5 Summary of Alternatives by

Differentiating Bicyclist and
Pedestrian Impact
TABLE 3.2-10
Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Bicyclist and Pedestrian Impact
Alternative Impacts
No Build  Would have limited facilities on bridge structure (narrow sidewalk on the north
side)
 Would involve dangerous passing maneuvers for bicyclists and pedestrians
sharing the narrow bridge sidewalk
 Would have difficult connections between bridge sidewalk and surrounding
bicyclist and pedestrian facilities (unclear routing and substandard facilities)
 Would have difficult and unsafe connections through west-side interchange area
(limited bicyclist and pedestrian facilities, limited sight distances, circuitous
routing, and bicyclist and pedestrian conflicts with vehicles)
 Would have difficult and unsafe connections to TriMet bus stop at OR 43/River
View Cemetery access road intersection (limited bicyclist and pedestrian facilities
and neither crosswalks nor a bicyclist/pedestrian-activated signal at intersection)
 Would have difficult crossings of SE Tacoma Street during heavy traffic and
minimal bicyclist and pedestrian crossing treatments
 Bridge closure for maintenance activities would eliminate bicyclist and pedestrian
river crossing for that time period
A  Separate bicyclist and pedestrian facility would reduce conflicts with vehicles on
bridge
 Separate bicyclist and pedestrian facility would eliminate direct conflicts with
vehicles in west-side interchange
 Would have bi-directional bicyclist and pedestrian traffic (no separated facilities)
 Complete separation from other bridge users would cause safety and security
concerns
 Would have a challenging crossing environment for visually impaired pedestrians
on the roundabout’s west leg
 Would have difficult crossings of SE Tacoma Street during heavy traffic and
minimal crossing treatments
 Would have potentially unclear routing between bridge and eastside bicyclist and
pedestrian facilities
 Would have grade changes between the Sellwood Bridge/SE Tacoma Street
corridor and the separate bicycle/pedestrian bridge
 Bridge closure during construction would eliminate bicyclist and pedestrian river
crossing
TABLE 3.2-10
Alternative Impacts
B  Shared-use path and bike lanes would separate differing user types and reduce
conflicts
 “Eyes on the street” would provide user safety and security
 Would have bi-directional pedestrian traffic and one-way bicycle traffic
 Would have a challenging crossing environment for visually impaired pedestrians
at the unsignalized roundabout crossings
 Would have circuitous routing between the bridge’s north side and River View
Cemetery/southbound bus stop
crossing (without temporary detour bridge)
C  Separate bicyclist and pedestrian facility would reduce conflicts with vehicles on
bridge
 Separate bicyclist and pedestrian facility would eliminate direct conflicts with
vehicles in west-side interchange
 Would have bi-directional bicyclist and pedestrian traffic (no separated facilities)
 Complete separation from other bridge users would cause safety and security
concerns
 Would have difficult turning maneuvers and a perception of circuitous routing on
switchback ramps
 Would have grade changes between the Sellwood Bridge/SE Tacoma Street
corridor and the separate bicycle/pedestrian bridge deck
crossing
D  Wide paths on both sides of the bridge would accommodate bi-directional
bicyclist and pedestrian traffic with no conflicts
 Path width would provide separation from vehicles; would enhance user safety
and comfort
 Bicycle lane width would provide sufficient room to maneuver around
obstructions
 Would have no long-term bridge closure during construction
 Signalized intersection would improve bicyclist and pedestrian crossing of
SE Tacoma Street
 Bicyclists and pedestrians would have conflicts with motorists making turning
movements in west-side interchange area
TABLE 3.2-10
Alternative Impacts
E  North path width would accommodate bi-directional bicyclist and pedestrian
 North path width would provide separation from vehicles; would enhance user
safety and comfort
 Would have no bridge closure during construction
 Signalized intersection would improve bicyclist and pedestrian crossing of
SE Tacoma Street
 South path would accommodate one-way bicycle traffic and two-way pedestrian
traffic
 Lack of south spiral ramp in west-side interchange would create circuitous
routing for some users
Preferred  Wide paths on both sides of the bridge would accommodate bi-directional
(D Refined) bicyclist and pedestrian traffic with no conflicts
 Path width would provide separation from vehicles; would enhance user safety
and comfort
 Bicycle lane width would provide sufficient room to maneuver around
obstructions
 Would have no long-term bridge closure during construction
 Bicyclist/pedestrian-activated signalized intersection at SE 6th Avenue would
improve bicyclist and pedestrian crossing of SE Tacoma Street
Right -of- Way a nd Relocat ion
Right-of-Way and Relocation Summary
3.3 Right-of-Way and The Build alternatives would permanently

acquire between approximately 8.9 and
Relocation 11.6 acres, displace a minimum of one and
a maximum of six residences, and displace
3.3.1 Affected Environment a minimum of 9 and a maximum of 48
businesses. Provisions as required under
Residential Properties the Uniform Relocation Assistance and
The following residential properties are referred Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of
to in this section and shown on Figure 3.3-1. 1970, as amended, would be implemented
for all business and residential
 Sellwood Harbor. A 39-unit, gated displacements and for real property
acquisitions.
residential condominium development
located south of the Sellwood Bridge
between the Willamette River and the units along the riverbank and, to the east, a
Springwater Corridor Trail. multilevel condominium building.
 River Park. A 49-unit residential  Grand Place. A mixed-used building located

condominium development located north of north of SE Tacoma Street, bounded by the
SE Tacoma Street and south of SE Spokane Springwater Corridor Trail on the west,
Street between the Springwater Corridor SE Spokane Street to the north, and
Trail and the Willamette River. This SE Grand Avenue to the east. The building
development includes two-level condominium was completed in 2007 and has six
condominium units.
FIGURE 3.3-1
Residential and Commercial Properties
 Macadam Bay Club. A moorage of floating (northwest quadrant of the SE Tacoma

homes on the Willamette River east of Street/SE 6th Avenue intersection).
OR 43 and adjacent to Willamette Moorage  River View Cemetery. River View
Park. Cemetery, a not-for-profit organization,
owns the right-of-way west of OR 43 in the
Commercial Properties project area. The cemetery currently owns
The following commercial properties are referred approximately 310 acres. The
to in this section and shown on Figure 3.3-1. Superintendent’s House, which is operated as
a funeral home, is part of the cemetery.
 River Park Center. A commercial building
with 37 businesses located between the  Willamette Shoreline Trolley and
Willamette River and SE Oaks Park Way at Future Streetcar. A commercial trolley
205 SE Spokane Street. service runs along the west bank of the
Willamette River, just east of OR 43. The
 Sellwood Building. A professional office
Willamette Shoreline Consortium purchased
building with attached garage and storage
the Willamette Shoreline right-of-way from
shed. The building is located below the east
the Southern Pacific Railroad in 1988. The
approach of the existing bridge at 380 SE
Consortium (comprised of ODOT; Metro;
Spokane Street and is partitioned into nine
the cities of Portland and Lake Oswego;
office spaces.
Clackamas and Multnomah counties; and
 Grand Place. A mixed-used building located TriMet) manages the 7-mile right-of-way
north of SE Tacoma Street, bounded by the between River Place in downtown Portland
Springwater Corridor Trail on the west, and Lake Oswego.
SE Spokane Street to the north, and
SE Grand Avenue to the east. The building Government actions designed to
benefit the public as a whole
was completed in 2007 and has space for two
sometimes result in the displacement
businesses, but both spaces are currently of people from their homes and
vacant. businesses. The Uniform Relocation
Relocation Assistance
Assistance and Real Property

 Staff Jennings Property. A former Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (as
commercial boat dealership with a fuel dock, amended in 1987; Uniform Act)
boathouse, boat storage, and paint shop. The provides important protections and
assistance for people affected by
business closed in March 2010. The property
federally funded projects. The
is located north of the existing bridge at 8240 Uniform Act was enacted by the
SW Macadam Avenue (OR 43) on the west United States Congress to ensure
side of the Willamette River (located that people whose real property is
between Powers Marine Park and Willamette acquired, or who have to move as a
result of federally funded projects, are
Moorage Park). treated fairly and equitably and
receive assistance in moving from the
 Brinsfield Boat Basin. A commercial
property they occupy.
used-boat dealership located immediately
north and south of SE Tacoma Street  East Portland Branch of the Oregon
between SE Grand Avenue and SE 6th Pacific Railroad. This railroad line runs
Avenue at the east end of the existing bridge. beneath the Sellwood Bridge on the east
 Riverside Corral. An adult entertainment bank of the Willamette River, alongside the
lounge located at 525 SE Tacoma Street Springwater Corridor Trail. The East
Portland Traction Company infrequently
transports engines, cars, and equipment using 3.3.3 Build Alternatives

the railroad line.
Environmental
Park and Recreational Facilities Consequences
The following park and recreational facilities are Impacts and Mitigation Common to
located in the area and are referred to as All Build Alternatives
parkland and recreational facility impacts in this
Direct Impacts. The following direct impacts
section.
would be common to the Build alternatives:
 Sellwood Riverfront Park
 Residential. Access to Macadam Bay Club
 Oaks Pioneer Park would be modified. The existing access point,
which is also the access point for Willamette
 Powers Marine Park Moorage Park, would be relocated north of
the existing access point. The access
 Willamette Moorage Park
modification would not affect on-site
 Springwater Corridor Trail functions of the Macadam Bay Club.
 Sellwood Bridge Recreational Trail  Commercial. The Sellwood Building office

building and its nine businesses
 Willamette Greenway Trail (SE Spokane (30 employees total) would be displaced. The
Street Section) viability of the nine businesses is not
 Willamette Greenway Trail (East Bank) dependent on their specific locations.
 Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank)  Willamette Shoreline Trolley and

Future Streetcar. All Build alternatives
Impacts to parkland and recreational facilities are would require moving the trolley right-of-way
included in the right-of-way cost and impact eastward into Powers Marine Park and the
calculations in this section, but impacts are not Staff Jennings property. The replacement
described in the text. Section 3.9, Parks and right-of-way and design of the Build
Recreation, discusses impacts to park and alternatives would be sufficient for two tracks
recreational facilities. for the proposed streetcar and a paved
3.3.2 No Build Alternative ground level slopes steeply down to the river
Environmental east of OR 43. Therefore, moving the rail
Consequences tracks to the east would require placing them
on fill or structure and building a retaining
There would be no foreseeable adverse impacts
wall to support the fill and minimize
in relation to right-of-way or relocation under
encroachment into the park. The cost
the No Build Alternative.
included in this project is for the replacement
of existing right-of-way and additional right-
of-way required for a realigned double track;
the track replacement; any fill or structure
required; and the construction of any
necessary retaining walls.
 Condominium Units. All Build alternatives

other than Alternative E would require the
demolition of at least one condominium unit. Sales listings for residential properties are an
A qualified engineer obtained from the City indication of the potential for finding viable
of Portland Bureau of Development Services relocation sites for displaced residents. Analysis
construction plans for the River Park and of sales listings recognizes the unique character of
Sellwood Harbor condominium potential residential displacements. More sales
developments. This engineer studied the listings indicate a greater potential for relocating
plans and also surveyed these residential a displaced resident to a comparable location. A
developments on-site to assure that partial snapshot survey of current condominium listings
structure demolition and reconstruction of was conducted in November 2009.
the remaining adjacent condominium units (Condominiums were researched because the
and common areas would be structurally Build alternatives would impact at least one
feasible. condominium, but no single-family detached units
would be displaced.) At that time, there were
Indirect Impacts. No indirect impacts would
26 condominium units listed in the 97202 zip
be common to the Build alternatives.
code and 53 units listed in the 97214 zip code
Mitigation. The designs of the Build alternatives (inner southeast Portland zip codes), ranging in
have attempted to minimize displacements and price from $100,000 to $835,000. Riverfront
impacts to private property. Federal and state condominiums were also available outside
statutes regulate most aspects of mitigation for southeast Portland, including in Lake Oswego and
property acquisition. The Uniform Relocation in the Johns Landing and South Waterfront areas
Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies of southwest Portland.
Act of 1970 (as amended in 1987; Uniform Act)
Based upon this analysis, a reasonable inventory
regulates procedures for providing replacement
of replacement residential properties is available.
housing and business relocation assistance.
According to Multiple Listing Service data, the
Provisions as required under the Uniform Act monthly supply of housing (total inventory/
would be implemented for all business and monthly sales) was 7.6 months in September
residential displacements, and for real property 2009.
acquisitions. All property owners would be
The Sellwood Building is typical of available lease
compensated at fair market value, and relocation
inventory in the metropolitan area. Therefore, a
assistance would be provided in accordance with
reasonable inventory of replacement business
the Uniform Act. Residential relocation benefits
units is also available, and alternative lease space
are based on the characteristics of individual
is available within the parameters of the affected
properties and usually include replacement
rental unit. Where existing access points to
housing for owners and renters, moving costs,
properties would be closed, new access points
and assistance in locating replacement housing.
(and driveway extensions, when necessary),
Relocation benefits for businesses can include
would be provided.
moving costs, site search expenses, and business
reestablishment expenses. Relocation efforts for Alternative-specific Impacts
displaced residents, businesses, and public The following information identifies direct and
services for this project would generally be indirect impacts unique to each Build alternative.
focused on relocation within the same
neighborhood, when possible, to minimize Impacts to publicly owned land, such as parks and
impacts associated with relocation. recreational trails, are included in the total
amount of right-of-way acquired, but are not
described in detail in this section. See Section 3.9
(Parks and Recreation) and the Final Section 4(f) 49-unit condominium complex would be
Evaluation for a complete discussion of impacts demolished and displaced.
to park and recreational resources. Figure 3.3-2
Other direct impacts:
illustrates tax lots impacted by any of the Build
 River Park. The acquisition of one
alternatives. Table 3.3-1 summarizes tax lot
residential condominium unit in this 49-unit
impacts (in acres) by Build alternative. This table
condominium complex would necessitate the
illustrates the acreage of land acquisition only.
reconstruction of the remaining adjacent
For building displacements, see Figures 3.3-3
condominium unit and common areas.
through 3.3-7.
Fourteen parking spaces under the existing
Alternative A bridge would be displaced during
Direct Impacts. Alternative A would construction. There is adequate parking in
permanently acquire approximately 10.5 acres of the area to accommodate the displacement
land area. Displacements that would occur under of these parking spaces during construction.
Alternative A, including those common to all After construction, these parking spaces
Build alternatives, are shown on Figure 3.3-3. would be restored either at or near their
existing location.
Acquired residences:
 One condominium unit in River Park.
One residential condominium unit in this
FIGURE 3.3-2
Impacted Tax Lots
TABLE 3.3-1
Tax Lot Impacts (in acres) by Build Alternative
Alternative (in acres)
Reference Owner
Number (Public Property) B with D Refined
(Figure or Use Temporary (Pref.
3.3-2) (Private Property) A B Detour Bridge C D E Alt.)
1 TriMet 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.03
2 City of Portland 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.13
3 City of Portland 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.19 0.21 0.27 0.00
4 City of Portland 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.14
5 City of Portland 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.04
6 TriMet 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.11 0.04
7 City of Portland 0.93 0.46 0.46 1.44 0.46 1.16 0.00
8 TriMet 2.23 2.23 2.23 2.34 2.23 2.22 1.51
9 ODOT 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07
10 Staff Jennings Property 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19
11 Staff Jennings Property 0.11 0.11 0.11 1.31 0.11 0.82 0.09
12 ODOT 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03
13 City of Portland 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.08 0.02 0.02 0.06
14 City of Portland 1.40 1.98 2.01 1.31 1.94 0.70 0.96
15 City of Portland 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.07 0.13 0.00 0.13
16 TriMet 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.11 0.21 0.00 0.21
17 City of Portland 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.01
18 River View Cemetery 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.59 0.97 1.79 1.55
22 City of Portland 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
23 River Park Center 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.02 0.00
24 River Park 0.18 0.28 0.28 0.27 0.19 0.00 0.10
Condominiums
25 Sellwood Harbor 0.24 0.38 0.38 0.32 0.62 0.00 0.60
Condominiums
26 Metro 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00
27 City of Portland 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
28 Sellwood Building 0.15 0.23 0.23 0.52 0.26 0.52 0.26
29 Metro 0.11 0.16 0.16 0.14 0.19 0.10 0.20
30 Grand Place 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00
31 Brinsfield Boat Basin 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.02
32 Riverside Corral 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.03
Total 10.5 10.5 10.8 10.8 10.7 11.6 8.9
Notes: Bold italicized numbers indicate full acquisition of the tax lot.
Impacts are based on current design and subject to change.
 Staff Jennings Property. Access from  River View Cemetery Approximately

OR 43 would be modified. A roadway 3.6 acres would be acquired. Access from
would diverge from the new River View OR 43 would be modified, with possible
Cemetery access and would pass under OR proximity issues related to the
43 south of the roundabout to provide Superintendent’s House. Parking and
access to the Staff Jennings property and circulation to the Superintendent’s House
Powers Marine Park. The upper parking lot would also be modified; 8 out of 12 parking
and sign would be displaced. One spaces would be displaced. After
boathouse (a boat garage) and related construction, these parking spaces would
docks located beneath the proposed be restored on-site in the immediate
bike/pedestrian bridge could potentially vicinity of the Superintendent’s House.
require relocation.
Alternative B
 Parks and Recreational Facilities. Direct Impacts. Alternative B would
Approximately 4.3 acres would be acquired permanently acquire approximately 10.5 acres
(see Section 3.9, Parks and Recreation, for of land area. Displacements that would occur
more information). The piers for the under Alternative B, including those common
bicycle/pedestrian bridge would to all Build alternatives, are shown on
permanently displace approximately Figure 3.3-4.
10 parking spaces in the Sellwood
Riverfront Park parking lot.
FIGURE 3.3-3
Alternative A Right-Of-Way Impacts
Acquired residences:  Sellwood Harbor. There would be the

 One condominium in River Park. One loss of some common-element landscaping,
residential condominium unit in this 49-unit fencing, and site improvements, potentially
condominium complex would be impacting the remaining residential units
demolished and displaced. and/or common area.
Other direct impacts:  Staff Jennings Property. Access from
 River Park. The acquisition of one OR 43 would be modified. A roadway
residential condominium unit in this 49-unit would diverge from the new River View
condominium complex would necessitate Cemetery access and would pass under
the reconstruction of the remaining OR 43 south of the roundabout to provide
adjacent condominium unit and common access to the Staff Jennings property and
areas. In addition, 14 parking spaces under Powers Marine Park. The upper parking lot
the existing bridge would be displaced and sign would be displaced.
during construction. There is adequate
 Parks and Recreational Facilities.
parking in the area to accommodate the
Approximately 3.9 acres would be acquired
displacement of these parking spaces during
(see Section 3.9, Parks and Recreation, for
construction. After construction, these
more information).
parking spaces would be restored either at
or near their existing location.  River View Cemetery. Approximately
3.6 acres would be acquired. Access from
OR 43 would be modified, with possible
FIGURE 3.3-4 proximity issues related to the
Alternative B Right-of-Way Impacts Superintendent’s House. Parking and
circulation to the Superintendent’s House Alternative C

would also be modified; 8 out of 12 parking Direct Impacts. Alternative C would
spaces would be displaced. After permanently acquire approximately 10.8 acres
construction, these parking spaces would of land area. Displacements that would occur
be restored on-site in the immediate under Alternative C, including those common
vicinity of the Superintendent’s House. to all Build alternatives, are shown on
Figure 3.3-5.
Temporary Detour Bridge Option
An additional 0.3 acre would be temporarily Acquired businesses:
acquired for approximately 3 years for the  Staff Jennings Property. The entire Staff
temporary detour bridge. The temporary Jennings property would be displaced. The
acquisition would necessitate the removal of existing boat launch adjacent to the Staff
the Riverside Corral (32 employees) and the Jennings property would be closed;
portion of Brinsfield Boat Basin north of however, alternative facilities are available
SE Tacoma Street. Because Brinsfield Boat at the nearby Willamette Park.
Basin is located north and south of SE Tacoma
Street, it is anticipated that Brinsfield Boat
 One condominium in River Park. One
Basin could continue to operate on a reduced
level. Upon project completion, the land
condominium complex would be
acquired for the temporary detour bridge
demolished and displaced.
would be available for redevelopment.
FIGURE 3.3-5
Alternative C Right-of-Way Impacts
Other direct impacts: could make locating a future streetcar

 Brinsfield Boat Basin. One metal-clad station in the area difficult.
storage building and surface parking area
would be displaced for the portion of the  River View Cemetery. Approximately
business on the south side of SE Tacoma 2.1 acres would be acquired. Access from
Street because of the loop from SE Tacoma OR 43 would be eliminated. Access from
Street under the bridge via SE Grand SW Taylors Ferry Road would be
Avenue. This would reduce the size of this maintained, but the route to the
block and, therefore, the amount of land Superintendent’s House would be
that could be developed in the future. The circuitous.
existing access from SE 6th Avenue would Indirect impacts:
be maintained. Because Brinsfield Boat  One boathouse would be displaced. No
Basin is located north and south of moorage facilities could currently
SE Tacoma Street, it is anticipated that accommodate this floating structure on the
Brinsfield Boat Basin could continue to Willamette River, and it likely would
operate on a reduced level. require relocation to the Columbia River
or Multnomah Channel.
 River Park. The acquisition of one
residential condominium unit in this 49-unit  The existing boat launch adjacent to the
Staff Jennings property would be closed;
condominium complex would necessitate
however, alternative facilities are available
the reconstruction of the remaining at the nearby Willamette Park.
adjacent condominium unit and common
areas. Fourteen parking spaces under the  The owners of River View Cemetery
existing bridge would be displaced during indicate that they would move the funeral
construction. There is adequate parking in home business located in the
the area to accommodate the displacement Superintendent’s House to another
location if access from OR 43 was no
of these parking spaces during
longer available.
construction. After construction, these
parking spaces would be restored either at Alternative D
or near their existing location. Direct Impacts. Alternative D would
permanently acquire approximately 10.7 acres
 Sellwood Harbor. There would be the of land area. Displacements that would occur
loss of some common element landscaping, under Alternative D, including those common
fencing, and site improvements, potentially to all alternatives, are depicted on Figure 3.3-6.
impacting the remaining residential units
and/or common area. Acquired residences:
 Sellwood Harbor. Four condominium
 Parks and Recreational Facilities. units in this 39-unit condominium complex
Approximately 4.3 acres would be acquired would be demolished and displaced.
(see Section 3.9, Parks and Recreation, for
more information).  River Park. One residential condominium
unit in this 49-unit condominium complex
 Willamette Shoreline Trolley and would be demolished and displaced.
Future Streetcar. The curvature of the
tracks of the Alternative C realignment Other direct impacts:
would reduce the operating speed and  River Park. The acquisition of one
condominium complex would necessitate
FIGURE 3.3-6
Alternative D Right-of-Way Impacts
the reconstruction of the remaining site improvements, potentially impacting

adjacent condominium unit and common the remaining residential units and/or
areas. Fourteen parking spaces under the common area.
existing bridge would be displaced during
construction. There is adequate parking in  Staff Jennings Property. Access from
the area to accommodate the displacement OR 43 would be modified. A roadway
of these parking spaces during would diverge from the new River View
construction. After construction, these Cemetery access and would pass under OR
parking spaces would be restored either at 43 south of the west-side interchange to
or near their existing location. provide access to the Staff Jennings
property and Powers Marine Park. The
upper parking lot and sign would be
displaced.
 Sellwood Harbor. The acquisition of four
condominium units in this 39-unit  Parks and Recreational Facilities.
condominium complex would necessitate Approximately 3.7 acres would be acquired
the reconstruction of the remaining (see Section 3.9, Parks and Recreation, for
adjacent condominium units and common more information).
areas. There would be the loss of some
common-element landscaping, fencing, and  River View Cemetery. Approximately
3.6 acres would be acquired. Access from
OR 43 would be modified, with possible bridge structure. Access from OR 43

proximity issues related to the would be modified. A roadway would
Superintendent’s House. Parking and diverge from the new River View Cemetery
circulation to the Superintendent’s House access point and would pass under OR 43,
would also be modified; 8 out of 12 parking south of the west-side interchange, to
spaces would be displaced. After provide access to the Staff Jennings
construction, these parking spaces would property and Powers Marine Park. Land
be restored on-site in the immediate area available on the Staff Jennings property
vicinity of the Superintendent’s House. would be reduced. The upper parking lot
and sign would be displaced.
Alternative E
Direct Impacts. Alternative E would  Brinsfield Boat Basin. The portion of
permanently acquire approximately 11.6 acres Brinsfield Boat Basin north of SE Tacoma
of land area. Displacements that would occur Street would be displaced. Because
under Alternative E, including those common Brinsfield Boat Basin is located north and
to all Build alternatives, are shown on south of SE Tacoma Street, it is anticipated
Figure 3.3-7. that Brinsfield Boat Basin could continue to
operate on a reduced level.
Acquired businesses:
 Thirty-seven businesses in the River  Parks and Recreational Facilities.
Park Center. The three-story Approximately 3.8 acres would be acquired
professional office building of nearly 50,000 (see Section 3.9, Parks and Recreation, for
square feet of rentable area would be more information).
demolished and displaced. The viability of
all 37 businesses (186 employees total) is  River View Cemetery. Approximately
not dependent on their specific locations. 3.4 acres would be acquired. Access from
OR 43 would be modified, with possible
 Two vacant office spaces in Grand proximity issues related to the
Place. The vacant complex that includes Superintendent’s House. Parking and
the potential for two or more office spaces circulation to the Superintendent’s House
would be demolished and displaced. would also be modified; 8 out of 12 parking
Acquired residences: spaces would be displaced. After
 Six residential units in Grand Place. construction, these parking spaces would
This mixed-use office/condominium be restored in the immediate vicinity of the
complex would be demolished and Superintendent’s House.
displaced. The complex includes six Mitigation. The River Park Center is typical of
residential units. available office lease inventory in the
Other direct impacts: metropolitan area. Therefore, a reasonable
 Staff Jennings Property. The new bridge inventory of replacement business units is also
would cross over the Staff Jennings available, and alternative lease space is available
property and would include the north within the parameters of the affected rental
paved parking and boat storage area. The unit.
primary buildings would remain intact, as
would the floating structures. It is assumed
that easement reservations would allow
continued surface use beneath the new
Other direct impacts:

Alternative D Refined  Sellwood Harbor. The acquisition of four
(Preferred Alternative) condominium units in this 39-unit
Direct Impacts. Alternative D Refined would condominium complex would necessitate
permanently acquire approximately 8.9 acres of the reconstruction of the remaining
land area. Displacements that would occur adjacent condominium units and common
under Alternative D Refined, including those areas. Some common-element landscaping,
common to all Build alternatives, are depicted fencing, and site improvements would be
on Figure 3.3-8. lost, potentially impacting the remaining
residential units and/or common areas.
 Sellwood Harbor. Four condominium  River Park. The acquisition of one
units in this 39-unit condominium complex residential condominium unit in this 49-unit
would be demolished and displaced. condominium complex would necessitate
the reconstruction of the remaining
 River Park. One residential condominium
adjacent condominium unit and common
unit in this 49-unit condominium complex
areas. Fourteen parking spaces under the
would be demolished and displaced.
existing bridge would be displaced during
construction. There is adequate parking in
the area to accommodate the displacement
FIGURE 3.3-7
Alternative E Right-of-Way Impacts
of these parking spaces during  River View Cemetery. Approximately

construction. After construction, these 4.0 acres would be acquired. Access from
parking spaces would be restored either at OR 43 would be modified. Parking and
or near their existing location. circulation to the Superintendent’s House
would also be modified; 8 out of 12 parking
 Staff Jennings Property. Access from
spaces would be displaced. After
OR 43 would be modified. A roadway
construction, these parking spaces would
would diverge from the west-side signalized
be restored on-site in the immediate
intersection. It would pass under OR 43
vicinity of the Superintendent’s House.
south of the west-side interchange,
providing access to the Staff Jennings
property and Powers Marine Park. The
upper parking lot and sign would be
displaced.
 Parks and Recreational Facilities.

Approximately 1.4 acres would be acquired
and converted to transportation right-of-
way (see Section 3.9, Parks and Recreation,
for more information).
FIGURE 3.3-8
Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) Right-of-Way Impacts
3.3.4 Summary of Alternatives

by Differentiating Right-of-
Way Impact
TABLE 3.3-2
Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Right-of-Way Impact
No B/TD
Impact Type Build A B B C D E D Refined
Total Right-of-Way
0 10.5 10.5 10.8 10.8 10.7 11.6 8.9
Acquired (acres)
Park and Recreational
0 4.3 3.9 3.9 4.3 3.7 3.8 1.4
Facilities (acres)
River View Cemetery
0 3.6 3.6 3.6 2.1 3.6 3.4 4.0
(acres)
Residential Properties
0 1 1 1 1 5 6 5
Displaced
Business Units Displaced 0 9 9 10 10 9 48 9
B/TDB = Alternative B with temporary detour bridge
Utilities
Utilities Summary
3.4 Utilities
Temporary utility impacts would occur
3.4.1 Affected Environment during construction from the relocation and
rerouting of utilities. All impacted utilities
Relocation of utilities in urban areas can be a
would be replaced, reconstructed, or
major project expense. Several utilities exist realigned. Utility relocation costs of the Build
within the study area. The following companies alternatives would range between $2.87 and
or agencies have utilities in the study area: $4.60 million.
 NW Natural
 Comcast Cable Communication Management,
 City of Portland Bureau of Water Works LLC
 Portland Bureau of Environmental Services  Qwest Local Network
(BES)
 Electric Lightwave
 Portland General Electric (PGE)
 City of Portland Signals and Street Lighting

Division
FIGURE 3.4-1
Existing Utilities
Utilities
Chapte r 3 . E xisti ng E nvi ron ment , Antici pated I mpacts, a nd Mitig ation
Existing utilities of note within the study area, replaced. Utility relocation is estimated at
which are illustrated on Figure 3.4-1, include: $140,000.
 There are several gas mains along the street 3.4.3 Build Alternatives
network on the east bank, including smaller
(1- to 2-inch) service lines serving properties Environmental
off the gas mains. Limited gas service exists Consequences
on the west bank.
Impacts and Mitigation Common to
 Large sections of water mains on the east and All Build Alternatives
west banks of the Willamette River, and one Direct Impacts. Most of the utilities on the
30-inch main on the bottom of the river, west bank of the Willamette River would be
north of the existing Sellwood Bridge impacted by all Build alternatives. On the east
alignment. West of the river, two large water
side, the intersection of SE Tacoma Street and
lines (16 to 24 inches and 36 inches) are
parallel to OR 43 north and south of the SE 6th Avenue would be the area most
existing Sellwood Bridge interchange. East of commonly impacted. All utilities attached to the
the river, there is a 36-inch water main under existing Sellwood Bridge would be removed
SE Spokane Street. Smaller service lines during construction. Temporary utility impacts
measuring less than 10 inches complete the would occur during construction from the
distribution network, supplying water to area relocation and rerouting of utilities.
homes and businesses.
Indirect Impacts. No indirect impacts have
 A sanitary sewer network along SE Spokane been identified.
Street, SE Tacoma Street, SE Tenino Street,
and SE Grand Avenue. Mitigation. Multnomah County would replace,
reconstruct, or realign impacted utilities. The
 A large network of transmission and
extent of the impacts would be determined when
distribution lines, such as power poles, street
more detailed design becomes available.
lights, and large transmission towers and
poles.
Alternative-specific Impacts
 A fiber-optic communications line running Alternative A
north-south on OR 43 on the west bank of Most of the existing west-bank utilities are
the Willamette River. centered on the existing alignment of OR 43.
 Aerial fiber-optic lines running north-south Therefore, long stretches of these pipes and lines
on OR 43 as far south as the Sellwood are included in the cost estimates as relocations.
Bridge, which then go underground to the On the east side, impacts would primarily be
east through the existing interchange and limited to SE Tacoma Street. Utility relocation is
attach to the Sellwood Bridge to cross the estimated at $2.87 million.
Willamette River. On the east bank, the lines
become aerial again and follow SE Spokane Alternative B
Street. Most of the existing west-bank utilities are
centered on the existing alignment of OR 43.
3.4.2 No Build Alternative Therefore, long stretches of these pipes and lines
Environmental are included in the cost estimates as relocations.
On the east side, impacts would primarily be
Consequences
limited to SE Tacoma Street. Utility relocation is
The No Build Alternative would impact utilities
estimated at $3.20 million.
on the west bridge approach that would be
Utilities
Temporary Detour Bridge Option Alternative D

Including the temporary detour bridge in Most of the existing west-bank utilities are
Alternative B would impact most of the utilities centered on the existing alignment of OR 43.
along SE Spokane Street. These utilities include a Therefore, long stretches of these pipes and lines
large gas main and the 30-inch water main under are included in the cost estimates as relocations.
SE Spokane Street. Additionally, the temporary On the east side, impacts would primarily be
detour bridge alignment would coincide with a limited to SE Tacoma Street. Utility relocation is
30-inch water main as it crosses the river. This estimated at $3.28 million.
main would be costly to replace because of its
location and the environmental implications Alternative E
Alternative E would cross multiple utility lines on
related to relocating a pipe buried in the river
SE Spokane Street. The impact would be less
bottom. Utility relocation is estimated at
severe than Alternative B with the temporary
$1.40 million just for the temporary
detour bridge because Alternative E would cross
detour bridge.
these lines at a steep angle, as opposed to
Alternative C running directly parallel with them. Though the
Most of the existing west-bank utilities are bridge alignment for Alternative E would not
centered on the existing alignment of OR 43. match the existing alignment, utilities along SE
Therefore, long stretches of these pipes and lines Tacoma Street would still be impacted because
are included in the cost estimates as relocations. the existing bridge would be removed. Utility
On the east side, impacts would primarily be relocation is estimated at $3.61 million.
limited to SE Tacoma Street. Variations in utility
impacts for Alternative C compared to those Alternative D Refined
with Alternatives A, B (without the temporary (Preferred Alternative)
Most of the existing west-bank utilities are
detour bridge), D, and D Refined can be
centered on the existing alignment of OR 43.
attributed to the design loop access to SE Grand
Therefore, long stretches of these pipes and lines
Avenue and SE Oaks Park Way from the
are included in the cost estimates as relocations
SE Tacoma Street/SE 6th Avenue intersection. A
for Alternative D Refined. On the east side,
series of sanitary sewer pipes would need to be
impacts would primarily be limited to SE Tacoma
relocated because the loop access would dive to
Street. Utility relocation is estimated at
underpass the Sellwood Bridge structure. Other
$3.28 million.
Build alternatives would not have as large an
impact on east-bank sanitary sewer pipes. Utility
relocation is estimated at $3.19 million.
Differentiating Utilities
Impact
TABLE 3.4-1
Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Utilities Impact
No D
Impact Type Build A B B/TDB C D E Refined
Utility Relocation Cost (millions) $0.14 $2.87 $3.20 $4.60 $3.19 $3.28 $3.61 $3.28
Land Use
Land Use Summary

3.5 Land Use All Build alternatives would require a
Greenway and Environmental overlay zone
3.5.1 Affected Environment permits; otherwise, Build alternatives are
Land use on the east side of the Willamette River generally in compliance with applicable land
in the study area is a mix of single- and multi- use plans. Exceptions are the three-lane
bridge cross-section in Alternative C (not
family residences along with small neighborhood
consistent with the Regional Transportation
commercial stores, smaller-scale office uses, Plan) and the alignment of Alternative E (not
condominium developments along the riverfront, consistent with the view corridor
and recreational parks and open spaces. Land use preservation in the Willamette Greenway
on the west side of the Willamette River in the Plan).
study area is mostly parks and protected open None of the Build alternatives is anticipated
space; this protected open space includes the to have an adverse effect on the amount of
land-use supply for any zoning or
approximately 265-acre River View Cemetery, comprehensive plan land-use category.
which forms the western boundary of the study
area. A notable exception is the Staff Jennings plan for the City of Portland. This plan guides the
property, which is located just north of the future growth and development of the city. An
bridgehead. The existing conditions figure in element of the Comprehensive Plan is the
Chapter 1 (Figure 1.2-2) illustrates existing land Comprehensive Plan Map (City of Portland, 2007b),
uses. Generalized land uses are shown on which identifies desired land uses for the City of
Figure 3.5-1. Portland.
Land-use Plans, Policies, and Title 33 of Portland’s Code and Charter governs
Regulations planning and zoning. Title 33 (the zoning code) is
the major implementation tool of the goals and
Adopted land-use plans, policies, and zoning
policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The zoning
regulations serve as management strategies that
code must be consistent with the Comprehensive
enable communities to function effectively and
Plan Map designations. Portland’s zoning code
grow efficiently and prosperously. An integral
includes both base zoning districts and overlay
part of these management strategies is the
zoning districts. All land in the city has a base
transportation system and how it functions to
zone, which means it has been designated for
serve desired land uses.
commercial, residential, open space, or industrial
The City of Portland Comprehensive Plan (City of land uses. Overlay zones, which are present in
Portland, 2006) is the current adopted land-use areas of special value to the city, include
A comprehensive plan is a generalized, coordinated land-use map and policy statement that
shows how the land should be developed for residential, commercial, industrial, and public
Comprehensive Plans
uses. It interrelates all functional and natural systems and activities relating to the use of
lands, including, but not limited to, sewer and water systems, transportation systems,
educational facilities, recreational facilities, and management programs for natural
resources, air quality, and water quality.
The City of Portland Comprehensive Plan (City of Portland, 2006) includes a set of goals,
policies, and objectives that apply to the entire city. Similar goals, policies, and objectives in
neighborhood and community plans that apply to only parts of the city are also part of the
Comprehensive Plan. The plan includes a list of significant public works projects and a set of
mapped features. These features include land-use designations, street classifications, the city
limits, and the urban service boundary.

Land Use
additional land-use regulations. Figure 3.5-2 framework for local land use and are applicable
illustrates the location of Greenway and to this project. Any improvements to the
Environmental overlay zones. Table 3.5-1 Sellwood Bridge under the No Build Alternative
provides the zoning districts (base and overlay) in or Build alternatives would need to be consistent
the study area. with these regulations, plans, and guidance
documents.
The official zoning maps in the study area were
compared to the Comprehensive Plan Map (City of Three of these plans have particular relevance for
Portland, 2007b). There are no deviations in the Sellwood Bridge project: South Willamette
general land use in the study area between the River Crossing Study (Metro, 1999), Regional
zoning map and the Comprehensive Plan Map. The Transportation Plan (RTP; Metro, 2004), and
Sellwood Bridge project’s roadway and bridge Tacoma Main Street Plan (City of Portland, 2001).
improvements are allowable uses in all base zones
In May 1999, Metro made recommendations for
present in the study area. However, there are
the South Willamette River Crossing Study, which
regulations for construction or development
included the Sellwood Bridge. The study, initiated
activity in the Greenway and Environmental
by Metro’s Joint Policy Advisory Committee on
overlay zones.
Transportation, identified needed improvements
Table 3.5-2 lists the other land-use regulations, for cars, transit, bikes, and pedestrian traffic
plans, and guidance documents that establish the crossing the Willamette River between southeast
FIGURE 3.5-1
Generalized Land Uses

Land Use
Portland and Oregon City. One study Moreland neighborhood. A basic assumption
recommendation was to preserve the existing carried into the planning process (according to
Sellwood Bridge or replace it as a two-lane bridge recommendations from the South Willamette River
with better service for bicyclists and pedestrians. Crossing Study [Metro, 1999]) was that providing
adequate regional traffic capacity in the Sellwood
Metro’s 2004 RTP is a 20-year blueprint for the
Bridge/SE Tacoma Street travelshed is not the
Portland metropolitan region’s transportation
responsibility of SE Tacoma Street. The plan
system and an adopted “Functional Plan”
supports “regional efforts to carry out the
integrated into the Regional Framework Plan
recommendations of the South Willamette River
(Metro, 2005). The 2004 RTP includes the South
Crossing Study that reduce travel demand on the
Willamette River Crossing Study (Metro, 1999)
Sellwood Bridge.” Action items to meet this
recommendation for the Sellwood Bridge. The
recommendation include mitigating traffic growth
project is listed as Project 1012 on the 2004 RTP
on SE Tacoma Street, increasing transit services,
list of financially constrained projects for the RTP
increasing motor vehicle capacity on appropriate
program years 2004 to 2009. The RTP is
regional facilities “in order to direct traffic away
currently being updated, and its adoption is
from areas of conflict with land use goals,” and
anticipated in June 2010.
supporting “improvements to the west end of the
Completed in 2001, the City of Portland’s Sellwood Bridge that mitigate congestion
Tacoma Main Street Plan was developed to impacts.”
implement the vision of a multi-modal,
neighborhood-oriented street in the Sellwood-
FIGURE 3.5-2
Greenway and Environmental Overlay Zones

Land Use
3.5.2 No Build Alternative TABLE 3.5-1

Environmental Zoning Districts (Base Zones and Overlay Zones)
in the Study Area
Consequences
Symbol Zoning District Name
Under the No Build Alternative, existing travel
patterns in the project area would be maintained Base Zones
and no land would be acquired. The Sellwood Commercial (COM on Figure 3.5-1)
neighborhood would likely retain its appeal for CG General Commercial
residential land uses. CM Mixed Commercial/Residential
The No Build Alternative would not be CS Storefront Commercial
consistent with either the City of Portland General Employment (GE on Figure 3.5-1)
Transportation System Plan (2004, updated in 2007) EG2 General Employment 2
or the Metro Regional Transportation Plan (2004), EX2 Central Employment
both of which recommend rehabilitating or
Open Space (OS on Figure 3.5-1)
replacing the existing Sellwood Bridge.
OS Open Space
3.5.3 Build Alternatives Multi-Dwelling Residential (MDR on Figure 3.5-1)
Environmental R1 Residential 1,000

R2 Residential 2,000
Consequences
RH High-Density Residential
Single-Family Residential (SFR on Figure 3.5-1)
All Build Alternatives
R2.5 Residential 2,500
Direct Impacts. The Build alternatives would:
R5 Residential 5,000
• Convert existing and future land uses to R10 Residential 10,000
transportation right-of-way. RF Residential Farm/Forest
• Affect commercial, residential, and open Overlay Zones
space lands, which lie within the Willamette Greenway Overlay Zones (Figure 3.5-2)
Greenway, Environmental, Design, and Scenic
g River General
overlay zones.
q River Water Quality
• Have no adverse impact on the land use in r River Recreational
existing base zones, the existing land-use
Environmental Overlay Zones (Figure 3.5-2)
supply, or the future land-use supply of any
respective zoning or Comprehensive Plan (City c Environmental Conservation
of Portland, 2006) land-use category. p Environmental Preservation
• Require Type II Greenway and Environmental Other Overlay Zones

Permits from the City of Portland because d Design
the Build alternative improvements are a Alternative Design Density
located within the Greenway and
Environmental overlay zones. Current s Scenic
alternative designs are not detailed enough to Source: City of Portland Code, Title 33.
determine the outcome of these permitting
processes.

Land Use
Indirect Impacts. The Build alternatives would

Depending on the zoning at the site and
the uses or developments that are have similar indirect impacts, including the
proposed, a project may or may not following:
require a land-use review. Land-use
reviews are required when the zoning • Any transportation improvement has the
code "triggers" a review for a specific potential to increase the market appeal of the
use or development project. local area, thereby increasing demand for
City of Portland Land-Use Reviews
Regulations directing a proposal to a new commercial spaces or residences. In

land-use review can be found in the turn, this increased demand could influence
base zones, overlay zones, plan land-use (zoning) decision-making to allow
districts, and other sections of the more intense uses. In the Sellwood area, a
zoning code, as well as within
substantial amount of development can occur
conditions of approval from past land-
use approvals at the site. Most review under current zoning that would be
"triggers" are located in the zoning consistent with adopted plans and policies.
code chapter that addresses a This intensification of existing land uses
particular topic. There are five types of would most likely occur along the SE Tacoma
land-use reviews: Types I, II, IIx, III, and Street and SE 13th Avenue corridors.
IV. The assignment of a particular
procedure type (I through IV) is usually • More people may choose to live in the area
done in the City of Portland Zoning as a result of improved transit, bicyclist, and
Code chapter that establishes the pedestrian conditions, thereby prompting the
review. Type I, II, and IIx reviews are construction of new living units.
made administratively by Bureau of
Development Services staff. Type III • Transit-oriented land-use development in the
and IV reviews involve a public hearing Sellwood and OR 43 corridor areas could
before the decision is made. increase as a result of the resumption of bus
service across the bridge.
• Require an Oregon Department of Land
Conservation and Development Goal 15 • A positive effect on existing neighborhood
(Willamette River Greenway) Exception. commercial land uses in Sellwood could
result from increased “walk-by” traffic. The
• Require a Map Amendment to the City of increase in pedestrian activity would be
Portland Comprehensive Plan (City of Portland, expected to result from a population increase
2006) because the project would require fill associated with denser land-use development
within the greenway setback. and an increase in people walking to and from
bus stops along SE Tacoma Street associated
• Require a Type II Historic Design Review with the resumption of transit service.
from the City of Portland. Current
alternative designs are not detailed enough to
determine the outcome of this review.
• Require an access deviation from ODOT;
Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR)
Chapter 734, Division 51, access management
spacing standards, would not be met on
OR 43 north and south of the Sellwood
Bridge.

Land Use
TABLE 3.5-2
Applicable Land-Use Regulations, Plans, and Guidance Documents
City of Portland
Bicycle Master Plan Southwest Community Plan
City of Portland Comprehensive Plan Tacoma Main Street Plan
Corbett-Terwilliger-Lair Hill Policy Plan Transportation System Plan
Freight Master Plan Willamette Greenway Plan and River Plan
Parks 2020 Vision Willamette River Bridges Accessibility Project
Pedestrian Master Plan Willamette River Concept Plan
Scenic Resources Protection Plan Zoning Code
Sellwood-Moreland Neighborhood Plan
Metro
2040 Growth Plan Regional Transportation Plan
Regional Framework Plan South Willamette River Crossing Study
Multnomah County
Bicycle Master Plan
ODOT
Oregon Transportation Plan Oregon Highway Plan
State of Oregon
Statewide Planning Goals
• Improved truck access would allow more actions to offset impacts to public parks and trails
efficient servicing of existing residential and in the study area in coordination with Portland
commercial land uses. Although the increased Parks & Recreation, Portland Bureau of
number of delivery trucks across the bridge Environmental Services, and Metro. (See Section
could also have a negative effect on 3.9, Parks and Recreation, and Final Section 4(f)
residential and commercial land uses by Evaluation for details.)
degrading the pedestrian environment, this
route is not expected to become an Alternative-specific Impacts and
attractive through route for very large cargo Mitigation
trucks. The increased truck usage on the Alternative A
bridge is expected to support delivery of Table 3.5-3 summarizes land-use impacts for
goods and services to the local area. Alternative A. It is anticipated that Alternative A
would be in compliance with applicable policies,
Mitigation. The Build alternatives would require goals, and objectives of the relevant land-use
real property purchase for construction and regulations, plans, and guidance documents listed
access management. Existing private property in Table 3.5-2.
would be converted to transportation use, which
would necessitate compensation and relocation Alternative B
assistance to affected property owners, as Table 3.5-3 summarizes land-use impacts for
described in Section 3.3, Right-of-Way and Alternative B. It is anticipated that Alternative B
Relocation. Access to all private properties would (with and without the temporary detour bridge)
be provided during and following construction. would be in compliance with applicable policies,
Multnomah County would implement mitigation goals, and objectives of the relevant land-use

Land Use
regulations, plans, and guidance documents listed of Portland, 1987) identifies a “View Corridor”
in Table 3.5-2. westward on SE Spokane Street, toward the
Willamette River. The plan states this view must
Alternative C be preserved. Alternative E would be inconsistent
Table 3.5-3 summarizes land-use impacts for
with the plan because the bridge structure would
Alternative C. Alternative C would be
cross SE Spokane Street, impacting this view
inconsistent with the South Willamette River
corridor.
Crossing Study (Metro, 1999) and the RTP because
the bridge would have three vehicular travel It is anticipated that Alternative E would be in
lanes, rather than the two lanes specified in these compliance with other applicable policies, goals,
documents. and objectives of the relevant land-use
regulations, plans, and guidance documents listed
It is anticipated that Alternative C would be in
in Table 3.5-2.
compliance with other applicable policies, goals,
and objectives of the relevant land-use Alternative D Refined
regulations, plans, and guidance documents listed (Preferred Alternative)
in Table 3.5-2. Table 3.5-3 summarizes land-use impacts for
Alternative D Refined. It is anticipated that
Alternative D Alternative D Refined would be in compliance
with applicable policies, goals, and objectives of
Alternative D. It is anticipated that Alternative D
the relevant land-use regulations, plans, and
would be in compliance with applicable policies,
guidance documents listed in Table 3.5-2.
goals, and objectives of the relevant land-use
regulations, plans, and guidance documents listed 3.5.4 Summary of Alternatives by
in Table 3.5-2.
Differentiating Land-use
Alternative E Impact
Alternative E. The Willamette Greenway Plan (City

Land Use
TABLE 3.5-3
Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Land-use Impact
Impacts on Land-use Zoning Types
D Refined
No Build A B and B/TDB C D E (Preferred Alt.)
Impact % of Impact % of Impact % of Impact % of Impact % of Impact % of
Zone
Impact (acres) Supply a (acres) Supply a (acres) Supply a (acres) Supply a (acres) Supply a (acres) Supply a
Open Space (OS) 0 7.9 2.3 8.3 2.4 6.5 1.9 8.2 2.4 7.1 2.1 6.9 2.0
Commercial (CG,
CM, CS) 0 2.5 3.0 2.1b 2.6 b 3.9 4.7 1.8 2.2 3.9 4.8 1.4 1.7
Multi-Dwelling
Residential (RH) 0 0.3 <1 0.4 <1 0.4 <1 0.6 <1 0 <1 0.6 <1
Environmental
Overlay (c, p) 0 4.3 NA 4.3 NA 3.9 NA 4.4 NA 4.9 NA 2.8 NA
Greenway Overlay
(g, q, r) 0 7.0 NA 6.9 NA 8.6 NA 7.0 NA 7.4 NA 4.9 NA
Compliance with Applicable Land-use Documents
Compliant Compliant Compliant Not compliant Compliant Not compliant Compliant pending
pending pending with South pending with Greenway and
Greenway and Greenway and Willamette River Greenway and Willamette Environmental
Environmental Environmental Crossing Study and Environmental Greenway Plan; review/permitting
review/ review/ Regional review/ compliant
permitting permitting Transportation Plan; permitting pending
compliant pending Greenway and
Greenway and Environmental
Environmental review/
review/permitting permitting
a
In the Sellwood Bridge project area of potential effect.
b
2.1 acres would be impacted under Alternative B with the temporary detour bridge, which would be 2.6 percent of commercial land supply in the Sellwood
Bridge project area of potential effect.
B/TDB = Alternative B with Temporary Detour Bridge
NA = not applicable (percent of zone type relates to the finite amount of land available for particular types of development; overlay zones provide protection
for development within the zone)

Economic
3.6 Economic Economic Summary
During construction, adverse economic

3.6.1 Affected Environment impacts of the Build alternatives would
The economic analysis focuses on a study area include residential and business
that encompasses the few businesses on the west displacements resulting from right-of-way
acquisition and construction-related delays,
side of the bridge and the core of the Sellwood detours, dust, and noise. If no river crossing
commercial district on the east side. During fiscal were provided during construction, those
year 2004-2005, approximately 93 businesses who would normally use the bridge would
with 859 employees were located in the incur extensive travel time and vehicle
operation costs, and economic activity at
economic analysis study area.
Sellwood businesses would be reduced. After
On the west side of the study area, shown on construction, the area would expect
economic benefits because the structural
Figure 3.6-1, there are two businesses: a funeral integrity of the bridge would ensure its long-
home in the Superintendent’s House at River term operation and improved accessibility
View Cemetery and the Staff Jennings property. for trucks, buses, pedestrians, and bicyclists.
Access for the entrance and parking for River
View Cemetery, including the funeral home, is Willamette River, provided boat sales, servicing,
through an intersection with OR 43, south of the and fueling, but closed in March 2010. There is
existing bridge. The Staff Jennings property, limited commercial development along OR 43
located just north of the bridge and on the until the intersection with SW Taylors Ferry
Road to the north and Lake Oswego to the
FIGURE 3.6-1 south, features that are outside the study area.
West-side Economic Analysis Study Area
The eastern portion of the study area is
illustrated on Figure 3.6-2.
SE Tacoma Street is the primary east-west local

and regional through-fare in this area. This
roadway is primarily lined with commercial
properties, most of which are located at and near
the major intersections (at SE 13th Avenue and
SE 17th Avenue). Heavy rush-hour traffic passes
through the commercial district on SE Tacoma
Street in the morning traveling westbound
(toward the bridge) and in the afternoon traveling
eastbound (from the bridge). Currently, about
30,000 vehicles cross the Sellwood Bridge each
weekday. The majority (52 percent) of these trips
are between Clackamas County and Portland;
Sellwood is neither the origin nor the destination
for those trips.

Economic
The primary north-south through-fares are services because they are passing by on trips to
SE Milwaukie Avenue, SE 13th Avenue, and other locations (“pass-by” businesses) and those
SE 17th Avenue. Coffee shops, restaurants, and whose customers specifically plan trips to their
taverns line these commercial streets and serve locations (“destination” businesses). Because
as neighborhood gathering places, as well as SE Tacoma Street is a regional commuting route
dining destinations for visitors from outside the for so many people, and these commuting people
neighborhood. An established regional antique pass by businesses along SE Tacoma Street with
district is concentrated on SE 13th Avenue. great frequency, distinguishing among these
Home furnishing stores, boutiques, and a business types is difficult. It is likely that many
sportswear factory outlet also serve local patrons of businesses in the Sellwood area
residents and visitors. The only grocery store in originally visited the businesses because they
the study area is located on SE Tacoma Street were passing by, but later began to plan stops at
near SE 13th Avenue. These businesses serve them. Regardless of the category of shoppers
needs of nearby residents on the east and west they attract, both types of businesses in this area
sides of the Willamette River; customers from rely on accessibility from SE Tacoma Street for
outside the area on both sides of the river who nearly all customers from the west side of the
have targeted particular businesses for shopping river and for all customers who are using the
or dining; and pass-by customers who use the businesses as a convenience on their trips
Sellwood Bridge en route to destinations outside through the area. Visibility and accessibility are
Sellwood. important factors in maintenance of customer
bases.
In transportation studies, businesses are typically
designated in two categories—those whose
customers primarily take advantage of their
FIGURE 3.6-2
East-side Economic Analysis Study Area

Economic
3.6.2 No Build Alternative visible from SE Tacoma Street but within one
block north or south and seven blocks north on
Environmental SE 13th Avenue; and businesses located between
Consequences one and two blocks north or south of SE Tacoma
The bridge would be closed to bicycle, Street. Businesses visible and immediately
pedestrian, and motorized vehicular traffic for 6 accessible from SE Tacoma Street were expected
to 8 months for maintenance activities. This to suffer the greatest losses. Within each tier,
closure would create out-of-direction travel for ranges of the income loss to owners and
all users of the bridge, increasing travel time. To employees were projected. Combined owner and
quantify a portion of these costs, increases in employee income losses associated with bridge
travel time and vehicle operating costs were closure for the No Build Alternative are
calculated for motorized vehicle users. Costs estimated to range from $1.9 million to
were considered for the 2-hour morning and $4.9 million (in 2005 dollars) over the 6- to
2-hour evening peak periods during the closure 8-month period in the economic analysis study
period. Operating costs were considered to area (Figures 3.6-1 and 3.6-2). However, owner
include fuel, oil, routine maintenance, vehicle and employee income losses associated with
depreciation, insurance, taxes, and licenses. These bridge closure would also extend beyond this
costs not only would accrue to Sellwood Bridge area along OR 43 north of the Sellwood Bridge
users, but also to other travelers on routes with on the west side (in the Johns Landing area), and
increased congestion caused by absorption of the in the Sellwood/Moreland neighborhood beyond
Sellwood Bridge detour traffic. Total increased the east-side economic analysis study area. (For a
travel time and operating costs for motorized more detailed explanation of the impact analysis
vehicle users in weekday morning and evening methodology, see the Sellwood Bridge Project
peak hours during bridge closure under the No Economic Technical Report [ECONorthwest, 2008;
Build Alternative are estimated at $19.1 million in updated 2010].)
2008 dollars. (For more information, see Sellwood
Bridge Project Economic Technical Report Although outside the Sellwood commercial
[ECONorthwest, 2008; updated 2010].) center, business operations at Oaks Amusement
Park, a regional recreation destination, would
Closure of the bridge for maintenance activities also be adversely affected by bridge closure
would also impact businesses in the Sellwood during construction, especially during summer
area because customers traveling to and from months.
travel markets served by the Sellwood Bridge in
Portland and in Clackamas and Washington The 10-ton weight limit on the Sellwood Bridge
counties would be rerouted to other river would remain in place under the No Build
crossings. Businesses would lose the visibility to Alternative, which would preclude buses and
pass-by customers, as well as accessibility to trucks weighing more than 10 tons from crossing
other customers on the west side of the river, the bridge. The weight limit would continue to
which could significantly affect those businesses. cause minor freight delivery costs from out-of-
The high percentage of traffic that travels through direction travel and a minor loss of customers
the area creates a high level of exposure to pass- who would have used transit to access and shop
by traffic for these businesses. in the Sellwood area. Significant economic
impacts from continued weight restrictions would
Loss of business revenue was calculated based on not be expected.
the location of businesses in three tiers—those
visible from SE Tacoma Street between SE Grand If the bridge were permanently closed for safety
Avenue and SE 17th Avenue; businesses not reasons after the 20-year life of the No Build

Economic
Alternative, property values in the Sellwood decrease during construction because of

neighborhood could decrease because of the lack construction activity noise, debris, and traffic.
of nearby river crossings and the likely decline of This condition would be expected to reverse
the vibrant neighborhood commercial district itself following project completion.
that depends partially on the pass-by commuter
traffic. The reduced accessibility of the Sellwood • Operations on the Oregon Pacific Railroad
neighborhood would likely reduce the would be suspended for short periods during
attractiveness of operating or locating a business construction of the east approaches to the
there. These negative impacts to local businesses bridge. Loss of revenue could result.
would be expected to occur in the long term. • The Willamette Shoreline Trolley tracks on
the west side of the Willamette River would
3.6.3 Build Alternatives be expected to be closed during
Environmental construction. Loss of revenue would result if
the bridge closure occurred during the
Consequences summer months when the trolley was in
Impacts and Mitigation Common to service.
All Build Alternatives Indirect Impacts. During construction, detours
Direct Impacts. Right-of-way acquisition and delays could temporarily decrease residential
impacts are discussed in Section 3.3, Right-of- property values and reduce customer activity at
Way and Relocation, including business local businesses in the Sellwood neighborhood.
relocations and physical impacts to properties After construction, indirect impacts would
(such as changes to access and parking). Those include the following:
impacts do not account for economic impacts
associated with short- and long-term reduction in • Increased freight accessibility on a
business income associated with these physical rehabilitated or new bridge would make
changes. Direct economic impacts beyond right- deliveries more efficient for local businesses
of-way acquisition common to the Build and could reduce delivery shipping costs.
alternatives would include: Although the increased number of delivery
trucks across the bridge and on SE Tacoma
• Displacement of the nine businesses Street could also have a negative effect on
(30 employees total) in the Sellwood Building local businesses by degrading the pedestrian
would cause loss of business income environment, this route is not expected to
associated with reestablishing the businesses become an attractive through route for very
in new locations. These businesses are not large cargo trucks. The increased truck usage
location-dependent; therefore, impacts are on the bridge is expected to support delivery
not expected to be long term. The businesses of goods and services to the local area.
would be expected to continue to be viable
in new locations. The 30 jobs in this building • Improved safety and mobility for pedestrian
are professional-type jobs. The loss of 30 jobs and bicyclist traffic on the new bicyclist and
from this specific location could impact pedestrian facilities are expected to greatly
service-oriented businesses in Sellwood if the increase bicyclist and pedestrian usage in the
displaced businesses did not relocate in the area. More bicyclist and pedestrian use would
Sellwood area. likely increase the customer base for local
businesses.
• Property values of the residential units
located just north and south of the east end • Reintroduction of bus service across the
of the existing bridge would potentially bridge would increase pedestrian traffic on

Economic
SE Tacoma Street. More pedestrians would • Closure of the bridge during construction
potentially benefit business activity in the would impact businesses in the Sellwood
Sellwood commercial center. commercial center because customers
traveling to and from travel markets served
Alternative-specific Impacts by the Sellwood Bridge in Portland and in
Alternative A Clackamas and Washington counties would
Direct Impacts. In addition to impacts be rerouted to other river crossings.
described in Section 3.3, Right-of-Way and Businesses would lose their visibility to
Relocation, the following direct impacts would pass-by customers, as well as accessibility to
occur under Alternative A: customers on the west side of the river,
which could significantly affect those
• Displacement of the nine businesses
businesses. Combined owner and employee
(30 employees total) in the Sellwood Building
income losses associated with bridge closure
would cause loss of business income
for Alternative A are estimated to range from
associated with reestablishing the businesses
$3.8 million to $9.8 million (in 2005 dollars)
in new locations. These businesses are not
over the 24-month period in the economic
location-dependent; therefore, impacts are
analysis study area (Figures 3.6-1 and 3.6-2).
not expected to be long term. The businesses
However, owner and employee income
losses associated with bridge closure would
in new locations. The 30 jobs in this building
also extend beyond this area along OR 43
are professional-type jobs. The loss of 30 jobs
north of the Sellwood Bridge on the west
from this specific location could impact
side (in the Johns Landing area), and in the
service-oriented businesses in Sellwood if the
Sellwood/Moreland neighborhood beyond
displaced businesses did not relocate in the
the east-side economic analysis study area.
Sellwood area.
(For more information, see the Sellwood
• The bridge would be closed to bicycle, Bridge Project Economic Technical Report
pedestrian, and motorized vehicular traffic for [ECONorthwest, 2008; updated 2010].)
24 months during construction. This closure
• Although outside the Sellwood commercial
would create out-of-direction travel for all
center, business operations at Oaks
users of the bridge, causing travel time
Amusement Park would be adversely affected
increases. The travel delays and associated
by bridge closure during construction,
operating costs not only would accrue to
especially during summer months.
Sellwood Bridge users, but also to other
travelers on routes with increased congestion • Reconstruction of the displaced River Park
caused by absorption of the Sellwood Bridge Condominiums unit and the common area
detour traffic. The total increased travel time adjacent to the displaced River Park unit
and operating costs for motorized vehicle could decrease property values of other
users in weekday morning and evening peak River Park units during construction.
hours during bridge closure under
Alternative A are estimated at $63.3 million • Displacement of common-area landscaping
in 2008 dollars. (For more information, see and site improvements in the River Park and
Sellwood Bridge Project Economic Technical Sellwood Harbor condominiums that would
Report [ECONorthwest, 2008; updated be incorporated into the right-of-way could
2010].) decrease the property values of the
condominiums.

Economic
Alternative B • Without the temporary detour bridge option,

Direct Impacts. In addition to impacts closure of the bridge during construction
described in Section 3.3, Right-of-Way and would impact businesses in the Sellwood area
Relocation, the following direct impacts would because customers traveling to and from
occur under Alternative B: travel markets served by the Sellwood Bridge
in Portland and in Clackamas and Washington
• Displacement of the nine businesses
counties would be rerouted to other river
(30 employees total) in the Sellwood Building
crossings. Businesses would lose visibility to
would cause loss of business income
pass-by customers, as well as access to
associated with reestablishing the businesses
customers on the west side of the river,
in new locations. These businesses are not
businesses. Combined owner and employee
income losses associated with bridge closure
for Alternative B are estimated to range from
$3.8 million to $9.8 million (in 2005 dollars)
over the 24-month period in the economic
analysis study area (Figures 3.6-1 and 3.6-2).
However, owner and employee income
losses associated with bridge closure would
Sellwood area.
also extend beyond this area along OR 43
• Without construction of the temporary north of the Sellwood Bridge on the west
detour bridge, the bridge would be closed to side (in the Johns Landing area), and in the
bicycle, pedestrian, and motorized vehicular Sellwood/Moreland neighborhood beyond
traffic for 24 months during construction. the east-side economic analysis study area.
This closure would create out-of-direction (For more information, see the Sellwood
travel for all users of the bridge, causing Bridge Project Economic Technical Report
travel time increases. These costs not only [ECONorthwest, 2008; updated 2010].)
would accrue to Sellwood Bridge users, but
• Displacement of the River Park condominium
also to other travelers on routes with
unit could increase homeowner association
increased congestion caused by absorption of
fees for remaining River Park owners because
the Sellwood Bridge detour traffic. The total
the homeowner association costs would be
increased travel time and operating costs for
divided among fewer units.
motorized vehicle users in weekday morning
and evening peak hours during bridge closure • Reconstruction of the displaced River Park
under Alternative B are estimated at condominium unit and the common area
$63.3 million in 2008 dollars. (For more adjacent to the displaced River Park unit
information, see Sellwood Bridge Project could decrease property values of other
Economic Technical Report [ECONorthwest, River Park units during construction.
2008; updated 2010].)
• Displacement of common-area landscaping
• Although outside the Sellwood commercial and site improvements in the River Park and
center, business operations at Oaks Sellwood Harbor condominiums that would
Amusement Park would be adversely affected be incorporated into the right-of-way could
by bridge closure during construction, decrease the property values of the
especially during summer months, if no condominiums.
temporary detour bridge were provided.

Economic
Temporary Detour Bridge Option associated with reestablishing the businesses

The temporary detour bridge would maintain in new locations. These businesses are not
access to businesses during construction, location-dependent; therefore, impacts are
eliminating impacts associated with increased not expected to be long term. The businesses
travel and vehicle operating costs and adverse would be expected to continue to be viable
economic impacts to businesses from loss of in new locations. The 30 jobs in this building
customer access and visibility. In addition to the are professional-type jobs. The loss of 30 jobs
impacts associated with Alternative B described from this specific location could impact
previously, and the temporary detour bridge service-oriented businesses in Sellwood if the
impacts described in Section 3.3, Right-of-Way displaced businesses did not relocate in the
and Relocation, the following direct impacts Sellwood area.
would occur:
• The bridge would be closed to bicycle,
• Displacement of the Riverside Corral pedestrian, and motorized vehicular traffic for
business (nine employees) would cause loss 42 months during construction. This closure
of business income associated with would create out-of-direction travel for all
reestablishing the business in a new location. users of the bridge, causing travel time
This business is not location-dependent; increases. The travel delays and associated
therefore, impacts are not expected to be operating costs not only would accrue to
long term. The business would be expected Sellwood Bridge users, but also to other
to continue to be viable in new locations. The travelers on routes with increased congestion
nine jobs at Riverside Corral are service- caused by absorption of the Sellwood Bridge
oriented jobs. The loss of nine jobs from this detour traffic. The total increased travel time
specific location could impact other service- and operating costs for motorized vehicle
oriented businesses in Sellwood if the users in weekday morning and evening peak
displaced business did not relocate in the hours during bridge closure under
Sellwood area. Alternative C are estimated at $110.8 million
in 2008 dollars. (For more information, see
• The portion of the Brinsfield Boat Basin
Sellwood Bridge Project Economic Technical
north of SE Tacoma Street displaced during
Report [ECONorthwest, 2008; updated
construction would temporarily reduce
2010].)
business operations, but the portion of the
business on the south side of SE Tacoma • Closure of the bridge during construction
Street could continue operation. The land on would impact businesses in the Sellwood
the north side would be available for commercial center because customers
redevelopment following the completion of traveling to and from travel markets served
construction. by the Sellwood Bridge in Portland and in
Clackamas and Washington counties would
Alternative C be rerouted to other river crossings.
Direct Impacts. In addition to impacts
Businesses would lose their visibility to
described in Section 3.3, Right-of-Way and
pass-by customers, as well as accessibility to
Relocation, the following direct impacts would
customers on the west side of the river,
occur under Alternative C:
• Displacement of the nine businesses businesses. Combined owner and employee
(30 employees total) in the Sellwood Building income losses associated with bridge closure
would cause loss of business income for Alternative C are estimated to range
from $6.7 million to $17.0 million (in 2005

Economic
dollars) over the 42-month period in the decrease the property values of the
economic analysis study area (Figures 3.6-1 condominiums.
and 3.6-2). However, owner and employee
income losses associated with bridge closure • The curved alignment of the relocated
would also extend beyond this area along Willamette Shoreline Trolley tracks under
OR 43 north of the Sellwood Bridge on the Alternative C would reduce operating speed
west side (in the Johns Landing area), and in and make planned station location difficult.
the Sellwood/Moreland neighborhood Alternative D
beyond the east-side economic analysis study Direct Impacts. In addition to impacts
area. (For more information, see the Sellwood described in Section 3.3, Right-of-Way and
Bridge Project Economic Technical Report Relocation, the following direct impacts would
[ECONorthwest, 2008; updated 2010].) occur under Alternative D:
• Although outside the Sellwood commercial • Displacement of the nine businesses
center, business operations at Oaks (30 employees total) in the Sellwood Building
Amusement Park would be adversely affected would cause loss of business income
by bridge closure during construction, associated with reestablishing the businesses
especially during summer months. in new locations. These businesses are not
• Access to the River View Cemetery
Superintendent’s House (funeral home)
would be eliminated from OR 43. All clients
and employees would access the cemetery
from SW Taylors Ferry Road and drive a
circuitous route through the cemetery to the
funeral home. This access modification could
impact the operational feasibility of the
Sellwood area.
business. The River View Cemetery owners
have indicated they would relocate the • The staged construction of the new bridge
funeral home if access from OR 43 were would allow for river crossing during
closed. construction, but traffic access across the
bridge would be periodically affected by
• Displacement of one residential unit in River
interim closures to replace the existing
Park could increase homeowner association
bridge and construct the new bridge.
the homeowner association costs would be • Displacement of one residential unit in River
divided among fewer units. Park could increase homeowner association
• Reconstruction of the displaced River Park
the homeowner association costs would be
condominium unit and the common area
divided among fewer units.
adjacent to the displaced River Park unit
could decrease property values of other • Reconstruction of the displaced River Park
River Park units during construction. and Sellwood Harbor condominium units and
the common area adjacent to the displaced
• Displacement of common-area landscaping
River Park and Sellwood Harbor
and site improvements in the River Park and
condominium units could decrease property
Sellwood Harbor condominiums that would
be incorporated into the right-of-way could

Economic
values of other units in those condominium • Two vacant office spaces in Grand Place
communities during construction. would be displaced.
• Displacement of common-area landscaping • The staged construction of the new bridge
and site improvements in the River Park and would allow for river crossing during
Sellwood Harbor condominiums that would construction.
be incorporated into the right-of-way could
decrease the property values of the • Despite permanent displacement of the
condominiums. portion of Brinsfield Boat Basin north of
SE Tacoma Street, it is anticipated that
Alternative E Brinsfield Boat Basin could continue to
Direct Impacts. In addition to impacts operate on a reduced level. Operations
described in Section 3.3, Right-of-Way and would be consolidated on the portion of the
Relocation, the following direct impacts would business property south of SE Tacoma Street.
occur under Alternative E:
Alternative D Refined
• Displacement of the nine businesses (Preferred Alternative)
(30 employees total) in the Sellwood Building Direct Impacts. In addition to impacts
would cause loss of business income described in Section 3.3, Right-of-Way and
associated with reestablishing the businesses Relocation, the following direct impacts would
in new locations. These businesses are not occur under Alternative D Refined:
not expected to be long term. The businesses • Displacement of the nine businesses
would be expected to continue to be viable (30 employees total) in the Sellwood Building
in new locations. The 30 jobs in this building would cause loss of business income
are professional-type jobs. The loss of 30 jobs associated with reestablishing the businesses
from this specific location could impact in new locations. These businesses are not
service-oriented businesses in Sellwood if the location-dependent; therefore, impacts are
displaced businesses did not relocate in the not expected to be long term. The businesses
Sellwood area. would be expected to continue to be viable
• Displacement of the 37 businesses (total of are professional-type jobs. The loss of 30 jobs
186 employees) in the River Park Center from this specific location could impact
office building would cause loss of business service-oriented businesses in Sellwood if the
income associated with reestablishing the displaced businesses did not relocate in the
businesses in new locations. These businesses Sellwood area.
are not location-dependent; therefore,
impacts are not expected to be long term. • The staged construction of the new bridge
The businesses would be expected to would allow for river crossing during
continue to be viable in new locations. The construction, but traffic access across the
186 jobs in this building are professional-type bridge would be periodically affected by
jobs. The loss of 186 jobs from this specific interim closures to replace the existing
location could impact service-oriented bridge and construct the new bridge.
businesses in Sellwood if the displaced • Displacement of one residential unit in River
businesses did not relocate in the Sellwood Park could increase homeowner association
area. fees for remaining River Park owners because

Economic
the homeowner association costs would be Mitigation. Mitigation activities associated with
divided among fewer units. displacements and other property acquisition
impacts are described in Section 3.3, Right-of-
• Reconstruction of the displaced River Park Way and Relocation. Economic impacts would be
and Sellwood Harbor condominium units and minimized for Alternatives A, B (without
the common area adjacent to the displaced temporary detour bridge), and C by maintaining
River Park and Sellwood Harbor traffic across the river during construction. If a
condominium units could decrease property river crossing were not provided during
values of other units in those condominium construction, access to local businesses along
communities during construction. detour routes would be maintained and signage
• Displacement of common-area landscaping would be provided to direct traffic to businesses
and site improvements in the River Park and with modified access.
Sellwood Harbor condominiums that would In Alternative D, improvements to SW Taylors
be incorporated into the right-of-way could Ferry Road would improve the left-turn
decrease the property values of the movement into the River View Cemetery.
condominiums.
At the completion of construction, no substantial
Summary of Alternative-specific Impacts changes to the character of the commercial area
Indirect Impacts. Alternatives A, B (without are expected for any of the Build alternatives, so
the temporary detour bridge), and C, would no mitigation would be needed.
eliminate pass-by traffic and access to the west-
side customer base for lengthy periods of bridge 3.6.4 Summary of Alternatives by
closures during construction. Although most
businesses would likely sustain expected losses in
Differentiating Economic
income, others might be forced to cease Impact
operation. Business closures would be most likely
under Alternative C, which has the longest
construction period.
TABLE 3.6-1
Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Economic Impact
B with
Temporary D Refined
No Detour (Preferred
Build A B Bridge C D E Alternative)
Employees 0 30 30 62 46 30 216 30
Displaced
Construction $54 $331– $326 $356 $280 $293– $361 $290–$299
Costs (2012 $337 $311
million dollars)
Construction 12 36 36 39 months 42 45–51 a 36–42 a 51 months
Duration months months months months months months
Bridge Closure 6–8 24 24 No closure 42 No long- No No long-term

Duration months months months months term closure closure b
closure b

Economic
TABLE 3.6-1
Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Economic Impact
B with
Temporary D Refined
No Detour (Preferred
Build A B Bridge C D E Alternative)
Travel Time and $19.1 $63.3 $63.3 $0 $110.8 $0 $0 $0
Vehicle Operating
Cost of Bridge
Closure (2008
c
millions)
Owner and Labor $1.9– $3.8– $3.8– $0 $6.7– $0 $0 $0
Income Losses $4.9 $9.8 $9.8 $17.0
Due to Bridge
Closure (2005
millions)d
a
Construction duration varies by bridge type. In Alternative D, the construction period required for the deck-arch
bridge would be longer than for the delta-frame bridge. In Alternative E, the construction period required for the
through-arch bridge would be longer than for the box-girder bridge.
b
Traffic access across the bridge would be periodically affected by interim closures to replace the existing bridge
and construct the new bridge.
c
Total increased travel time and operating costs for motorized vehicle users in weekday morning and evening peak
hours during bridge closure. Details of cost calculations are provided in the Sellwood Bridge Project Economic
Technical Report (ECONorthwest, 2008; updated 2010).
d
Details of cost calculations are provided in the Sellwood Bridge Project Economic Technical Report (ECONorthwest,
2008; updated 2010).
3.6.5 Impacts of Project • The 2009 Oregon Jobs and Transportation

Act allocated $30 million to the OR 43/
Financing Sellwood Bridge interchange.
The long-range needs for transportation projects
in the Portland metropolitan area exceed the • The City of Portland has shown willingness to
level of federal and state funding that might fund $100 million of the project’s cost out of
reasonably be assumed to be available in the a percentage of funds allocated to the City of
region. Local funding sources would be needed to Portland by the 2009 Oregon Jobs and
pay for costs associated with the Sellwood Bridge Transportation Act.
project. • Multnomah County will request $40 million
Multnomah County has identified a preliminary as part of the reauthorization of the federal
financial plan to fund construction of the transportation legislation that governs United
Sellwood Bridge project (Table 3.6-2). The States federal highway and transit
following items highlight the funding sources. transportation spending.
• The 2009 Oregon Jobs and Transportation
• Multnomah County will have approximately
Act included a provision for counties to enact
$11 million left over from the current project
a vehicle registration fee for Willamette River
phase.
bridge replacement, which includes the

Economic
Sellwood Bridge. On October 22, 2009, fund approximately $22 million of the
Multnomah County Commissioners approved project’s cost.
a $19 annual vehicle registration fee for the
These funding sources are estimated to fund
approximately 577,250 registered vehicles in
$330 million for the Sellwood Bridge. Of this
Multnomah County to help replace the
funding, $168 million is secured. Another
Sellwood Bridge. (Trucks over 26,000 pounds
$122 million is expected to be secured in 2010.
are excluded by state law because they pay a
The remaining $40 million federal request is
weight-per-mile fee.) Bond proceeds over a
dependent on the reauthorization of the federal
20-year period would be approximately
transportation bill. This preliminary financial plan
$127 million. The anticipated implementation
could change as the project progresses. Before
date is fall of 2010. The fee will be in place
construction, the Federal Highway Administration
for 20 years.
(FHWA) must approve a Financial Plan for
• Clackamas County elected officials plan to the project.
consider enacting a smaller vehicle
registration fee dedicated to replacing the
Sellwood Bridge. This fee is anticipated to
TABLE 3.6-2
Preliminary Financial Plan to Fund Sellwood Bridge Project
Source Amount
Carry Over From Current Project Phase $11 million (secured)
2009 Oregon Jobs and Transportation Act for OR 43/Sellwood Bridge Interchange $30 million (secured)
City of Portland Agreement $100 million
Federal Reauthorization Request $40 million
Multnomah County Vehicle Registration Fee $127 million (secured)
Clackamas County $22 million
Total $330 million

Social Elements
Social Elements Summary


3.7 Social Elements  The racial, ethnic, and income
composition of the study area would not
3.7.1 Affected Environment change as a result of the No Build
The purpose of the social analysis is to evaluate Alternative or any of the Build
direct and indirect community impacts associated alternatives.
with the No Build Alternative and the Build  Schools would not be affected by the No
alternatives. Social effects of transportation Build Alternative or any of the Build
projects can be substantial, and often play an Alternatives.
important role in the quality of people’s lives.  Bridge closures under the No Build
They include changes in neighborhood or Alternative and Alternatives A, B (with
community cohesion; changes in travel patterns no temporary detour bridge), and C
and accessibility; and impacts to community would adversely affect emergency
service access and west-side access to
facilities and services, such as religious institutions the only grocery store in Sellwood.
and emergency services. Impacts to special
populations are addressed in both the social  Noise and visual impacts would adversely
elements and environmental justice analyses. To affect the attractiveness of the Oaks
Pioneer Church as a location for events
avoid duplication, impacts to elderly and disabled under Alternatives A and E. Noise would
persons are discussed in this section and impacts negatively affect use of the church while
to minority and low-income persons are the Alternative B temporary detour
described in Section 3.8, Environmental Justice. bridge was in place.
Transportation projects can have effects, both  Community cohesion would be affected
by the choice of an east-side connection.
positive and negative, beyond the immediate Substantial neighborhood cut-through
project site. The project team identified a study traffic would occur under a signalized
area that includes neighborhoods, arterials, and intersection at SE 6th Avenue and
census tracts that could reasonably be expected SE Tacoma Street. Impacts would be
less with the Grand Avenue Extension
to experience social impacts resulting from the
and least with no change from the
Sellwood Bridge project. The study area, shown existing intersection or with a
on Figure 3.7-1, is generally defined as the area bicyclist/pedestrian-activated signal only.
North-south accessibility would be
A disabled individual, as defined by improved with the Grand Avenue
the American Disabilities Act, is a Extension.
person who has a physical or mental
impairment that substantially limits
one or more major life activities; between SE 17th Avenue on the east, SE Bybee
Disabled Individuals
has a record of such impairment; or Boulevard on the north, SW Taylors Ferry Road
is regarded as having such on the west, and the Portland city limits on the
impairment. The U.S. Census 2000
south.
long form asked respondents about
the existence of a physical, mental,
or emotional condition in household Demographics
members 5 years of age and older. The study area was selected to conform to the
Respondents were asked to identify boundaries of geographical units for which data
conditions lasting 6 months or are available. The 2000 U.S. Census provided the
more, or that made it difficult to
perform certain activities, including source for all demographic data. The most useful
working and leaving the home. geographic units were Census tracts and block
groups (which comprise Census tracts). The

Social Elements
following items summarizes relevant 2000 Census  Approximately 25 percent of the study area
data for the study area: population listed some form of disability, a
percentage lower than those reported for the
 Approximately 2,300 households were state of Oregon, Multnomah County, and the
occupied by 4,791 residents. city of Portland.
 Approximately 89 percent of the population Neighborhoods and Community
in the study area were Caucasian, compared
Cohesion
to 78 percent for the city of Portland.
Community cohesion is the quantity and quality
 Approximately 9 percent of the population in of interaction between people in a community.
the study area were elderly (65 years or Typically, residents feel connected to a
older), compared to 12 percent for the city community if they feel socially connected to their
of Portland.
neighbors, neighborhood businesses, and
 Approximately 8 percent of households neighborhood amenities (such as parks and
reported zero vehicles. (These households schools). The feeling of social connection is
could be used as a proxy for transit- encouraged by close geographic location.
dependent households.)
FIGURE 3.7-1
Selected Social Elements

Social Elements
The study area is located within two city- neighborhood areas, which increases social
recognized neighborhoods: Sellwood-Moreland connection and interaction among neighborhood
and South Portland (formerly Corbett- residents. SE Tacoma Street is the primary east-
Terwilliger-Lair Hill). All of the study area on the west local and regional through-fare. It is
east side of the Willamette River is located within primarily lined with commercial properties, most
the Sellwood-Moreland neighborhood. All of the of which are located at or near the major
study area on the west side of the river is located intersections (at SE 13th Avenue and SE 17th
within the South Portland neighborhood. Avenue) within the study area. The only grocery
store in the study area, New Seasons Market
Sellwood, is located on SE Tacoma Street near
Community
Cohesion
Community cohesion refers to the 13th Avenue and serves the needs of local
quantity and quality of interaction customers on the east and west sides of the
between people in a community.
Willamette River, as well as pass-by customers
who use the Sellwood Bridge en route to
destinations outside Sellwood. The improvements
Sellwood-Moreland Neighborhood
implemented as part of the recommendations of
The Sellwood Bridge is a gateway to the
the Tacoma Main Street Plan (City of Portland,
Sellwood-Moreland neighborhood. Sellwood
2001) have enhanced pedestrian mobility and
Moreland Improvement League (SMILE) is the
accessibility on SE Tacoma Street. Bicycle
city-recognized neighborhood association for this
boulevards are located on SE Spokane Street and
area. The boundaries of the Sellwood-Moreland
SE Umatilla Street, east-west aligned streets
neighborhood are OR 99E (SE McLoughlin
north and south of SE Tacoma Street. These and
Boulevard) on the north and east, Portland city
other east-west aligned streets are local streets
limits on the south, and the Willamette River on
that provide access to residential areas.
the west. The parks and undeveloped land along
the east bank of the Willamette River give The primary north-south through-fares
character to the area and are important (SE Milwaukie Avenue, SE 13th Avenue, and
neighborhood features. North of the Sellwood SE 17th Avenue) are important for social
Bridge, a large portion of the Willamette River’s interaction and contribute to neighborhood
edge is devoted to Sellwood Riverfront Park. identity, character, and livability. Coffee shops,
Other occupants along the river are moorages, restaurants, taverns, and antique emporiums line
Oaks Amusement Park, Oaks Bottom Wildlife these commercial streets and serve as
Refuge, and residential and commercial neighborhood gathering places, as well as
properties. The Oaks Bottom Wildlife Refuge, shopping and dining destinations for visitors from
which is approximately 160 acres, is outside the neighborhood. An established
predominately a floodplain wetland system regional antique district is concentrated on
consisting of several vegetation communities. SE 13th Avenue, but recent additions to the
South of the Sellwood Bridge, condominium district have been introduced near the
buildings and moorages primarily occupy the intersection of SE Bybee Boulevard and
Willamette River’s edge. The open spaces along SE Milwaukie Avenue. The other north-south
the Willamette River contribute to the aligned streets are local streets that provide
neighborhood’s identity and character and are access to residential areas.
integral locations for social interaction.
The east side of the study area is dominated by
The grid street network of the Sellwood- properties with single-family detached homes.
Moreland neighborhood allows for maximum Most of these homes were built prior to 1930.
connectivity and accessibility between Home styles vary from Victorian to ranch, but

Social Elements
infill development within the neighborhood is Boulevard forms most of the western boundary.
replacing some of the smaller, less-valued housing Only a small segment of the South Portland
units. Through restoration and renovation, the neighborhood is inside the study area.
neighborhood retains its historic housing; infill
The neighborhood, formerly known as Corbett-
housing is generally compatible with the older
Terwilliger-Lair Hill, changed its name in
housing stock. Sellwood-Moreland retains its
September 2006 to be more concise and
status as a popular Portland neighborhood for the
inclusive. South Portland was the name of a 19th
quality of its housing and well-established
century community that overlapped the present-
residential neighborhood streets.
day neighborhood. The South Portland
The River Park and Sellwood Harbor neighborhood includes many smaller
condominium developments are located along the neighborhoods within its boundaries, including
Willamette River immediately north and south of Lair Hill, South Waterfront, Corbett, Johns
the Sellwood Bridge. Moorages are also located Landing, Terwilliger, and Fulton.
along the Willamette River, including the Oregon
The portion of the study area within the South
Yacht Club, which is located in the extreme
Portland neighborhood is limited to a few
northern portion of the study area on the
industrial uses immediately east of OR 43 and
Willamette River next to Oaks Amusement Park,
single-family residential uses near the Willamette
with access provided at the terminus of SE Oaks
River further east of OR 43. Willamette Park,
Park Way.
Butterfly Park, Willamette Moorage Park, and a
The Sellwood-Moreland Neighborhood Plan (City of portion of River View Cemetery are located in
Portland, 1998) provides policy guidance for the the southern and eastern portions of the South
neighborhood. The plan’s policy topics include Portland neighborhood.
neighborhood character and identity, form and
urban design, river edge, SE Tacoma Street, Community Features and Events
pedestrian-oriented commercial areas, residential Figure 3.7-1 illustrates selected community
areas, environment and green spaces, and features within the study area. Table 3.7-1
transportation. describes these neighborhood features. Parks and
other recreational resources are discussed in
South Portland Neighborhood Section 3.9, Parks and Recreation.
The South Portland Neighborhood is the city-
recognized neighborhood association for the area Emergency and Medical Services
south of downtown along the Willamette River. The City of Portland provides police and fire
The South Portland neighborhood boundaries are protection to all areas within the study area.
approximately from I-405 and the Marquam Figure 3.7-2 illustrates street sections inside the
Bridge on the north to SW Canby Street and study area classified as Emergency Response
Butterfly Park in the south. The Willamette River Streets in the City of Portland Transportation
is the eastern boundary, and SW Barbur System Plan (2004, updated in 2007).

Social Elements
TABLE 3.7-1
Element Description
School Facilities
Sellwood Middle School Sellwood Middle School is a Portland public school. The school was built
8300 SE 15th Avenue in 1914 and serves students in the 6th through 8th grades.
Saint Agatha Catholic School The Archdiocese of Portland’s Department of Catholic Schools
7960 SE 15th Avenue administers Saint Agatha Catholic School. The school opened in 1912, but
the original school building was replaced by a new building in 2003. The
school serves students in kindergarten through 8th grade.
Religious Institutions
Oaks Pioneer Church This nondenominational church is owned and operated by the Sellwood-
455 SE Spokane Street Moreland Improvement League. For more information on this church, see
Section 3.10, Archaeological and Historic Resources.
Immanuel Lutheran Church Denomination is Lutheran.
7810 SE 15th Avenue
Calvary Open Bible Church Nondenominational.
901 SE Spokane Street
Saint Agatha Catholic Church Denomination is Catholic.
7960 SE 15th Avenue
Sellwood Baptist Church Denomination is Baptist.
Sellwood United Methodist Church Denomination is Methodist.
1422 SE Tacoma Street
Public Library
Sellwood-Moreland Neighborhood Part of the Multnomah County Library system, Sellwood-Moreland
Library Neighborhood Library users have access to Multnomah County Library's
7860 SE 13th Avenue system-wide catalog of 2 million books and other library materials. The
library has a meeting room with a 20-person capacity for community
meetings and events.
Post Office
Sellwood-Moreland Branch The Sellwood-Moreland branch of the U.S. Post Office is located within
6723 SE 16th Avenue the study area.
Community Facilities
Sellwood Community Center The Sellwood Community Center includes an indoor basketball court, a
1436 SE Spokane Street community center, a gymnasium, a meeting room, a party room, a
playground, and a wedding site. Originally constructed as a residential
hotel for the men who worked in the old Sellwood Log Mill, it became the
first branch of the YMCA in 1910. The City of Portland purchased the
facility in 1920 as its second community center. Most of the original
architecture has been preserved.

Social Elements
TABLE 3.7-1
Element Description
SMILE Station The headquarters of the Sellwood-Moreland Improvement League;
8210 SE 13th Avenue monthly neighborhood association meetings are held in this building. The
converted 1926 firehouse is available for meetings, workshops, wedding
receptions, and other events.
Meyer Memorial Boys & Girls Club Operated by the Boys & Girls Clubs of Portland Metropolitan Area, the
7119 SE Milwaukie Avenue Meyer Memorial Club offers summer and after-school activities and
programs for children and teens. The club has an art room, a gym, a game
room, a learning center, and a teen center.
Grocery Stores
Sellwood New Seasons Market New Seasons Market provides its customers with local and organic food,
1214 SE Tacoma Street as well as more commonly available food products. Grocery store access
is important to a community’s sense of place, because the grocery store is
often a busy community hub. It is also important to food security,
especially in the event of a catastrophic emergency. The store relies
partially on pass-by trips on SE Tacoma Street for patrons and serves a
significant number of residents directly west of Sellwood Bridge in South
Portland.
Cemeteries
River View Cemetery River View Cemetery encompasses most of the study area on the west
side of the Willamette River. Established in 1882, River View Cemetery is
the oldest not-for-profit cemetery in the Portland area. It is owned and
operated by the River View Cemetery Association and is governed by a
volunteer Board of Trustees. Because of its age and the origins of its
establishment in the early 1880s, the cemetery contains the remains of
persons who are considered important in the history, politics, and social
landscape of Portland in the late 19th century. For more information on
River View Cemetery and its historic significance, see Section 3.10,
Archaeological and Historic Resources.
Community River-based Major Events
Sellwood Bridge Vicinity No major river-based events occur on the Willamette River within the
vicinity of the Sellwood Bridge. Fireworks displays for the 4th of July and
New Year’s Eve on the river attract a few viewers in boats within the
Sellwood Bridge vicinity, but the majority of viewers stay farther north of
the bridge vicinity. Major events occurring within the study area parks are
listed in Section 3.9, Parks and Recreation.

Social Elements
FIGURE 3.7-2
Transit and Emergency Vehicle Routes
The study area falls within two precincts of the Fire Station 10 (Battalion 1), the Burlingame
Portland Police Bureau—the Central Precinct and Station at 451 SW Taylors Ferry Road, is located
the Southeast Precinct. The study area west of within the study area, and responds to the
the Willamette River is entirely located in portion of the study area west of the Willamette
District 890 of the Central Precinct. The study River. Fire Station 20 (Battalion 2), the
area east of the Willamette River is entirely Sellwood/Moreland Station at 2235 SE Bybee
located in District 762 of the Southeast Precinct. Boulevard, is located outside the study area, but
No police facilities are located in the study area. responds to the portion of the study area east of
Police departments at 4735 E Burnside Street and the Willamette River.
1111 SW 2nd Avenue are the two facilities
The use of the Sellwood Bridge by fire apparatus
closest to the study area.
is greatly limited. While ambulances can use the
The Portland Fire, Rescue, and Emergency bridge, fire engines may use the bridge for
Services Bureau provides fire suppression and emergency response only, with speeds restricted
prevention services within the study area. The to 15 miles per hour. Other fire apparatus,
department also offers regional hazardous including fire trucks, are unable to use the bridge
material emergency response, special rescue, and due to weight restrictions. This significantly
community outreach. The study area is split increases response times for multiple-unit
between two fire and rescue districts (battalions). responses, including residential fires, commercial

Social Elements
fires, major gas incidents, hazardous materials Providence Milwaukie hospital provides
incidents, or specialty rescues. emergency, ambulatory surgery, geriatric,
maternity, transfusion, rehabilitation, and sleep
City of Portland Fire and Rescue operates three
study services, among others. Providence
fireboats and two rescue boats that respond to
Milwaukie hospital relies on OR 43 and the
fires, vessels in distress, water rescues,
Sellwood Bridge for delivery of supplies. The
navigational hazards, and environmental concerns.
hospital provided patient data aggregated at the
The City of Portland Harbormaster reports that
zip code level for 2007. These data provide a
fireboats make four to five weekly trips through
snapshot of patients who were treated at
the Willamette River within the vicinity of the
Providence Milwaukie in 2007, but do not
Sellwood Bridge. The largest of the fireboats
necessarily predict future utilization of the
measures 20 feet from the vertical waterline to
hospital. Approximately 0.6 percent of total
the top of the vessel.
Providence Milwaukie patients treated in 2007
Medical Facilities resided in zip codes west of the Sellwood Bridge.
No major medical facilities are located within the
study area. The nearest hospitals are Providence
Milwaukie and Oregon Health & Science Environmental
University (OHSU). Providence Milwaukie is Consequences
south of the study area, at 10150 SE 32nd Avenue Impacts that would occur under the No Build
in Milwaukie. OHSU is located at 3181 SW Sam Alternative are shown in Table 3.7-2. To avoid
Jackson Park Road, north of the study area. redundancy, these impacts are limited to those
not described in other sections (that is,
The Sellwood Bridge via OR 99E (SE McLoughlin
3.1 Transportation, 3.3 Right-of-Way and
Boulevard) and SE Tacoma Street is a primary
Relocation, 3.5 Land Use, 3.6 Economic, 3.9 Parks
route for emergency vehicles en route to OHSU.
and Recreation, 3.11 Visual Resources, and
OHSU relies heavily on OR 43 as an emergency
3.19 Noise).
route to its services. OR 43 is the main roadway
access from Milwaukie, West Linn, Gladstone,
and other points south of OHSU. The OR 43
route provides emergency response vehicles with Environmental
two lanes in each direction north of the Consequences
Dunthorpe area, which allows traffic to pull over Impacts and Mitigation Common to
and yield to ambulances. OHSU employees also All Build Alternatives
depend on the Sellwood Bridge and OR 43 for Direct Impacts. The direct social impacts
work access. Because of topography constraints, common to the Build alternatives are illustrated
parking is severely limited at OHSU—only 2,000 in Table 3.7-3. To avoid redundancy, these
parking spaces serve visitors, services, and the impacts are limited to those not described in
12,800 employees. Lack of transit and safe, other sections (that is, 3.1 Transportation,
comfortable bicycle and pedestrian crossing 3.3 Right-of-Way and Relocation, 3.5 Land Use,
conditions at the Sellwood Bridge are currently 3.6 Economic, 3.9 Parks and Recreation,
negative factors for OHSU employees. OR 43 3.11 Visual Resources, and 3.19 Noise).
allows access to SW Moody Avenue, where
OHSU has its newest facilities and has plans for
expansion.

Social Elements
TABLE 3.7-2
Social Impacts under the No Build Alternative
Factor Impact
Neighborhood demographics Racial, ethnic, and income composition of the study area would not be
expected to change.
Community cohesion Community cohesion would not be affected.
Emergency services Bridge closure for maintenance activities (6 to 8 months) would negatively
impact emergency service routes, especially in the event of a catastrophic
event, because no river crossing would be provided during maintenance
activities. Potential temporary closure of OR 43 for maintenance activities
would negatively impact transport time to OHSU, which relies on OR 43
as a major emergency route. Fire and police protection are serviced
locally, so they would not be affected. Any bridge closure to all traffic in
the future because of structural deficiencies would have a negative impact
during a major catastrophe.
Community facilities Community facilities would not be affected.
Schools Schools would not be affected.
Cemeteries Cemeteries would not be affected.
TABLE 3.7-3
Direct Social Impacts Common to the Build Alternatives
Element Impact
Neighborhood Racial, ethnic, and income composition of the study area would not be expected to
demographics change as a result of the project.
Community cohesion Residential and business displacements would not be expected to affect community
cohesion.
Schools Schools would not be affected by the project.
Community concerns relevant to social impacts minimize private property impacts as much as
expressed during Community Task Force (CTF) possible. These concerns were also integrated
meetings and at public open houses focused on a into the development of Build alternatives. Traffic
desire to develop alternatives consistent with the diversion through the Sellwood neighborhood,
Tacoma Main Street Plan (City of Portland, 2001). identified as a key neighborhood concern, is
The plan calls for SE Tacoma Street to remain a discussed subsequently in relation to each
two-travel-lane facility. This concern was alternative.
incorporated into the development of
Indirect Impacts. Indirect social impacts
alternatives; consequently, none of the Build
common to the Build alternatives are discussed in
alternatives would increase the number of travel
Section 3.5, Land Use. Key indirect impacts that
lanes on SE Tacoma Street. Other primary
would affect the social setting of the community
community concerns were to maintain the
include the potential for moderate intensification
Sellwood Bridge as a lifeline route and to
of existing land uses, increased transit-oriented

Social Elements
development, and increased “walk-by” traffic for Alternative-specific Impacts and

commercial enterprises in Sellwood. These Mitigation
impacts would stem from the reintroduction of Environmental consequences and mitigation for
transit and the improvement of bicycle and each Build alternative are summarized in the
pedestrian facilities on the bridge. following subsections. To avoid redundancy,
Mitigation. All Build alternatives would these impacts are limited to those not described
permanently change access locations to River in other sections (that is, 3.1 Transportation,
View Cemetery and other park, residential, and 3.3 Right-of-Way and Relocation, 3.5 Land Use,
business locations, including the potential for 3.6 Economic, 3.9 Parks and Recreation,
limitation of turning movements in and out of 3.11 Visual Resources, and 3.19 Noise).
driveways. Mitigation measures related to right-
Alternative A
of-way and access modifications are discussed in Direct Impacts. The direct social impacts
Section 3.3, Right-of-Way and Relocation. specific to Alternative A are listed in Table 3.7-4.
Potential closures of or disruption to river Indirect Impacts. No alternative-specific
navigation would be communicated to emergency impacts to community cohesion, emergency
services personnel, including Portland Police and services, or River View Cemetery are expected.
Fire, Multnomah County River Patrol, OHSU, The presence of the bicycle/pedestrian bridge
Providence Milwaukie hospital, and ambulance could diminish the appeal of Oaks Pioneer Park
dispatching services (such as American Medical and Oaks Pioneer Church as a site for events.
Response and Metro West).
TABLE 3.7-4
Direct Social Impacts under Alternative A
Element Impact
Community The potential for cut-through traffic in the neighborhood is the same as under the No Build
cohesion Alternative. Alternative A would not alleviate the existing difficulty of movement across
SE Tacoma Street during peak hours. Motorized vehicles could only turn right with ease.
Bicycle and pedestrian crossings of SE Tacoma Street would be difficult at all non-signalized
locations. SE Tacoma Street is not expected to become an attractive through route for very
large cargo trucks. Increased truck usage on the bridge is expected to support delivery of
goods and services to the local area and not create a barrier affecting community cohesion.
Emergency Bridge closure during construction (24 months) would negatively impact emergency service
services routes, especially in the case of a catastrophic event, because no river crossing would be
provided during construction. Temporary closure of OR 43 during construction would
negatively impact transport time to OHSU, which relies on OR 43 as a major emergency
route. Fire and police protection are serviced locally, so they would not be affected.
Community The visual presence of the bicycle/pedestrian bridge would potentially reduce the appeal of
facilities Oaks Pioneer Church as a venue for events. Closure of Sellwood Bridge during construction
would negatively impact grocery store access for communities on the west side of the river.
Cemeteries Access to River View Cemetery would be provided on a new road from the west-side
interchange; access during construction would be maintained.

Social Elements
These effects could lead to an indirect negative expected under Alternative B. Noise from the
impact to SMILE, a community-based organization temporary detour bridge could lead to an
that relies on revenues from functions held at indirect negative impact to SMILE, a community-
Oaks Pioneer Church to carry out its programs based organization that relies on revenues from
and events, which benefit the community. Any functions held at Oaks Pioneer Church to carry
resulting loss in revenue to SMILE could affect out its programs and events, which benefit the
their ability to carry out programs and events, community. Any resulting loss in revenue to
which would negatively affect the community. SMILE could affect its ability to carry out
programs and events, which would negatively
Mitigation. Construction of a temporary detour
affect the community.
bridge would eliminate adverse impacts to
emergency services and community facilities Mitigation. Construction of a temporary detour
under Alternative A. Visual impacts of the bridge would eliminate adverse impacts to
bicycle/pedestrian bridge could be mitigated by emergency services and community facilities
planting vegetation to screen views of the bridge under Alternative B.
from the church.
Alternative B The direct and indirect impacts with the optional
Direct Impacts. The direct social impacts temporary detour bridge would be the same as
specific to Alternative B are listed in Table 3.7-5. those without the temporary detour bridge,
except that access across the river for emergency
Indirect Impacts. No alternative-specific
services would be provided during construction.
indirect impacts to community cohesion,
emergency services, or River View Cemetery are
TABLE 3.7-5
Direct Social Impacts under Alternative B
Element Impact
Community The potential for cut-through traffic in the neighborhood is the same as under the No Build
cohesion Alternative. Alternative B would not alleviate the existing difficulty of movement across
SE Tacoma Street during peak hours. Motorized vehicles could only turn right with ease.
Bicycle and pedestrian crossings of SE Tacoma Street would be difficult at all non-signalized
locations. SE Tacoma Street is not expected to become an attractive through route for very
large cargo trucks. Increased truck usage on the bridge is expected to support delivery of
goods and services to the local area and not create a barrier affecting community cohesion.
Emergency If no temporary detour bridge were provided, bridge closure during construction
services (24 months) would negatively impact emergency service routes, especially in the event of a
catastrophic event, because no river crossing would be provided during construction.
Temporary closure of OR 43 during construction would negatively impact transport time to
OHSU, which relies on OR 43 as a major emergency route. Fire and police protection are
served locally, so they would not be affected.
Community The temporary detour bridge would generate adverse noise impacts to Oaks Pioneer
facilities Church that would diminish its attractiveness for events in the short term. If no temporary
detour bridge were provided, bridge closure during construction would negatively impact
grocery store access for communities on the west side of the river.
Cemeteries Access to River View Cemetery would be provided on a new road from the west-side
interchange; access during construction would be maintained.

Social Elements
Alternative C emergency services, community facilities, or

Direct Impacts. The direct social impacts cemeteries are expected under Alternative D.
specific to Alternative C are listed in Table 3.7-6.
Mitigation. No alternative-specific mitigation is
Indirect Impacts. No alternative-specific anticipated.
emergency services, or community facilities are Alternative E
Direct Impacts. The direct social impacts
expected under Alternative C. Owners of River
specific to Alternative E are listed in Table 3.7-8.
View Cemetery indicate they would move the
funeral home (currently located in the Indirect Impacts. Alternative E could diminish
Superintendent's House) to a new location if the appeal of Oaks Pioneer Park and Oaks
access from OR 43 were eliminated. Pioneer Church as a site for events such as
memorials and wedding ceremonies because of
Mitigation. Construction of a temporary detour
the visual and noise impacts of a new bridge
bridge would eliminate adverse impacts to
alignment (see Section 3.11, Visual Resources,
emergency services and community facilities
and Section 3.19, Noise). These effects could lead
under Alternative C. Access to River View
to an indirect negative impact to SMILE, a
Cemetery from SW Taylors Ferry Road would be
community-based organization that relies on
improved.
revenues from events held at Oaks Pioneer
Alternative D Church to carry out its programs and events,
Direct Impacts. The direct social impacts which benefit the community. Any resulting loss
specific to Alternative D are listed in Table 3.7-7. in revenue to SMILE could affect its ability to
carry out other programs and events, which
would negatively affect the community.
TABLE 3.7-6
Direct Social Impacts under Alternative C
Element Impact
Community cohesion The SE Grand Avenue extension would moderately increase neighborhood
cut-through traffic, but would improve motorized vehicle, bicycle, and
pedestrian access to areas north of SE Tacoma Street and west of SE 13th
Avenue. For more information, see Section 3.1, Transportation.
Emergency services Bridge closure during construction (42 months) would negatively impact
emergency service routes, especially in the event of a catastrophic event,
because no river crossing would be provided during construction.
Temporary closure of OR 43 during construction would negatively impact
transport time to OHSU, which relies on OR 43 as a major emergency
route. Fire and police protection are serviced locally, so they would not be
affected.
Community facilities Closure of Sellwood Bridge during construction would negatively impact
grocery store access for communities on the west side of the river.
Cemeteries River View Cemetery access on OR 43 would be removed, requiring clients
and employees to use a circuitous entry route to the funeral home from
SW Taylors Ferry Road.

Social Elements
TABLE 3.7-7
Direct Social Impacts under Alternative D
Element Impact
Community cohesion Signalization of the SE Tacoma Street and SE 6th Avenue intersection would
substantially increase neighborhood cut-through traffic, would not improve
access to existing land uses, and would cause traffic to back up to the OR 43
interchange. The traffic signal would provide an additional protected crossing
of SE Tacoma Street that would benefit bicyclists and pedestrians, especially
elderly and handicapped travelers.
Emergency services Temporary closure of OR 43 during construction would negatively impact
route. Access across the river for emergency services would be provided
during construction, but traffic access across the bridge would be
periodically affected by interim closures to replace the existing bridge and
construct the new bridge.
Community facilities Access would be maintained to community facilities during construction.
Cemeteries Access to River View Cemetery would be provided on a new road from the
west-side interchange; access during construction would be maintained.
TABLE 3.7-8
Direct Social Impacts under Alternative E
Element Impact
Community cohesion Signalization of the SE Tacoma Street and SE 6th Avenue intersection would
substantially increase neighborhood cut-through traffic, would not improve
access to the existing land uses, and would cause traffic to back up to the
OR 43 interchange. The traffic signal would provide an additional protected
crossing of SE Tacoma Street that would benefit bicyclists and pedestrians,
especially elderly and handicapped travelers.
during construction.
Having the bridge structure adjacent to Oaks Pioneer Park would potentially
impact the appeal of Oaks Pioneer Church as a venue for events.

Social Elements
TABLE 3.7-9
Direct Social Impacts under Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined)
Element Impact
Community cohesion The potential for cut-through traffic in the neighborhood is the same as
under the No Build Alternative. Alternative D Refined would not alleviate
the existing difficulty of vehicle movement across SE Tacoma Street during
peak hours. Motorized vehicles could only turn right with ease. A bicyclist/
pedestrian-activated signal at the SE Tacoma Street and SE 6th Avenue
intersection would provide an additional protected crossing of SE Tacoma
Street that would benefit bicyclists and pedestrians, especially elderly and
handicapped travelers. SE Tacoma Street is not expected to become an
attractive through route for very large cargo trucks. Increased truck usage
on the bridge is expected to support delivery of goods and services to the
local area and not create a barrier affecting community cohesion.
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.
Mitigation. No mitigation measures to reduce emergency services, community facilities, or

impacts of the Alternative E bridge alignment on cemeteries are expected under Alternative D
Oaks Pioneer Park and Oaks Pioneer Church Refined.
have been identified.
Mitigation. No alternative-specific mitigation is
Alternative D Refined anticipated.
(Preferred Alternative)
Direct Impacts. The direct social impacts 3.7.4 Summary of Alternatives by
specific to Alternative D Refined are listed in Differentiating Social
Table 3.7-9.
Impact

Social Elements
TABLE 3.7-10
Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Social Impact
D Refined
Impact No Build A B C D E (Preferred Alt.)
Community None to minimal None to minimal None to minimal Minimal to moderate Moderate to Moderate to None to minimal
cohesion: increase substantial substantial
in neighborhood
cut-through traffic
Community None None None Improve motorized Protected Protected Protected crossing;
cohesion: vehicle, bicycle, and crossing; benefit to crossing; benefit benefit to bicyclists
improvement of pedestrian access to bicyclists and to bicyclists and and pedestrians
north-south areas north of SE pedestrians pedestrians (especially elderly
crossing of Tacoma Tacoma Street and (especially elderly (especially and handicapped)
west of SE 13th Avenue and handicapped) elderly and
handicapped)
Emergency 6- to 8-month 24-month closure 24-month closure 42-month closure Access No closure Access
services: river closure without temporary periodically periodically
crossing during detour bridge affected by affected by interim
construction interim closures closures
Community None Visual impacts on Noise impacts of None None Noise and visual None
facilities: Oaks Oaks Pioneer temporary detour impacts to Oaks
Pioneer Church Church (during bridge Pioneer Church
construction and (during
operation) construction
and operation)
Community Access limitation Access limitation Access limitation Access limitation for None None None
facilities: access to for west-side for west-side for west-side west-side customers
businesses customers customers (during customers (during (during 42-month
(during 6- to 24-month closure) 24-month closure); closure)
8-month closure) No impact with
temporary detour
bridge
Access to River No change; Modified access to Modified access to Removal of access to Modified access to Modified access Modified access to
View Cemetery access maintained River View River View River View Cemetery River View to River View River View
funeral home Cemetery Cemetery from OR 43 Cemetery Cemetery Cemetery

Env iro nme ntal Justice
3.8 Environmental Justice Environmental Justice Summary

The environmental justice study concluded
3.8.1 Affected Environment that the Sellwood Bridge project would not
Environmental justice studies analyze the planning result in disproportionately high and adverse
effects on minority and/or low income
and development of transportation projects in populations. Residential and business
relation to three objectives: displacements would not be borne
disproportionately by minority or low
 Avoid, minimize, or mitigate income populations. Restoration of transit
disproportionately high and adverse human service on the bridge and improvement of
health and environmental effects on minority bicyclist and pedestrian facilities could
and low-income populations benefit the low-income populations to a
greater extent than the population as a
 Ensure the full and fair participation by all whole.
potentially affected communities in the
transportation decision-making process low-income populations through the following
research:
 Prevent the denial, reduction, or delay of
project benefits to minority and low-income  Analysis of demographic data from the 2000
populations United States Census (Census)
 Interviews with service providers

The environmental justice analysis
was conducted pursuant to the  Findings from affected property-owner and
following federal and state laws and tenant surveys
regulations:
Environmental Justice Regulatory Context
• Presidential Executive Order (EO)  Review of feedback received from the public
12898, Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Population data for the study area were derived
Populations and Low-Income from the 2000 Census. The project team
Populations supplemented this demographic data with
• Federal Highway Administration information gathered through interviews with
(FHWA), Guidance for Preparing several community service providers and through
and Processing Environmental and
public outreach activities conducted during the
Section 4(f) Documents, Technical
Advisory T6640.8a project (described in Chapter 5). This
supplemental information increased project team
• FHWA, Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority understanding of demographic changes since the
Populations and Low-Income 2000 Census, and of minority and/or low-income
Populations population use of the Sellwood Bridge.
• Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 Two study areas were identified for this analysis,
• Oregon State Legislature, Senate
a direct impact study area (Figure 3.8-1) and a
Bill 420 Related to Environmental larger indirect impact study area (Figure 3.8-2).
Justice Both areas were selected to conform to the
boundaries of geographical units for which data
Environmental justice analysis for this project are available. For analyzing direct impacts, the
determined whether the project would result in most relevant geographic units were Census
disproportionately high and adverse human health tracts and Census block groups immediately
or environmental effects on minority and adjacent to the Sellwood Bridge. Data within
these Census tracts were analyzed at the smallest
FIGURE 3.8-1
Environmental Justice Direct Impact Study Area
geographic unit available. Results were compared south, and OR 99W (SW Barbur Boulevard)
to regional demographic data for the Portland- to the west.
Vancouver Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area
(PMSA). The direct impact study area consists of  Census Tract 63 is also on the west side of
three Census tracts: the bridge and is bounded by SW Taylors
Ferry Road to the north, the Willamette
 Census Tract 1 is on the east side of the River to the east, the Clackamas County line
bridge and is bounded by SE Powell to the south, and Tryon Creek to the west.
Boulevard to the north, OR 99E (SE
McLoughlin Boulevard) to the east, the For the Environmental Justice
Clackamas County line to the south, and the analysis, minority populations are
Populations
Minority
Willamette River to the west. defined as African American, Asian

American, American Indian/Alaskan
 Census Tract 59 is on the west side of the Native, and Native Hawaiian/Pacific
bridge and extends north to US 26 (Sunset Islander racial groups, and people of
Hispanic origin, regardless of race.
Highway). It is bounded by the Willamette
River to the east, the Sellwood Bridge to the
3-110 Sell wood B ridge P roject Final E nviro nme ntal Im pa ct Stateme nt
FIGURE 3.8-2
Environmental Justice Indirect Impact Study Area
The indirect impact study area represents the Table 3.8-1 illustrates the minority levels by
approximate commute shed for the current geographic area.
Sellwood Bridge as determined by assessing the
For the Portland-Vancouver PMSA, the average
model data on the current-year travel demand
minority population is 15.3 percent. The minority
for the origins and destinations of Sellwood
population for each of the three U.S. Census
Bridge users. These study area boundaries
tracts within the direct impact study area is
include the Burnside Bridge to the north, I-205 to
smaller than the Portland-Vancouver PMSA
the east and south, and the Washington County
average except for Census Tract 1.00, Block
border to the west.
Group 1, which has 17.8 percent minority
Minority Populations households. Overall, the minority population of
Minority populations are defined as African the indirect study area is below the Portland-
American, Asian American, American Vancouver PMSA threshold for minority
Indian/Alaskan Native, and Native populations. (The Sellwood Bridge Project
Hawaiian/Pacific Islander racial groups, and people Environmental Justice Technical Report
of Hispanic origin, regardless of race. [CH2M HILL, 2008g, updated in 2010] includes a
more detailed description of minority populations of Health and Human Services poverty guidelines.
in the direct and indirect study areas.) For example, the poverty threshold in 1999 for a
three-person household (including one child) was
Low-income Populations $13,410 earned per year, while the threshold for
Income considerations are broken into two a two-person household with no children was
groups, very low-income households (those $11,156. The project team compared the
below the poverty threshold) and low-income percentage of households below the poverty
households (those below twice the poverty threshold (as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau)
threshold). The U.S. Census Bureau defines the against the Portland-Vancouver PMSA average.
poverty threshold as the amount of household Those areas with percentages higher than the
earnings with consideration of the number of Portland-Vancouver PMSA average were
people in the household below a certain level. identified as very low-income populations. The
This definition is based on the U.S. Department team also identified low-income populations
TABLE 3.8-1
Non-white or Hispanic by Census Tract within the Study Area
Minority
Geographic Area (percent)
Portland-Vancouver PMSA Average 15.3
Direct Impact Study Area Average 8.2
Census Tract 1.00 11.8
Census Tract 1, Block Group 1 17.8
Indirect Impact Study Area Average 9.6
City of Portland Average 20.3
Multnomah County Average 19.3
State of Oregon Average 13.5
Note: Numbers in bold are higher than the Portland-Vancouver PMSA average.
In the 2000 Census, people of Hispanic origin were asked to classify themselves as white or another race,
including African American, Asian American, Native American/Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian/Pacific
Islander, two or more races, or other. Table P7 of the 2000 Census, SF3 (U.S. Census Bureau) was used to
determine the percentage of minority to avoid double counting those selecting both the Hispanic ethnicity
and a minority race category.
PMSA = Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census, SF3, Table P6, Race, and Table P7, Hispanic or Latino by Race.
(defined as below two times the poverty more detailed description of low-income
threshold). populations in the direct and indirect study
areas.)
Table 3.8-2 describes the very low-income and
low-income levels by geographic area in the 3.8.2 No Build Alternative
direct and indirect study areas.
Environmental
The percentage of low-income households for Consequences
the direct impact area is slightly lower than that
Bus service, sidewalks, and bicycle infrastructure
for the Portland-Vancouver PMSA average, and are low-income considerations, because low-
only one of the Census tracts—Census Tract
income populations may be transit-dependent
59.00—has a higher concentration of low- and and unable to afford a private vehicle (Pisarski,
very low-income households than the Portland-
2006). The No Build Alternative would maintain
Vancouver PMSA average. (The Sellwood Bridge the existing weight restriction across the
Project Environmental Justice Technical Report
Sellwood Bridge, which would preclude TriMet
[CH2M HILL, 2008g, updated in 2010] includes a bus service from using the bridge. The No Build
TABLE 3.8-2
Low-Income and Very Low-Income Population by Census Tract within the Study Area
Very Low Income Low Income
(Below Poverty Level) (Below Twice Poverty Level)
Geographic Area (percent) (percent)
Portland-Vancouver PMSA Average 9.5 24.2
Direct Impact Study Area Average 9.1 21.1
Census Tract 1.00 8.3 21.4
Census Tract 1, Block Group 1 3.0 26.8
Census Tract 59.00 11.9 26.4
Census Tract 63.00 7.0 15.7
Indirect Impact Study Area Average 10.9 25.3
City of Portland Average 13.1 17.3
Multnomah County Average 12.7 16.9
State of Oregon Average 11.6 18.0
Note: Numbers in bold are higher than the Portland-Vancouver PMSA average.
PMSA = Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census, SF3, Table P88, Ratio to Income in 1999 to Poverty Level.
Alternative would continue to restrict bus transit between one and eight. The total number of
service across the Sellwood Bridge and would employees potentially displaced in this building
continue to be a barrier for transit-dependent would be 30. Three employees identified
persons. themselves as minority status, and one self-
identified as low income (earning under $10,000
The No Build Alternative would maintain the
per year). This particular business reported that
current deficient bicyclist and pedestrian
two of the three employees worked on a part-
connections across the bridge. The narrow
time basis.
existing sidewalk and poor bicyclist and
pedestrian connections to regional trails could Indirect Impacts. The Build alternatives could
adversely affect individuals who do not drive due have a positive effect on the development of
to financial considerations. transit-oriented land-use development in the
Sellwood neighborhood and OR 43 corridor as a
3.8.3 Build Alternatives result of the resumption of bus service across the
Environmental bridge. Such high-density commercial
development in transit corridors could improve
Consequences
access to shopping for low-income individuals
Impacts and Mitigation Common to without access to automobiles who are passing
All Build Alternatives through the area.
Direct Impacts. The Build alternatives would
improve crossing of the Willamette River in the Alternative-specific Impacts
study area in the long term (after construction) Alternative A
for transit riders, bicyclists, and pedestrians Alternative A would close the bridge for
because bus service would be reinstated (Section 24 months during construction without a
3.1, Transportation) and improved bicyclist and temporary detour bridge. During construction,
pedestrian facilities would be provided (Section users would need to reroute trips to other
3.2, Bicyclists and Pedestrians). These Willamette River crossings, such as the Ross
improvements would benefit all users of the Island Bridge or the I-205 Abernethy Bridge.
bridge. However, because low-income Although this routing change would impact all
populations are more likely to travel via transit, users of the bridge, its impact would be greater
on bicycles, or on foot, improvements could on bicyclists and pedestrians because it is more
benefit low-income populations to a slightly difficult to detour with non-automated than with
greater extent than the population as a whole. automated transportation modes. Some low-
income individuals who cannot afford to drive
Based on available racial and income data for the
would be included in this group.
direct study area; property values of impacted
residences; results of employer and residential Alternative B
surveys; and a review of feedback from the Alternative B would have the same impacts as
public, it is not anticipated that residential Alternative A, unless the temporary detour
displacements from any of the Build alternatives bridge option were selected. While the
would result in disproportionate adverse impacts temporary detour bridge would benefit all bridge
on minority and/or low-income populations. users, the reduction of out-of-direction travel
distances would have greater benefits for
The nine businesses in the Sellwood Building low-income individuals who travel on foot or
would be displaced under all of the Build by bicycle.
alternatives. Businesses in the Sellwood Building
are small, with the number of employees ranging
TABLE 3.8-3
Potential Residential Displacements Associated with Sellwood Bridge Alternatives
Residential Households
Alternative Structures Lost Displaced Description
No Build 0 0 No displacements are included in the No Build Alternative
A 1 1 One condominium in River Park development
B 1 1 One condominium in River Park development
C 1 1 One condominium in River Park development
D 5 5 One condominium in River Park development
Four condominiums in Sellwood Harbor development
E 0a 6 Six residential units in Grand Place mixed-use development
D Refined 5 5 One condominium in River Park development
Four condominiums in Sellwood Harbor development
a
Alternative E has one mixed-use displacement containing six household units.
Alternative C Residential Displacements

Alternative C would have the same impacts as The project team reviewed 2000 U.S. Census
Alternative A, except that the bridge would be data, information from community and
closed for 42 months during construction. stakeholder interviews, and available survey data
Alternative D of affected property owners to identify any
No specific environmental justice consequences minority or low-income populations that would
are expected with Alternative D because the be impacted by residential or business
river crossing for all modes would be maintained displacements caused by the Build alternatives.
during construction, except for interim closures This information was used to assist in making the
to replace the existing bridge and construct the final determination related to whether the
new bridge. project would result in disproportionately high
and adverse effects on minority and/or low-
Alternative E income populations in the study area.
No specific environmental justice consequences
are expected with Alternative E because the river Table 3.8-3 summarizes potential residential
crossing for all modes would be maintained displacements associated with each of the
during construction. alternatives.
Alternative D Refined The project’s right-of-way impacts analyst mailed

(Preferred Alternative) a survey to potentially affected residents and
No specific environmental justice consequences property owners in the direct impact area. This
are expected with Alternative D Refined because survey asked, among other things, for participants
the river crossing for all modes would be to self-report race, ethnicity, and income status.
maintained during construction, except for Insufficient responses were received to use these
interim closures to replace the existing bridge survey findings. Assessed values of the affected
and construct the new bridge. condominiums range between $420,000 and
$650,000 (Sellwood Bridge Project Right-of-Way
Technical Report [Real Property Consultants,
2008; updated 2010]). These values are household income of $40,146 for the city of
substantially higher than the $242,000 median Portland. This difference indicates that the overall
housing price in the Portland metropolitan region incomes of the block group are higher than those
(Standard and Poor, 2009). for the city as a whole.
Because the minority and low-income Based on available racial and income data for the
information on the potential residential study area, property values of the impacted
displacements was incomplete, the environmental residences, and information from the public
justice analysts also reviewed 2000 U.S. Census outreach team, it is not anticipated that
data for the area of the potential residential displacements from the Sellwood Bridge project
displacements. The area for residential would result in adverse impacts on any
displacements is relatively small; therefore, populations, including no disproportionately high
Census block data were reviewed for racial and adverse impacts on minority and/or low-
information. The relevant Census blocks for the income populations.
area are in Census Tract 1, Block Group 7, Block
7020; Block Group 7, Block 7019; and Block Business Displacements
Group 6, Block 6004. The total population of the Business displacements would range from 9 to
three Census blocks containing the potential 48, depending on the Build alternative selected.
residential displacements was 64. Of this total, Of the up to 48 businesses that could potentially
the racial information reported indicated that 60 be displaced, 46 do not have specialized location
were non-Hispanic Caucasian, 2 were Hispanic needs that would significantly limit their ability to
Caucasian, and 2 were Asian American. The total find replacement locations. The one business that
minority population was 6 percent. The minority reported they would not continue if relocated
threshold established for the Portland-Vancouver was River Park Center (the property
PMSA is 22.2 percent. Therefore, the minority management firm for the River Park Center
percentage in the affected Census blocks is well building). None of the businesses that would be
below that for the Portland-Vancouver PMSA displaced is uniquely important to minority or
threshold. low-income populations; these businesses do not
include businesses such as an ethnic grocery
The U.S. Census Bureau does not report income store or food bank. Table 3.8-4 summarizes
data on a Census block level; therefore, the potential business displacements associated with
smallest Census geography for income each of the alternatives.
information (block groups) was used. The block
groups containing the potential residential The project’s right-of-way impacts analyst
displacements are Census Tract 1, Block Groups conducted a survey of businesses that would be
6 and 7. Taken together, these block groups displaced by the project. This survey contained
contain 19 percent low-income households and information about race and income status. The
11 percent very low-income households, below following list summarizes relevant information
the Portland-Vancouver PMSA average of about each of the structures that would be lost
24.2 percent low-income households, but above under the various Build alternatives:
the Portland-Vancouver PMSA average of
 Sellwood Building. The nine businesses in
9.5 percent very low-income households.
the Sellwood Building would be displaced
Census data can also be used to obtain median under all of the Build alternatives. All
income. The median household income for Block businesses in the Sellwood Building are small,
Group 01.06 is $44,737 and for Block Group with the number of employees ranging
01.07 is $50,588, compared to the median between one and eight. The total number of
employees potentially displaced in this low income. The property management firm
building is 30. From the survey, three (River Park Center) was the only business at
employees identified themselves as minority this location that reported it would not
status and one self-identified as low income continue operation at a different location if
(earning under $10,000 per year). This displaced by the Sellwood Bridge project.
particular business reported that two of the
three employees worked on a part-time  Grand Place. Grand Place is a mixed-use
basis. building that is currently vacant. Two office
spaces would potentially be displaced under
 Riverside Corral. The Riverside Corral Alternative E.
would be displaced by Alternative B (with
temporary detour bridge only). The owner 3.8.4 Benefits
self-reported as being non-minority. The There are no disproportionately high and adverse
business did not report minority or income effects on environmental justice populations
status of any of the 32 employees. among the Build alternatives. Benefits to minority
and/or low-income populations are expected to
 Staff Jennings Property. The Staff Jennings be consistent with benefits to the population as a
property would be acquired by Alternative C. whole. However, the benefits of restored transit
Staff Jennings, a commercial boat business service on the bridge and improvements to
that formerly occupied this property, closed bicyclist and pedestrian facilities could affect
in March 2010. low-income populations more than the larger
 River Park Center. River Park Center population.
would be displaced by Alternative E. The
Restoration of Transit Service
37 businesses in the building employ
186 employees. Six employees were reported TriMet bus service has been discontinued over
as minority; no employees were reported as the Sellwood Bridge and is not included in the No
TABLE 3.8-4
Potential Business Displacements Associated with Sellwood Bridge Alternatives
Commercial
Structures Businesses
Alternative Lost Displaced Description
No Build 0 0 No displacements are included in the No Build Alternative
A 1 9 Nine businesses in Sellwood Building
B 1 9 Nine businesses in Sellwood Building
B/TDB 3 10 Nine businesses in Sellwood Building and Riverside Corral
C 3 10 Nine businesses in Sellwood Building and the vacant Staff Jennings
commercial boat business (closed March 2010)
D 1 9 Nine businesses in Sellwood Building
a
E 3 48 Nine businesses in Sellwood Building, approximately
37 businesses in River Park Center, and two office spaces in
Grand Place
D Refined 1 9 Nine businesses in Sellwood Building
a
Alternative E also has one mixed-use displacement containing two vacant office spaces
Build Alternative. Those relying on transit have the traveling public as a whole, they are likely to
been required to cross the bridge in cars, on disproportionately benefit low-income individuals
bicycles, or on foot, or to select a bus route (or a who are less likely to be able to afford the costs
combination of several routes) that includes of automobile ownership and operation, and who
out-of-direction travel over another bridge or may choose to walk or bike as an alternative
through downtown Portland. Although the mode of transportation. It is not expected that
reduction of travel time associated with renewed any Build alternative would have a substantially
transit service across the Sellwood Bridge would greater benefit than another Build alternative in
benefit the traveling public as a whole, improving bicyclist and pedestrian facilities.
transportation surveys have consistently
demonstrated that low-income individuals tend to 3.8.5 Summary of Alternatives by
use public transit more frequently than do Differentiating
higher-income individuals (Pisarski, 2006). It is
Environmental Justice
not expected that any Build alternative would
have a greater benefit than another Build
Impact
alternative related to the restoration of There are no disproportionately high and adverse
transit service. effects on environmental justice populations
among the Build alternatives.
Improved Bicyclist and Pedestrian
Low-income populations could benefit more than
Facilities
the larger population from the Build alternatives
Individuals relying on the Sellwood Bridge for that do not close the bridge during construction
travel who do not have access to an automobile (Alternative B with the temporary detour bridge,
and choose to walk or bike to their destinations Alternative D, Alternative E, and Alternative D
are required to use the inadequate sidewalk on Refined [see Section 3.6, Economic]), the
the bridge’s north side. Any of the Build restored transit service on the bridge (all Build
alternatives would improve conditions for alternatives [see Section 3.1, Transportation]),
bicyclists and pedestrians using the bridge. The and improvements to bicyclist and pedestrian
conditions would not improve under the No facilities (all Build alternatives [see Section 3.2,
Build Alternative. Although benefits of improved Bicyclists and Pedestrians]).
bicyclist and pedestrian facilities would accrue to
Parks and Recreation
3.9 Parks and Recreation Parks and Recreation Summary
This section discusses existing park and The Build alternatives would permanently
recreational facilities in the study area and acquire between 1.4 and 4.3 acres of
parkland and impact a minimum of five and a
impacts to these facilities. Bicyclist and pedestrian
maximum of eight park and recreational
impacts are addressed in Section 3.2, Bicyclists trail facilities. Mitigation and enhancement
and Pedestrians. The Final Section 4(f) Evaluation, actions for these impacts have been
appended to this document, discusses park and identified by coordinating with Portland
recreational facility impacts in more detail. Parks & Recreation. The Federal Highway
Administration approved the mitigation to
park impacts in the Section 4(f) Evaluation.
3.9.1 Affected Environment
The four parks and five recreational trail facilities
located inside the study area are:
the Willamette River, a disabled-access restroom,
 Sellwood Riverfront Park a dog off-leash area, paved walking paths
(including the Willamette Greenway Trail [East
 Oaks Pioneer Park
 Powers Marine Park FIGURE 3.9-1

Park and Recreation Facilities
 Springwater Corridor Trail
 Willamette Greenway Trail

(SE Spokane Street Section)

(East Bank)

(West Bank)
 Sellwood Bridge Recreational

Trail
These facilities are shown on
Figure 3.9-1.
Sellwood Riverfront Park

Sellwood Riverfront Park is an
8.75-acre park located at
SE Spokane Street and SE Oaks
Park Way, just north of the
Sellwood Bridge on the east bank
of the Willamette River. The
City of Portland owns and
manages the park. Existing park
facilities include a boat dock to

Bank]), unpaved trails, picnic tables, a parking lot, is an active effort by the South Portland
and an outdoor stage used for summer concerts Riverbank Project (a partnership of City of
and movies. Portland and community organizations) to
restore riverbank conditions and enhance the
Sellwood Riverfront Park is a “hybrid park” with
banks of the Willamette River. Park visitors use a
both an open lawn and manicured section and a
motorized boat ramp, which is located
similarly sized natural area with a wooded
immediately north of the park between the
section, pond, and trails. A hybrid park is
bridge and the Staff Jennings property but is not
managed for both its recreational and natural
part of the park.
resource values. The park also offers important
visual opportunities, with expansive views to the Willamette Moorage Park
river, West Hills, and downtown Portland. Willamette Moorage Park is a 9.51-acre park that
is bordered by the Willamette River to the east,
Oaks Pioneer Park
OR 43 to the west, Butterfly Park to the north,
Oaks Pioneer Park is a 3.85-acre park located at
and the Staff Jennings property to the south. The
455 SE Spokane Street. The City of Portland
City of Portland owns and manages the park. The
owns and manages the park. The park is the
park shares an access point from OR 43 with
setting for the Oaks Pioneer Church, which
Macadam Bay Club.
serves as an important location for many
weddings and other ceremonies. There is a large Willamette Moorage Park functions primarily as
lawn area with mature trees and shrubs around an open natural area intended to improve the
the church and a rental property to the north. health of the Willamette River ecosystem. The
The quiet setting for the church is an important park is the location of the Stephens Creek
part of its value as a popular wedding location. Confluence Habitat Enhancement Project—a
Weddings occur most often in the summer, but partnership effort between the City of Portland
spring, fall, and the winter holidays are also and community groups to restore habitat for fish
popular. listed as threatened under the Endangered
Species Act, enhance riparian areas, remove
Recreational improvements are limited to paved
invasive species, and plant native species.
walking paths. The primary function of the park is
to provide a peaceful setting behind the Oaks This linear park provides some passive
Pioneer Church located on the property. recreational opportunities, along with river
access and some beach recreation. Existing park
Powers Marine Park facilities include a boat dock (shared with
Powers Marine Park is a 13.07-acre park located Macadam Bay Club), a parking lot, and a shared-
east of SW Macadam Avenue in southwest use trail. (The Willamette Greenway Trail [West
Portland that bounds the Willamette River for Bank] passes through the park.)
approximately 0.85-mile in a linear north-south
manner. The City of Portland owns and manages Springwater Corridor Trail
the park. The access point to the park is The Springwater Corridor Trail is a shared-use
immediately north of the existing Sellwood trail in southeast Portland. Metro owns the trail
Bridge, between the bridge and the Staff Jennings and the City of Portland manages the trail within
property. Portland city limits. The paved surface is generally
12 feet wide with soft shoulders. The trail is
Powers Marine Park provides important natural
designed to accommodate walkers, joggers,
resources and passive recreational opportunities.
hikers, bicyclists, and those in wheelchairs.
The park is highly valued as a natural area. There
Within the study area, the trail lies adjacent to an

The following regulations protect park and recreational resources from transportation
project actions:
Regulatory Protection
• Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act (49 United States Code
[U.S.C.] 3030). Commonly referred to as “Section 4(f),” this law is intended to
preserve public park and recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic
sites. Transportation projects may not use such resources unless: (1) there is no
prudent and feasible alternative to using that land and (2) the project includes all
possible planning to minimize harm to the resource.
• Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Act concerns
transportation projects that propose impacts, or the permanent conversion, of
outdoor recreation property that was acquired or developed with LWCF Act grant
assistance. Section 6(f) requires that replacement lands of equal value, location, and
usefulness be provided as conditions to approval of land conversions.
active (but lightly used) rail line, underpasses the Willamette Greenway Trail (East Bank)
Sellwood Bridge, and terminates at SE Umatilla In 1988, the City of Portland adopted the
Street, where an existing 0.9-mile gap in the trail Willamette Greenway Plan, where the stated goal
exists. was “to protect, conserve, maintain, and enhance
The Springwater Corridor Trail is the major the scenic, natural, historical, economic, and
southeast segment of the Portland metropolitan recreational qualities of lands along the
area’s 40-Mile Loop trail system. The trail itself Willamette River.” The plan carried out the
extends far beyond the boundaries of the intentions of Oregon Planning Goal 15
Sellwood Bridge study area, connecting (Willamette River Greenway). A primary
downtown Portland to several parks and open objective of the plan was “to create a continuous
spaces, including Tideman Johnson Natural Area, recreational trail extending the full length on both
Beggars-Tick Wildlife Refuge, the Interstate 205 sides of the Willamette River but not necessarily
(I-205) Bike Path, Leach Botanical Garden, Powell adjacent to the river for the entire length.”
Butte Nature Park, and Gresham’s Main City Currently, although the Willamette Greenway
Park. Trail (East Bank) is not continuous, sections of
the trail are in place, including sections located
Willamette Greenway Trail inside the study area.
(SE Spokane Street Section)
On the east side of the river inside the study
SE Spokane Street from SE 17th Avenue to the area, a designated section of the Willamette
Willamette River is designated as a Primary Greenway Trail (East Bank) extends south from
Greenway Trail on the City of Portland’s Sellwood Riverfront Park, passes under the
Willamette Greenway Plan (1987) and as an Sellwood Bridge, and terminates at SE Umatilla
Adopted Greenway in the Metropolitan Street. The City of Portland owns and manages
Greenspaces Master Plan (Metro, 1992). This is an this trail. After a two-block gap, the trail
on-street section of the Willamette Greenway continues between SE Tenino Street and SE Linn
Trail with no improvements aside from standard Street. While the sections of the trail south of
sidewalks and a paved street. The function of this SE Spokane Street are on private property, they
section of the Willamette Greenway Trail is to are still a public recreational resource. The City
provide a bicycle- and pedestrian-friendly of Portland has a trail easement to this section of
connection to the main Willamette Greenway trail and manages this section of trail as part of
Trail (East Bank). the overall public trail system.

Parks a nd Recreatio n
The Willamette Greenway Trail (East Bank)’s 3.9.2 No Build Alternative

primary use is as a recreational trail for walking
and biking. Aside from the paved trail itself, the
Environmental
only trail-related improvements are the disabled- Consequences
access public restrooms located in Sellwood Under the No Build Alternative, existing travel
Riverfront Park. patterns in the study area would be maintained.
The Sellwood Bridge Recreational Trail would be
Willamette Greenway Trail (West the only park or recreational facility impacted.
Bank) The No Build Alternative would close the trail
The Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank) over the river for maintenance activities (6 to
follows the west bank of the Willamette River. 8 months).
Within the study area, the trail extends
southward through Willamette Moorage Park; 3.9.3 Build Alternatives
becomes a narrow paved sidewalk adjacent to OR Environmental
43 (separated by a chain-link fence); connects to Consequences
the northern end of Powers Marine Park through Impacts and Mitigation Common to
the parking lot adjacent to the Staff Jennings All Build Alternatives
property; driveway, passes under the Sellwood Direct Impacts. All Build alternatives would
Bridge; and eventually becomes a semi-improved have the following direct impacts:
trail (gravel/dirt) as it passes through Powers
Marine Park. The City of Portland owns and  Converting existing Powers Marine Park land
manages the trail. to transportation use because of right-of-way
requirements. Table 3.9-1 summarizes these
The primary use of the Willamette Greenway impacts by Build alternative.
Trail (West Bank) is as an active recreational
bikeway and trail, although the trail also provides  Converting existing Willamette Moorage
users access to natural areas along the Park land to transportation use because of
Willamette River and recreation sites to the right-of-way requirements. Table 3.9-2
north and south. summarizes these impacts by Build
alternative.
Sellwood Bridge Recreational Trail
The Sellwood Bridge is designated as a  Temporarily closing the Springwater
recreational trail and is part of the Portland Corridor and Willamette Greenway (East
metropolitan area’s 40-Mile Loop trail system. Bank) trails during dangerous overhead
Recreational facilities are limited to a narrow, bridge work. Such closures would likely be
paved, raised sidewalk along the westbound for no more than 1 to 2 hours.
travel lane of the bridge and switchback  Converting approximately 0.30 mile of
bicycle/pedestrian ramp on the west side of the existing Willamette Greenway Trail (West
bridge. This facility serves as both a bikeway and Bank).
a pedestrian path.
 Increasing noise levels at Oaks Pioneer Park.
Although noise levels would be expected to
increase under all Build alternatives, the
noise-level increase would be higher under
Alternative B with the temporary detour
bridge (during construction) and
TABLE 3.9-1
Summary of Build Alternative Land Incorporation at Powers Marine Park
Land Park
Conversion Conversion
Alternative (acres) (percent) Area Impacted
A 1.57 12.0 Natural-area land; vehicular access
B 2.15 16.5 Natural-area land; vehicular access
B with 2.15 16.5 Natural-area land; vehicular access
Temporary
Detour
Bridge
C 1.46 11.2 Natural-area land; vehicular access
boat ramp adjacent to park; motorized watercraft access
D 2.11 16.1 Natural-area land; vehicular access
E 0.76 5.8 Natural-area land; vehicular access
D Refined 1.02 7.8 Natural-area land; vehicular access
TABLE 3.9-2
Summary of Build Alternative Land Incorporation at Willamette Moorage Park
Land Park
Conversion Conversion
Alternative (acres) (percent) Area Impacted
A 2.22 24.9 Natural-area land and wetlands; vehicular access
B 1.75 19.6 Natural-area land and wetlands; vehicular access
B with
Temporary
1.75 19.6 Natural-area land and wetlands; vehicular access
Detour
Bridge
C 2.86 32.1 Natural-area land and wetlands; vehicular access
D 1.75 19.6 Natural-area land and wetlands; vehicular access
E 3.05 34.2 Natural-area land and wetlands; vehicular access
D Refined 0.35 3.9 Natural-area land; vehicular access
Alternative E (during construction and

Both Powers Marine Park and
operation). Therefore, these Build Willamette Moorage Park have been
alternatives are addressed separately later in the sites of restoration efforts
this subsection. performed through collaboration of
Mitigation and Enhancement Coordination at Local Parks

the City of Portland and local
Powers Marine Park and Willamette Moorage community organizations. Restoration
Park are primarily managed for their natural efforts have focused on enhancing off-
habitat values. All Build alternatives would channel habitat for migrating fish and
improving the ecological health of the
permanently reduce natural, and particularly
river and its banks. Efforts have been
riparian, habitat along the Willamette River. focused on both the Willamette River
and Stephens Creek.
Indirect Impacts. There would be no indirect
Because these parks have been sites of
impacts common to all the Build alternatives.
recent restoration efforts, after
Mitigation. Mitigation actions would include the distribution of the DEIS, the Sellwood
Bridge project team consulted and
following: coordinated with Portland Parks and
Recreation (PP&R) and the Portland
• Construct an approximately 0.30-mile-long, Bureau of Environmental Services to
18-foot-wide trail from the Macadam Bay identify other mitigation actions that
Club north to SW Miles Street. The trail could be conducted at these two parks.
would contain a 14-foot-wide surface with PP&R and Multnomah County have
2-foot-wide gravel shoulders on both sides of identified and agreed to mitigation and
the paved trail. The trail would be aligned enhancement actions at Willamette
Moorage Park and Powers Marine
parallel to the existing Willamette Shoreline
Park. These actions are documented in
Trolley tracks between the Willamette this section. The Final Section 4(f)
Moorage Park boundary and SW Miles Street Evaluation, appended to this
on City-owned right-of-way. After the trail document, discusses park and
was constructed, the City of Portland would recreational facility impacts in more
detail.
assume ownership of the trail and would be
responsible for all trail maintenance.
Park that would include provision of a
• Within Willamette Moorage Park, provide minimum of seven vehicle parking spaces.
sloped, stepped, vegetated walls along the
multi-use trail extending from the Sellwood • Provide seven parking spaces for Powers
Bridge to the Macadam Bay Club to minimize Marine Park along the roadway to the Staff
visual and aesthetic impacts to Willamette Jennings property.
Moorage Park and provide structural support • Compensate PP&R at fair market value for
and wildlife habitat, where feasible. the land within Powers Marine Park
• Reach an agreement on the shared use of the incorporated into a transportation use.
Portland Parks & Recreation (PP&R) parking • Provide a temporary detour for the
lot adjacent to Willamette Moorage Park by Springwater Corridor Trail, including the
having Multnomah County work with following elements, as necessary:
Freeman Motors, and have Multnomah
County work with PP&R to renegotiate the − Surfacing a detour trail
lease. − Providing signage for a detour trail
− Marking pavement
• Design and implement a parking and
pedestrian access plan for Powers Marine

• Provide a temporary detour for the Enhancement. Enhancement actions include

Willamette Greenway Trail (East Bank), the following:
including the following elements, as
• Within Willamette Moorage Park, replace the
necessary:
existing Stephens Creek culvert under the
− Surfacing a detour trail Willamette Shoreline Trolley tracks, the new
− Providing signage for a detour trail multi-use trail, and Macadam Bay Club access
− Marking pavement driveway with a fish-and-wildlife-friendly
passage constructed according to Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife standards.
FIGURE 3.9-2 Figure 3.9-2 shows the location of this area.
Willamette Moorage Park/Stephens Creek
• Within Powers Marine Park, design and
Mitigation Area and Powers Marine Park
implement stream restoration in the area
Mitigation Area—Preferred Alternative
shown on Figure 3.9-2 (from the railroad
tracks to the river) to provide off-river
habitat for juvenile salmonids. The planting
and stream restoration design would be
prepared in coordination with PP&R and in
accordance with applicable City of Portland
development requirements.
Alternative-specific Impacts and

Mitigation
Alternative A
Impacts to parks and recreational resources
specific to Alternative A would include the
following:
• Impacts to Sellwood Riverfront Park,

including:
− Displacing approximately 10 parking

spaces (roughly 0.38 acre of parkland) at
Sellwood Riverfront Park for
transportation use because of right-of-
way requirements associated with the
placement of piers for the
bicycle/pedestrian bridge
− Removing and pruning trees in the park’s

parking lot
• Impacts to Oaks Pioneer Park, including:
− Converting approximately 0.12 acre of

parkland to transportation use because of
right-of-way requirements associated

with the placement of an abutment for access would be moved approximately

the bicycle/pedestrian bridge 250 feet to the north.
 Removing and pruning trees Alternative B (with Temporary Detour

Bridge)
 Realigning maintenance access road Impacts to parks and recreational resources
specific to Alternative B with a temporary detour
 Detracting from the appeal of Oaks
bridge would include the following (in addition to
Pioneer Park as a site for events because
the Alternative B impacts listed previously):
of the presence of the bicycle/pedestrian
bridge  Temporarily detracting from the appeal of
Oaks Pioneer Park as a site for events
 Closing the Sellwood Bridge trail
resulting from proximity impacts (noise and
connection over the Willamette River for
visual) associated with the temporary detour
24 months during construction
bridge.
 Potentially realigning the park’s access
road to Oaks Bottom Wildlife Refuge Alternative C
 Relocating vehicular access to Powers Marine specific to Alternative C would include the
Park (the current access would be replaced following:
with new access via an underpass connection
 Impacts to Powers Marine Park, including:
from OR 43)
 Closing vehicular access to the park;
 Relocating the existing vehicular access to
motorists would need to park at
Willamette Moorage Park (which is, also, the
Willamette Moorage Park (or further
access to Macadam Bay Club). The existing
north at Willamette Park) and then
access would be moved approximately
access the park on foot or bicycle via the
250 feet to the north.
Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank)
Alternative B  Closing the boat ramp that abuts Powers
Marine Park and the adjacent fuel dock;
specific to Alternative B would include the
motorized watercraft owners who would
following:
normally use this ramp would be
 Closing the Sellwood Bridge trail connection redirected to the boat ramp at
over the Willamette River for 24 months Willamette Park (located approximately
during construction. However, a bicyclist and 1 mile north)
pedestrian connection over the river would
 Closing the Sellwood Bridge trail connection
be provided under the Alternative B with
over the Willamette River for 42 months
temporary detour bridge option.
 Relocating vehicular access to Powers Marine
 Increasing cut-through traffic and adding
Park (current access to be replaced by a new
vehicles to SE Spokane Street (Willamette
access via an underpass connection from
Greenway Trail [SE Spokane Street Section])
OR 43).
because of the east-end connection (Grand
 Relocating the existing vehicular access to Avenue extension).
 Relocating the existing vehicular access to because of the east-end connection (signal at
Willamette Moorage Park (which is, also, the SE 6th Avenue).
Park (current access to be replaced by a new
Alternative D OR 43).
specific to Alternative D would include the  Relocating the existing vehicular access to
following: Willamette Moorage Park (which is, also, the
 Relocating vehicular access to Powers Marine access would be moved approximately
Park (current access to be replaced by a new 250 feet to the north.
OR 43). Alternative D Refined
 Increasing cut-through traffic and adding Impacts to parks and recreational resources
vehicles to SE Spokane Street (Willamette specific to Alternative D Refined would include
Greenway Trail [SE Spokane Street Section]) the following:
because of the east-end connection (signal at
SE 6th Avenue).
Park (the current access would be replaced
 Relocating the existing vehicular access to by new access via an underpass connection
Willamette Moorage Park (which is, also, the from OR 43).
 Relocating the existing vehicular access to
Alternative E access would be moved approximately
Impacts to parks and recreational resources 300 feet to the north.
specific to Alternative E would include the
following: Mitigation Measures for Specific
Alternatives
 Detracting from the appeal of Oaks Pioneer
Park as a site for events resulting from Because of additional park impacts,
proximity impacts (noise and visual) supplementary mitigation measures would be
associated with the Alternative E bridge needed for individual Build alternatives.
structure.  Potential mitigation actions at Sellwood
 Detracting from the appeal of Sellwood Riverfront Park would include the following:
Riverfront Park as a recreational destination  Purchasing right-of-way (Alternative A
resulting from proximity impacts (noise and bicycle/pedestrian bridge); real estate
visual) associated with the Alternative E specialists would coordinate with PP&R
bridge structure. to determine property needs and just
 Increasing cut-through traffic and adding compensation based on the fair
vehicles to SE Spokane Street (Willamette market value
Greenway Trail [SE Spokane Street Section])
 Constructing a non-motorized boat ramp  Installing noise barriers on the bridge

in the vicinity of Sellwood Riverfront Park (Alternatives B [with temporary detour
(Alternative C) bridge] and E)
 Planting trees and vegetation around the  Potential mitigation actions at Powers Marine
bridge structure (Alternative E) Park would include the following:
 Installing noise barriers on the bridge  Installing signage directing motorists to

(Alternative E) parking areas at Willamette Moorage
Park or Willamette Park for access to
 Replacing parking spaces on land adjacent Powers Marine Park (Alternative C)
to the park (Alternative A)
 Other potential mitigation actions specific to
 Assisting in re-vegetating the riparian
particular alternatives would include the
zone with cottonwood trees following:
(Alternatives A and E)
 Installing signage at Willamette Moorage
 Planting trees in parking lot Park and Willamette Park directing users
(Alternative A bicycle/pedestrian bridge) to Powers Marine Park via the
 Potential mitigation actions at Oaks Pioneer Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank)
Park would include the following: (Alternative C)
 Purchasing right-of-way (Alternative A  Providing detour signage for bicyclists

bicycle/pedestrian bridge); real estate indicating the closest Willamette River
specialists would coordinate with PP&R crossing with bicycle accommodations
to determine property needs and just (Alternatives A, B, and C)
compensation based on the fair market  Maintaining existing conditions or
value installing a bicyclist/pedestrian-activated
 Planting trees and vegetation around the signal at the SE Tacoma Street/SE 6th
bridge structure and elsewhere in the Avenue intersection as the east-side
park (Alternative A bicycle/pedestrian connection to minimize cut-through
bridge) traffic on SE Spokane Street
 Relocating Oaks Pioneer Church after 3.9.4 Summary of Alternatives by

securing a new location acceptable to Differentiating Park and
PP&R and consulting with the Sellwood
Moreland Improvement League (SMILE)
Recreation Impact
(Alternatives A, B [with temporary
detour bridge], and E)
TABLE 3.9-3
Summary of Impacts to Park and Recreational Facilities
Park or Alt. B with
Recreational Temporary
Facility Alt. A Alt. B Detour Bridge Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. D Refined
Sellwood Converting None None None None None (but new None
Riverfront Park 0.38 acre of bridge
parkland immediately next
Removing 10 to park)
parking spaces
Removing
approximately
two trees
Having bicycle/
pedestrian
bridge cross
over park
Oaks Pioneer Converting None Having visual and None None Having visual and None
Park 0.12 acre of noise impacts noise impacts
parkland associated with associated with
Dissecting temporary detour bridge structure
park with bike/ bridge structure
ped bridge
structure
Realigning park
maintenance
road
Removing
approximately
two trees
TABLE 3.9-3
Park or Alt. B with
Powers Marine Converting Converting Converting Converting Converting Converting Converting
Park 1.57 acres of 2.15 acres of 2.15 acres of 1.46 acres of 2.11 acres of 0.76 acre of 1.02 acres of
parkland parkland parkland parkland parkland parkland parkland
Relocating Relocating Relocating access Closing access Relocating Relocating access Relocating access
access access Closing boat access
ramp and fuel
dock (located
adjacent to
park)
Willamette Converting Converting Converting Converting Converting Converting Converting
Moorage Park 2.22 acres of 1.75 acres of 1.75 acres of 2.86 acres of 1.75 acres of 3.05 acres of 0.35 acre of natural
natural area natural area natural area natural area natural area natural area areaa
Relocating Relocating Relocating access Relocating Relocating Relocating access Relocating access
access access Impacting access access Impacting
Impacting Impacting wetlands Impacting Impacting wetlands
wetlands wetlands wetlands wetlands
Springwater Having Having Having temporary Having Having Having temporary Having temporary
Corridor Trail temporary temporary closures; temporary temporary closures; closures; providing
closures; closures; providing detours closures; closures; providing detours detours
providing providing providing providing
detours detours detours detours
Willamette None None None Adding vehicles Adding vehicles Adding vehicles to None
Greenway Trail to SE Spokane to SE Spokane SE Spokane Street
(SE Spokane Street because Street because because of east-
Street Section) of east-end of east-end end connection
connection connection
Willamette Having Having Having temporary Having Having Having temporary Having temporary
Greenway Trail temporary temporary closures temporary temporary closures closures
(East Bank) closures closures closures closures
TABLE 3.9-3
Park or Alt. B with
Willamette Reconstructing Reconstructing Reconstructing Reconstructing Reconstructing Reconstructing Reconstructing
Greenway Trail 0.30 linear 0.30 linear mile 0.30 linear mile of 0.30 linear mile 0.30 linear mile 0.30 linear mile of 0.30 linear mile of
(West Bank) mile of trail of trail trail of trail of trail trail trail
Sellwood Bridge Closing bike/ Closing bike/ None (providing Closing bike/ None (providing None (providing None (providing
Recreational ped facility ped facility over bike/ped ped facility over bike/ped bike/ped bike/ped
Trail over river river during accommodations river during accommodations accommodations accommodations
during construction across river) construction across river) across river) across river)
construction
Total 4.3 acres 3.9 acres 3.9 acres 4.3 acres 3.9 acres 3.8 acres 1.4 acres
Parkland and
Natural Area
to be
Converted
Total Park 8 facilities 6 facilities 6 facilities 7 facilities 6 facilities 7 facilities 5 facilities
and
Recreational
Facilities to
be Impacted
a
An additional 0.74 acre would be converted from one park use to another park use for mitigation (bicycle/pedestrian trail).
3.9.5 Section 6(f) Section 6(f) Impact

The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Alternative A would result in a conversion of
Act of 1965 established grants-in-aid funding to parkland to transportation use at Sellwood
assist states in the planning, acquisition, and Riverfront Park. Approximately 10 of the park’s
development of outdoor recreational land and parking stalls would be incorporated by the
water areas and facilities. Section 6(f) of the project to provide adequate space for the
LWCF Act prohibits the conversion of property placement of bicycle/pedestrian bridge piers.
acquired or developed with the assistance of the Approximately two trees would also be removed.
fund to anything other than public outdoor
There is no Section 6(f) impact to Sellwood
recreation use without the approval of the
Riverfront Park from Alternatives B, B (with
Secretary of the Department of the Interior.
temporary detour bridge), C, D, E, or D Refined.
Sellwood Riverfront Park is the only property
protected under Section 6(f) in the Sellwood
Mitigation
Bridge Project area of potential effect (APE). In accordance with the Section 6(f) statute,
mitigation for Alternative A impacts would
According to the National Park Service, Sellwood include, but would not be limited to, the
Riverfront Park was approved for funding from following:
the LWCF on two separate occasions—the park
was awarded $79,129 on August 8, 1983, and  Replacing parking spaces in the immediate
$80,317 on December 6, 1984. Because Sellwood vicinity of the park
Riverfront Park has received LWCF grant money,
 Assisting in re-vegetating the riparian zone
the park is protected under Section 6(f) of the
with cottonwood trees (from the water line
LWCF Act. Section 6(f) requires that lands
to the Willamette Greenway Trail [East
acquired for right-of-way purposes must be
Bank])
replaced with other property of at least equal fair
market value and of reasonably equivalent
usefulness and location.
Archaeological and Historic Resources
3.10 Archaeological and Archaeological and Historic Resources

Summary
Historic Resources
The Build alternatives would have direct
3.10.1 Affected Environment impacts (adverse effect) on the River View
Archaeological Resources Cemetery and the Sellwood Bridge. The
Build alternatives would have direct and
Archaeological sites are places where past indirect impacts (adverse effect) on the River
peoples left physical evidence of their occupation. View Cemetery Superintendent’s House.
Sites may include ruins and foundations of The Build alternatives would not have direct
historic-era buildings and structures. Sites also or indirect impacts (no adverse effect) on
the Willamette Shoreline Trolley alignment
may include surface ruins and underground or Oaks Pioneer Church.
deposits of prehistoric or Native American
occupation debris such as artifacts, food remains
(shells and bones), and former dwelling (Figure 3.10-1). However, there is the potential
structures. for such sites to exist beneath the veneer of
surface streets and modified landscapes. There
Although the greater Portland Basin has been the was considerable 19th- and early 20th-century
subject of a fair amount of archaeological development along the waterfront, particularly on
research, no archaeological resources have been the east side of the river where Sellwood was
recorded in the archaeological area of potential established.
resources effect established for the project
FIGURE 3.10-1
Area of Potential Resources Effect and Historic Resources

Historic maps indicate the northwest quadrant of conclusions. The SHPO concurrence letter is
Spokane Avenue was the site of East Side Mill and provided in Appendix H.
Lumber Company Saw Mill, and the southwest
Figure 3.10-1 illustrates the locations of
quadrant was the site of the Oregon Door
properties listed in Table 3.10-1.
Company factory. There is the potential for
archaeological deposits associated with both of Oaks Pioneer Church
these early Sellwood companies. The Sellwood Facing southeast at the corner of SE Spokane
Ferry Landing was at the west end of SE Spokane Street and SE Grand Avenue, the Oaks Pioneer
Street. The west-side landing for the ferry was Church, formerly St. John’s Episcopal Church
located at the current Staff Jennings property. located in Milwaukie, Oregon, was listed on the
Archaeological deposits associated with these National Register in 1974. The National Register
landings, and their associated docks, could still nomination states that St. John’s Church was the
exist. The heavily developed and modified first Episcopal church and is the oldest intact
landscapes at each end of the existing bridge may church building in Oregon; it also once served as
obscure existing buried archaeological resources, the cathedral seat of the Episcopal Diocese of
of both prehistoric and historic origins. Oregon. In 1862, the building was moved within
the town of Milwaukie. The most significant
Historic Properties alterations were made in 1888, at which time the
The National Register of Historic Places building was given its present Gothic Revival
(National Register) is a federally maintained list of character. The building was temporarily moved in
districts, sites, buildings, structures, objects, and 1928 within Milwaukie. In 1959, the church was
landscapes significant in American history, to be razed, but private efforts secured funding to
prehistory, architecture, archaeology, float it by barge down the Willamette River to its
engineering, and culture. present site.
Cultural resources analysts surveyed historic
resources that might be 50 or more years old by
the time the project would be
built. The analysts identified
and evaluated literature about
historic resources; collected
existing data, including archival
records, historic photographs,
and maps; and analyzed these
data to assess the eligibility of
these properties for listing in
the National Register. The
survey revealed one property
listed in and four properties
eligible for the National
Register (Table 3.10-1). The
Oregon State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO)
was consulted and, on July 31,
2008, concurred with these Sellwood Bridge Vicinity, 1924.

TABLE 3.10-1
Properties Listed or Determined Eligible for the National Register of Historic Places
National Register of Historic Places
Location Property Name Constructed Determination and Reasons for Eligibility
455 SE Spokane Oaks Pioneer Church, circa 1851 Listed in 1974:

Street formerly St. John’s • Important for its association with events
Episcopal Church relating to the establishment of the
Episcopal Church in western Oregon
• Period of significance is from 1883 (Neo-
Gothic architectural style) to 1928 (new
foundation and basement)
Willamette River Sellwood Bridge 1925 Eligible:
• Only four-span continuous-deck truss in
Oregon (a rare bridge type)
• Demonstrates the application of a
common bridge type in an unusual way
• Work of one of the most significant
bridge engineers of the late 19th and
early 20th centuries
OR 43 (SW River View Cemetery Established Eligible:
Macadam Avenue) 1882 • One of the oldest cemeteries in the City
of Portland
• Contains the remains of persons who are
considered important in the city in the
late 19th century
• Displays distinctive design elements
associated with the rural cemetery
movement of the late 19th century
8421 SW Macadam River View Cemetery 1914 Eligible:
Avenue (OR 43) Superintendent’s House • Represents a stylistic achievement by the
architect. The house is considered the
work of a master.
• High-artistic-value structure and displays
distinctive characteristics that evoke the
Neo-Georgian style of residential
architecture
• Contributing feature of National
Register-eligible River View Cemetery
West bank of river Willamette Shoreline 1914 Eligible:
Trolley • Part of the transportation network that
connected Portland and larger
communities with smaller Willamette
Valley towns
• The interurban railroad strongly
influenced growth and development of
the outer suburbs south and west of
Portland

The church is listed on the National Register for The Sellwood Bridge is eligible for listing on the
the following reasons: National Register for the following reasons:
• The church is important for its association • The Sellwood Bridge is a rare bridge type,
with events relating to the establishment of both at the local level and within Oregon. It
the Episcopal Church in western Oregon. is the only four-span continuous-deck truss in
The building is no longer in use as an Oregon, as well as one of just a handful of
Episcopal Church, and is no longer owned by continuous-deck truss bridges in Oregon.
the Episcopal Church or any other religious
organization. It is operated by the local
neighborhood association (Sellwood
Moreland Improvement League [SMILE]) and
is located at the Oaks Pioneer Church and
Park, administered by Portland Parks &
Recreation.
• The church’s period of significance is from
1883 (Neo-Gothic architectural style) to
1928 (new foundation and basement). The
church is an excellent example of this style of
architecture. The building has suffered some
loss of integrity due to changes it has
experienced over time, though these changes
occurred before the building was listed on
the National Register.
Sellwood Bridge
The Sellwood Bridge, designed by Gustav
Lindenthal, was officially dedicated on
December 15, 1925, and replaced the Spokane Oaks Pioneer Church.
Street Ferry. The bridge is a fixed-
span bridge consisting of a four-span Existing Sellwood Bridge.
continuous truss. Its eastern
terminus falls at the intersection of
SE 6th Avenue and SE Tacoma
Street and its western terminus is
roughly OR 43 at River View
Cemetery.
The bridge was the first built in

Portland across the Willamette
River without a moveable span. It
was also the first bridge in Portland
built without trolley tracks. The
steel-plate girder spans at the truss
ends were reused from the 1894
Burnside Bridge.

• The other continuous-truss bridges were The cemetery is characterized by a narrow road
built between 1929 and 1950, making the system that follows the natural ridges and curves
Sellwood Bridge the oldest of this type of of the land, a variety of large and small trees and
construction. shrubs that may have been selectively planted,
and views across the river toward Sellwood and
• The application of a common bridge type is the neighboring communities. Most of the burials
demonstrated in an unusual way, increasing are located on the hillside above OR 43, with the
the number of spans from two or three to oldest ones located toward the center of the
four, in order to achieve an artistic effect. cemetery, near the mausoleum. The cemetery is
• Gustav Lindenthal (one of the most significant considered locally significant and it was entered
bridge engineers of the late 19th and early into the City of Portland Historic Resource
20th centuries) designed this bridge. He Inventory (HRI) circa 1982; it is eligible for listing
prepared design plans for five Portland-area in the National Register.
bridges in less than 5 years, but the Sellwood River View Cemetery is eligible for the National
Bridge was his first, and it is the longest and Register for the following reasons:
the only four-span truss bridge he designed in
Portland. • With the origins of its establishment in the
early 1880s, River View Cemetery is one of
River View Cemetery the oldest cemeteries in the City of Portland.
River View Cemetery, established in 1882, is It also contains the remains of persons who
located on the west side of the Willamette River, are considered important in the history,
approximately 3 miles south of downtown politics, and social landscape of the city in the
Portland. The cemetery is approximately late 19th century.
300 acres in size and is bounded on the north by
SW Taylors Ferry Road and on the east by • The cemetery displays distinctive design
OR 43. There are two entrances, one located off elements associated with the rural cemetery
OR 43, just a few feet from the western end of movement of the late 19th century, as
the Sellwood Bridge, and another on SW Taylors exemplified through its architecture,
Ferry Road. landscape architecture, and associated
monuments.
River View Cemetery and Superintendent’s House.
Elements that contribute
to the significance of the
River View Cemetery
include, but are not
limited to, the
Superintendent’s House
(discussed subsequently);
the cemetery gate(s); the
River View Chapel,
Mausoleum, and office;
the rock-lined gutters;
and the curvilinear road
system.

Superintendent’s House at the River View characteristics that evoke the Neo-Georgian
Cemetery style of residential architecture.
The River View Cemetery Superintendent’s
House was constructed in 1914. The • The Superintendent’s House is a contributing
Neo-Georgian-style structure replaced a 19th feature of National Register-eligible River
century building constructed in the Gothic View Cemetery.
Revival style.
Willamette Shoreline Trolley
The choice of architects and designers indicated The Southern Pacific Railroad Red Electric
the founders’ intent that the cemetery reflect the Eastside Line, known locally as the Willamette
“architectural splendor of their city.” The Shoreline Trolley, is part of a railroad corridor in
Superintendent’s House was designed by Ellis F. the Willamette Valley. It comprises the east side
Lawrence, a prominent and prolific architect who of a loop that ran between downtown Portland,
practiced his craft in Portland in the early Lake Oswego, Yamhill County, Hillsboro, and
decades of the 20th century. Beaverton. In 1887, the Portland & Willamette
Valley Railroad opened its steam lines in western
The Superintendent’s House is considered locally Oregon, which created a loop that served many
significant and is eligible for the National Register communities south and west of Portland. After
for the following reasons: 1929, however, Southern Pacific abandoned its
interest in streetcars in Portland and used the
• The structure is a stylistic achievement by
line for freight service until 1983. Since 1987, the
Lawrence and is considered a prime example
Willamette Shoreline Trolley has provided
of its style and is unique compared to
seasonal excursion service between Portland and
Lawrence’s other surviving designs locally and
Lake Oswego on two historic trolley cars. The
within the state.
Oregon Electric Railway Historical Society has
• The building is considered to have high operated the trolleys since 1995.
artistic value. It displays those distinctive
River View Cemetery Superintendent’s House.

A portion of the line still lies between OR 43 and 3.10.3 Build Alternatives
the Willamette River from southwest Portland to
Lake Oswego. Two important contributing
Environmental
features in this segment, the Elk Rock Tunnel and Consequences
the Riverwood Trestle, remain intact. Both of Impacts and Mitigation Common to
these features are outside the study area for this All Build Alternatives
project. Cultural resources are assessed using the
The Southern Pacific Railroad Red Electric terminology and hierarchy of adverse effect, no
Eastside Line retains integrity of location, design, adverse effect, and no effect. These terms apply
setting, feeling, and association for its period of to the characteristics that make them eligible for
significance, 1914 to 1929. It is potentially eligible the National Register. NEPA uses the impact
for the National Register for the following categories of direct, indirect, and cumulative
reasons: impacts. These two systems of impact assessment
are similar, but not identical. An indication in this
• It was part of an important transportation section that there is no direct or indirect impact
network that connected Portland with its indicates that there is no adverse effect to the
hinterland; it was also a vital link in characteristics that make the property eligible for
connecting the larger communities with the National Register, though there may be an
smaller towns in the Willamette Valley. impact to the property itself.
• The interurban railroad was a strong In that context, none of the Build alternatives
influence in the growth and development would have direct or indirect impacts (adverse
(and the physical shaping) of the outer effect) on the Oaks Pioneer Church or
suburbs south and west of Portland, like Willamette Shoreline Trolley alignment. The
Tigard, Hillsboro, and Beaverton, because the Oaks Pioneer Church would be impacted by
construction of roads and highways to and noise, but this would not affect the status derived
around those communities would follow the from its architectural and historical significance,
existing railroad alignments. so from a cultural perspective, there would be no
adverse effect. Likewise, the Willamette Shoreline
3.10.2 No Build Alternative Trolley alignment would be moved to the east.
Environmental However, moving the alignment would not
Consequences impact the significant features that make the
Willamette Shoreline Trolley eligible for the
The No Build Alternative would have no adverse
National Register, so that there would be no
effect on the Oaks Pioneer Church, the
adverse effect.
Superintendent’s House, River View Cemetery,
or the Willamette Shoreline Trolley alignment. Archaeological sites are not currently known to
exist in the area of potential effect of any of the
Maintenance activities under the No Build
Build alternatives. Alternative E, because it would
Alternative are not planned to retain the historic
be constructed on a footprint not already deeply
quality of the bridge. The No Build Alternative
disturbed by previous bridge construction, is
would have an adverse effect on the Sellwood
marginally the most likely to affect currently
Bridge if the bridge were allowed to deteriorate
undetected archaeological deposits.
through neglect.
Archaeological explorations detected no
archaeological resources that would be impacted
by right-of-way expansion in Powers Marine Park,

River View Cemetery, the Sellwood Harbor effect due to a change in physical features within
Condominium grounds, and the grounds of the the property’s setting that contribute to its
Sellwood Building. historic significance.
Direct Impacts. The Build alternatives would Indirect Impacts. Indirect impacts would occur
have adverse effects to the River View Cemetery, if construction and operation create changes in
the Superintendent’s House, and the Sellwood current conditions that could result in adverse
Bridge. effects to archaeological or historic resources.
The Build alternatives would require the The Build alternatives would have indirect
acquisition of land from River View Cemetery impacts to the Superintendent’s House. Specific
along OR 43 north and south of the indirect impacts are described for each
Superintendent’s House. Although the actual alternative. None of the Build alternatives would
acquisition of land from the cemetery would be have indirect impacts to River View Cemetery,
small, the removal of any property associated the Sellwood Bridge, Oaks Pioneer Church, or
historically with the cemetery would constitute the Willamette Shoreline Trolley alignment.
an adverse effect because of a change in the
Mitigation. The following mitigation would be
character of the historic property’s use and to
implemented for archaeological resource impacts:
the physical features within the property’s setting
that contribute to its historic significance.
Properties that are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places are assessed for
impact by application of the following categories: No Effect, No Adverse Effect, and
Adverse Effect. Adverse effects on historic properties include, but are not limited to:
(i) Physical destruction of or damage to all or part of the property
(ii) Alteration of a property, including restoration, rehabilitation, repair, maintenance,
According to Federal Regulations
(from 36 CFR Part 800.5[a][2])
stabilization, hazardous material remediation and provision of handicapped

Examples of Adverse Effects
access, that is not consistent with the Secretary’s Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties (36 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 680 and applicable
guidelines)
(iii) Removal of the property from its historic location
(iv) Change in the character of the property’s use or of physical features within the
property’s setting that contribute to its historic significance
(v) Introduction of visual, atmospheric or audible elements that diminish the integrity
of the property’s significant historic features
(vi) Neglect of a property which causes its deterioration, except where such neglect
and deterioration are recognized qualities of a property of religious and cultural
significance to an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization
(vii) Transfer, lease, or sale of property out of federal ownership or control without
adequate and legally enforceable restrictions or conditions to ensure long-term
preservation of the property’s historic significance
The realignment of the access road to the • Prepare and implement a data recovery plan
Superintendent’s House and the widening of to direct retrieval and analysis of information
OR 43 would bring the road closer to the from National Register-eligible sites within
historic property. This would have an adverse the area of ground disturbance. Although

discovery protocols would be implemented, • In the unlikely event that human remains
active archaeological monitoring of such were discovered during project construction,
project-related ground disturbance areas implement the proper protocol for such a
would be undertaken by a qualified discovery, as follows:
archaeologist, as described in 36 Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 61. − Immediately stop work in the area of the
discovery and secure the area.
• Include stipulations in the project’s
construction contracts. All Multnomah − Contact the Multnomah County Sheriff’s
County employees and all Multnomah County Office and Medical Examiner, the Oregon
contractors and subcontractors would follow State Archaeologist, the Multnomah
these stipulations should any archaeological, County project manager, and the
historic, or paleontological resources be Multnomah County archaeologist.
discovered during construction of the − If the discovery were determined not to
project. These stipulations would likely be European-American, notify the tribal
include the following: representatives of the Confederated
− Immediately suspend construction Tribes of Siletz Indians and the
operations in the vicinity of the discovery Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde
if a suspected historic, archaeological, or Indians, along with the Oregon State
paleontological item, feature, prehistoric Museum of Anthropology.
dwelling site, or artifact of historic or − If the remains were determined to be
archaeological significance is Native American, have the Tribes, SHPO,
encountered. and Multnomah County confer related to
− Notify the responsible FHWA and an appropriate course of action.
ODOT personnel and SHPO as soon as Mitigation measures for impacts to the historic
possible of the nature and exact location resources would include, but not be limited to,
of the discovery. the following:
− Consult with a qualified historian or
• Abiding by Historic American Building
archaeologist to advise FHWA, ODOT,
Survey/Historic American Engineering Record
and SHPO regarding the significance and
(HABS/HAER) Level III documentation
recommended disposition of the
standards for the River View Cemetery and
discovery.
the Superintendent’s House at River View
− Protect the discovered objects from Cemetery.
damage, theft, or other harm prior to
• Salvaging materials from the Sellwood Bridge
contacting the responsible personnel
and preserving dedication plaques for
from FHWA, ODOT, and SHPO.
reinstallation at a later time.
− Consult with SHPO in accordance with
36 CFR 800.13(b) toward developing and Alternative-specific Impacts and
implementing an appropriate treatment Mitigation
plan prior to resuming construction. Alternative A
Multnomah County would not resume Direct Impacts. Alternative A would directly
construction until SHPO had agreed to impact the Sellwood Bridge, the River View
that resumption. Cemetery, and the Superintendent’s House.

Rehabilitation of the existing Sellwood Bridge than existing conditions and, therefore, would
would be an adverse effect because it would have the potential to introduce visual elements
remove the approach spans, the original deck, the that would diminish the integrity of the
floor beams, and the railing. These features property’s significant features.
contribute to the significance of the bridge and
Mitigation. Any proposed rehabilitation of the
the loss of these original elements would diminish
bridge would require the application of The
the integrity of the bridge. In addition, the
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the
widening of the bridge through the addition of
Treatment of Historic Properties (National Park
truss spans to either side of the existing span and
Service, 1995), and SHPO would have to approve
the widening of the piers would be considered an
any proposed action. However, it is not likely
adverse effect.
that the rehabilitation effort would meet the
Alternative A would include the acquisition of standards to maintain the bridge’s eligibility
approximately 3.6 acres from River View status.
Cemetery along OR 43 north and south of the
The following mitigation is proposed for impacts
Superintendent’s House. The area impacted is
to the River View Cemetery and
occupied by the access road to the cemetery,
Superintendent’s House:
casual landscaping, and parking for the
Superintendent’s House. The access road creates • Before removal and relocation, the cemetery
a formal entrance effect for the cemetery. gates would be documented according to
Although the actual acquisition of land from the HABS/HAER Level III standards.
cemetery is small, the removal of any property Documentation and relocation should meet
associated historically with the cemetery would all possible planning requirements to
constitute an adverse effect, as it would change minimize harm to the gates. It is assumed that
the character of the historic property’s use and the gates would be moved to a new main
its setting, which contribute to its historic entrance. Appropriate-level HABS/HAER
significance. Widening of the OR 43 interchange recordation for the Superintendent’s House
would also necessitate the relocation of two and River View Cemetery would be
contributing elements of River View Cemetery: determined and completed prior to
the cemetery gates and the southern entrance construction, and documentation would be
road at OR 43. This would be an adverse effect prepared.
because it would change the character of the
property’s use and change physical features • A National Register nomination would be
within the property’s setting that contribute to its prepared for the River View Cemetery.
historic significance. It is not known at this time if
• A landscaping plan, created in coordination
these gates would be moved to a new location or with River View Cemetery staff, qualified
demolished. cultural resource specialists, and registered
landscape architects with experience in
Alternative A would require a change in the
historic landscapes, would be prepared to
alignment of the access road to the minimize the effect of the loss of land along
Superintendent’s House. This would have an OR 43, which is anticipated in all Build
adverse effect on the building because of a change alternatives. This would include replanting of
in physical features within the property’s setting appropriate trees, shrubs, and other plants
that contributes to its historic significance. found at the cemetery. Enhancements to the
landscape would include a planting screen to
Indirect Impacts. The west-side interchange minimize visual impacts related to the
would be closer to the Superintendent’s House widening of OR 43 near the Superintendent’s

House. Additionally, any foliage removed for cemetery would constitute an adverse effect, as it
the realignment of the access road to the would change the character of the historic
Superintendent’s House would be replaced in property’s use and its setting, which contribute to
kind. its historic significance. Additionally, this
• New signage would direct the visitors to the alternative would require the relocation of two
Superintendent’s House, and would explain contributing elements of the River View
the significance of the historic property. Cemetery: the cemetery gates and the southern
entrance road at OR 43. This would constitute an
Alternative B adverse effect because it would cause a change in
Direct Impacts. This alternative would have the character of the property’s use and to
the same direct impacts as Alternative A to the physical features within the property’s setting
Sellwood Bridge, the River View Cemetery, and that contribute to its historic significance. It is not
the Superintendent’s House. The area impacted is known, at this time, if these gates would be
occupied by the access road to the cemetery, moved to a new location or demolished.
Superintendent’s House. The access road creates This alternative would remove the entrance road
a formal entrance effect for the cemetery. at OR 43 leading to the Superintendent’s House
in River View Cemetery. Unlike the other Build
Indirect Impacts. This alternative would have alternatives, no replacement access would be
the same indirect impacts as Alternative A to the provided under Alternative C. The River View
Superintendent’s House. Cemetery administration has stated that if the
Mitigation. Mitigation proposed is the same as access were closed, they would cease using the
that proposed for Alternative A. Superintendent’s House as a funeral home,
leaving its use and commitment to its care in
Temporary Detour Bridge Option question. The access closure would be an adverse
There would be no additional direct or indirect effect to the Superintendent’s House because it
impacts with the optional temporary detour would change physical features within the
bridge. property’s setting (such as the location of the
entrance columns and the road itself) that
Alternative C
contribute to the historic significance of the
Direct Impacts. This alternative would require
Superintendent’s House. Furthermore, this would
the demolition of the Sellwood Bridge, which
constitute an adverse effect on the River View
would be an adverse effect because it would
Cemetery, as closure of this entrance would
cause the physical destruction of a historic
change the elements of the historic setting,
property.
design, and feeling, which are aspects of integrity
Alternative C would include the acquisition of that convey the historic significance of the
approximately 2.1 acres from River View cemetery.
Cemetery along OR 43 north and south of the
Indirect Impacts. Visual elements, such as
Superintendent’s House. The area impacted is
retaining walls for the west-side interchange, are
occupied by the access road to the cemetery,
most prominent with Alternative C and would
change the historical setting of the
Superintendent’s House. The access road creates
Superintendent’s House, which could diminish the
a formal entrance effect for the cemetery.
integrity of the property’s significant historic
Although the actual acquisition of land from the
features. These retaining walls could block the
cemetery would be small, the removal of any
view of the road and river from the property.
property associated historically with the

Mitigation. Proposed mitigation measures for Sellwood neighborhood. These panels would
Alternative C include the following for impacts to be placed on or near the bridge.
the existing Sellwood Bridge:
The following mitigation is proposed for impacts
• Review the existing Willamette River Bridges to the River View Cemetery and the
HAER (OR-55) to determine whether Level I Superintendent’s House:
documentation was prepared, specific to
• Permanently remove the cemetery gates
Sellwood Bridge. If not, this would be
from their location at the cemetery entrance
accomplished prior to the demolition of the
on OR 43 and place them at the cemetery
bridge. Copies of the report would be
entrance on SW Palatine Hill Road, with an
disseminated to the Central and Sellwood-
interpretive panel explaining the relocation
Moreland branches of the Multnomah County
and with images on the panel showing their
Library system, as well as to the City of
original setting and location.
Portland, ODOT, and SHPO.
• Design any proposed retaining walls or sound
• Assess bridge materials to determine what
walls associated with the bike/pedestrian
materials, if any, are salvageable and could be
underpass and the removal of the entrance
made available to interested parties. A list of
road to assimilate with the surrounding
potential interested parties would be
landscape, and do not construct the walls to
prepared in advance of any proposed salvage
a height that would obscure the viewshed to
or advertisement thereof.
and from the Superintendent’s House
• Offer truss spans for reuse at an alternate towards the river.
location(s). Advertisements would be placed
in appropriate media outlets such as in Alternative D
Direct Impacts. Alternative D would have
newspapers, in trade magazines, and on the
adverse effects similar to those of Alternative C
Internet. The offer would run for 3 months.
for the Sellwood Bridge and similar to those of
• Prepare a detailed study of truss bridges in Alternative B for the River View Cemetery and
Multnomah County, and a regional survey and the Superintendent’s House (approximately
evaluation of bridges of this type. 3.6 acres would be acquired from River View
Cemetery). The area impacted is occupied by the
• Support a new Web site that would provide access road to the cemetery, casual landscaping,
information about the historic bridges in the and parking for the Superintendent’s House. The
area. This Web site would be made available access road creates a formal entrance effect for
to the City of Portland and the Multnomah the cemetery. However, Alternative D would
County Web sites that link to the ODOT provide access to the cemetery from the
Web site. interchange, whereas Alternative C would not.
• Clean, treat, and store the existing dedication Indirect Impacts. Due to the wider OR 43
plaques until completion of the new bridge. interchange, Alternative D could introduce visual
Install the existing plaques at a location near elements that would diminish the integrity of
the east end of the bridge alongside new significant features of the Superintendent’s
interpretive panels (see next bullet). House.
• Create interpretive panels to explain the Mitigation. Proposed mitigation measures for
history of river crossings in the immediate Alternative D for the Sellwood Bridge are the
area, as well as discuss the history of the same as those for Alternative C.

For Alternative D, the following mitigation is Alternative E

proposed for impacts to the River View Direct Impacts. This alternative would have
Cemetery and the Superintendent’s House: adverse effects similar to those of Alternatives C
and D to the Sellwood Bridge, River View
• Before removal and relocation, document the Cemetery, and the Superintendent’s House.
cemetery gates according to HABS/HAER Approximately 3.4 acres would be acquired from
Level III standards. Documentation and River View Cemetery. The area impacted is
relocation should meet all possible planning occupied by the access road to the cemetery,
requirements to minimize harm to the gates. casual landscaping, and parking for the
It is assumed that the gates would be moved Superintendent’s House. The access road creates
to the new entrance on SW Palatine Hill a formal entrance effect for the cemetery.
Road. Appropriate-level HABS/HAER
recordation for the Superintendent’s House Indirect Impacts. Indirect impacts would be
and River View Cemetery would be the same as those for Alternative D.
determined and completed prior to
Mitigation. Mitigation proposed is the same as
construction, and documentation would be
that proposed for Alternative D.
prepared.
• Prepare a National Register nomination for
the River View Cemetery. Direct Impacts. Alternative D Refined would
• Prepare a landscaping plan, created in require the demolition of the Sellwood Bridge,
coordination with River View Cemetery staff, which would be an adverse effect because it
qualified cultural resource specialists, and would cause the physical destruction of a historic
registered landscape architects with property.
experience in historic landscapes, to minimize Alternative D Refined would acquire
the effect of the loss of land along OR 43 approximately 4.0 acres from River View
(which is anticipated in all Build alternatives). Cemetery along OR 43 north and south of the
This would include replanting of appropriate Superintendent’s House. The area impacted is
trees, shrubs, and other plants found at the occupied by the existing access road to the
cemetery. The Portland Plant List would be cemetery, casual landscaping, and parking for the
consulted to avoid planting any non-native Superintendent’s House. The access road creates
vegetation that might self-seed into nearby a formal entrance effect for the cemetery.
natural areas. Enhancements to the landscape Although the actual acquisition of land from the
would include a planting screen to minimize cemetery would be small, the removal of any
visual impacts related to the widening of OR property associated historically with the
43 near the Superintendent’s House. cemetery would constitute an adverse effect, as it
Additionally, any foliage removed for the would change the character of the historic
realignment of the access road to the property’s use and its setting, which contribute to
Superintendent’s House would be replaced its historic significance. Widening of the OR 43
in kind. interchange would also necessitate the relocation
• Create and place new signage that would of two contributing elements of River View
direct the visitors to the Superintendent’s Cemetery—the cemetery gates and the southern
House and explain the significance of the entrance road at OR 43. This would be an
historic property. adverse effect because it would change the
character of the property’s use and change

physical features within the property’s setting Indirect Impacts. The west-side interchange
that contribute to its historic significance. would be closer to the Superintendent’s House
than existing conditions. Therefore, it would have
Realignment of the roadway providing access to
the potential to introduce visual elements that
River View Cemetery, Powers Marine Park, and
would diminish the integrity of the property’s
the Staff Jennings property would change the
significant features.
visual impact of the project to the historic
Superintendent’s House. Rather than crossing in Mitigation. Multnomah County, ODOT, and
front of the Superintendent’s House, the roadway SHPO have reached agreement on measures to
would pass behind the structure. Construction of mitigate historic impacts for the preferred
the roadway in this location would require an alternative (Alternative D Refined).
approximately 20-foot-high retaining wall behind
The following mitigation would occur for impacts
(west of) the Superintendent’s House
to the existing Sellwood Bridge:
(Figure 3.10-2). The River View Cemetery
owners believe the visual impacts of • Prepare a supplemental recordation of the
FIGURE 3.10-2
Existing Condition and Alternative D Refined
Alternative D Refined are preferable to those of Sellwood Bridge in accordance with the
Alternative D. HAER. The supplemental HAER
documentation of the Sellwood Bridge would

document the changes to the Sellwood The following mitigation would occur for impacts
Bridge since it was recorded as part of the to the River View Cemetery and the
Willamette River Bridges Project in 1999. Superintendent’s House:
• Place interpretive signage at the east and • Research, photograph, and record the history
west ends of the new bridge or in Sellwood of the River View Cemetery Superintendent’s
Riverfront Park. This would provide House in accordance with the standards set
information regarding the history of river forth by the HABS.
crossings in the immediate area, the Sellwood
neighborhood, and River View Cemetery. • Prepare a short history of the River View
Cemetery that would show the location of
• Clean, treat, and store the existing (original) roads and trails, structures, and important
dedication plaques until completion of the graves. It would include photographs of
new bridge, then reinstall them at a location important structures and general vistas of the
near the east end of the bridge. cemetery grounds and the cemetery gates.
• Provide for the creation and upkeep of a • Move the cemetery gates to a new location
Web site during project construction that within the cemetery property.
would provide information regarding the
historic Sellwood Bridge and River View • Place interpretive signage at the
Cemetery. Superintendent’s House. This signage would
provide information and images discussing the
• Assess existing bridge materials to determine Superintendent’s House, and would present a
what materials, if any, might be salvageable, general history of the River View Cemetery.
and make those available to interested
parties. • Design the retaining walls around the
Superintendent’s House so that they would
• Prepare a list of potential interested parties in assimilate with the surrounding landscape,
advance of any proposed salvage or and use vegetation screening to obscure the
advertisement. new structures.
• Prepare an advertisement announcing the 3.10.4 Summary of Alternatives by

availability of salvageable materials from the
Sellwood Bridge.
Differentiating
Archaeological and
• Identify what materials, if any, could be Historic Resources Impact
incorporated into the new bridge and/or into
the interpretive panels.

TABLE 3.10-2
Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Archaeological and Historic Resources Impact
Impact Type No Build A B B/TDB C D E D Refined
Direct Impact to None Replaces and Replaces and Replaces and Removes Replaces and Replaces and Replaces and
River View moves access, moves access, moves access, access from moves access, moves access, moves access,
Cemetery removes removes removes OR 43, removes removes removes
informal informal informal removes informal informal informal
landscaping landscaping landscaping informal landscaping landscaping landscaping
landscaping
Direct Impact to None Displaces Displaces Displaces Removes Displaces Displaces Displaces
Superintendent’s parking, some parking, some parking, some access from parking, some parking, some parking, some
House parking would parking would parking would OR 43, parking would parking would parking would
be restored, be restored, be restored, displaces be restored, be restored, be restored,
alters setting alters setting alters setting parking, some alters setting alters setting alters setting
parking would
be restored,
alters setting
Direct Impact to Bridge Alters Alters Alters Removes Removes Removes Removes
Sellwood Bridge would significantly, significantly, no significantly, historic bridge historic bridge historic bridge historic bridge
deteriorate no longer longer eligible no longer
eligible for for National eligible for
National Register National
Register Register
Indirect Impact to None Alters setting Alters setting Alters setting Alters setting Alters setting Alters setting Alters setting
Superintendent’s
House

Visual Reso urces
Visual Resources Summary

3.11 Visual Resources
Rehabilitation or replacement of the existing
3.11.1 Affected Environment bridge alone would have little visual impact
The Sellwood Bridge area is popular for on the existing landscape. Construction of a
bridge in a new location would minimally
recreation and includes river-oriented parks, affect views of downtown Portland and the
businesses, and moorages. Generally, natural West Hills. The landscape would be most
landscape elements with terrain and elevation affected by construction of the bridge
changes dominate the west bank of the approaches and the west-side interchange
Willamette River. The east bank has less with OR 43. Other than the elevated east-
side bridge approach of Alternative E, none
elevation change and is more developed, with of the east-side connections with SE Tacoma
parkland and multifamily housing along and near Street would vary enough to be a
the river. Houseboats are anchored in two differentiating factor for visual quality
clustered developments on both sides of the change. On the west side, cuts into the
hillside above OR 43 and removal of
river. OR 43, a major arterial, runs less than a
vegetation for all the Build alternatives
quarter-mile inland from the river’s west bank at would have approximately equal and
the foot of the hillside. Views from OR 43 to the significant adverse impacts to the visual
east bank are screened by the vegetation on the resources of the project area.
west bank. The river, hills, and more distant
Portland skyline contribute to the moderately
high quality of the visual environment. The City of Portland Comprehensive Plan (City of
Portland, 2006) outlines requirements for
Statewide Planning Goal 15 protecting scenic resources through the City of
(Willamette River Greenway Portland’s Scenic Resources Protection Plan (1991).
Program; Oregon Administrative
Willamette River Greenway
Rule [OAR] 660-015-0005) The Sellwood Bridge is identified as a scenic

designates the Willamette River resource. The Scenic Resources Protection Plan also
Greenway, on both shores within the identifies four scenic viewpoints in the project
study area, as an area for resource area where the viewsheds should be protected
Program
management and recreation access.

from development that would degrade the views.
The objective of Goal 15 is to
protect, conserve, enhance, and These viewpoints are shown on Figure 3.11-1,
maintain the natural, scenic, which also illustrates eight key viewpoints for the
historical, agricultural, economic, visual analysis. Some of these viewpoints are
and recreational qualities of lands described and illustrated as they relate to specific
along the Willamette River. The
Build alternatives. Although the bridge is the
Build alternatives would need to
comply with this goal. focus of these four protected scenic viewpoints,
the Scenic Resources Protection Plan does not
People in apartments and condominiums, outline specific restrictions to bridge project
commercial buildings, houseboats, and single- development, such as height or scenic overlay
family residences would have views of the project zones. The Comprehensive Plan uses scenic overlay
improvements. Those traveling by private vehicle, zoning to protect scenic resources.
public transit, bicycle, and foot along OR 43,
adjacent trails, and the Sellwood Bridge and its
approaches would have views from the project
improvements. In the project area, views of the
Willamette River and West Hills are most
sensitive to visual quality change.
Visual Reso urces
3.11.2 No Build Alternative Visual impacts are the combined
Impacts
Visual
result of changes in visual resources
Environmental and viewer responses to such
Consequences changes.
No visual impacts are anticipated for the No
Build Alternative. Events such as structural viewpoints of and from the road (and bridge)
failures, severe weather, vehicle collisions, were identified as most representative for visual
landslides, and vegetation morbidity potentially impact analysis (Figure 3.11-1).
could alter the visual condition of built and
Because a bridge already exists, a new or
natural elements of the landscape.
rehabilitated bridge in the same location would be
less visually intrusive than a new bridge structure at
a different location. The structural elements
Environmental employed in the bridge design could obstruct the
Consequences view at some locations and improve the view at
Impacts and Mitigation Common to other locations. Some bridge design types would
All Build Alternatives dominate and obstruct the landscape more than
others. A new or rehabilitated bridge structure
Direct Impacts. Visual impacts are the
could actually improve visual quality.
combined result of changes in visual resources
and viewer responses to such changes. Eight key
FIGURE 3.11-1
Protected Scenic Viewpoints and Key Viewpoints for Visual Analysis
Visual Reso urces
East Side of the Willamette River. Overall, to restore the natural environment along OR 43.
the impact to visual quality of the built Using existing vegetation or replanted vegetation
environment on the east side of the river would to screen the retaining walls could reduce the
be minimally negative, and possibly positive along visual impact after approximately 10 years.
SE Tacoma Street. Views from the east side
Mitigation measures for visual resources would
toward the West Hills across the river would be
include:
most strongly impacted by hillside cuts and
retaining walls a minimum of 20 feet high.  Reducing form, texture, or color contrasts in
West Side of the Willamette River. The structures and cut/fill slopes
three west-side interchange types (roundabout,  Refining the alignment of the interchange and
trumpet, and signalized intersection) would ramps to lessen the hillside cuts
significantly change the existing landscape west of
the river. The hillside above OR 43 would be cut  Planting replacement vegetation and/or
and vegetation (such as trees) would be removed limiting the removal of vegetation to buffer or
during construction of the interchange. New screen sensitive viewers from introduced
structures on the west bank would include structural elements and slope scarification;
retaining walls and elevated ramps for the west- replanting large-growing trees
side interchange, the bicycle/pedestrian path, and
 Preserving existing stands of mature trees
a future streetcar line with trail improvements.
and other attractive natural vegetation to the
These items would cause negative visual impacts.
greatest extent possible; minimizing clearing
Construction. Clearing, grubbing of mature for construction, and marking trees for
vegetation, grading, and the presence of preservation
equipment, materials, signage, and staging areas
 During construction, shielding light sources
would cause temporary visual effects during
to block direct views of temporary lighting
construction. In certain areas, debris piles from
from residential areas, and aiming and
the removal of large mature trees would
shielding light sources to reduce spillover
temporarily lessen visual quality. Construction
lighting
would likely occur at night, requiring additional
lighting. The glare from unshielded light sources Alternative-specific Impacts
and increases in ambient nighttime light levels
would affect residents near the construction area. Alternative A
Impacts on visual resources from Alternative A
Indirect Impacts. Visitors interested in seeing mostly would result from retaining walls and the
the rehabilitated or new bridge and its views proposed new bicyclist and pedestrian facilities.
could increase local traffic. More people would
East Side of the Willamette River. On the
likely use the bicyclist and pedestrian facilities
east side, the separate bicycle/pedestrian bridge
because of the bridge’s improvements, views, and
would cross over Sellwood Riverfront Park,
connection to urban facilities in Sellwood.
which could be a positive or negative visual
Mitigation. As part of landscape mitigation at impact (Figure 3.11-2). The rehabilitated vehicular
the time of construction, final design would bridge would not cause an adverse change to
determine new plant locations, species, and sizes. visual quality because it would be located on the
Mitigation measures recommended for same alignment and would be the same bridge
consideration during final design would attempt type (continuous-truss) as the existing bridge.
Visual Reso urces
FIGURE 3.11-2
Alternative A Cable-stayed Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge from Sellwood Riverfront Park
FIGURE 3.11-3
Alternative A Roundabout Interchange and Bicycle/Pedestrian Path
Visual Reso urces
West Side of the Willamette River. On the change in visual quality on both sides of the river
west side, a spiral ramp on the west bank would because there would be two bridges crossing the
connect the bicycle/pedestrian bridge to the river during construction. The temporary detour
Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank), and a bridge would cause an adverse change in visual
bicycle/pedestrian overpass. A path west of and quality from Oaks Pioneer Park because it would
above the southbound OR 43 off-ramp would be aligned adjacent to the park.
lead to the roundabout (Figure 3-11.3). With the
southbound OR 43 off-ramp and bicycle/ Alternative C
East Side of the Willamette River. Other
pedestrian path would be a retaining wall
than the view of the retaining walls and new
approximately 20 feet high that would run
interchange on the west side, there would be no
350 lineal feet between the bicycle/pedestrian
adverse change in visual quality on the east side
overpass and the roundabout. Where the
because the new bridge would be located on the
overpass would meet the path, a 48-foot cut into
same alignment as the existing bridge. The bridge
the hillside would be required. The top of the
type would be through-arch, which would have
retaining wall for the bicycle/pedestrian path
superstructure (bridge elements above the bridge
between the overpass and roundabout would be
deck) that would be visible from SE Tacoma
more than 50 feet above OR 43. North of the
Street (Figure 3.11-4). However, this would not
overpass, a retaining wall or rock-face cut would
cause an adverse change in visual quality and
be 30 feet high nearest the overpass and descend
could actually be a positive change in visual
to 5 feet high at a point approximately 500 feet
quality.
north of the overpass.
West Side of the Willamette River. The
Alternative B visual impacts of the ramp configurations and
East Side of the Willamette River. Other
retaining walls of the west-side interchange
than the view of the retaining walls and new
differentiate Alternative C from the other Build
interchange on the west side, there would be no
alternatives. The biggest visual differences would
adverse change in visual quality on the east side
be the removal of the buildings on the Staff
because the rehabilitated bridge would be located
Jennings property and the addition of a linear
on the same alignment and be the same bridge
bicycle/pedestrian ramp approximately 500 feet
type (continuous-truss) as the existing bridge.
long that would rise to connect the Willamette
West Side of the Willamette River. As with Greenway Trail (West Bank) to the bridge.
all the Build alternatives, the elevated ramps and Above the southbound exit ramp, an 80-foot-high
retaining walls of the west-side interchange would wall would be prominent to drivers westbound
cause adverse changes to visual quality. Near the on the replacement bridge. This wall is shown on
interchange, however, the impacts of the tall Figure 3.11-5. Alternative C would have fewer
retaining wall would not be as great as with lineal feet of rock face cut/retaining wall for the
Alternative A because Alternative B would lack southbound ramp than the other Build
the bicycle/pedestrian path connection of alternatives. However, the location and extreme
Alternative A between the separate height of the retaining wall (80 feet) above the
bicycle/pedestrian bridge and the roundabout. interchange directly west of the bridge terminus
would have a high negative visual impact.
Temporary Detour Bridge. The temporary
detour bridge would cause a temporary adverse
Visual Reso urces
FIGURE 3.11-4
Alternative C Through-arch Bridge from SE Tacoma Street
FIGURE 3.11-5
Alternative C Trumpet Interchange
Visual Reso urces
Alternative D the east-end approach would have a foreground

East Side of the Willamette River. Other view of an area north of SE Tacoma Street that
than the view of the retaining walls and new would be elevated roadway. The present view is
interchange on the west side, there would be no of mixed commercial development. The existing
adverse change in visual quality on the east side bank overlooking SE Oaks Park Way would be
because the new bridge would be located on the topped by the new bridge approach, resulting in
same alignment as the existing bridge. The two the loss of some mature trees. Encroachment in
bridge type options (delta-frame and deck-arch) this area would be larger than the bicycle/
would have no superstructure (bridge elements pedestrian bridge under Alternative A. However,
above the bridge deck). Therefore, the view from redevelopment efforts in this commercial area
SE Tacoma Street (Figure 3.11-6) and Sellwood (which is now largely asphalt-covered) or
Riverfront Park (Figure 3.11-7) would be similar extensive roadside landscaping (given an
to existing conditions. expanded right-of-way) could improve the visual
quality of the area west of SE 6th Avenue.
West Side of the Willamette River. Under
Alternative D, the elevated ramps and retaining West Side of the Willamette River. For
walls of the west-side interchange would Alternative E, the west-side interchange would be
adversely change the visual quality. These visual located further to the north than for
changes would be similar among all the Build Alternative A. Consequently, Alternative E would
alternatives. Near the interchange, however, the not have the tall retaining walls or hillside cuts
impacts of the tall retaining wall would not be as south of the underpass connection to Powers
great as with Alternatives A or E because Marine Park that would result from
Alternative D would lack the bicycle/pedestrian Alternative A. This shift would realign portions of
path connection of Alternative A. OR 43 to meet with the existing roadway farther
north. However, almost 700 feet of realigned
Alternative E OR 43 immediately south of the interchange
Alternative E would include a new structure in
would require a retaining wall 5 to 10 feet high
approximately the same location as the separate
on one or both sides of the roadway (Figure
bicycle/pedestrian bridge with Alternative A, but
3.11-9). The cemetery access road would also
without a bicycle/pedestrian overpass of OR 43.
require hillside cuts and tall retaining walls. North
However, because of the width, depth, and height
of the new west-side interchange, the
of the structures, Alternative E (box-girder or
southbound ramp would require a 40-foot high
through-arch bridge types) would have the
rock face cut/retaining wall for 200 lineal feet,
potential for larger view obstructions than
then a 25- to 35-foot-high rock face cut/retaining
Alternative A (cable-stayed or stress-ribbon
wall for another 400 lineal feet. In addition, north
bicycle/pedestrian bridge types).
of the interchange, the northbound ramp would
East Side of the Willamette River. The be on fill with retaining walls that would range
landscape on the east side of the bridge would from 25 to 30 feet high for 600 lineal feet. These
significantly change because a new bridge hillside cuts would be prominent from the
approach at SE Tacoma Street would be condominiums on the east side of the Willamette
constructed. The alignment would veer north River and parklands on both sides of the river.
over SE Spokane Street and be aligned adjacent
to Sellwood Riverfront Park (Figure 3.11-8). The
view from Oaks Pioneer Park would also be an
adverse change in visual quality. Bridge users on
Visual Reso urces
FIGURE 3.11-6
Alternative D and Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) Deck-arch Bridge from SE Tacoma Street
FIGURE 3.11-7
Alternative D and Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) Deck-arch Bridge from Sellwood
Riverfront Park
Visual Reso urces
FIGURE 3.11-8
Alternative E Through-arch Bridge from Sellwood Riverfront Park
FIGURE 3.11-9
Alternative E Signalized Interchange and South Ramps from above West Bank in Mid-air (Demolished
Existing Bridge)
Visual Reso urces
Alternative D Refined stepped, vegetated fashion, which would soften

(Preferred Alternative) the view from across the river.
East Side of the Willamette River. There
would be no adverse change in visual quality on Realignment of the roadway providing access to
the east side because the new bridge would be River View Cemetery, Powers Marine Park, and
located on the same alignment as the existing the Staff Jennings property would change the
bridge. The two bridge type options (deck-arch visual impact of the project to the historic
and delta-frame) would have no superstructure Superintendent’s House. Rather than crossing in
(bridge elements above the bridge deck). front of the Superintendent’s House, the roadway
Therefore, the view from SE Tacoma Street would pass behind the structure. Construction of
(Figure 3.11-6) and profile view from Sellwood the roadway in this location would require an
Riverfront Park (Figure 3.11-7) would be similar approximately 20-foot-high retaining wall behind
in scale to existing conditions. (west of) the Superintendent’s House. Historic
resources mitigation measures would include
West Side of the Willamette River. Under retaining wall treatments to complement the
Alternative D Refined, the elevated ramps, rock surrounding landscape and vegetative screening
cuts, and retaining walls of the west-side to obscure the walls. Additional mitigation
interchange would adversely change the visual measures would call for moving the existing
quality. Because the footprint of the interchange stone cemetery gates to the new
under Alternative D Refined would be moved Superintendent’s House driveway and placing
slightly to the west, the height of the rock cut plaques commemorating the historic
and retaining wall on the west side of OR 43 Superintendent’s House and Sellwood Bridge
would be higher than with all the other near the Superintendent’s House. The River View
alternatives (see Table 3.11-1). However, Cemetery owners believe the visual impacts of
removal of the bicycle/pedestrian spiral ramps in Alternative D Refined are preferable to those of
Alternative D Refined would reduce the visual Alternative D.
impact from the east side, closer to the impacts
identified for Alternative C. In addition, the 3.11.4 Summary of Alternatives
retaining walls along the streetcar and multi-use by Differentiating Visual
path alignment on the east side of OR 43 through
Resources Impact
Willamette Moorage Park would be treated in a
Visual Reso urces
TABLE 3.11-1
Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Visual Resources Impact
No
Build A B C D E D Refined
Presence of retaining walls 0 lf 930 lf 580 lf 400 lf 660 lf 800 lf 1,200 lf
10 feet or higher (in lineal feet;
OR 43 southbound exit ramp)
Presence of retaining walls 0 lf 600 lf 600 lf 450 lf 650 lf 950 lf 750 lf
10 feet or higher (in lineal feet;
OR 43 southbound entrance
ramp)
Significant east-side visual No Yes No No No Yes No
change? (new (bridge on
bridge) new
alignment)
Significant west-side visual No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
change?
lf = lineal feet
Geology
3.12 Geology Geology Summary
3.12.1 Affected Environment All the alternatives except for Alternative E

are within the landslide area that has caused
The geology in the vicinity of the Sellwood Bridge
movement of the existing west-end bridge
project consists primarily of a series of volcanic pier. Drilling shafts into stable rock below
(basalt) flows. Flood deposits, placed fill, river the landslide would mitigate pier movement.
alluvium, landslide debris, and other The Build alternatives do not differ
unconsolidated geologic deposits have covered significantly from one another with respect
to the combination of cuts, fills, erosion
the area over time. Holes (borings) were drilled potential, and resource needs. Under all
in the project vicinity to evaluate subsurface Build alternatives, structures would be
conditions, to install instruments for measuring designed to reduce risks of geologic hazards
groundwater levels, and to monitor slope (such as landslides, rock cuts, changes in
movement. Boring locations showed that drainage patterns and erosion, and
liquefaction). This would improve safety
belowground materials in the project vicinity compared to existing conditions.
consist primarily of mixed layers of
unconsolidated materials (silt, silty sand, silty
weight of fill on the west end transfer weight to
gravel, and clay with gravel) and basalt bedrock.
the already unstable slide, causing downhill
The structure of the basalt bedrock in the project
movement. It is likely that parts of the slide are
vicinity is important for slope stability. Because
related to construction of the existing bridge,
the unconsolidated materials have soil-like
retaining wall, ramp, and abutment.
characteristics and lower strength than rock, they
are subject to settlement and instability. Periodic earthquakes affect the Pacific
Northwest, including the project area.
Earthquakes can cause permanent ground
Major geologic hazards in the project
area include landslides, erosion, and changes, either by slippage along fault lines and
steep slopes or by the movement of soils from
Geologic Hazards
earthquakes. Erosion is the weathering

away of soil. Landslides are the ground-shaking. Within the project area, the
downward movements of rock, soil, or hazards most likely to occur from earthquakes
artificial fill on a slope. Erosion and
include damage to structures, liquefaction, ground
landslides are functions of the area’s soil
types and topography—the steeper the motion, and landslides induced by seismic activity.
slope and the finer or more layered the Liquefaction occurs when seismic shaking causes
soil, the likelier erosion and landslides certain soils to act like liquids.
are to occur.
An ancient landslide exists at the west end of the

current bridge (Figures 3.12-1 and 3.12-2). The Environmental
existing bridge is in the northern portion of this Consequences
landslide. Known as the Sellwood Slide, this Under the No Build Alternative, the Sellwood
landslide is approximately 500 feet long and 70 to Slide would continue its slow movement, which
85 feet thick. The construction of the Sellwood could continue to structurally compromise the
Bridge in 1925 may have led to instability on the west approaches of the existing bridge.
landslide. The placement of fills and bridge piers Continued slope instability and occasional small
on top of the landslide may have added enough rockfalls could occur on the existing rock cuts,
weight to modify the topography. Damage to the which could cause road damage, traffic disruption,
bridge piers on the west side indicates a slow and injury to motorists. It is not likely that the
landslide over time. Shallow bridge footings and
Geology
FIGURE 3.12-1
Sellwood Slide
FIGURE 3.12-2
Geologic Cross-Section
Geology
drainage patterns and topographic configuration stormwater away from the project site to
would change over time. prevent ponding or flooding. Drainage layers
under retaining walls and culverts through
Large precipitation events could cause erosion
embankment fills would move runoff under or
and sediment transport, and other future
through these structures to ensure drainage and
construction projects or road modifications could
prevent saturation.
lead to increased erosion potential. However, it
is not likely that the erosion potential would Direct impacts to geologic resources would
change over time unless a drastic event occurred include the depletion of materials used to
in the project vicinity, such as a fire that removed construct earthfills, approach embankments, and
vegetation. retaining walls; to manufacture aggregate; and to
supply topsoil. In addition, construction of bridges
3.12.3 Build Alternatives and structures would require use of large
Environmental quantities of steel and concrete. These resources
could not be replaced. It is anticipated that the
Consequences
excavation of cut slopes for the project would
Impacts and Mitigation Common to provide a surplus of material. Some material
All Build Alternatives could be used as general fill. The excess material
Direct Impacts. Erosion, topographic would need to be disposed of off-site in an
modifications, and drainage pattern alterations appropriate location.
are direct impacts expected to occur for all Build
alternatives. The weight from new fill and structures (such as
retaining walls) and the excavation of cut slopes
The cut-and-fill slopes, retaining walls, and other would create instability on the existing Sellwood
structures would have the potential to create Slide. Cutting into an unstable area would likely
slope instability. The existing landslide (Sellwood result in an unstable cut that would require
Slide) would be a concern for the project stabilization measures, as summarized in the
construction and could be impacted by all Build Mitigation section.
alternatives. Modifications to an existing landslide
could cause instability or renewed movement if Construction impacts would include vibrations
not properly designed and constructed. These and damage to structures from rock blasting
direct impacts could cause soil erosion concerns. operations; the dropping of rocks into the travel
roadway during construction of rock cuts; soil
Rock cut slopes would be constructed along the erosion and increased runoff in devegetated
west bridge approach as part of each Build areas; and sedimentation in the Willamette River
alternative. The rock cut slopes could also have a resulting from lack of proper construction
thick mantle of soil or weathered rock at their controls. Foundation construction within the
crests. Direct impacts from new rock cuts would Willamette River could affect river navigational
include rockfall hazards, global rock slope uses and could temporarily increase turbidity and
instability, costly construction, and ongoing suspended sediments in the river.
maintenance.
Indirect Impacts. Indirect impacts for all Build
The Build alternatives would modify the existing alternatives would include the following:
drainage patterns and topography from the cut-
and-fill slopes and retaining walls. However,  Changes in topography from grading could
culverts and drainage ditches would be affect drainage patterns and erosion, which
incorporated at the base of cut-and-fill slopes and could in turn increase the potential for future
along new roads. These ditches would convey landslide movement by causing accumulation
Geology
and infiltration of stormwater in slide-prone Rockfall Hazards. Basic rockfall mitigation

soils. techniques would include installing rockfall nets
or catch fences to cover slopes and constructing
 Permanent, steeper slopes, fills, and a rock catchment ditch (Figure 3.12-3) with a
structures could decrease the long-term barrier between the ditch and OR 43. Bolts and
stability of the Sellwood Slide and could mesh could be used to cover high rockfall hazard
create the potential for future movement on areas such as weathered zones of rock. Rock
the existing landslide. anchors could be used to increase the stability of
 Seismic events could affect the new the slope. If highly weathered rock or soil-like
structures, new fill slopes, new rock cut zones were exposed in rock cuts, then
slopes, and stability of the Sellwood Slide. stabilization techniques such as mesh or soil nails
could be employed to mitigate slope hazards
 Large precipitation events could lead to (Figure 3.12-3).
future slope failures and erosion on new cut-
and-fill slopes constructed as part of the Drainage and Erosion. Standard erosion
project that would not have existed under control techniques (including stormwater and
the No Build Alternative. erosion best management practices such as the
development and implementation of a
Mitigation. Mitigation measures would be comprehensive erosion and sediment control
designed to minimize short- and long-term plan) would be used in construction zones to
impacts. Many mitigation
measures would be common to all
Build alternatives, as summarized FIGURE 3.12-3
Geologic Mitigation Techniques
in the following subsections.
Figure 3.12-3 shows a conceptual
drawing of mitigation techniques
for rockfalls and rock cut
instability.
Sellwood Slide. Constructing

new piers and abutments in stable
ground below the slide and using
drilled shafts and driven piling
would provide structural
mitigation. This technique would
involve driving or drilling the piles
or shafts through the slide mass
and into stable rock below the
slide. Removing the existing fill
and replacing it with lightweight
fill, such as Styrofoam™, would
reduce the force on the landslide
and reduce the weight of fills.
Geology
minimize erosion. For the long-term, erosion would be anticipated because there would be
could be controlled by hydroseeding and fewer potential stability issues and rockfall
establishing vegetation as soon as possible. Other hazards.
measures would include diverting stormwater
runoff away from cuts and fills and constructing  Existing landslide area. Alternative A
erosion retention basins. would include excavation of cut slopes within
the limits of the existing Sellwood Slide.
Seismic Hazards. Mitigation for seismic hazards OR 43 would be cut into the slide to a depth
to bridges, structures, and retaining walls would of 18 feet. No fills would be within the
include evaluating the level of loading to be landslide limits for this alternative.
expected during design and performing structural
design to withstand the anticipated loads. Alternative B
Overall, Alternative B would have the lowest
Foundation design would consider liquefaction
rock cut slopes and lowest fills of all the Build
and the structure would be founded on rock or
alternatives. Consequently, the impacts related to
more stable ground, such as the Troutdale
Alternative B could be expected to be less than
formation, if encountered at depth. Slope
with the other Build alternatives.
stabilization measures (such as installing drilled
shafts or micropiles and increasing soil strength)  Fill height. Alternative B would have a
would also provide mitigation for seismic hazards. maximum fill height of 21 feet.
 Cut height. Alternative B would have two

The Troutdale formation, which was rock cuts with maximum heights of 36 and
formed during the Missoula Floods, 38 feet, and maximum rock cut lengths
Formation
Troutdale
consists of cemented boulders,

between 500 and 850 feet. Because the rock
cobbles, gravels, and sand. The Ross
Island Bridge, located 2.5 miles to the cut heights would be lower than the rock
north of the Sellwood Bridge, is cuts of the other Build alternatives, lower
founded on the Troutdale formation. impacts would be anticipated because there
would be fewer potential stability issues and
Alternative-specific Impacts rockfall hazards.
Environmental consequences and mitigation for
 Existing landslide area. Alternative B
the Build alternatives are summarized in the
would include excavation of cut slopes within
following subsections. Fill heights, cut heights, and
the existing landslide area for each Build
OR 43 would be cut into the slide to a depth
alternative are addressed.
of 18 feet. No fills would be within the
Alternative A landslide limits for this alternative.
 Fill height. Alternative A would have a
maximum fill height of 36 feet (for the Alternative C
 Fill height. Alternative C would have
retaining walls along the northbound
maximum fill heights of 38 feet along the
entrance ramp).
northbound entrance ramp. This alternative
 Cut height. Alternative A would have two would have the largest cut slope heights and
rock cuts with maximum heights of 38 and the highest fills of all the Build alternatives
49 feet, and maximum rock cut lengths and, consequently, the greatest potential
between 500 and 900 feet. The rock cut impacts from a slope stability perspective.
heights would be lower than with some of
the other Build alternatives, so lower impacts
Geology
 Cut height. Alternative C would have two of 18 feet. The streetcar/trail would be
rock cuts, including a 20-foot-high cut and a constructed on a retaining wall up to 28 feet
large, high, rock cut along the southbound high on the slide, which could cause slide
exit because of the trumpet-type intersection movement. Alternative D, which would have
where the southbound exit ramp would be the highest fills on the existing landslide,
farther to the west than with the other Build appears to have the most potential to impact
alternatives. The maximum height of this rock the slide of all the alternatives. However, if
cut would be approximately 65 feet. This the streetcar/trail were constructed on a
alternative would have the second highest bridge structure rather than on a retaining
rock cut slope of all the Build alternatives. wall, the impacts would be minimized.
The length of the two rock cuts would range
from 450 to 525 feet. The height of the rock Alternative E
 Fill height. Alternative E would have a
cut slope could cause stability concerns,
maximum fill height of 30 feet along the
which could lead to greater impacts. A rock
northbound entrance ramp.
cut of this height would have the potential to
cause a large impact because of design and  Cut height. Alternative E would have two
construction difficulties, stability concerns, rock cuts with maximum heights of 40 and
rockfall hazard, and the potential cost of 57 feet, the third highest of all the Build
stabilization and maintenance. alternatives. The length of the two rock cuts
would range from 450 to 650 feet. Although
 Existing landslide area. Alternative C
the rock cuts would not be as long as those
would include excavation of cut slopes within
in the other Build alternatives, the height of
the two rock cuts for this alternative would
OR 43 and the southbound entrance would
cause stability concerns, which could lead to
be constructed on retaining walls that would
greater impacts. A rock cut of this height
be up to 12 feet high. These could cause slide
would cause larger impact construction
movement. The streetcar/trail bridge could
difficulties, stability concerns, rockfall hazard,
be extended to the south, which would likely
and potential costs for stabilization and
avoid impacting the landslide. However,
maintenance.
because no cuts or excavations and no
underpass would be within the landslide  Existing landslide area. Alternative E
limits, Alternative C would have lower would require minimal excavating and filling
impacts from a cut-slope stability standpoint. on the existing landslide mass. There would
be a combination of cut and fill into the slide
Alternative D
along OR 43. The cut would be 8 feet high
 Fill height. Alternative D would have a
and the fill would be 10 feet high within the
maximum fill height of 28 feet.
landslide area. Overall, this alternative would
 Cut height. Alternative D would have two have the least impact to the landslide area
rock cuts with maximum heights of 38 and compared with the other Build alternatives.
41 feet, and maximum rock cut lengths
between 500 and 900 feet. Alternative D Refined
 Existing landslide area. Alternative D  Fill height. Alternative D Refined would
would include excavation of cut slopes within have a maximum fill height of 20 feet at the
the limits of the existing Sellwood Slide. northbound entrance ramp. This would be
OR 43 would be cut into the slide to a depth
Geology
the lowest maximum fill height of all the Build property beneath and east of the OR 43
alternatives. northbound off-ramp to avoid cuts or fills
into the toe of the landslide. If a cut were
 Cut height. Alternative D Refined would required in this vicinity, the cut slope would
have a maximum cut height of 73 feet at the be stabilized using a soil nail wall or a
southbound exit ramp. This would be the retaining wall.
largest cut height of all the Build alternatives.
 Construct micropiles in the vicinity of the toe
 Existing landslide area. Alternative D of the landslide to provide structural
Refined would include excavation of cut stabilization for the lower part of the
landslide mass. These structural elements
slopes within the limits of the existing
would add additional shear capacity at the
Sellwood Slide. OR 43 would be cut into the failure plane of the slide, which would resist
slide to a depth of 43 feet along the roadway the driving force of the landslide and increase
that would provide access to Powers Marine safety.
Park and the Staff Jennings property. This
would be the largest cut height within the  Construct the future planned streetcar
landslide area of all the Build alternatives. The alignment on the slide approximately at
grade, which would eliminate the need for
maximum fill height within the slide area
cuts or fills.
would be 6 feet.
 Stabilize the weathered rock at the
Mitigation. Mitigation measures for Alternative southbound OR 43 off-ramp using tiebacks
D Refined would be similar to the previously (upper portion of this rock cut).
listed mitigation measures. Specific mitigation
measures for Alternative D Refined would  Found bridge piers on materials with suitable
include the following: strength. Use the latest probabilistic seismic
hazard analyses to design the bridge piers to
 Remove existing fill material, which would withstand damage from seismic shaking and
remove the driving force causing the existing liquefaction based on fully characterized
landslide to move. Recent movement of the subsurface conditions and seismic potential.
existing landslide may be the result of adding
 Relocate the existing water-line pipes, as
fill material.
necessary, to avoid destabilization of the soil
 Construct a secant-pile wall along the supporting these pipes (which could damage
roadway to Powers Marine Park and the Staff the pipes, causing them to fail).
Jennings property to stabilize the cuts into
the landslide mass. 3.12.4 Summary of Alternatives by
 Construct a structure on the roadway to
Differentiating Geology
Powers Marine Park and the Staff Jennings Impact
Geology
TABLE 3.12-1
Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Geology Impact
No
Impact Build A B C D E D Refined
Maximum Fill Height 0 feet 36 feet 21 feet 38 feet 28 feet 30 feet 20 feet
Maximum Cut Height 0 feet 49 feet 38 feet 65 feet 41 feet 57 feet 73 feet
Fill Height in Sellwood Slide 0 feet 0 feet 0 feet 12 feet 28 feet 10 feet 6 feet
Cut Height in Sellwood Slide 0 feet 18 feet 18 feet 0 feet 18 feet 8 feet 43 feet
Water Quality
3.13 Water Quality Water Quality Summary
3.13.1 Affected Environment The Build alternatives would increase

impervious surface area compared to the No
The Willamette River, which is approximately
Build Alternative by 80 to 100 percent.
187 river miles long, drains the Willamette Valley While the increase in impervious surface
in western Oregon. The existing Sellwood Bridge area would degrade water quality, with
is located about 16.6 river miles upstream of the proposed mitigation, water quality would
Willamette River’s confluence with the Columbia improve so that it would be better than with
the No Build Alternative.
River. At the bridge, the river has a tributary
drainage of approximately 11,200 square miles,
and the streambed elevation is below sea level 3.13.3 Build Alternatives
and subject to tidal influences. Environmental
Climate, topography, soils, drainage, and human Consequences
activities influence water quality. The drainage in Impacts and Mitigation Common to
the project area flows directly to the Willamette All Build Alternatives
River; there are no stormwater facilities in the
Direct Impacts. Mitigated and un-mitigated
project area.
annual loads were calculated as a percentage of
To assess ambient water quality in the the annual pollutant load in the Willamette River.
Willamette River, monitoring data were retrieved Annual mass loads from the project were
from the Oregon Department of Environmental determined and compared for both un-mitigated
Quality (DEQ). To protect aquatic life and human and mitigated scenarios.
health, Oregon Administrative Rule 340 defines
Each of the Build alternatives would result in an
the acute (short-term) and chronic (long-term)
increase in impervious area compared to the No
concentration criteria not to be exceeded in
Build Alternative. Increasing impervious surface
waters of the state. The lower Willamette River
area would increase the amount of polluted
is on DEQ’s federal Clean Water Act (CWA)
runoff, leading to greater pollutant concentration
Section 303(d) list of impaired waters. Every
in the Willamette River. Therefore, un-mitigated
2 years, DEQ assesses water quality and reports
mass pollutant loading to the river would
to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
increase with the increase in impervious area.
(EPA) on the condition of Oregon’s waters.
Pollutant load increases would vary between
80 percent and 100 percent.
Environmental Mitigation was analyzed for the treatment of
Consequences stormwater from all impervious areas within the
project. With mitigation, the annual pollutant
The No Build Alternative would maintain the
existing pavement of 7.0 acres of impervious Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act
Section 303(d) List
surface; stormwater runoff would not increase. (CWA) establishes that states are to list
There would continue to be no water quality (the 303[d] list) waters for which
treatment for the runoff unless the extent of the technology-based limits alone do not
ensure attainment of applicable water
maintenance work triggered the need for a
quality standards (WQS). Every 2 years,
biological assessment and the National Marine DEQ assesses water quality and reports
Fisheries Service (NMFS) and DEQ required to the EPA on the condition of Oregon’s
treatment and detention of stormwater. waters.
Water Quality
loads would generally decrease below those of would increase above the existing condition.
the No Build Alternative. The incorporation of Flows, as a percentage of river flow in all cases,
water-quality mitigation with the proposed Build would be less than a tenth of a percent of average
alternatives would reduce pollutant loading to the annual flow in the Willamette River. Additionally,
river, with the exception of metal pollutants that the streambed of the Willamette River in the
are entirely dissolved. Load reductions for total vicinity of the Sellwood Bridge is below sea level.
copper and total zinc would be approximately Downstream tidal influences profoundly affect the
1 to 10 percent. However, for dissolved copper river’s flow. These tidal influences exert a
and dissolved zinc, annual loads would increase significant effect on the velocity in the river, and
approximately 44 to 60 percent, but would be river velocities are relatively insensitive to
below DEQ limits. New technologies are flow alone.
currently under development and would likely be
For construction activities, DEQ is responsible
available by the time of project construction.
for issuing and enforcing National Pollutant
These technologies could greatly improve
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 1200-C
dissolved metals removal, incrementally
permits. These permits identify activities during
improving Willamette River water quality.
construction to assure an acceptable standard of
The greatest decreases would be in particulate water quality. In addition, the Federal 404
pollutant loadings, such as total suspended solids Wetland Removal Fill permit requires that
(TSS). With mitigation, approximately 70 percent construction stormwater management and
of particulate pollutants would be removed. construction practices be addressed. Major areas
Dissolved pollutants would show the least of concern during construction are anticipated to
removal, approximately 20 percent removal. This be erosion prevention, sediment control, and in-
level of removal should be considered water work. Regulatory agencies would closely
conservative; actual removal would likely be review these practices to minimize impacts.
higher than calculated. The analysis was
Indirect Impacts. No indirect impacts are
completed using stormwater treatment
anticipated. If the project induces redevelopment,
technologies that are currently accepted and
then redevelopment would require stormwater
approved by the regulatory authorities. New
mitigation exceeding the existing stormwater
technologies are currently under development,
mitigation.
such as ecology embankments and compost
amended swales, which should greatly improve Mitigation. As indicated under the Direct
dissolved metals removal. Although these Impacts section, mitigation for stormwater
technologies should be available when and if the generated from all impervious surfaces for the
project goes to design, they are not currently Build alternatives would improve water quality
recognized and, therefore, were not used as a over the existing conditions.
treatment benchmark.
Engineered stormwater treatment of runoff is
An increase in impervious area would increase anticipated as a mitigation measure to reduce
both the rate and volume of stormwater runoff. project impacts. Mitigation was considered for
The increased rate of runoff could result in treatment of stormwater from all impervious
adverse impacts to receiving streams. The surfaces. Various stormwater treatment methods
increased flow and velocity in a receiving stream accepted by the City of Portland were
could cause morphological impacts to the stream investigated to determine their viability. Potential
channel. These impacts could potentially increase facilities were sized using guidelines from ODOT,
sediment loading, which would result in stream City of Portland, National Oceanic and
incision and damage to aquatic habitat. Flows
Water Quality
Atmospheric Administration, and NMFS. quality swales. Figure 3.13-1 shows potential
Stormwater runoff from new impervious areas water quality swale locations along SE Tacoma
would require permits from the City of Portland. Street between the east end of the bridge and
To provide treatment for the west side of the

Impervious surface refers to a surface
project, engineered bioswales would need to be
through which water cannot percolate.
approximately 400 feet long at a 0.5-percent Because pavement is impervious,
slope, with a 14-foot bottom width. As a result of stormwater runoff and pollutant
topography and natural resource issues, no loading increase as impervious area
available locations within the west project area increases. As impervious area
Impervious Surface Area

increases, the potential for infiltration
were identified to site the requisite bioswales. of precipitation into the soil and
groundwater decreases. Increased
The City of Portland has approved the use of
impervious area also provides a greater
manufactured stormwater filters for water quality area on which vehicular pollutants can
treatment. These filters could be sited in accumulate. An increase in impervious
underground vaults placed in paved areas where area increases the volume and rate of
traffic flow would allow periodic filter stormwater runoff with an increased
pollutant load. The Federal Highway
maintenance. The west side of the project could
Administration (FHWA), in its
be treated with two 6-foot-by-12-foot research and methodology document,
manufactured underground filter vaults within the Pollutant Loadings and Impacts from
project right-of-way that would discharge to the Highway Stormwater Runoff, FHWA-RD-
Willamette River; no additional right-of-way 88-006 (1990), reported a direct
relationship between pollutant loading
would be needed for stormwater facilities. and impervious area.
However, more vaults might be required to
partition maintenance responsibilities among the
responsible jurisdictions (Multnomah County, SE 6th Avenue. However, the east end of the
ODOT, and the City of Portland). bridge would produce too much runoff to be fully
The project area along the east side of the treated using swales. Runoff from the east end of
project could be partially treated with water the bridge could be treated partially or fully using
one 6-foot-by-12-foot manufactured underground
FIGURE 3.13-1
Potential Water Quality Swale Locations along SE Tacoma Street
Water Quality
filter vault within the project right-of-way that more impervious surface than the No Build
would discharge to the Willamette River. Alternative.
Stormwater treatment options and design for the Alternative D

west and east sides would be refined during the Alternative D would have 13.9 acres of
project’s engineering design phase. Stormwater impervious surface, or approximately 100 percent
treatment would meet all applicable regulatory more impervious surface than the No Build
and permitting requirements. Alternative.
Alternative-specific Impacts Alternative E

Alternative E would have 13.6 acres of
Alternative A
Alternative A would have 13.7 acres of impervious surface, or approximately 95 percent
impervious surface, or approximately 97 percent more impervious surface than the No Build
more impervious surface than the No Build Alternative.
Alternative. Alternative D Refined
Alternative B
Alternative D Refined would have 13.9 acres of
Alternative B would have 13.8 acres of
impervious surface, or approximately 100 percent
more impervious surface than the No Build
more impervious surface than the No Build
Alternative.
Alternative.
Alternative C 3.13.4 Summary of Alternatives by

Alternative C would have 12.6 acres of Differentiating Water
Quality Impact
TABLE 3.13-1
Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Water Quality Impact
Impact Type No Build A B C D E D Refined
Impervious Surface Area
7.0 13.7 13.8 12.6 13.9 13.6 13.9
(acres)
Improves water quality
compared to existing No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
conditions?
Hydra ulics
3.14 Hydraulics Hydraulics Summary
3.14.1 Affected Environment All Build alternatives, other than

Alternative D and the delta-frame bridge
The Sellwood Bridge spans the Willamette River cofferdam approach with Alternative D
at river mile 16.6, as measured from its Refined, would contribute to a small increase
confluence with the Columbia River. Tributaries in the base flood elevation. Therefore, they
contributing flow in the vicinity of the project would require amendment of the regulated
area are Stephens Creek, Johnson Creek, Kellogg floodway or a change in design to achieve no
net rise. Engineering bridge design work
Creek, and the Clackamas River. would be undertaken to avoid this impact.
Additional obstructions in the floodway,
The study area includes a Federal Emergency
including bridge piers, might require
Management Agency (FEMA) Special Flood conveyance offsets, or the Special Flood
Hazard Area (SFHA; designated as “Zone AE”). Hazard Area (SFHA) might need to be
Construction within this flood hazard zone revised to reflect proposed impacts.
requires a permit from the City of Portland to
assure that floodplain building requirements are
rains in the winter. Typically, flooding in the
met. Construction must balance cut and fill at or
lower Willamette River is caused by backwater
below the protected 100-year base flood
effects from the Columbia River. Reservoir
elevation.
construction on both the Willamette and
A FEMA-designated regulated floodway has been Columbia River systems has lessened flood risk
delineated in the vicinity of the project area. for the Willamette River near the Sellwood
“A Regulated Floodway” means that part of the Bridge, although the last major flood, in 1996,
channel of a river or other watercourse and the occurred after the system was fully regulated.
adjacent land areas that must be reserved in
Flow velocities at the existing bridge vary across
order to discharge a 100-year flood event
the channel cross section and by depth, but
(1 percent annual occurrence; base flood
average velocities vary from 1 or 2 feet per
elevation) with no more than a 1-foot rise over
second under typical conditions and up to 8 feet
the 100-year base flood elevation. Once the
per second in major flood events. Local velocities
boundaries of the regulated floodway are
around obstructions such as bridge piers may be
established, nothing may be placed in the
higher, but obstructions may also provide areas
regulated floodway that contributes to a net
of little or no velocity.
increase in the 100-year base flood elevation.
Additional obstructions in the floodway, including
bridge piers, might require conveyance offsets.
Alternatively, the City of Portland and FEMA Environmental
could request a Letter of Map Revision and Consequences
change the base flood elevation to accommodate The No Build Alternative would not increase
the piers. City of Portland code indicates that flooding, as measured by the change in water-
development and structures are prohibited from surface elevation upstream of the project area.
encroaching into the regulated floodway unless The No Build Alternative would create no change
technical analysis from a registered engineer in backwater (flooding).
demonstrates that the development would not
increase the 100-year flood elevation.
Flooding in the study area occurs primarily
because of snowmelt in the spring and intense
Hydra ulics
3.14.3 Build Alternatives  Prohibit construction equipment from

entering watercourses, except when a
Environmental specific task can only occur in the stream
Consequences (such as the construction of piers). This
Impacts and Mitigation Common to activity would be limited to the in-water
All Build Alternatives work periods for watercourses with listed
Direct Impacts. As currently designed and fish species.
evaluated, all Build alternatives except  Prohibit equipment washing in the
Alternative D and the delta-frame bridge watercourses.
cofferdam approach with Alternative D Refined
would increase the base flood elevation, resulting  Prohibit equipment from crossing the
in a rise of between 0.01 and 0.08 foot above watercourses, except at temporary crossings,
base flood elevation. Although small, even this unless impractical. A temporary crossing plan
elevation change could require substantial would be prepared in coordination with the
additional work—either to revise the bridge Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
design during final design, or to address (ODFW) and ODOT. The plan would
permitting requirements associated with identify proposed construction methods and
documenting and communicating these impacts to develop appropriate mitigation measures to
affected stakeholders. For those Build alternatives rehabilitate the watercourse habitats that
that show an increase in base flood elevation would be affected by the temporary
relative to the No Build Alternative, agency crossings.
consultation would be needed to assess
 Request review and approval from ODFW of
permitting requirements and the need for
associated studies. These studies might include fish passage mitigation measures resulting
from the proposed bridge.
re-mapping the floodplain and regulated floodway
in the vicinity of the project. In addition, all Build  Size bridge openings to pass the 100-year
alternatives encroach into the 100-year peak flood discharge with little or no increase
floodplain. Floodplain encroachment, which is to the water surface elevation.
addressed under 23 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) 650A, Section 113, will require selection of  Obtain federal and state fill permits prior to
the most practicable alternative. construction.
Indirect Impacts. Changes to channel  Perform a “no rise” analysis and obtain a City
morphology would be anticipated during high of Portland Floodplain Development Permit
flow events. It would be anticipated that indirect prior to construction. Any substantial impacts
impacts would eventually stabilize with time. to the FEMA SFHA could be mitigated by one
or a combination of the following techniques:
Mitigation. The primary opportunity for
mitigation of hydraulic impacts would be to  Excavate part of the streambank to
reduce the base-flood-elevation change. This compensate for the permanent loss in
could be accomplished by redesigning in-water flow area (that is, the loss created by the
piers as bridge design progresses. installation of bridge piers).
Many of the following mitigation measures would  Investigate pier shaping to minimize
be developed after hydraulic designs for the energy losses.
bridge had been completed:
Hydra ulics
 Prepare a detailed erosion control plan Alternative E

during the final design. The plan would meet Table 3.14-1 summarizes hydraulic conditions for
or exceed requirements of the National Alternative E.
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) 1200-C permit. Alternative D Refined
Table 3.14-1 summarizes hydraulic conditions for
Alternative-specific Impacts and
the preferred alternative (Alternative D Refined).
Mitigation
Additional hydraulic modeling was conducted for
Alternative A Alternative D Refined. Table 3.14-1 shows the
conditions by bridge type and bridge foundation
Alternative A.
construction method. (Section 2.3 summarizes
Alternative B the cofferdam and perched in-water construction
Table 3.14-1 summarizes hydraulic conditions for methods.) Immediately upstream of the bridge,
Alternative B. the water surface elevation would increase more
using the perched than the cofferdam
Temporary Detour Bridge Option construction method.
The temporary detour bridge would create an
obstruction in the river’s flow for up to These are preliminary hydraulic analysis findings.
39 months. If a 100-year flood event were to As bridge engineering design progresses, a
occur during the 39 months of construction, detailed analysis would be conducted to
water surface elevation could reach 36.42 feet (an determine hydraulic impacts of the preferred
increase of 2.81 feet above existing conditions), alternative and the potential to mitigate
and velocities could increase to nearly 8.33 feet any impacts.
per second (an increase of 1 foot per second
over the current velocity). Additional temporary 3.14.4 Floodplain Finding
impacts during construction (such as streambank Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management)
erosion and temporary changes in water surface directs all federal agencies to refrain from
elevations resulting from other temporary conducting, supporting, or allowing actions in
structures) would be minimized by implementing floodplains unless it is the only practicable
appropriate construction techniques (such as the alternative. Federal Highway Administration
careful design of temporary structures) and (FHWA) requirements for compliance are
erosion control best management practices. outlined in 23 CFR 650 Subpart A. Executive
Order 11988 requires the consideration of
Alternative C alternatives that avoid floodplain impacts for all
federally funded projects.
Alternative C.
Implementation of the proposed action would
Alternative D result in the loss of approximately 0.48 acre of
floodplain. There are no practicable alternatives
Alternative D.
to the proposed improvements that would avoid
Alternative D would not increase the water floodplain impacts.
surface elevation. Thus, as currently configured,
In accordance with Executive Order 11988 and
Alternative D would have a measurable cost and
23 CFR 650, Subpart A, avoidance and
schedule advantage relative to those Build
minimization of floodplain impacts have been
alternatives that would increase the water
considered during project development, and
surface elevation.
design adjustments have been made, where
Hydraulics
feasible. The project, as depicted in preliminary the preferred alternative, a detailed hydraulic
design, shows between a 0.02-foot decrease in analysis of the bridge would be required. This
base flood elevation and a 0.08-foot net rise in analysis would model the effects of the project on
base flood elevation (with a 2.81-foot net rise for the elevation of the river during the 100-year
Alternative B with the temporary detour bridge base flood event to determine whether the
option during construction only). During and bridge would increase floodwater elevations.
following final design, the project would be Approval might require seeking a Letter of Map
brought into conformity with all applicable state Revision from the City of Portland and FEMA.
floodplain protection standards. All project
facilities located within floodplains would be 3.14.5 Summary of Alternatives by
designed to comply with federal, state, and local Differentiating Hydraulics
regulations. During subsequent design efforts for Impact
TABLE 3.14-1
Summary of Hydraulic Conditions by Alternative, Bridge Type, and Bridge Foundation Method
Maximum Change in
Change in Average Velocity from
WSE from No Velocity at No Build
Alternative, 100-Year Build Bridge Alternative
Bridge Type, and Flood WSE Alternative (feet per (feet per
Bridge Foundation Method (feet) (feet) second) second)
No Build Alternative 33.91 NA 7.33 NA

Alternative A—Cable-stayed Bicycle/ 33.97 +0.06 7.59 0.26
Pedestrian Bridge
Alternative A—Stress-ribbon Bicycle/ 33.98 +0.07 7.59 0.26
Pedestrian Bridge
Alternative B—Rehabilitation 33.94 +0.03 7.60 0.27
Alternative B with temporary detour 36.42 +2.81 8.33 1.00
bridge (during construction only)
Alternative C—Through-arch 33.93 +0.02 7.50 0.17
Alternative D—Deck-arch 33.91 0.00 7.33 0.00
Alternative D—Delta-frame 33.89 -0.02 7.14 -0.19
Alternative E—Box-girder 33.93 +0.02 7.56 0.23
Alternative E—Through-arch 33.93 +0.02 7.50 0.17
Alternative D Refined— Cofferdam 33.92 +0.01 6.78 -0.55

Deck-arch Perched 33.99 +0.08 6.77 -0.56
Alternative D Refined— Cofferdam 33.90 -0.01 6.78 -0.55

Delta-frame Perched 33.99 +0.08 6.77 -0.56
Note: Cofferdam and perched are construction methods for bridge foundations (see Section 2.3).
NA = not applicable
WSE = water surface elevation

Aquatic Resources
3.15 Aquatic Resources Aquatic Resources Summary
3.15.1 Affected Environment Adverse impacts to aquatic resources from

the Build alternatives could include direct
The following resources were used to identify the removal of in-stream habitat and loss of
aquatic resources in the project area: riparian vegetation. Best Management
Practices (BMPs) would be implemented to
 Federal Emergency Management Agency minimize or alleviate temporary impacts. In
flood maps (2004) addition, topographic contours would be
restored and disturbed surfaces would be
 Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife stabilized and revegetated with native
(ODFW) Willamette River fish study (2005) species.
 ODFW Willamette Falls fish counts (2007) placed materials (such as rip-rap, piers, and piles)
provides habitat to salmonid predators (non-native
 Oregon Natural Heritage Information Center
fish). However, the Willamette River in the project
and StreamNet database search for rare,
area has some of the highest concentrations of
threatened, and endangered plant and animal
remaining beach habitat, off-channel habitat, riparian
species within the Sellwood Bridge vicinity
area, mature forest, and cold-water tributary
(2007)
confluence areas because the west-side of the
 Published literature of biological resources in Willamette River is relatively undeveloped and has
the Willamette Valley been maintained as a natural area.
 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) The lower Willamette River is low gradient and
species list for Multnomah County averages a drop of 2.5 feet per mile (Altman
et al., 1997). Flow in the river has been affected
 Willamette Restoration Initiative Draft by impoundments on its major tributaries, which
Willamette Subbasin Plan (2004) have reduced winter and spring flood peaks and
In addition to reviewing this information, a site visit increased summer base flows compared to the
was conducted to observe riparian and channel past. Because of these actions, significant amounts
characteristics of the Willamette River within the of shallow-water, floodplain, and off-channel
project study area. The purpose of the visit was to habitats have been lost, resulting in insufficient
characterize and verify the potential riparian and amounts of key habitat available for the migration
in-water habitat features identified during the and rearing stages of Chinook salmon, coho
review of available information. salmon, and cutthroat and steelhead trout using
the lower river (Altman et al., 1997).
Habitat in the Project Vicinity Substantial pollution to the lower Willamette
The Willamette River between Willamette Falls and River occurred during the 1900s, up to the mid-
the mouth of the Willamette River at the Columbia 1900s. Raw sewage disposal and industrial
River has been highly straightened, channelized, activities led to increased fecal coliform levels,
dredged, and filled. In general, it has been narrowed nutrient loading, biochemical oxygen demand, and
and deepened. The use of rip-rap and other primary production (eutrophication) (Oregon
structures along the banks, especially in the vicinity Department of Environmental Quality [DEQ],
of downtown Portland, has resulted in the loss of 2007). Since the 1950s, water quality
important natural channels, minimizing the improvements have been documented as a result
interaction between the river, the riparian area, and of conservation efforts outlined in The Oregon
floodplain vegetation. In addition, the presence of Plan for Salmon and Watersheds (Oregon

Aquatic Resources
TABLE 3.15-1
Seasonal Average Water Quality Index Results for the Lower Willamette Basin (Water Year 1986-1995)
Scores
Minimum
Storet River Summer FWS Seasonal
Site Numbera Mile Averageb Averagec Averaged
Johnson Creek at SE 17th
Avenue (Portland) 404000 0.2 26 30 26
Willamette River at
Hawthorne Bridge (Portland) 402288 13.2 79 74 74
Willamette River at SP&S
Railroad Bridge (Portland) 402000 7.0 74 75 74
a
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Storage and Retrieval database (STORET)
b
Summer: June–September
c
FWS (Fall, Winter, and Spring): October–May
d
Scores—Very Poor: 0-59, Poor: 60-79, Fair: 80-84, Good: 85-89, Excellent: 90-100
SP&S = Spokane, Portland and Seattle
Source: DEQ, 2008
Watershed Enhancement Board, 1998). historically was the location of some of the largest
However, water quality in the lower Willamette chum populations in the Lower Columbia River.
is still considered poor (Table 3.15-1).
In the recent past, as a result of human influences
In general, the aquatic fish habitat in the lower on the river, the lower Willamette River has
Willamette River is poor for salmon and most primarily been considered a migration corridor.
other native fish species (discussed in the next Recent studies have documented the presence
subsection), but it is improving over recent past and growth of juvenile salmonids in the lower
conditions. Historically, the lower Willamette River Willamette River, specifically along nearshore
was a major rearing area for salmon and trout. areas (ODFW, 2005). The lower Willamette
According to the City of Portland, the project area River has been designated as critical habitat for
Anadromous fish are those that spend
steelhead and Chinook salmon.
all or part of their adult life in the sea
Willamette River Fish Species
Anadromous Fish Life
and return to freshwater streams and

rivers to breed, such as Pacific salmon The lower Willamette River contains nearly 50 fish
species and Pacific lamprey. species, almost a third of which are non-native to
Anadromous fish are born in the Willamette River. This section provides general
Cycle
freshwater streams and, after 2 to

5 years, they migrate through the
background information on the major categories of
estuaries to the Pacific Ocean, where fish (including federal and/or state threatened and
they grow in the nutrient-rich estuary endangered species; other game species; resident
and ocean water. After 1 to 4 years, species; and non-native species) and fish population
they return to their native streams to abundance occurring within the project action area.
reproduce and die.

Aquatic Resources
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Clean Water Act (CWA) are federal laws. As a
procedural requirement, federal agency actions such as authorizing a permit or providing
funding for a project must conduct National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance
reviews. Where ESA-listed species are present, or could potentially be present, the federal
Federal Regulations
action serves as a nexus for ESA Section 7 consultation with the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) and/or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), which have jurisdiction
over ESA-listed threatened and endangered species. Species potentially affected by the
Sellwood Bridge project include steelhead, Chinook, coho salmon, and green sturgeon
(Southern Distinct Population Segment [DPS] of the North American green sturgeon ) in
the Willamette River.
The CWA provides protection to wetlands and waterways. The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) implements the law through a permit program that applies to activities
that fill wetlands or other jurisdictional waters. Permits often require mitigation for
unavoidable impacts to achieve no net loss of wetland habitat. Please see the Biological
Resources Technical Report (CH2M HILL, 2008c, updated in 2010) for more information on
relevant state regulations.
Salmonids in the lower Willamette River, lower Willamette River. Critical habitat is a term
including those listed as Threatened or used in the ESA to describe certain areas that
Endangered have been designated as critical to the survival of
Pacific salmon, also known as salmonids, occur in a species. Such a classification may restrict certain
the lower Willamette River. Pacific salmon are land use activities within designated areas.
important fish species as they provide for a
substantial recreational and commercial fishery in Other Native Anadromous Fish Species
the Northwest. Specifically, four species of In addition to salmonids, the lower Willamette
anadromous salmonids occur at certain times River contains other important anadromous
during the year in the lower Willamette River. species, including the Pacific lamprey (Lampetra
These species are coho salmon (Oncorhynchus tridentatus) and eulachon smelt (Thaleichthys
kisutch), Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha), pacificus). The Pacific lamprey is listed as a Species
steelhead trout (O. mykiss), and cutthroat trout of Concern under the ESA and as a Vulnerable
(O. clarki). Of these, the stocks of coho, Chinook, species by the State of Oregon. The Pacific
and steelhead that occur in the lower Willamette lamprey and salmonids have similar habitat
River are listed as threatened under the federal requirements. They both require gravel riffles for
Endangered Species Act (ESA). They were spawning and low velocity backwaters or eddies
originally listed by the National Marine Fisheries for rearing. Pacific lamprey occur in the river
Service (NMFS) in 1999, and were reaffirmed as year-round as larvae; adults can migrate back for
threatened species in 2005 and 2006. Cutthroat spawning in either the fall or the spring, with
trout in the lower river is currently considered a spawning occurring in April.
candidate species for federal listing. Tables 3.15-2 Eulachon smelt are proposed for listing as
and 3.15-3 show the timing of specific lifestage threatened. The smelt provide an important
events (rearing, spawning, etc.) that occur in the recreational fishery in the lower Columbia and
lower river for each of the species of salmonids. Willamette rivers. Eulachon smelt generally
The lower Willamette River is designated as spawn in rivers that are glacier-fed and/or have
critical habitat for both the Chinook and peak spring freshets. These freshets rapidly move
steelhead stocks that occur in the river. Critical eggs and larvae to estuaries. Smelt enter the
habitat for coho salmon is currently under lower river for spawning from February to May.
development and may eventually include the

Aquatic Resources
TABLE 3.15-2
Willamette River Mouth to Willamette Falls—Resident Salmonid Species Life History and Timing
Life Stage/Activity/Species Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Adult Fluvial or Adfluvial/ Migration

Cutthroat trout
Adult/Spawning
Cutthroat trout
Adult/Sub-Adult Rearing
Cutthroat trout
Egg Incubation through Fry Emergence
Cutthroat trout
Juvenile/Rearing
Cutthroat trout
Juvenile/Sub-Adult Migration
Cutthroat trout
Represents periods of peak use
Represents lesser level of use
Represents periods of presence, either with no level of use OR uniformly distributed level of use
indicated

Aquatic Resources
TABLE 3.15-3
Willamette River Mouth to Willamette Falls—Anadromous Species Life History and Timing
Adult /Upstream Migration

Winter steelhead
Summer steelhead
Spring Chinook salmon
Cutthroat trout —sea-run
Fall Chinook salmon
Coho salmon
Adult/Holding
Winter steelhead
Summer steelhead
Cutthroat trout—sea-run
Fall Chinook salmon
Coho salmon
Adult/Spawning
Winter steelhead
Summer steelhead
Fall Chinook salmon
Coho salmon

Aquatic Resources
TABLE 3.15-3, cont.

Willamette River Mouth to Willamette Falls—Anadromous Species Life History and Timing
Egg Incubation through Fry Emergence
Winter steelhead
Summer steelhead
Fall Chinook salmon
Coho salmon
Juvenile/Rearing
Winter steelhead
Summer steelhead
Fall Chinook salmon
Coho salmon
Juvenile/Downstream Migration
Winter steelhead
Summer steelhead
Fall Chinook salmon
Coho salmon
Represents periods of peak use
Represents lesser level of use
Represents periods of presence, either with no level of use OR uniformly distributed level of use indicated

Aquatic Resources
The young leave the river shortly after hatching unless the extent of the work was such that a
as larvae. Biological Assessment and consultation with the
USFWS and NMFS required other conservation
Other Protected Fish Species
The green sturgeon (Acipenser medriostris) and mitigation measures. In most cases,
(Southern Distinct Population Segment [DPS] of maintenance activities would not cause additional
adverse impacts. No additional adverse impacts
the North American green sturgeon), which is
would be expected to occur to any aquatic
federally listed as threatened, is found in the tidal resources under the No Build Alternative.
waters of the Columbia River system, including
the Lower Willamette River below Willamette 3.15.3 Build Alternatives
Falls. The project area is currently proposed, but Environmental
not currently designated as, critical habitat for the
Consequences
North American green sturgeon.
Non-native Fish Species All Build Alternatives
There are more than 20 non-native fish species in
The Build alternatives have been designed to
the lower Willamette and Columbia rivers, many
avoid impacts to aquatic resources to the
of which are popular game fish (Farr and Ward,
maximum extent practicable. Potential impacts
1993; Sytsma et al., 2004). Walleye (Stizostedion from the Build alternatives would primarily occur
vitreum), smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu), from short-term or temporary effects during
largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), and construction (in-water excavation and
American shad (Alosa sapidissima) are examples construction activities, including hydroacoustic
of popular non-native game fisheries in the impacts), and long-term and indirect effects from
lower Willamette River. Despite their operation (increase in impermeable surface area).
recreational and economic benefits, non-native
fish species can have detrimental impacts on Direct Impacts
Permanent Direct Impacts. Permanent direct
the native fish due to predation and
impacts could include direct removal of in-stream
competition for food and habitat resources.
habitat, loss of riparian vegetation, an increase in
Other Willamette River Species impermeable surface area, and an increase in the
The Steller sea lion, which is federally listed as quantity of stormwater.
threatened, is found in the tidal waters of the Piers in the River. The existing river crossing
Columbia River system, including the Lower has five piers below the ordinary high water
Willamette River below Willamette Falls. elevation. Each Build alternative design with a
replacement-bridge type would also have pier
3.15.2 No Build Alternative columns below the ordinary high water elevation.
Environmental Table 3.15-4 shows the number of in-water piers
Consequences for each Build alternative. For Alternatives A
The No Build Alternative would, among other and B, all five of the existing bridge piers would
activities, replace the west-side bridge approach. be widened and strengthened. The maximum
Maintenance activities could potentially expose spans for each alternative would be large enough
aquatic resources to harmful materials entering to provide the required 200 feet of horizontal
the Willamette River. Best management practices navigation clearance.
(BMPs) employed for maintenance activities
would be expected to protect aquatic resources

Aquatic Resources
Temporary construction impacts might also

TABLE 3.15-4
Potential Riverine Impacts include direct mortality to native and non-native
aquatic species. Sediment control plans, BMPs and
In-water Piers
(or Pier Rows)
project mitigation would minimize, to the extent
Alt. Bridge Type below OHWE practicable, these short-term impacts, so none of
them is expected to have a permanent effect on
Existing 5
aquatic habitat.
Rehabilitated
5
Bridge The period of construction could result in the
A
Stress-Ribbon loss of individual fish protected under ESA.
4
Bike/Ped Bridge Because four species listed as threatened use the
Total 9 project area, a Biological Assessment of the
Rehabilitated preferred alternative is required for compliance
5 with Section 7 of the ESA. In January 2010, the
Bridge
A Biological Assessment (BA) was submitted to
Cable-Stayed
4 NMFS for a Biological Opinion. A Take Permit
Bike/Ped Bridge
Total 9 would be required during construction.
Rehabilitated Indirect Impacts. Potential indirect impacts to
B 11
Bridge aquatic resource habitat from construction of any
Double-Deck Steel of the Build alternatives might include the
C 5
Through-Arch
following:
Deck-Arch 7
D  Increased pollutant loading due to increased
Delta- Frame 8
stormwater volume resulting from increased
Steel Through-
4 impervious surface area. (However, increased
E Arch
stormwater treatment effectiveness and
Box-Girder 2
efficiency would improve the overall water
D
Deck-Archa 3 quality of stormwater.)
Refined
a
Bridge type evaluated for the project’s Biological  Water quality facilities would not treat
Assessment as developed through coordination dissolved copper and zinc. The percent
with ODOT, FHWA, and NMFS.
increase in downstream concentrations
OHWE = ordinary high water elevation
yd3 = cubic yards
would be on the order of 0.0001 to
0.0005 percent, which is immeasurable and
Temporary Impacts, including Impacts of undetectable. In addition, the concentration
the Temporary Detour Bridge. Potential levels would be well within water quality
construction period impacts to aquatic resources standards.
would be those associated with increases in  Hydrological changes due to increased
turbidity; short-term sedimentation; temporary impermeable surface area in the lower
bank instability; discharge of hazardous materials Willamette subbasin. (The negligible increase
into the Willamette River; dewatering of pier in impermeable surface area would not have
construction areas; and the temporary loss of any a measurable effect on hydrology of the
riparian vegetation in each of the alternative lower Willamette River.)
construction areas, including those for a
temporary detour bridge that might be built.

Aquatic Resources
 Increased sedimentation and turbidity in the To assist the reader in evaluating the collective
lower river. (However, mitigation should potential impact of these issues on aquatic
eliminate the impact to aquatic resources.) resources, a sensitivity evaluation method was
devised that weights the relative importance of
 Minor improvement in riparian diversity due each of these factors and shows the minor
to the removal of invasive and non-native differences between the Build alternatives.
vegetation (such as Himalayan blackberry
[Rubus armeniacus] and Japanese knotweed To obtain a sensitivity rating for each Build
[Polygonum cuspidatum]) and replanting with a alternative, first a ranking based on a scale of 1 to
diverse array of native overstory and 5 was given to each resource factor (with a
understory vegetation within the area that ranking of 1 having the lowest impact). Then each
would be cleared for the project, but factor was given a weighting based on its relative
restored to compatible habitat on importance to the aquatic resource. The loss of
completion. shallow-water near-shore habitat is considered
the most important attribute and was given a
Mitigation. Avoidance and minimization weighting factor of 4, followed by in-stream
measures would be incorporated into the project habitat (weighting factor of 3), riparian vegetation
to eliminate effects to aquatic species and their loss (weighting factor of 2), and increase in
habitats. These measures would address in-water impervious surface area (weighting factor of 1).
work, erosion control, containment of
construction, handling of hazardous materials, and The overall Aquatic Resource Sensitivity Score
disturbance of vegetation. BMPs would be for a particular Build alternative was then
employed to avoid and minimize construction computed based on the following equation, which
effects. As part of ESA consultation, ODOT, uses both the ranking and weighting factors:
ODFW, NMFS, and USFWS would negotiate
Aquatic Resource Sensitivity Score:
more specific conservation measures for inclusion
in final plans and specifications. Appendix G, a = 4 x Shallow-water habitat ranking
Summary of Mitigation Measures and b = 3 x Total in-stream habitat ranking
Environmental Commitments, provides a list of c = 2 x Vegetation reduction ranking
d = 1 x Impervious surface area ranking
proposed and committed avoidance, 10
minimization, and conservation measures.
Overall Aquatic Resource Sensitivity Score =
Alternative-specific Impacts and (a+b+c+d)/10
Mitigation
Most Build alternatives would be similar in their Table 3.15-5 shows the overall Aquatic Resource
impacts on aquatic resources. The following four Sensitivity Scores for each Build alternative.
factors of habitat impacts combine to form the
aquatic impact on resources. Alternative A
Alternative A with the stress-ribbon
 Shallow-water near-shore habitat loss (pier bicycle/pedestrian bridge design would have more
area near-shore) adverse aquatic resource impacts than
Alternative A with the cable-stayed bicycle/
 In-stream habitat (pier area off-shore) pedestrian bridge design because of the location
of piers in shallow-water and in-stream habitat.
 Riparian vegetation loss
Both have relatively low overall Aquatic Resource
 Amount of impervious surface (water quality) Sensitivity Scores, which means that they would

Aquatic Resources
have relatively high overall impacts to attributes Sensitivity Score, though it would impact critical
that influence aquatic resources. shallow-water habitat more than other designs.
Alternative B Alternative D
Alternative B has a relatively low overall Aquatic The Alternative D deck-arch design would have
Resource Sensitivity Score. Particularly, it would more adverse aquatic resource impacts than the
have significant impacts to total in-water habitat Alternative D delta-frame design because of the
and riparian vegetation loss. The temporary location of piers in shallow water. The deck-arch
detour bridge was not rated because the analysis bridge has a low, and the delta-frame bridge has a
was directed at permanent impacts. relatively low, overall Aquatic Resource
Sensitivity Score, which means that they would
Alternative C have higher overall impacts to attributes that
The Alternative C through-arch design would
influence aquatic resources.
have a moderate overall Aquatic Resource
TABLE 3.15-5
Sellwood Bridge Build Alternatives Overall Aquatic Resource Sensitivity Scores
Reduction
Pier Area in Total Pier of Overall
Critical Area of In- Vegeta- Total Aquatic
Shallow- stream tion in Proposed Resources
water Habitat Habitat Right-of- Imper- Sensitivity
Alt. Bridge Type (acres) (acres) Way vious Area Scorea
Rehabilitated
Bridge Stress-
1 1 3 3 1.6
Ribbon Bike/Ped
Bridge
A
Rehabilitated
Bridge Cable-
2 1 3 3 2.0
Stayed Bike/Ped
Bridge
Temporary Detour
Temporary detour bridge not included in permanent impacts calculation
Bridge
B
Rehabilitated
4 2 1 2 2.6
Bridge
Double-Deck Steel
C 3 4 4 5 3.7
Through-Arch
Deck-Arch 2 1 2 1 1.6
D
Delta-Frame 2 3 2 1 2.2
Steel Through-
1 3 4 4 2.5
E Arch
Box-Girder 5 5 4 4 4.7
D b
Deck-Arch 3 2 5 1 2.9
Refined
a
The overall Aquatic Resource Sensitivity Score is on a scale of 1 (lowest sensitivity and highest impacts) to
5 (highest sensitivity and lowest impacts). For example, Alternative E (box-girder design) would have the
highest overall Aquatic Resource Sensitivity Score and, therefore, the least overall impacts to attributes that
influence in-stream habitat and aquatic resources.
b
Bridge type evaluated for the project’s Biological Assessment as developed through coordination with ODOT,
FHWA, and NMFS.

Aquatic Resources
Alternative E has been designated in the Columbia River

The Alternative E steel through-arch design estuary, but this action does not affect that
scored in the middle, but lower than area and no destruction or adverse
Alternative E with the box-girder design, modification of that critical habitat is
primarily because of greater impacts to shallow- anticipated.
water habitat.
 The project “may affect, likely to adversely
The Alternative E box-girder design would have affect” the following:
the least overall impact to aquatic resources.
However, while this Build alternative would have − Lower Columbia River coho salmon
the least overall impact to aquatic resources, the Critical habitat for Lower Columbia River
Build alternative with the least overall coho salmon is currently under development.
environmental impacts (when considering If critical habitat is designated in the lower
wetlands, water resources, rare plants, fisheries, Willamette River for Lower Columbia River
and wildlife) could be one of the other Build coho salmon, the project would be “not likely
alternatives. to destroy or adversely modify designated
critical habitat.”
(Preferred Alternative)  Eulachon are proposed as threatened. It is
Alternative D Refined with a deck-arch bridge likely that eulachon will be able to avoid any
type would have a moderate overall Aquatic noise or disturbance caused by divers,
Resource Sensitivity Score. It would score vessels, or equipment during project activities
moderately for in-water habitat and pier area, but and that BMPs for hydroacoustic disturbances
would have the highest score (least impacts) for would minimize potentially harmful sound
riparian area impacts. levels. Therefore, proposed construction and
Multnomah County prepared a BA to fulfill its operations and maintenance of the preferred
obligations under Section 7 of the ESA. The BA alternative is “not likely to jeopardize the
was submitted to NMFS in January 2010. continued existence” of the eulachon
Consultation with NMFS on the BA is ongoing. population in the Willamette River near the
The following items summarize the BA finding of Sellwood Bridge. In the event that eulachon
effect. were eventually listed as threatened, the
proposed project “may affect, likely to
 The project “may affect, likely to adversely adversely affect” eulachon.
affect” and is “not likely to destroy or
adversely modify designated critical habitat”  Potential undesirable influences on salmon,
for the following: steelhead trout, and green sturgeon are
anticipated to be primarily associated with
− Lower Columbia River Chinook salmon hydroacoustic disturbances during pile driving
− Lower Columbia River steelhead trout and a permanent loss of habitat. This habitat
− Upper Willamette River Chinook salmon loss is related to piers in the channel of the
− Upper Willamette River steelhead trout river. In addition, the implementation of
 The project “may affect, likely to adversely cofferdams (conventional cofferdams for
bridge footings and perched footings and
affect” the following:
cofferdams) during construction could strand
− Southern Distinct Population Segment of salmon or steelhead trout, causing fish
North American green sturgeon. Critical salvages to be conducted and distressing
habitat for North American green sturgeon those fish.

Aquatic Resources
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) The project team worked with Portland Parks &
entered into formal consultation with NMFS in Recreation (PP&R) and the Portland Bureau of
January 2010. NMFS will issue a Biological Environmental Services (BES) to identify
Opinion prior to a Record of Decision. The mitigation for natural resource impacts (including
Biological Opinion will state the opinion of NMFS aquatic impacts). Multnomah County and the City
on whether the project would jeopardize the of Portland have agreed to:
continued existence of listed species or result in
the destruction or adverse modification of critical  Within Willamette Moorage Park, replace the
habitat. Based on discussions and information existing Stephens Creek culvert (which is
provided at pre-consultation meetings with beneath the Willamette Shoreline railroad, the
NMFS, a jeopardy determination is not new multi-use trail, and the Willamette
anticipated. It is expected that the Biological Moorage Park and Macadam Bay Club
Opinion will include an incidental take statement, driveway) with a fish-and-wildlife-friendly
along with reasonable and prudent measures to passage. Figure 3.9-2 shows the general
minimize impacts on listed species. location of this passage.
Mitigation. The Biological Opinion will include  Within Powers Marine Park, design and
reasonable and prudent measures to minimize implement stream restoration along two
impacts on listed species. Table G-2 in streams to provide an off-river habitat for
Appendix G provides a list of proposed juvenile salmonids. Figure 3.9-2 shows the
avoidance, minimization, and conservation general location of this passage.
measures.

Vegetatio n
3.16 Vegetation Vegetation Summary
3.16.1 Affected Environment Each Build alternative would directly impact

Field investigations were conducted to identify Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest and
Westside Riparian habitat plant
and map major plant communities occurring
communities. Neither rare plants nor rare
within the study area and to determine the plant habitats were observed in the study
presence of rare plants. area. The Build alternatives would result in
the removal of noxious weeds. Mitigation
 Plant communities are identified and using best management practices would help
described according to Wildlife-Habitat to reduce pollutant loading to the
Relationships in Oregon and Washington Willamette River. Replanting disturbed
riparian areas with native vegetation and
(Johnson and O’Neil, 2001).
increased treatment of stormwater would
improve water quality.
 A list of all rare plant species potentially
occurring within the project area was
compiled from the List of Threatened, The riparian community represents a remnant of
Endangered and Candidate Species for what was historically a broad, more or less
Multnomah County (U.S. Fish and Wildlife continuous corridor of riparian vegetation along
Service [USFWS], 2008) and from Oregon the river. Impacts associated with urbanization
Natural Heritage Information Center have resulted in the removal of much of the
(ONHIC) records of species observations historic riparian corridor in the lower Willamette
within 2 miles of the proposed project area River basin. The riparian corridor in the lower
(ONHIC, March 2008). Willamette River is fragmented. The southwest
Portland riverbank consists of 35 acres of fish and
In conjunction with the plant-community field
wildlife habitat that extends along 7,000 linear
surveys, complete surveys were conducted to
feet of contiguous habitat from Willamette Park
identify plant species listed as noxious weeds by
through Powers Marine Park. The Sellwood
the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA)
Bridge project would impact the riparian areas in
Plant Division: Weed Control Program.
two of four remaining natural areas along the
Plant Communities Willamette River within the City of Portland.
Two primary plant community types were Urban forests provide food and shelter for
identified: Westside Riparian and Westside various groups of birds, mammals, fish, and other
Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Upland Forest vertebrates. They also provide shade and cool
(Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest). The watercourses, and mitigate noise and dust. Air
dominant vegetation community within the study quality is improved by oxygen production,
area is Westside Riparian. The riparian pollution absorption, and carbon sequestration
community is dominated by black cottonwood the vegetation provides. Trees help to conserve
(Populus balsamifera) and Pacific Willow (Salix energy by indirectly mitigating climatic effects
lasiandra) in a narrow strip along the river with because they provide evaporative cooling,
some Columbia River Willow (Salix fluviatilis), windbreak, and shading functions, and they
which have limited distribution within the city of reduce human dependence on power generation.
Portland. Upslope of the riparian areas, the plant Urban forests contribute to water quality and
community shifts to a Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga quantity improvement through stormwater
menzeisii)/bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) control, attenuation of peak flows, maintenance
upland forest, which is dominated by Douglas-fir. of base flow, erosion control, and rainfall. The
Vegetatio n
essential benefits associated with trees in terms Rare Plants

of human physical, mental, and social health are In the field investigations, no rare plants identified
not to be overlooked. as state- or federal-level endangered, threatened,
or candidate species were observed at any of the
Noxious Weeds
sites. In addition, no habitat was identified within
Several populations of noxious weeds or other
the project area with the potential to support any
listed weed species were identified in the study
rare plant species.
area. Of particular concern are several invasive
species present in relatively large infestations 3.16.2 No Build Alternative
within the study area. These include Japanese
knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum), Himalayan
Environmental
blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), English ivy (Hedera Consequences
helix L.), western clematis (Clematis ligusticifolia The No Build Alternative would have no direct
Nutt.), and Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius). impacts to vegetation communities or rare plants.
Other noxious weeds that are present include Existing vegetation communities would remain
poison hemlock (Conium maculatum), Canada and undisturbed. No enhancement of existing
bull thistle (Cirsium arvense, C. vulgare), tansy communities or removal of invasive species
ragwort (Tanacetum jacobaea), and St. Johnswort would occur unless the extent of the
(Hypericum perforatum). maintenance activities triggered consultation
under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA),
The City of Portland has removed invasive and enhancement and weed removal were
vegetation from Powers Marine Park and
required.
Willamette Moorage Park, and has started
revegetation work to enhance vegetation at these 3.16.3 Build Alternatives
parks.
Environmental
Consequences
Riparian communities are plant Impacts and Mitigation Common to
communities that are alongside rivers All Build Alternatives
or, sometimes, other water bodies
like lakes. Riparian communities are Direct Impacts. The Build alternatives would
important because they: result in permanent impacts to both Lowland
• Provide food, shelter, and Conifer-Hardwood Forest and Westside Riparian
migration corridors for terrestrial habitats. Removal of mature vegetation could
Riparian Communities
and aquatic wildlife result in reduced stream flows, reduced

• Slow overland runoff by trapping groundwater recharge, and increased stormwater
sediment, filtering out pollutants, runoff volumes. These effects might be partially
and reducing flood damage offset by upland and riparian mitigation plantings
• Dissipate stream energy resulting in the project area.
in less soil erosion and a reduction
in flood damage Impacts to Westside Riparian habitat would be
• Contribute nutrients from 0.5 acre for Alternatives A, C, E, and D Refined;
terrestrial vegetation (such as leaf 0.6 acre for Alternatives B and D; and 0.7 acre
litter and insect drop) to aquatic for Alternative B with the temporary detour
food webs
bridge. Riparian habitat in the lower Willamette
• Contribute wood debris, which is
Basin is highly fragmented because of urban
important for maintaining
geomorphology development. Remnant Westside Riparian habitat
Vegetatio n
generally consists of narrow strips of vegetation  A decrease in foraging, refuge, and habitat
immediately adjacent to rivers and streams. The quality as a result of an increase in human
potentially impacted riparian habitat in the vicinity activity (that is, because of new and direct
of the proposed Build alternatives would be part access) in the area
of approximately 3 acres of narrow, somewhat
fragmented, riparian habitat, predominantly along  An increase in habitat diversity as a result of
the west bank of the river. Other nearby riparian the removal of invasive and non-native
habitat includes Oaks Bottom and the Ross vegetation, and replanting with a diverse
Island, Hardtack, and East Island Complex. array of native overstory and understory
Together, these areas, which account for vegetation
approximately 150 acres of riparian habitat, Mitigation. Mitigation of construction and
comprise most of the remaining riparian habitat operational impacts would predominantly be
in the southern portion of the lower Willamette achieved through incorporating best management
Basin. practices and environmental criteria into pre-
Impacts to Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest construction planning and design, and by good
would range from 8.8 acres for Alternative C to construction and maintenance practices.
12.0 acres for Alternative D Refined. The Construction of all Build alternatives would
potentially impacted Lowland Conifer-Hardwood increase impervious surface area and remove
Forest is part of an approximately 200-acre patch mature trees and understory vegetation. Without
of forested habitat that extends west from the mitigation (such as the use of best management
Willamette River uphill to SW Palatine Road and practices), the project could result in increased
from River View Cemetery on the north to the pollutant loading to the Willamette River.
campus of Lewis and Clark College on the south.
Other significant forested areas in the vicinity Mitigation planting would help restore some of
include an approximately 700-acre forest just the functionality to the riparian area adjacent to
southwest of the 200-acre forest and Forest Park, the Willamette River. Replanting disturbed
which begins approximately 4 miles northwest of riparian areas with native vegetation and
the existing Sellwood Bridge. increased treatment of stormwater in accordance
with National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
Direct benefits to vegetative communities would guidance and City of Portland requirements
result from the removal of Himalayan blackberry, would reduce the pollutant loads that would
Scotch broom, and Japanese knotweed within the result from construction of the Build alternatives
riparian areas. and would minimize increases in the Willamette
Indirect Impacts. Potential indirect impacts to River stormwater pollutant loading.
biological resource habitat that would occur as a The planting of small trees cannot truly mitigate
result of the Build alternatives could include: trees that are 20 to 40 years old or more. The
 An increase in water temperature as a result project team worked with Portland Parks &
of tree removal and increase in impervious Recreation (PP&R) and the Portland Bureau of
surface Environmental Services (BES) to identify
mitigation within Powers Marine Park and
 A reduction in natural resources as a result Willamette Moorage Park. Multnomah County
of an increase in mobility and access in and the City of Portland have agreed to
the area the following:
Vegetatio n
 Within Willamette Moorage Park, construct Westside Riparian habitat, and would remove
sloped, stepped, vegetated walls along a new 0.1 acre of noxious weeds. No impacts would be
multi-use trail, where feasible, to minimize anticipated to rare plants.
visual and aesthetic impacts to the park, and
to provide for wildlife use and passage. Alternative B
Alternative B would impact 9.4 acres of Lowland
 Within Powers Marine Park, design and Conifer-Hardwood Forest and 0.6 acre of
implement stream restoration along two Westside Riparian habitat), and would remove
streams to provide an off-river habitat for 0.1 acre of noxious weeds. No impacts would be
juvenile salmonids. Figure 3.9-2 shows the anticipated to rare plants.
general location of this passage.
Additional mitigation for vegetation impacts Alternative B with a temporary detour bridge
outside Powers Marine Park and Willamette would impact 9.4 acres of Lowland Conifer-
Moorage Park would be required to meet City of Hardwood Forest and 0.7 acre of Westside
Portland regulations. After the design of the Riparian habitat. (The temporary detour bridge
selected alternative had progressed to a level would impact 0.1 acre of Westside Riparian
where more specific impacts could be identified, habitat. This alternative would remove 0.1 acre of
the parties would identify and agree to this noxious weeds No impacts would be anticipated
mitigation. This mitigation would be consistent to rare plants.
with City of Portland regulations for impacts
Alternative C
within the applicable base zones and Greenway Alternative C would impact 8.8 acres of Lowland
and Environmental overlay zones to meet City of Conifer-Hardwood Forest and 0.5 acre of
Portland regulations. This mitigation might Westside Riparian habitat, and would remove
include: 0.3 acre of noxious weeds. No impacts would be
 Planting native overstory and understory anticipated to rare plants.
vegetation and removing invasive, non-native Alternative D
vegetation Alternative D would impact 9.4 acres of Lowland
Conifer-Hardwood Forest and 0.6 acre of
 Placing some of the removed trees in open
Westside Riparian habitat, and would remove
areas to provide future dead-wood habitat
0.2 acre of noxious weeds. No impacts would be
 Reducing form, texture, or color contrasts in anticipated to rare plants.
cut and/or fill slopes
Alternative E
 Minimizing clearing for construction and Alternative E would impact 9.8 acres of Lowland
preserving existing stands of mature trees Conifer-Hardwood Forest and 0.5 acre of
and other attractive natural vegetation to the Westside Riparian habitat, and would remove
greatest extent possible 0.1 acre of noxious weeds. No impacts would be
anticipated to rare plants.
 Implementing avoidance, minimization, and
conservation measures (see Appendix G) Alternative D Refined (Preferred
Alternative)
Alternative-specific Impacts Alternative D Refined would impact 12.2 acres of
Alternative A Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest and 0.5 acre
Alternative A would impact 9.6 acres of Lowland of Westside Riparian habitat, and would remove
Conifer-Hardwood Forest and 0.5 acre of 0.2 acre of noxious weeds. No impacts would be
anticipated to rare plants.
Vegetatio n
Immediately south of the Macadam Bay Club/

Willamette Moorage Road access driveway on
the east side of OR 43, the City of Portland
would conduct tree clearing operations to
achieve the minimum clear sight distance of
470 feet. Approximately 0.2 acre of land would
be cleared to improve sight distance (safety for
vehicles turning into and out of this driveway).

Differentiating Vegetation
Impact
TABLE 3.16-1
Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Vegetation Impact
No D
Impact Type Build A B B/TDB C D E Refined
Lowland Conifer-
Hardwood Forest (acres) 0 9.6 9.4 9.4 8.8 9.4 9.8 12.2
Westside Riparian Habitat
(acres) 0 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5
Noxious Weeds Removal
(acres) 0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2
Rare Plants (acres) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Wetlands
3.17 Wetlands Wetlands Summary
3.17.1 Affected Environment Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E would fill

0.1 acre of wetlands. Mitigation would
The following resources were used to identify the restore historical wetlands or enhance
presence of wetlands in the project area: existing wetlands at another location in the
general vicinity of the bridge (such as
• U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Stephens Creek, Oaks Bottom, or South
Topographic Map. This map identifies two Waterfront areas). The preferred alternative
smaller streams in the study area: Stephens (Alternative D Refined) would not fill any
Creek and an unnamed stream. Stephens wetlands.
Creek crosses the northern end of the study
area, west of the river. An unnamed northern portion of the study area between
intermittent stream was shown on the USGS the river and the railroad tracks. Two other
map approximately 600 feet south of the soils may contain inclusions of soils listed
Sellwood Bridge, west of the river. No as hydric.
evidence of this stream was observed during
• Stephens Creek Wetlands Delineation
the field visit. The USGS map shows no water
Map. Portland Bureau of Environmental
features east of the river within the proposed
Services completed this wetlands delineation
project area.
map with Oregon Department of State Lands
• National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Map. concurrence.
The NWI map identifies two riverine features Field visits were conducted to collect data and to
and one wetland within the study area: verify the presence or absence of the potential
Willamette River and Stephens Creek. A wetlands and water features identified during the
wetland is shown at the terminus of Stephens review of the information listed above. The field
Creek on the Willamette River floodplain. team verified the presence of a wetland at the
• Soil Survey Map. The soil survey map northern end of the study area. No other
indicates eight soil types within the study wetlands were identified. Table 3.17-1
area. One soil is listed as a hydric soil, which summarizes the characteristics of this wetland
could include wetland area soil. Hydric soil is (called the Stephens Creek Wetland in this Final
located in the study area under the eastern Environmental Impact Statement [FEIS]).
end of the Sellwood Bridge and in the Figure 3.17-1 shows the location of this wetland.
There are two different approaches used by biologists to assess wetlands: the Cowardin and
the Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) approaches.
The Cowardin approach imposes boundaries on natural aquatic ecosystems for the
Wetland Classification
purposes of inventory, evaluation, and management. This approach has a hierarchical

structure for five major systems—Marine, Estuarine, Riverine, Lacustrine, and Palustrine.
Assessment
The five major systems are distinguished by a variety of hydrologic, geomorphologic,

chemical, and biological characteristics. Subsystems and classes are defined by water regime
and substrate. Classes and lower levels introduce vegetation life form and additional detail
in vegetation, substrate, water-chemistry, and soil characteristics.
The HGM approach is a wetland assessment procedure based on three fundamental factors
that influence how wetlands function—position in the landscape (geomorphic setting), water
source (hydrology), and the flow and fluctuation of the water once in the wetland
(hydrodynamics). The HGM approach (1) classifies wetlands based on their differences in
functioning, (2) defines functions that each class of wetland performs, and (3) uses
references to establish the range of functioning of the wetland.

Wetlands
TABLE 3.17-1
Stephens Creek Wetland
Type Description
Wetland Classification
Cowardin Palustrine Forested
Hydrogeomorphic Riverine Flow-Through
(HGM)
Wetland Quality
Vegetation Site has less than 40 percent nuisance or exotic vegetation.
Hydrology Road and path construction has altered the hydrology on the site, but this could
easily be reversed. Stream is highly incised.
Other Well developed native overstory, predominantly mature black cottonwood.
Understory dominated by reed canarygrass.
Channel of Stephens Creek highly incised.
Good opportunity for restoration of connectivity between stream and wetland and
enhancement of vegetation through control of reed canarygrass.
FIGURE 3.17-1
Location of Stephens Creek Wetland

Wetlands
A small area (approximately 1 acre) of Pacific Alternative-specific Impacts and

Willow Shrub Swamp habitat exists within the Mitigation
Westside Riparian Wetland Habitat along the
Alternative A
west bank of the Willamette River at the north Direct Impacts. Reconfiguring the access point
end of the project area. It is part of the Stephens to Macadam Bay Club and Willamette Moorage
Creek Wetland. Pacific Willow Shrub Swamp is Park from OR 43 would permanently fill 0.1 acre
identified in the 2003 Oregon Natural Heritage of wetland at Stephens Creek (Table 3.17-2). No
Plan (Natural Heritage Advisory Council to the temporary impacts to wetlands would be
State Land Board, 2003) as a plant community or anticipated.
ecosystem of moderate conservation concern.
However, distribution of this habitat within the Indirect Impacts. Potential indirect impacts to
city of Portland is very limited due to extensive wetland habitat from Alternative A might include
loss of wetlands within the city limits. an increase in habitat diversity from removing
invasive and non-native vegetation (such as reed
3.17.2 No Build Alternative canarygrass [Phalaris arundinacea.]) and replanting
Environmental with a diverse array of native wetland vegetation.
Temporary water quality impacts would be
Consequences
addressed in erosion and pollution control plans.
The No Build Alternative would have no negative Stormwater impacts resulting in potential water
impacts to wetlands. The existing Stephens Creek
quality and quantity impacts would be addressed
wetland would be undisturbed. However, the No
in stormwater mitigation plans.
Build Alternative would not provide any
enhancement of the wetland or adjacent Mitigation. Adverse unavoidable impacts are
riparian areas. primarily related to construction impacts, mainly
the construction of a new access point and
3.17.3 Build Alternatives driveway to the Macadam Bay Club and
Environmental Willamette Moorage Park from OR 43.
Conservation and mitigation measures for
Consequences
impacts would include the following sequentially
Impacts and Mitigation Common to performed actions:
All Build Alternatives
• Avoid the impact altogether through design
No impacts or mitigation are common to all Build
modification or by not taking a certain action
alternatives.
or parts of an action.
• Minimize impacts through design modification
TABLE 3.17-2
Potential Impacts to Wetland Area and Functions with Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E
Wetland Function
Wildlife Fish Area

Site Habitat Habitat Water Quality Hydrologic Control (acres)
Stephens This function NA Mitigation measures during This function is already 0.1
Creek would be construction would include impacted; mitigation would
Wetland impacted. erosion control measures to provide water conveyance
ensure there is no impact to resulting in no net loss of
this function. this function.
NA = not applicable

Wetlands
or by limiting the degree or magnitude of the impacts and mitigation as Alternative A.

action and its implementation.
Alternative C
• To ensure that no accidental or indirect Alternative C would have the same wetlands
impacts occur to wetlands outside the impacts and mitigation as Alternative A.
proposed disturbance areas, clearly mark
wetland boundaries and use sediment fencing Alternative D
Alternative D would have the same wetlands
or other erosion control methods to protect
impacts and mitigation as Alternative A.
the wetland.
Alternative E
• Employ sediment-containment methods Alternative E would have the same wetlands
during construction of the new bridge piers impacts and mitigation as Alternative A.
to minimize impacts to the waterway. To
reduce potential impacts to fisheries, restrict Alternative D Refined
in-water work to the Oregon Department of (Preferred Alternative)
Fish and Wildlife (ODFW)-designated and Alternative D Refined would not fill any wetlands.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)- Water quality impacts would be addressed in
recognized summer in-water work window, erosion and pollution control plans to avoid
unless authorized by NMFS. indirect wetlands impacts. Stormwater impacts
resulting in potential water quality and quantity
• Rectify the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, impacts would be addressed in stormwater
or restoring the affected environment. mitigation plans.
• Compensate for the impact by restoring, This FEIS does not require a wetlands finding to
creating, or enhancing wetlands. document the project’s compliance with
Executive Order 11990 because the preferred
Unavoidable impacts to wetlands would be
alternative (Alternative D Refined) would avoid
addressed, if possible, through restoration of
direct wetlands impacts.
affected wetland areas. Mitigation for permanent
impacts to wetlands would be accomplished
through restoration of historical wetlands or
enhancement of existing wetlands at another Differentiating Wetlands
location in the general vicinity of the bridge, such Impact
as at Stephens Creek, Oaks Bottom, or South Alternative D Refined is the only alternative that
Waterfront areas. The project team would meet would have no impacts to wetlands. This result
with Portland Parks & Recreation (PP&R) and was achieved by revising the alignment of the
Portland Bureau of Environmental Services to access to Willamette Moorage Park and the
identify appropriate mitigation sites that would be Macadam Bay Club. If any of the other
accomplished either at the project site or nearby. alternatives had been preferred, it is likely that
the same revisions would have been made.
Alternative B Therefore, wetlands impacts are not a
Alternative B would have the same wetlands
differentiating impact among alternatives.
TABLE 3.17-3
Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Wetlands Impact
D
Impact No Build A B C D E Refined
Wetland area filled (acres) 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0

Wildli fe
3.18 Wildlife Wildlife Summary
3.18.1 Affected Environment Adverse impacts to wildlife from any of the

The following resources were used to identify the Build alternatives would include the direct
removal of tree cover and vegetation.
presence of wildlife in the project area:
Compared to existing conditions,
construction of a Build alternative would
 Distribution, Habitat, and Natural History: Atlas
remove permanently or disturb significantly
of Oregon Wildlife (Csuti et al., 1997) between 10.0 and 11.7 acres of wildlife
habitat. This permanent loss of habitat
 Flood Insurance Study City of Portland, Oregon, would represent a permanent reduction in
Multnomah, Clackamas, and Washington populations of species that depend on it.
Counties (Federal Emergency Management The project would undertake restoration
Agency [FEMA], 2004) measures within Willamette Moorage Park
and Powers Marine Park. The intent would
 Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife be to benefit wildlife by increasing habitat.
(ODFW) unpublished data (2007) Mitigation measures might encourage the
return of wildlife species that have been rare
 Unpublished Bald Eagle Nest Sites (ODFW, in the area.
2006).
 Database search for rare, threatened, and  Westside Riparian, which is directly alongside
endangered plant and animal species within the river
the Sellwood Bridge vicinity (Oregon Natural
Heritage Information Center, 2007)  Upland1 Habitats, which are above Riparian
habitat
 Draft Willamette Subbasin Plan (Northwest
Power and Conservation Council, 2004)  Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood
Forest2
 Native Wetland, Riparian, and Upland Plant  Urban/Developed habitats
Communities and Their Biota in the Willamette
Valley, Oregon (Titus et al., 1996) Of the three habitat types in the project area, the
Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest is
 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) the most common. Though scattered throughout
Species List for Multnomah County (2007) the area, the Urban/Developed habitat type is the
most widely distributed, but least valuable to
After reviewing available data and information,
wildlife. The following subsections briefly describe
project biologists conducted multiple site visits to
the characteristics of these habitats.
observe and document terrestrial habitat and
wildlife. Westside Riparian Habitat
Riparian habitats are those areas adjacent to
Habitat in the Project Vicinity streams and rivers where the water and land
Wildlife habitat is strongly related to vegetative resources interact. This habitat is characterized by
communities. For this reason, the habitats wetland soils and occasional overbank riverine
described subsequently are closely related to the flooding (because of excessive rainfall in a short
vegetation communities discussed in Section 3.16, period of time). Riparian habitats along the
Vegetation. One riparian and two upland wildlife-
habitat-types were identified within 2 miles of the
1 Upland habitat is the dry habitat along the sides of a river,
existing Sellwood Bridge. The habitat types
riparian being the first upland zone.
identified in the project area are: 2 Lowland in this case means habitat near a valley river.
Wildli fe
Willamette River are found just above the water’s temperatures, and increased background lighting
edge, along the streambank, and further upslope in and wind velocities. The reduction in habitat
the historic floodplain. There are approximately complexity and food availability has diminished
150 acres of riparian habitat in the vicinity of the some small-mammal, avian, and amphibian use,
project. Within the project vicinity, riparian and has eliminated use for larger mammals (such
habitats include the following: as elk, deer, and black bear). Generalist and
edge-adapted wildlife would use these areas, such
 Black cottonwood riparian forests and Pacific as the beaver. In addition, wildlife species
and Columbia River willow wetland forests sensitive to human disturbances are absent from
found in scattered patches along the river or uncommon in urban areas. No special-status
bank and within the surrounding parks and species are dependent upon urban habitats found
refuges in the project area.
 Emergent and herbaceous vegetation patches
Riparian Species
along the river and in the surrounding parks
and refuges The natural areas remaining along the river
provide an important link between surrounding
 Reed canarygrass (dominant by the existing upland forests and riparian habitats, and to other
bridge) habitats located upstream and downstream along
the river. Native aquatic mammals, including
Upland Habitats beaver (Castor canadensis) and river otter (Lutra
Upland habitat refers to habitat alongside the
canadensis), have been observed within 2 miles of
river above riparian habitat, except wetland
the Sellwood Bridge. The City of Portland has
habitat, which is addressed separately in
indicated that amphibian surveys are currently
Section 3.17. Within the project area, two upland
underway at Powers Marine Park and Willamette
habitats occur, Westside Lowland Conifer-
Moorage Park that may show additional species in
Hardwood Forest and Urban/Developed.
the area.
Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Several state or federally listed species have been
Forest Habitats recorded in the area, including, bald eagle
Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forests are
(Halieetus leucocephalus) (state threatened) and
found in the project vicinity. These forests are
purple martin (Progne subis) (state critical, federal
often associated with other habitat types, including
species of concern).
Westside Riparian habitats. This forest type is
characterized by a mix of coniferous Douglas-fir Wildlife that Frequent the Project Area
and western red cedar trees, with deciduous red
A number of species that are protected under
alder and big-leaf maple trees. The understory is
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act might frequent the
composed of mixed shrubs, primarily English ivy
project area, including, but not limited to, osprey
and hazel. There are approximately 200 acres in
(Pandion haliaetus), green heron (Butorides
the immediate area, and an additional
virescens), Canada goose (Branta canadensis),
approximately 700-acre forest just south and
red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), belted
west of the 200 acres.
kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon), barn swallow
Urban/Developed Habitats (Hirundo rustica), cliff swallow (Petrochelidon
Urban/developed areas have reduced wildlife and pyrrhonota), Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), and
vegetation diversity because of the lack of violet-green swallows (Tachycineta thalassina). The
vegetation structures and food sources, an habitats located within the surrounding natural-
increased number of non-native species, elevated area parks support abundant wildlife, including
Wildli fe
raccoon, deer, opossum, river otter, beaver, and sightings of a roosting pair of American peregrine
small rodents. falcons that may be nesting on the Sellwood
Bridge, but use of the bridge for nesting has not
Over 200 species of birds have been recorded
been confirmed.
within 2 miles of the project area, most within
the parks fringing the river. In addition, several The northern red-legged frog (Rana aurora), a
sensitive bird species have been observed federal species of concern and state vulnerable
breeding within 2 miles of the project area— species, was found as recently as 1996 within
American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), bald 2 miles of the Sellwood Bridge. The red tree vole,
eagle (Halieetus leucocephalus), and purple martin a federal species of concern, is present in Tryon
(Progne subis). (Although no active breeding Creek State Park, which is about 2 miles distant
colonies of purple martin exist in the project and connected by vegetated corridors to the
area, two breeding pairs were observed in Willamette Moorage Park. No other special
Willamette Park in 1998.) In fall 2008, the status wildlife species have been documented
Audubon Society indicated that there were within 2 miles of the Sellwood Bridge in recent
years.
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)
protects birds that are native to North No sensitive bat species have been documented
America and that migrate between the using the Sellwood Bridge. Based on the current
United States and other countries. The
bridge design, it is unlikely that any bats use the
most relevant section of the MBTA to
this project is Section 703, which states: bridge as a day roost, although it is possible that
bats occasionally rest or roost in the project
"… [I]t shall be unlawful at any time, by
any means or in any manner, to pursue, area.
hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to
take, capture, or kill, possess, offer for 3.18.2 No Build Alternative
sale, sell, offer to barter, barter, offer to
purchase, purchase, deliver for
Environmental
shipment, ship, export, import, cause to Consequences
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
be shipped, exported, or imported, Under the No Build Alternative, the existing

deliver for transportation, transport or
cause to be transported, carry or cause bridge and approach spans would require
to be carried, or receive for shipment, maintenance activities. Deleterious materials
transportation, carriage, or export, any from maintenance activities could enter the
migratory bird, any part, nest, or egg of Willamette River, potentially impacting aquatic
any such bird, or any product, whether
resources. However, it is expected that best
or not manufactured, which consists, or
is composed in whole or part, of any management practices (BMPs) employed for
such bird or any part, nest, or egg maintenance activities would protect wildlife
thereof…" resources, unless the extent of the work was
Furthermore, the regulations that such that a Biological Assessment and
implement the MBTA define the term consultation with the USFWS and the National
“take” as: "to pursue, hunt, shoot, Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) would require
wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or
attempt to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, other conservation and mitigation measures. In
kill, trap, capture, or collect." (50 CFR most cases, maintenance activities would not
10.12) cause additional adverse impacts to wildlife
Measures that would be applied to resources. No additional adverse impacts are
construction would include screening expected to occur to any wildlife resources
the bridge prior to construction to under the No Build Alternative.
prevent nesting, with subsequent
disturbance of nesting birds.
Wildli fe

Auditory and visual disturbances from
Environmental construction-related activities would
Consequences disperse wildlife from the area.
Tolerance to disturbances varies among
Impacts and Mitigation Common to species and times of the year. Many
Wildlife Disturbances
All Build Alternatives species are more sensitive to
Although not necessarily impacting individuals of disturbances at the beginning of the
a species, impacts to wildlife habitat ultimately nesting season, and would be more likely
to abandon their nests and young than
reduce the population of species that are they would later in the season. Species
dependent upon the habitat. Between 10.0 and such as herons, raptors, and bats are
11.7 acres of wildlife habitat would be removed especially sensitive to noise and human
permanently or disturbed significantly during proximity. Auditory and visual
disturbances would temporarily disperse
construction. This would constitute less than
wildlife that reside in neighboring areas
0.2 percent of riparian habitat and 1 percent of during construction activities, but they
Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest habitat within would likely return once construction
the project vicinity. The balance would represent ended.
Urban/Developed habitat, which is abundant.
area. However, most of the wildlife occurring
Each of the Build alternatives was designed to
within the project area are common species that
avoid impacts to wildlife habitat. However, all the
are generously distributed. It is anticipated that
Build alternatives would have permanent and
the project would not affect any sensitive
irreversible impacts to terrestrial and aquatic
amphibian species.
habitats. Potential impacts from any of the Build
alternatives would primarily occur from two Only a very small amount of the disturbed area
different means—short-term or temporary would be returned to habitat following
effects from construction (auditory and visual construction. Because this habitat would be
disturbances) and long-term and indirect effects immediately adjacent to a transportation facility,
from operation. creation of high-quality habitat would not be
possible.
Habitat disturbances and alterations might
potentially affect sensitive species in the project Wildlife connectivity would still exist north and
south along the wooded corridor, and a
The Bald Eagle Protection Act of 1940 low-volume road under the west-side interchange
imposes criminal and civil penalties on would serve as wildlife access across OR 43. In
anyone in the United States who, unless addition, culverts that convey Stephens Creek
Bald Eagle Protection Act
excepted, takes, possesses, sells, would be retained, providing access through this
purchases, barters, offers to sell or
purchase or barter, transports, exports
corridor.
or imports at any time or in any
Species protected under the Migratory Bird
manner a bald or golden eagle, alive or
dead; or any part, nest or egg of these Treaty Act (see side box), as well as state and
eagles; or violates any permit or federally listed sensitive species, occur within
regulations issued under the Bald Eagle 2 miles of the Sellwood Bridge. Bald eagle,
Protection Act. Cooper's hawk, red-tail hawk, and osprey could
Because no adverse impacts to bald potentially be affected within the project area.
eagles would result from the project, However, no adverse impacts to these or other
the project would be consistent with
the Bald Eagle Protection Act. bird species are anticipated as a result of
constructing this project.
Wildli fe
The Sellwood Bridge is over 1 mile from a bald  A reduction in shade from tree removal and
eagle nest on Ross Island, and over 2 miles from a an increase in impervious surface area, such
nest on Elk Rock Island. The closest known as roadway and paved paths
nesting of peregrine falcons, on the Ross Island
Bridge, is approximately 2.5 miles to the north of  A reduction of vegetative cover in wildlife
the existing Sellwood Bridge. These nests are far corridors along the west hillside because
enough away that noise impacts from foundation natural areas would be converted to
drilling, bridge rehabilitation, and false-work transportation facilities
would be at low levels that would not adversely  The potential to restore and improve riparian
impact bald eagles or peregrines. It is likely bald habitat along the Willamette River by
eagles and other birds would avoid flying over the removing non-native vegetation and planting
Sellwood Bridge during construction, and native species as a result of mitigation
peregrine falcons would avoid habitats near the measures undertaken in the immediate
existing bridge during construction. project area or elsewhere
Direct Impacts. Impacts to wildlife and their  The potential to further enhance the habitat
habitats would occur under all of the Build for wildlife by providing nest boxes or gourds
alternatives. Disturbances to wildlife and their for purple martins
habitats from construction and maintenance
activities (including noise-related impacts) would Mitigation. Communities of native vegetation
impact aquatic and terrestrial habitats, tree cover, would benefit from the mitigation and restoration
and emergent vegetation. activities proposed under the Build alternatives.
Invasive species, including Himalayan blackberry,
Indirect Impacts. Overall, the Build alternatives
reed canarygrass, and purple loosestrife, would
would have positive and negative indirect impacts be removed with creation of the construction
to vegetation and habitats. Potential indirect
zone. Native species would be planted to help
impacts to wildlife and their habitats from the restore riparian functions and improve the health
proposed project might include the following: of the existing riparian habitats in construction-
 A reduction in natural resources and reduced disturbed areas.
use by wildlife as a result of increased human American peregrine falcons have been sighted in
activity and access through the area the project area and may have nested on the
 A decrease in foraging, refuge, and habitat Sellwood Bridge. Therefore, if the chosen bridge
quality as a result of increased human activity design does not contain elements that could
because of improved access to natural areas encourage nest building, the designers should
consider incorporating a nest box into the bridge
 A decrease in habitat diversity from the design.
removal of native vegetation (such as black
cottonwoods and willow thickets along the Avoidance and minimization measures would be
river bank) and the spread of non-native incorporated into the project to eliminate effects
plants (such as reed canarygrass, yellow iris to wildlife and their habitats. These measures
[Iris pseudacorus], and purple loosestrife would address in-water work, erosion control,
[Lythrum salicaria]) because of ground and containment of construction, handling of
vegetation disturbances hazardous materials, and disturbance of upland,
wetland, and riparian vegetation. For blasting
activities, the blasts would be designed by a
specialist; a pre-blast survey would be made
Wildli fe
before the blasts; and air blast, vibration, and Alternative B with no temporary detour bridge
noise would be monitored during blasts. Typical would impact 9.5 acres (0.3 acre overhanging
blasting practices would include: water and 9.2 acres terrestrial) of tree cover and
1.4 acres of other vegetation communities
 Using smaller shots to reduce (rather than (0.6 acre herbaceous, 0.1 acre scrub-shrub,
amplify) the impacts of the blasts 0.6 acre riparian, and 0.1 acre noxious weeds).
 Applying blasting mats to control fly rock and Under Alternative B, blasting activities along
reduce noise impacts OR 43 would temporarily disturb wildlife.
 Possibly adjusting the time of year to avoid
Alternative C
disturbing nesting birds Alternative C activities would result in potential
BMPs would be employed to avoid and minimize impacts to the following wildlife habitats and
construction effects. As part of the federal vegetation communities: 8.7 acres (0.1 acre
Endangered Species Act (ESA) consultation, overhanging water and 8.6 acres terrestrial) of
ODOT, ODFW, NMFS, and USFWS would tree cover and 1.3 acres of other vegetation
negotiate more specific conservation measures communities (0.4 acre herbaceous, 0.1 acre
for inclusion in final plans and specifications. scrub-shrub, 0.5 acre riparian, and 0.3 acre
Appendix G, Summary of Mitigation and noxious weeds).
Environmental Commitments, provides a list of Under Alternative C, blasting activities along
proposed and committed avoidance, OR 43 would temporarily disturb wildlife.
minimization, and conservation measures.
Alternative D
Alternative-specific Impacts and Alternative D would result in potential impacts to
Mitigation the following wildlife habitats and vegetation
Alternative A communities: 9.6 acres (0.3 acre overhanging
Alternative A activities would result in potential water and 9.3 acres terrestrial) of tree cover and
impacts to the following wildlife habitats: 1.6 acres of other vegetation communities
9.7 acres (0.1 acre overhanging water and (0.6 acre herbaceous, 0.2 acre scrub-shrub,
9.6 acres terrestrial) of tree cover and 1.5 acres 0.6 acre riparian, and 0.2 acre noxious weeds).
of other vegetation communities (0.8 acre
Under Alternative D, blasting activities along
herbaceous, 0.1 acre scrub-shrub, 0.5 acre
OR 43 would temporarily disturb wildlife.
riparian, and 0.1 acre noxious weeds) within the
right-of-way. Alternative E
Alternative E would result in potential impacts to
Under Alternative A, blasting activities along the following wildlife habitats and vegetation
OR 43 would temporarily disturb wildlife. communities: 9.5 acres (0.1 acre overhanging
Alternative B water and 9.4 acres terrestrial) of tree cover and
Alternative B activities with a temporary detour 1.4 acres of other vegetation communities
bridge would result in potential impacts to the (0.7 acre herbaceous, 0.1 acre scrub-shrub,
following wildlife habitats and vegetation 0.5 acre riparian, and 0.1 acre noxious weeds).
communities: 9.7 acres (0.3 acre overhanging
Under Alternative E, blasting activities along
water and 9.4 acres terrestrial) of tree cover and
OR 43 would temporarily disturb wildlife.
1.5 acres of other vegetation communities
(0.6 acre herbaceous, 0.1 acre scrub-shrub,
0.7 acre riparian, and 0.1 acre noxious weeds).
Wildli fe
Alternative D Refined beneath the Willamette Shoreline Trolley, the

(Preferred Alternative) new multi-use trail, and the Willamette
Alternative D Refined would result in potential Moorage Park and Macadam Bay Club
impacts to the following wildlife habitats and driveway access) with a fish-and-wildlife-
vegetation communities: 10.5 acres (0.2 acre friendly passage. Figure 3.9-2 shows the
overhanging water and 10.3 acres terrestrial) of general location of this passage.
tree cover and 1.2 acre of other vegetation
communities (0.6 acre herbaceous, 0.2 acre  Within Willamette Moorage Park, construct
scrub-shrub, 0.3 acre riparian, and 0.1 acre sloped, stepped, vegetated walls along a new
noxious weeds). multi-use trail, where feasible, to minimize
visual and aesthetic impacts to the park, and
Under Alternative D Refined, blasting activities to provide for wildlife use and passage.
along OR 43 would temporarily disturb wildlife.
 Within Powers Marine Park, design and
Mitigation. The project team worked with implement stream restoration along two
Portland Parks & Recreation (PP&R) and the streams to provide an off-river habitat for
Portland Bureau of Environmental Services to juvenile salmonids. Figure 3.9-2 shows the
identify mitigation for natural resource impacts general location of this passage.
within Powers Marine Park and Willamette
Moorage Park. Multnomah County and the City 3.18.4 Summary of Alternatives by
of Portland have agreed to: Differentiating Wildlife
 Within Willamette Moorage Park, replace the Impact
existing Stephens Creek culvert (which is
TABLE 3.18-1
Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Wildlife Impact
Disturbed Acres per Alternative
Impact
No Build A B B/TDB C D E D Refined
Tree Cover 0 9.7 9.5 9.7 8.7 9.6 9.5 10.5
Other Vegetation 0 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.3 1.6 1.4 1.2
Total 0 11.2 10.9 11.2 10.0 11.2 10.9 11.7
B /TDB = Alternative B with temporary detour bridge
Noise
3.19 Noise Noise Summary
All existing, No Build Alternative, and Build Noise levels for the Build alternatives would
alternative noise levels in this section are vary between 55 and 72 decibels (dBA),
reported as equivalent sound level (Leq) in which would be a projected increase of up to
3 decibels above existing conditions (up to
decibels on an A-weighted scale (dBA). See the 5 decibels with the temporary detour
sidebars for descriptions of Leq and dBA. bridge). The Build alternatives would impact
one business and between 16 and 20
3.19.1 Affected Environment residences. Oaks Pioneer Church with open
doors and windows would be impacted under
Existing peak-hour traffic noise levels within the
all Build alternatives except Alternative B
study area currently range from 57 to without the temporary detour bridge. No
71 decibels. (Table 3.19-1 provides a comparison mitigation was considered both reasonable
of different sound levels.) The controlling in cost and feasible for noise impacts, but the
criterion for noise is 65 decibels for residential final determination of reasonableness and
feasibility would be made during final design
and 70 decibels for commercial land uses. For of the project. Noise abatement measures
more information, see the “Summary of would be implemented during construction.
Regulatory Requirements” sidebar.
hitting the surface of the bridge is a dominant
There are several different ways to source of noise under the bridge. Other noise
describe noise, depending on the sources include distant aircraft overflights and
source of the noise, the receiver, and
boats traveling along the river.
Decibels on an “A-Weighted” Scale
the reason for the noise measurement.

For traffic noise analyses, noise levels
Currently, traffic across the Sellwood Bridge is
are stated in terms of dBA (decibels
on an “A-weighted” scale). The sound- restricted to vehicles weighing less than 10 tons.
level in decibels is measured on a At the request of ODOT, vehicle traffic for
sound-level meter using the
A-weighted filter network. The Leq means the equivalent sound level.
A-weighted filter de-emphasizes the The equivalent sound level is the steady-
very low and very high frequency state, A-weighted (dBA) sound level that
components of the sound in a manner contains the same amount of acoustic
similar to the frequency response of energy as the actual time-varying,
the human ear and it correlates well A-weighted sound level over a specified
with the human ear’s subjective period of time. If the time period is
reactions to noise. All the sound levels 1 hour, the descriptor is the hourly
in this section are A-weighted. A equivalent sound level, Leq(h), which is
3-dBA change is considered to be a widely used by state highway agencies as
just-perceivable difference in noise a descriptor of traffic noise, and is used in
Leq
levels. this document. The Traffic Noise Model

(TNM) developed by the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) uses
The predominant sources of noise in the area the Leq metric in determining potential
include traffic on the Sellwood Bridge, OR 43, exceedances of the noise abatement
SE Tacoma Street, and, to a lesser extent, I-5 criteria (NAC). The NAC are based upon
(which is within 1 mile of the project site). Along noise levels associated with interference
of speech communication and are a
the east-side river path, traffic from OR 43
compromise between noise levels that
sometimes sounds louder than the traffic from are desirable and those that are
the Sellwood Bridge, even though the bridge is achievable.
closer. In addition, the sound of vehicle tires
Noise
TABLE 3.19-1
Comparative Sound Levels
Sound Level
(dBA) Transportation Sources Other Sources Description
130 Painfully loud
120 Jet takeoff (200 feet)
110 Car horn (3 feet) Maximum vocal effort
100 Shout (0.5 foot)
95 Very annoying
Jack hammer (50 feet) Loss of hearing with
90 Heavy truck (50 feet)
Home shop tools (3 feet) prolonged exposure
85 Train on a structure (50 feet) Backhoe (50 feet)

Bulldozer (50 feet)
80 City bus (50 feet) Annoying
Vacuum cleaner (3 feet)
Train (50 feet)
75 Blender (3 feet)
City bus at stop (50 feet)
Lawn mower (50 feet)
70 Freeway traffic (50 feet)
Large office
65 Train in station (50 feet) Washing machine (3 feet) Intrusive
60 TV (10 feet)
55 Light traffic (50 feet) Talking (10 feet)
50 Light traffic (100 feet) Quiet
45 Refrigerator (3 feet)
40 Library
30 Soft whisper (15 feet) Very quiet
dBA = decibels on an “A-weighted” scale; see sidebar
existing conditions was modeled assuming a Bus traffic was assumed to travel on OR 43,
uniform distribution of car, medium-truck, and SE Tacoma Street, and the Sellwood Bridge.
heavy-truck traffic on all roadways modeled,
including the Sellwood Bridge. The current 3.19.2 No Build Alternative
10-ton weight limitation over the bridge is a
Environmental
temporary solution not meant to solve the long-
term problem. Including the weight restriction for Consequences
modeled existing and No Build Alternative Under the No Build Alternative, noise levels
conditions would create lower noise levels than would vary between 58 and 72 decibels, and
would exist if no weight restriction were in place. would increase by up to 2 decibels above existing
noise levels as a result of future increases in
Noise
FHWA and ODOT requirements state that traffic noise impacts occur when predicted traffic
noise levels approach or exceed the federal noise abatement criteria (NAC) or when a
substantial increase above existing traffic noise levels occurs. The following items discuss
these methods of identifying traffic noise impacts.
• Approach or Exceed NAC. FHWA has established NAC that correspond to various types
Summary of Regulatory Requirements
of activities. An impact occurs when the predicted traffic noise levels approach or exceed
the applicable NAC. In Oregon, “approach” is defined as being within 2 decibels of the
NAC. This means that, in Oregon, mitigation is considered when the impact is within
2 decibels of the FHWA NAC. The outside activity areas of residences, schools, parks,
churches, and cemeteries (Activity Category B uses) are, therefore, impacted by traffic
noise when the noise levels reach 65 decibels (NAC 67). If outside activity areas are not
present, interior spaces of structures are impacted when traffic noise levels reach
50 decibels (NAC 52). Businesses are impacted by traffic noise if outside noise levels in the
activity area of those businesses reach 70 decibels (NAC 72).
• Substantial Noise Increase. The second method of determining whether a noise impact
would occur is the substantial increase criterion. Under this criterion, a traffic noise impact
occurs if the predicted traffic noise levels substantially exceed the existing noise levels. An
increase of 10 decibels or more is considered a substantial increase.
When noise levels approach by 2 decibels or exceed the NAC or when there is a substantial
noise increase, noise abatement must be considered and analyzed. Noise barriers are the
most commonly recommended mitigation measures.
ODOT has established that, for a noise barrier to be considered effective or “feasible,” it
should reduce noise levels by at least 5 decibels. Typically, the noise reduction goals should be
7 to 8 decibels. For a noise barrier to be considered “reasonable” to construct, it typically
must not cost more than $25,000 per benefited residence. A benefited residence is any
affected or non-affected residence that gets a noise reduction of 5 decibels or more.
traffic volumes. The 2-decibel increase predicted  First-row residences along SE Tacoma Street
for the No Build Alternative would not be between SE 6th Avenue and SE 7th Avenue
perceived by most individuals and is not (16 residences).
considered a substantial increase.
 Oaks Pioneer Church with open doors and
The places that would be impacted (those that windows. (The NAC is 52 decibels, and the
approach within 2 decibels or exceed the Oregon criterion is 50 decibels. The noise
applicable noise abatement criteria [NAC]) level for the existing condition is 49 decibels,
include: and would be 50 decibels for the No Build
Alternative in 2035.)
 Two residences at Grand Place: second- and
third-story balconies facing SE Tacoma Street.  The restaurant at the corner of SE 7th
Avenue and SE Tacoma Street, which has
 Two residences at Sellwood Harbor
outdoor seating facing SE Tacoma Street
Condominiums: the upper-story closest to
the south side of the bridge. These locations are illustrated on Figure 3.19-1.
 Four residences at River Park Condominiums 3.19.3 Build Alternatives

with the upper-story balconies facing the
north side of the bridge.
Environmental
Consequences
In this section, a noise impact is defined as
approaching or exceeding the applicable NAC.
Noise
Impacts and Mitigation Common to Construction would cause noise levels that would
All Build Alternatives exceed the current levels. Construction noise
Direct Impacts. The following places would be impacts would occur throughout the project
construction period. Noise impacts would range
impacted under the Build alternatives:
from low (such as noise from trucks, cranes, and
 Sixteen first-row residences along SE Tacoma other construction vehicles) to high (such as
Street between SE 6th Avenue and vibratory compaction equipment during bridge
SE 7th Avenue would experience an increase construction). Drilled shafts and other unusually
in noise levels. loud activities would be limited to daytime hours.
Night work would require acquisition of the
 The restaurant at the corner of SE 7th appropriate noise permits from the City of
Avenue and SE Tacoma Street (which has Portland.
outdoor seating that faces SE Tacoma Street)
would experience an increase in noise levels. Indirect Impacts. No identified indirect noise
impacts would be associated with the Build
The distance to the 65-decibel contour (the alternatives.
Oregon noise impact level for residential land
uses) would occur for receivers within a 10-foot Mitigation. Noise-abatement measures are
vertical difference from the roadway out to considered when the specific performance
approximately 70 feet along SE Tacoma Street. criteria for the measure can be met. The measure
must be able to reduce the noise level by
FIGURE 3.19-1
2035 Noise Levels for the No Build Alternative and the Build Alternatives
Noise
5 decibels, and cost no more than $25,000 per 900 meters of any occupied dwelling by
benefited residence. Noise-abatement measures strategic placement of material stockpiles
were considered for the potential impacts between the operation and the affected
associated with the Build alternatives, including dwelling or by other means approved by the
noise walls. Only one property, a commercial Multnomah County Managing Construction
property, could be effectively mitigated. An Engineer.
8-foot noise barrier placed in the right-of-way
To mitigate possible noise impacts to River View
between property boundaries and sidewalks
Cemetery during construction, Multnomah
south of SE Tacoma Street at 8105 SE 7th
County would notify the Cemetery Association
Avenue would provide sufficient noise reduction
two days before construction activities with high-
for outdoor seating at the restaurant for all Build
level noise generation. The Cemetery Association
alternatives. However, because this location is a
could then direct that the contractor cease using
commercial property, the final determination of
high-level noise-generating equipment adjacent to
reasonableness and feasibility would be made
the cemetery during burial services in the
during final design of the project. No noise
cemetery. The equipment could be shut down for
measures that were both reasonable in cost and
2 to 3 hours.
feasible were possible for receivers that, by 2035,
the Build alternatives would impact. Should a specific noise-impact complaint occur
during the construction of the project, one or
Noise mitigation would be required during
more of the following noise mitigation measures
construction. Potential construction
would be required:
noise-abatement measures include:
 Locate stationary construction equipment as
 Not performing construction within
far from nearby noise-sensitive properties as
300 meters of an occupied dwelling unit on
possible
Sundays, legal holidays, and between the
hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. on other  Shut off idling equipment
days without approval.
 Reschedule construction operations to avoid
 Having sound-control devices no less periods of noise annoyance identified in the
effective than those provided on the original complaint
equipment on all equipment used. Not
allowing equipment with unmuffled exhaust.  Notify nearby residences whenever
extremely noisy work will be occurring
 Having all equipment comply with pertinent
equipment noise standards of the  Install temporary or portable acoustic
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). barriers around stationary construction noise
sources
 Not performing pile-driving or blasting
operations within 900 meters of an occupied  Operate electric-powered equipment using
dwelling unit on Sundays, legal holidays, and line voltage power
between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m.
Construction activities would be conducted in a
on other days unless the Multnomah County
manner that complied with all applicable local
Managing Construction Engineer has granted
noise ordinances, including Title 18, the City of
approval for such operations.
Portland’s Noise Control code (Section
 Mitigating the noise from rock-crushing or 18.10.060), unless a variance was granted.
screening operations performed within
Noise
A final decision on installation of any mitigation Alternative B

or potential noise abatement measures would be Noise levels would vary between 56 and
made upon completion of the project design and 72 decibels, which is a projected increase of up to
the public involvement process. All noise 1 decibel above existing conditions. Noise levels
mitigation measures will be disclosed in the for Alternative B would increase up to 1 decibel
Record of Decision. above the No Build Alternative. Most noise levels
projected under the No Build Alternative would
Alternative-specific Impacts and decrease under Alternative B.
Mitigation
In addition to the locations impacted under all
Alternative A
Build alternatives, the following locations would
Noise levels would vary between 56 and
72 decibels, which is a projected increase of up to also be impacted:
1 decibel above existing conditions. Noise levels  Two residences at Grand Place with second-
for Alternative A would be less than or equal to and third-story balconies facing SE Tacoma
the noise levels for the No Build Alternative. Street.
Most noise levels projected under the No Build
Alternative would decrease under Alternative A.  Two residences at Sellwood Harbor
Condominiums on the upper story closest to
In addition to the places impacted under all Build the south side of the bridge.
alternatives, the following locations would also be
impacted: The locations with noise impacts are shown on
Figure 3.19-1.
 Two residences at Grand Place with second-
and third-story balconies facing SE Tacoma No mitigation is considered both reasonable in
Street. cost and feasible for these impacts.
 Oaks Pioneer Church with open doors and Temporary Detour Bridge Option
windows. (Under Alternative A, the noise Noise levels with the Alternative B temporary
level would be 50 decibels in 2035, which detour bridge option would vary between 55 and
would meet the Oregon abatement criterion 72 decibels, which is a projected increase of up to
of 50 decibels [52-decibel NAC].) Alternative 5 decibels above existing conditions. Noise levels
A, unlike Alternative B, would have a would be up to 4 decibels above those for the
narrower bridge deck without sidewalks on No Build Alternative. The close proximity of the
the bridge to act as a barrier and shield noise. detour bridge to the Oaks Pioneer Church would
Therefore, the noise level in the church cause noise levels to increase up to 5 decibels (to
would be 1 decibel higher under 64 decibels at exterior locations), which would
Alternative A than under Alternative B. still be below the abatement criteria. Interior
Although 1 decibel is not a perceivable noise levels would increase to 54 decibels, which
increase in noise, it is high enough (50 would be 4 decibels above the Oregon abatement
decibels) to be considered an impact because criterion of 50 decibels (2 above the 52-decibel
interior spaces of structures are impacted NAC). For Alternative B with the temporary
when traffic noise levels reach 50 decibels. detour bridge, a 10- to 12-foot barrier could
sufficiently reduce noise levels inside the Oaks
The locations with noise impacts are shown on Pioneer Church. The final determination of
Figure 3.19-1. reasonableness and feasibility for the detour
bridge mitigation would be made during final
No mitigation is considered both reasonable in
design of the project.
cost and feasible for these impacts.
Noise
The locations with noise impacts are shown on level would be 50 decibels in 2035, which
Figure 3.19-1. would meet the Oregon abatement criterion
of 50 decibels [52-decibel NAC].)
Alternative C
Noise levels would vary between 58 and The locations with noise impacts are shown on
72 decibels, which is a projected increase of up to Figure 3.19-1.
1 decibel above existing conditions. Noise levels
No mitigation is considered both reasonable in
for Alternative C would be less than or equal to
cost and feasible for these impacts.
the noise levels for the No Build Alternative.
In addition to the locations impacted under all Alternative E

Noise levels would vary between 55 and
Build alternatives, the following locations would
72 decibels, which is a projected increase of up to
also be impacted:
2 decibels above existing conditions. Noise levels
 Two residences at Grand Place with second- for Alternative E would increase up to 1 decibel
and third-story balconies facing SE Tacoma above the No Build Alternative. Most noise levels
Street. projected under the No Build Alternative would
decrease under Alternative E, except for the
 Oaks Pioneer Church with open doors and north end of Sellwood Riverfront Park, the Oaks
windows. (Under Alternative C, the noise Pioneer Church, and 608 SE Tacoma Street. (The
level would be 50 decibels in 2035, which existing noise level is 49 decibels. Under
would meet the Oregon abatement criterion Alternative E, the noise level would be
of 50 decibels [52-decibel NAC].) 51 decibels in 2035, which would exceed the
The locations with noise impacts are shown on Oregon abatement criterion of 50 decibels by
Figure 3.19-1. 1 decibel [52-decibel NAC].)
No mitigation is considered both reasonable in In addition to the locations impacted to levels

cost and feasible for these impacts. above the Oregon abatement criteria under all
Build alternatives, Oaks Pioneer Church with
Alternative D open doors and windows would also be impacted
Noise levels would vary between 56 and because of the greater proximity of the bridge to
72 decibels, which is a projected increase of up to the church. However, the overall exterior noise
3 decibels above existing conditions. Noise levels level would still be lower than the Oregon
for Alternative D would be up to 2 decibels criterion of 65 decibels (67-decibel NAC).
above the noise levels for the No Build
Alternative. Most noise levels projected under The locations with noise impacts are shown on
the No Build Alternative would decrease under Figure 3.19-1.
Alternative D. The mitigation normally considered for interior
In addition to the locations impacted under all impacts is installation of double-paned windows
Build alternatives, the following locations would and air conditioning. In the case of the church,
also be impacted: the interior is not impacted when the existing
windows are closed (noise levels for Build
 Two residences at Grand Place with second- alternatives range from 34 to 39 decibels), and
and third-story balconies facing SE Tacoma the church already has air conditioning. The
Street. operation of the church for weddings and other
group functions requires that the doors
 Oaks Pioneer Church with open doors and
frequently be open, and the windows are often
windows. (Under Alternative D, the noise
Noise
open as well. Under these circumstances, no  Two residences at Grand Place with second-
mitigation is considered both reasonable in cost and third-story balconies facing SE Tacoma
and feasible for noise level increases. Street.
Alternative D Refined  Oaks Pioneer Church with open doors and

(Preferred Alternative) windows. (Under Alternative D Refined, the
Noise levels would vary between 56 and noise level would be 50 decibels in 2035,
72 decibels, which is a projected increase of up to which would meet the Oregon abatement
3 decibels above existing conditions. Noise levels criterion of 50 decibels [52-decibel NAC].)
for Alternative D Refined would be up to
2 decibels above the noise levels for the No Build The locations with noise impacts are shown on
Alternative. Most noise levels projected under Figure 3.19-1.
the No Build Alternative would decrease under No mitigation is considered both reasonable in
Alternative D Refined. cost and feasible for these impacts.
In addition to the locations impacted under all
Build alternatives, the following locations would 3.19.4 Summary of Alternatives by
also be impacted: Differentiating Traffic Noise
Impact
TABLE 3.19-2
Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Traffic Noise Impact
Impact No Build A B B/TDB C D E D Refined
2035 Noise Level
58–72 56–72 56–72 55–72 58–72 56–72 55–72 56–72
(decibels)
Noise Difference
from Existing +2 +1 +1 +5 +1 +3 +2 +3
Conditions (decibels)
Residences 24 18 20 16 18 18 16 18
Interior Churcha 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1
Businesses 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Total 26 20 21 18 20 20 18 20
a
The interior noise levels at Oaks Pioneer Church with open doors and windows
Ener gy
3.20 Energy Energy Summary

The amount of energy consumed during
This energy analysis followed an ODOT-required construction would vary as much as
methodology for energy analysis, which is based 40 percent among the Build alternatives.
on the energy consumed during construction and However, all Build alternatives would use the
operation in the study area. Therefore, this same amount of energy during operation
section does not cover energy consumed outside because traffic volumes would be the same
among all the Build alternatives.
the study area, sustainability, or the emission of
greenhouse gases. (Although greenhouse gases do
not yet have agreed-upon standards and methods project. A British thermal unit (Btu) was used as
for analysis related to transportation projects, the measure of energy in the analysis.
they are discussed in Section 3.21.2.)
Construction costs referenced in this section, Environmental
which were used for the ODOT-required
Consequences
methodology for energy analysis, do not include
the costs for design, construction engineering, or As described in Chapter 2, the No Build
right-of-way. Therefore, they are not the full Alternative would extend the life of the existing
costs for each alternative. (The full costs are bridge to year 2035 and would cost
documented in Chapter 2.) approximately $41 million for maintenance
activities. The energy consumed for maintenance
3.20.1 Affected Environment activities would be approximately 182,000 million
Btu for the 12-month maintenance activity
The study area for energy resources is the same
period, or 1.6 million gallons of gasoline. Total
as the study area for transportation, which is
annual operational energy consumed by vehicles
illustrated on Figure 3.1-1 in Section 3.1,
is estimated at 1,666 million Btu per year, or
Transportation.
equivalent to approximately 14,677 gallons of fuel
The annual energy consumed during operation consumed annually.
was calculated by estimating the annual average
daily traffic, vehicle classification (autos and 3.20.3 Build Alternatives
trucks), distance traveled, average speed, and fuel Environmental
consumption rates in the study area. The energy Consequences
effects for the Build alternatives during
construction were estimated by applying a bridge Impacts and Mitigation Common to
construction energy consumption factor All Build Alternatives
developed by the California Department of Direct Impacts. The estimated annual vehicle
Transportation to the alternative-specific energy consumption for the Build alternatives
construction cost. This estimation method was during operation is 2,177 million Btu, or
employed because the amount of energy used equivalent to approximately 18,029 gallons of
during the construction of a project is generally gasoline consumed annually. This annual amount
proportional to the construction cost of the of energy consumed by vehicles under the Build
alternatives would be 22.8 percent more than the
A Btu, short for British thermal unit, is energy consumed under the No Build Alternative.
Thermal Unit
a basic measure of thermal (heat) Trucks and buses would be permitted under the
British
energy. One Btu is the amount of

Build alternatives because the existing weight
energy needed to heat one pound of
water one degree Fahrenheit, at a restriction on the bridge would be removed.
constant pressure of one atmosphere.
Ener gy
Because trucks tend to consume more energy Alternative-specific Impacts

than autos, an increase in the percentage of As stated previously, the operational energy
trucks would increase the total energy consumed consumption would be the same for all the
by vehicles within the study area. However, this proposed Build alternatives (2,177 million Btu).
increase in truck traffic across the bridge would Table 3.20-1 provides a summary of energy
not create a net increase in energy expended, as consumed (in million Btu) during construction for
truck traffic would be diverted from other bridge each alternative and Build alternative option (if
crossings. applicable). This table also provides the energy
Indirect Impacts. No significant indirect energy consumed as the equivalent gallons of gasoline
impacts are expected to result from construction consumed.
or operation of any of the Build alternatives.
Mitigation. Construction and operating Differentiating Energy
activities should attempt to minimize roadway
congestion and should adhere to practices that
Impact
encourage efficient energy use, such as limiting
idling equipment, locating construction staging
areas near work sites, and encouraging
carpooling.
TABLE 3.20-1
Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Energy Impact
Construction Operation Annual
Construction (million Btu) (million Btu)
Materials Cost (Equivalent million (Equivalent gallons of
Alternative Option (millions)a gallons of gasoline) gasoline)
$41 182,000 1,666
No Build
(1.6) (14,677)
Stress-ribbon $184 817,000 2,177
Pedestrian/Bike Bridge (7.2) (18,029)
A
Cable-stayed $188 834,800 2,177
Pedestrian/Bike Bridge (7.4) (18,029)
Rehabilitated Bridge Only $182 808,100 2,177
(7.1) (18,029)
B
Rehabilitated Bridge with $200 888,000 2,177
Temporary Detour Bridge (7.8) (18,029)
Through-arch Bridge $155 688,200 2,177
C
(6.1) (18,029)
Deck-arch Bridge $171 759,300 2,177
(6.7) (18,029)
D
Delta-frame Bridge $159 706,000 2,177
(6.2) (18,029)
Box-girder Bridge $143 634,900 2,177
(5.6) (18,029)
E
Through-arch Bridge $192 852,500 2,177
(6.5) (18,029)
Deck-arch Bridge $161 714,800 2,177
(6.3) (18,029)
D Refined
Delta-frame Bridge $156 692,600 2,177
(6.1) (18,029)
a
Construction materials cost is in 2012 dollars. These costs are construction costs only, and not the total
cost for each alternative. The total cost for each alternative is documented in Chapter 2.
Sellwood B ri dge Project D raft E nvi ronment al I mp act St at ement 3-213
Air Q ua lity
Air Quality Summary

3.21 Air Quality
Emissions from the No Build Alternative
3.21.1 Affected Environment would be the same as those from the Build
alternatives and would meet federal and
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) state air quality standards. Mitigation
has established National Ambient Air Quality measures consistent with construction best
Standards (NAAQS) for the following air management practices are recommended
pollutants: ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen for construction of the Build alternatives.
dioxide, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter less
than 10 micrometers in aerodynamic diameter commonly referred to as “criteria pollutants.”
(PM10), particulate matter less than Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) are a subset
2.5 micrometers in aerodynamic diameter (PM2.5), of the 188 air toxics defined by the federal Clean
and lead (Table 3.21-1). These pollutants are Air Act, but unlike the criteria pollutants, do not
TABLE 3.21-1
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
National Standardsa
Oregon
Pollutant Averaging Time Standards Primaryb Secondaryc
Ozone 8-Hour 0.08 ppm 0.08 ppm
Carbon Monoxide 8-Hour 9.0 ppm 9.0 ppm --

1-Hour 35 ppm 35 ppm --
Nitrogen Dioxide Annual Arithmetic Mean 0.053 ppm 0.053 ppm 0.053 ppm
Sulfur Dioxide Annual Arithmetic Mean 0.02 ppm 0.03 ppm --
24-Hour 0.10 ppm 0.14 ppm --
3-Hour 0.050 ppm -- 0.5 ppm
PM10 Annual Arithmetic Mean Revokedd Revokedd Revokedd
24-Hour 150 µg/m3 150 µg/m3 150 µg/m3
PM2.5 Annual Arithmetic Mean 12 µg/m3 15 µg/m3 15 µg/m3
24-Hour -- 65 µg/m3 65 µg/m3
Lead Calendar Quarter 1.5 µg/m3 1.5 µg/m3 1.5 µg/m3
a
National standards, other than ozone, particulate matter, and those based on annual averages or annual
arithmetic means, are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The ozone standard is attained when the
fourth highest 8-hour concentration in a year, averaged over 3 years, is equal to or less than the standard.
For PM10, the 24-hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a
24-hour average concentration above 150 µg/m3 is equal to or less than one. For PM2.5, the 24-hour standard
is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over 3 years, are equal to or less than the
standard.
b
National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect
the public health.
c
National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any
known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant.
d
As a result of lack of evidence linking health problems to long-term exposure to coarse particulate pollution,
the EPA revoked the annual PM10 standard in 2006, effective December 17, 2006.
µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
ppm = parts per million (by volume)
Source: 2006 Oregon Air Quality Data Summaries (DEQ, 2007).
Air Q ua lity
have regulatory standards. The MSATs are are more stringent than the NAAQS.
compounds emitted from highway vehicles and Transportation agencies, including ODOT and
non-road equipment. The EPA, which is the lead the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), are
federal agency for administering the Clean Air responsible for showing that transportation
Act, has certain responsibilities regarding the projects meet the requirements of these plans.
health effects of MSATs. FHWA requires MSAT analyses for a project with
low potential for toxic emissions.
The reduction in emissions from transportation
sources has been predicted since emissions
The Clean Air Act of 1970 was enacted
controls were placed on automobiles in the to protect and enhance air quality and to
1970s. Concentrations of transportation-related assist state and local governments with
Clean Air Act

emissions in urban areas, such as ozone and air pollution prevention programs.
carbon monoxide, have declined over time, even Under the Clean Air Amendments of
as the number of automobiles and small trucks 1990, the federal government cannot
fund, authorize, or approve federal
has increased significantly, along with the number actions to support programs or projects
of miles traveled. Together with the that are not first found to conform to
implementation of other regulatory programs, Clean Air Act requirements.
both air toxic emissions and criteria pollutant
emissions will be reduced over time. In the state of Oregon, transportation projects
located in attainment-maintenance areas are
National Ambient Air Quality subject to the conformity requirements imposed
NAAQS Air Pollutants
(“Criteria Pollutants”)
Standards (NAAQS) Air Pollutants by the federal Clean Air Act and Oregon’s
(“Criteria Pollutants”) transportation conformity rules. The Clean Air
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Act requires that transportation projects located
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) in attainment-maintenance areas conform to the
Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5) SIP. Conformity to a SIP means that
Ozone (O3) transportation activities would not produce new
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) air quality violations, worsen existing violations,
or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS.
Lead (Pb)
These rules stipulate the following requirements:
State and local regulatory agencies, including the
 Inclusion of the project in the conforming
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
Regional Transportation Plan and
(DEQ), are responsible for developing plans to
Transportation Improvement Program
bring nonattainment areas into compliance with
the NAAQS so that they attain the status of  A determination whether the project would
attainment-maintenance areas. A “non-attainment produce any new violations of the NAAQS
area” is a geographic area in which the level of a or worsen any existing violation
criteria air pollutant is higher than the level
allowed by the federal standards. Each state  A determination whether or not the project
maintains a State Implementation Plan (SIP) for would delay implementation of transportation
achieving compliance with the NAAQS. The State control measures (TCMs)
of Oregon’s SIP, the State of Oregon Clean Air Act
Conformity Determination
Implementation Plan, established ambient air
quality standards that matched the NAAQS with This project is subject to the project-level
the exception of sulfur dioxide and PM2.5, which conformity requirements for carbon monoxide,
as specified under federal regulation (40 Code of
Air Q ua lity
Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 51 and 93) and Transportation Conformity requirements,
state rule (Oregon Administrative Rules [OAR] 40 CFR 93 Subpart A and OAR 340-252.
340 Division 252). The project is included in the
The air toxics assessment was based on guidance
conforming Regional Transportation Plan (RTP
specific to a project with low potential MSAT
2035) and Transportation Improvement Program
effect, as described in FHWA guidance for
(TIP 2008-2011). The general scope of work of
conducting air toxic analysis (2006). The air
the Build alternatives is the same as the
toxics criteria are selected based on the average
conforming RTP and TIP. Air quality impacts are
annual daily traffic (AADT) for the project area.
assessed in the analyses presented in this section.
The project AADT is approximately 42,454
The project would not produce any new
vehicles. This is less than the FHWA criteria of
violations of the NAAQS or worsen any existing
140,000 to 150,000 AADT, below which a low
violations. The project would not delay
potential for air toxics impacts is anticipated.
implementation of TCMs. Therefore, the project
has been determined to be in conformance with
3.21.2 No Build Alternative and
federal and state conformity requirements for
carbon monoxide. Build Alternatives
Environmental
Local Context Consequences
Portland is located at the northern end of the
Willamette Valley, which makes it prone to Impacts and Mitigation Common to
periods of poor air dispersion due to the All Alternatives
predominance of storms in late fall and winter Direct Impacts. Air emissions from mobile
and high temperatures and light winds during the sources would decline over the life of the
summer and early fall. High concentrations of project, regardless of the alternative chosen (the
carbon monoxide and particulate matter from No Build Alternative or any of the Build
automobile and home heating emissions can alternatives) because of new technology and
result during these periods of poor air dispersion phasing out of older, more polluting vehicles.
and stagnant air. The emissions analysis was conducted for existing
In the early 1990s, the EPA designated the year, 2013, and 2035 conditions. The
Portland area as a nonattainment area for carbon concentrations were modeled based on the traffic
monoxide and ozone. On September 2, 1997, the analysis to determine what changes would occur
EPA approved a redesignation of the Portland and the impacts on carbon monoxide emissions.
area to a maintenance area for carbon monoxide Results of the hot-spot analysis show that
and in attainment, subject to a 10-year concentrations would be below the carbon
maintenance plan. In 2007, the standards for monoxide standard in 2013 and 2035. The federal
ozone were changed from a 1-hour maintenance and Oregon standards are 35 parts per million
standard to an average 8-hour standard, and the (ppm) for the 1-hour carbon monoxide standard
EPA formally designated the Portland/Vancouver and 9 ppm for the 8-hour carbon monoxide
area as in attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard. For all alternatives, predicted 1-hour
standard. (Table 3.21-1 provides ambient air and 8-hour carbon monoxide concentrations
quality standards.) would be equal to or less than 4.9 and 3.9 ppm,
respectively, in 2035. Therefore, the project
Federally funded transportation projects within a would not cause any new violations of the
maintenance area must include a carbon NAAQS.
monoxide “hot-spot analysis” as defined by the
Air Q ua lity
Table 3.21-2 shows the calculated 8-hour carbon cause region-wide MSAT levels to be significantly
monoxide concentrations in ppm at the OR 43 at lower than they are today.
SW Taylors Ferry Road intersection. This is the
Indirect Impacts. The No Build Alternative and
poorest performing intersection in the study area
the Build alternatives would cause no indirect or
in terms of congestion and capacity. This
secondary air quality impacts during construction.
intersection also has the highest traffic volumes in
There are no indirect effects identified for air
the study area. For these reasons, it was analyzed
quality resources in the study area.
for carbon monoxide concentration.
Mitigation. There would be no recommended
TABLE 3.21-2 mitigation for operation of the project. The
Maximum Carbon Monoxide Concentrations following mitigation measures, which are
(in ppm) at the SW Taylors Ferry Road/OR 43 consistent with construction best management
Intersection
practices, are suggested for construction of the
Calculated alternatives:
Scenario 8-hour (ppm)
National and Oregon Standards 9.0
 Use, where possible, water or other suitable
materials to control dust.
2013 (All Alternatives) 3.7
 Apply asphalt, oil, water, or other suitable
2035 (All Alternatives) 3.9
materials on unpaved roads, material
ppm = parts per million stockpiles, and other surfaces that can create
airborne dust.
Carbon monoxide emissions at this intersection  Completely enclose material stockpiles.
from the No Build Alternative would be the same Stockpiles can be partially enclosed where
as carbon monoxide emissions from the Build the application of oil, water, or chemicals is
alternatives because traffic volumes and not sufficient to prevent particulate matter
intersection conditions (such as lane from becoming airborne.
configurations and signal timing) would be similar
for each alternative. As illustrated, carbon  Use wind fencing to reduce soil disturbances.
monoxide concentrations would be less than the  Locate construction equipment and the truck
national and Oregon standards for carbon staging area away from sensitive receptors as
monoxide (43 percent of the standards in 2035). practical and in consideration of potential
The localized level of MSAT emissions under the effects on other resources.
Build alternatives could be higher relative to the
 Schedule work tasks to minimize disruption
No Build Alternative because, in some places, the
of the existing vehicle traffic on streets.
road would be realigned closer to receptors.
However, this could be offset due to increases in  Cover, at all times when in motion, open-
vehicle speeds and reductions in congestion bodied trucks that are transporting materials
(which are both associated with lower MSAT likely to become airborne.
emissions). In addition, MSATs would be lower in
other locations because traffic would shift away  When possible, restrict road or land closures
from those locations. However, on a regional to non-peak traffic periods to reduce the
basis, the EPA’s vehicle and fuel regulations, effect construction delays might have on
coupled with fleet turnover, will cause substantial traffic flow and resultant emissions.
reductions over time that, in almost all cases, will
Air Q ua lity
 Promptly remove from paved streets any However, it is likely that those vehicles would
earth or other material that might become also produce such gases at a different location if
airborne. this project were not built. Therefore, the
construction vehicles would likely emit
Multnomah County would look for opportunities greenhouse gases regardless of this project.
to employ other environmentally friendly
techniques to control emissions from vehicles The materials used to construct the project
and machines used in construction. Such practices would be greenhouse-gas contributors specific to
might include, but would not be limited to, the this project. The manufacturing processes of two
use of: primary materials used in bridge construction—
cement and steel—produce significant carbon
 Low-sulfur diesel fuel on all diesel equipment dioxide, as well as other gases. Although
 Construction equipment with new-generation technologies are emerging for both of these
diesel engines, when available, or equipment processes that would reduce carbon dioxide
with tailpipe diesel-particulate removal, when production, the availability of such products at
available the time of construction of the proposed bridge
and their comparative costs are not known at
 Environmentally friendly lubricants, solvents, this time. Because the No Build Alternative
and chemicals, to the greatest extent would require much less material, it would
practicable contribute the least to construction-generated
greenhouse gases.
Multnomah County would require contractors to
comply with Section 290 of Oregon Standard At least two bridge designs are still under
Specifications for Construction (ODOT, 2008), consideration. However, they have not been
which has requirements for environmental developed sufficiently to determine the
protection, including air-pollution-control differences between them as they relate to
measures. These control measures, which are greenhouse-gas production. It is not expected
designed to minimize vehicle track-out and that aspects of the bridge design selected would
fugitive dust, would be documented in the differ to the extent that this would be considered
pollution control plan that the contractor would a determining factor among them.
be required to submit prior to the pre-
construction conference. Greenhouse Gases Emitted during Operation.
Greenhouse gases emitted by surface vehicles in
Greenhouse Gases. The analyst did not model regional planning are generally evaluated in terms
greenhouse gases for this Final Environmental of vehicle miles traveled (VMT). For the Sellwood
Impact Statement (FEIS) because, at this time, no Bridge project, all alternatives, including the No
reliable data, adopted criteria, or accepted Build Alternative, would generate the same
approaches and models exist for predicting amount of traffic. However, the No Build
greenhouse gas emissions for transportation Alternative and the Build alternatives would have
projects. However, some aspects of the project a different mix of vehicles. The No Build
can be evaluated through deductive analysis Alternative would not allow truck traffic and
rather than modeling. transit vehicles, but all Build alternatives would
allow truck traffic, reinstate transit service, and
Greenhouse Gases Emitted during be designed to accommodate a future streetcar
Construction. Construction-related activities
line on the bridge. This would create a difference
would also be a source of greenhouse gases.
between the No Build Alternative and the Build
Construction vehicles would produce greenhouse
alternatives regarding VMT. With all Build
gases during the project construction period.
Air Q ua lity
alternatives, some trips are expected to change pedestrian travel, reinstate transit service across
to transit and some truck traffic is expected, the bridge, accommodate a future streetcar line
primarily local truck traffic, from trucks that are on the bridge, and provide connections between
currently prohibited because of a weight these modes. All the Build alternatives would
limitation on the bridge. Initially, then, the Build create this opportunity equally, therefore offering
alternatives would be expected to perform equal opportunities for reducing greenhouse gas
identically, and could potentially slightly decrease emissions. However, reducing these emissions
VMT compared to the No Build Alternative. would require significant efforts and the
development of projects outside the scope of this
Regional growth in population will increase traffic
project.
and congestion in the Sellwood Bridge corridor,
therefore increasing the emission of greenhouse The No Build Alternative would offer little
gases. By 2035, a 33 percent increase in travel toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions
demand is expected in the corridor for both the because it would not maintain an efficient
No Build Alternative and the Build alternatives. connection across the river for auto traffic,
There would be small operating performance reinstate transit across the bridge, construct
differences within the limits of the project termini improved bicyclist and pedestrian facilities, or
among the Build alternatives. For example, the accommodate a future streetcar line.
west-side interchange associated with
Increasing the mileage per gallon of fuel and changing
Alternative C would operate in a free-flow
the vehicle fuel type. A long-term national strategy
condition, saving some travel time within the
to reduce greenhouse gases is for vehicles to use
limits of the project. However, this advantage
less energy per mile and use energy from sources
would be lost as traffic moved beyond the project
that produce either no or less greenhouse gas
area. It is believed that the free-flow condition
emissions. Implementation of this strategy would
would lead to no real reduction in greenhouse
reduce greenhouse gases for all Build alternatives
gas emissions among the Build alternatives. If no
and the No Build Alternative. Those Build
other aspects of travel patterns could be altered,
alternatives that would provide for the
all the alternatives would increase greenhouse gas
reinstatement of public transit and
emissions.
accommodation of a future streetcar line would
Strategies to decrease greenhouse gases resulting not guarantee a reduction of greenhouse gas
from transportation would include the following: emissions. Even if these modes of travel used
electricity, to determine the effect on greenhouse
 Changing modes of travel to those that gases, the generation source of the electricity
would be more efficient per person trip (such must be evaluated for carbon production.
as transit), use cleaner sources of energy (for Greenhouse gases have the same effect on
example, electric and natural gas), and climate change regardless of where they are
accommodate human-powered means (for produced. Currently, electricity used in Oregon
example, walking and bicycling) is generated from the following fuel sources:
 Changing trip patterns, so that shorter and  43 percent from hydropower
fewer trips were required
 38 percent from burning coal
 Increasing the mileage per gallon of fuel  14 percent from natural gas
 3 percent from nuclear
 Changing the vehicle fuel type  2 percent from wind, solar, and other
Changing modes of travel and trip patterns. The sources (Oregon Department of Energy,
Build alternatives would increase bicyclist and 2007; Pheil, 2009)
Air Q ua lity
Therefore, the majority of Oregon’s electricity is for reducing greenhouse gases, other than what
still generated from carbon-based fuels (coal and would occur as energy sources for cars change
natural gas). It is expected that electric utility over time.
companies will increase natural gas usage over
All of the Build alternatives, including Alternative
the next decade. Oregon also has initiatives to
D Refined, would enable conveyance modes that
increase renewable energy sources, primarily
would emit lower amounts of greenhouse gases
wind and solar.
per trip and encourage a substantial increase in
All modes of conveyance available today produce trips made by bicycle and on foot. (Bicyclist and
greenhouse gases either directly or indirectly (for pedestrian use with the Build alternatives is
example, from the generation of electricity). estimated to be approximately 475 percent
However, some modes produce lower amounts higher than with the No Build Alternative
of greenhouse gases per person trip, or lower because of improved bicyclist and pedestrian
amounts of per ton of goods transported. For facilities and connections.)
various conveyance modes, the power methods
In addition, the Build alternatives would maintain
currently used include the following:
the Willamette River crossing. Because this is the
 Streetcars by electricity shortest distance and most efficient trip route for
 Buses by diesel, natural gas, or biodiesel those that use the Sellwood Bridge, the Build
 Trucks primarily by diesel alternatives would not increase VMT caused by
 Cars mostly by gasoline, but some by natural out-of-direction travel. At the same time, because
gas or electricity the Build alternatives would not add capacity to
the route for motor vehicles, indirectly they all
Local planning strategies to reduce greenhouse would encourage travelers to make trips by
gases encourage the use of conveyances that public transit, where it was feasible. The
produce the lowest amount of greenhouse gases differences among the Build alternatives related
per trip. This strategy requires that: to potential greenhouse gas production would
not be statistically significant.
 More trips be taken by public transit, bicycle,
or foot
 The distance of travel be the shortest and Differentiating Air Quality
most efficient Impact
 The trip be as free from congestion as There are no differences in air quality impacts
possible among the Build alternatives because the OR 43
at SW Taylors Ferry Road intersection would
Summary. In summary, strategies for reducing have similar traffic volumes and intersection
greenhouse gases are complex. Much related to conditions with all Build alternatives. Greenhouse
the implementation of solutions lies outside the gas emissions would be the same among all Build
authority of the project. Enabling multiple modes alternatives, and likely less than the No Build
would be the primary strategy of those that could Alternative, because the Build alternatives would
be implemented through the project. encourage travel modes that would emit lower
The No Build Alternative would not allow public levels of greenhouse gases per capita. (The Build
transit (either streetcars or buses) across the alternatives would provide new bicyclist and
bridge. In addition, it is a discouraging route for pedestrian facilities, reinstate transit service
bicyclists and pedestrians. Therefore, the No across the bridge, and be designed to
Build Alternative would offer little opportunity accommodate a future streetcar line.)
Haza rdo us Materi als
3.22 Hazardous Materials Hazardous Materials Summary
3.22.1 Affected Environment The Build alternatives would potentially

directly impact between 6 and 10 sites, and
The study area has consisted of mixed residential, indirectly impact 2 sites, that are known or
commercial, and industrial properties since at suspected to be contaminated with
least 1925, when the Sellwood Bridge was hazardous materials. The project would
constructed. Land use changes at specific sites define and minimize potential hazards
through additional site investigations and
have occurred, but as a whole, the area has
comprehensive planning for contingencies
remained mixed use. The land directly under the involving hazardous substances.
east end of the existing bridge historically was
used for a lumber mill with a sash-and-door
manufacturing operation. As time progressed, a 3.22.2 No Build Alternative
cabinet shop was added to the mill’s operations. Environmental
This property is now the site of the Sellwood Consequences
Harbor Condominiums. Based on historical aerial
The only foreseeable adverse impacts in relation
photographs, the area currently used for the
to contaminated media are addressing potential
Sellwood Riverfront Park appears to have been
asbestos-containing material and lead-based paint
low land that was filled. The area may have been
on the existing bridge structure during any
a landfill in the 1950s and 1960s.
maintenance activities.
There are 13 features of potential environmental
concern in the study area, as identified in 3.22.3 Build Alternatives
Table 3.22-1. Features of environmental concern Environmental
are areas most likely to contain contaminated soil Consequences
and/or groundwater. The list in Table 3.22-1 is
derived from a report that contains a Impacts and Mitigation Common to
comprehensive list of potential hazardous sites in All Build Alternatives
the study area. In addition to the features The numbers associated with each feature of
identified in Table 3.22-1, there is a high environmental concern discussed in this section
likelihood that the existing bridge structure has correlate with the numbers in Table 3.22-1 and
asbestos-containing material and lead-based paint. on Figure 3.22-1.
The feature identification number (ID No.) listed Direct Impacts. Each Build alternative would
in the first column of Table 3.22-1 corresponds encounter the potential of asbestos-containing
with the site numbers indicated on Figure 3.22-1. material and lead-based paint on the existing
The contaminants of environmental concern have bridge structure as well as the following six
been abbreviated in the table, but they are features of environmental concern:
defined in the table notes and in a sidebar.
1. Twin Cedars Service Station, a former
service station at 7712 SW Macadam Avenue
2. River View Service Station, a former service
station at 8126 and 8128 SW Macadam
Avenue
3. Staff Jennings Property (formerly Staff realignment of underground utilities such as

Jennings, Inc.), located at 8240 SW Macadam sewer and/or water supply lines. Due to the age
Avenue, which had one leaking underground of the community and the number of former
storage tank in 2006 and two other leaking underground storage tanks in the area,
underground storage tanks there would be a high likelihood of encountering
4. River View Cemetery, located at 8421 total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH)
SW Macadam Avenue, which has one contamination from an unknown leaking
underground storage tank underground storage tank.
5. Oregon Door Company, a former sawmill Indirect Impacts. Indirect impacts could
that covered the area under the east end of include construction activities that would change
the Sellwood Bridge and the area currently the groundwater level of contaminated aquifers. If
occupied by the Sellwood Harbor
there is any construction activity to lower the
Condominiums, with a current address of
groundwater level on the east end of the bridge,
contaminated groundwater could be encountered
6. Riverside Service Station, a former service at the following two sites:
station at 530 and 536 SE Tacoma Street, had
one leaking underground storage tank in 12. Bousley Albert Gas Station, a former gasoline
2006 service station located at 838 SE Tacoma
Street
In addition to the locations identified above,
there would be the possibility of encountering
contaminated soils during any upgrade or
TABLE 3.22-1
Features of Potential Environmental Concern
Contaminant of
Feature Environmental
ID No. Facility Name Address Concern
1 Twin Cedars Service Station 7712 SW Macadam Avenue TPH, VOC, Pb
2 River View Service Station 8126 and 8128 SW Macadam Avenue TPH, VOC, Pb
3 Staff Jennings Property 8240 SW Macadam Avenue TPH, VOC, Pb
(formerly Staff Jennings, Inc.)
4 River View Cemetery 8421 SW Macadam Avenue TPH
5 Oregon Door Company 220 SE Spokane Street TPH, VOC, PAH
6 Riverside Service Station 530 and 536 SE Tacoma Street TPH, VOC, Pb
7 Sellwood Riverfront Park SE Spokane Street and TPH, VOC, PAH,
SE Oaks Park Way Metals
8 Office Furniture Refinishers 530 SE Tenino Street VOC, TPH
9 Anodizing Incorporated Parts 8222 SE 6th Avenue Metals, VOC
10 Sellwood Transfer Garage 531 SE Umatilla Street TPH, VOC
11 Masterscreen Products, Inc. 8225 SE 7th Avenue VOC
12 Bousley Albert Gas Station 838 SE Tacoma Street TPH, VOC, Pb
13 Bondy, J. (residence) 534 SE Nehalem TPH
Notes:
TPH = total petroleum hydrocarbon (such as gasoline, diesel, heating oil, motor oil)
VOC = volatile organic compound (such as cleaning solvents, degreasers, paint thinners)
PAH = polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (by-product of incomplete combustion)
Pb = lead
FIGURE 3.22-1
Features of Environmental Concern
Site numbers correspond to the Feature ID Numbers listed in Table 3.22-1
13. J. Bondy, a residence located at 534 SE contaminated groundwater from impacted

Nehalem Street, has a leaking underground aquifers.
heating-oil tank with a cleanup process that
has not been finalized  Implement construction-phase monitoring to
identify and manage unknown or
Mitigation. Mitigation measures are designed to unanticipated media.
minimize impacts over the short and long term.
 Characterize waste generated during
The following proposed mitigation measures are
construction (such as excavated soil,
common to the Build alternatives:
wastewater, and construction debris) and
 Conduct a lead and asbestos survey of the assign each waste stream to appropriate
existing bridge prior to construction or waste-disposal facilities.
demolition. This work should include the  Implement other mitigation measures such as
analysis of existing paint layers for total and controlling stormwater runoff from the
toxicity characteristic leaching procedures for construction site, limiting access to
heavy metals, such as cadmium, chromium, contaminated areas, avoiding cross-
zinc, and lead. contamination or carryover of contaminated
 Investigate and address areas of known material to clean areas, and identifying
contaminated soil before or during appropriate waste disposal for all waste
construction to limit exacerbation. These streams.
measures could include direct removal of
contaminated media, capping or covering
contaminated soils, and pumping
Total petroleum hydrocarbon, or TPH, is the term used for petroleum-derived compounds
such as gasoline, diesel, heating oil, motor oil, and hydraulic fluid. When TPH is released to
the environment, it tends to migrate downward in the soil until it reaches either a confining
layer such as tight silts and clay or the water table, at which point it spreads out on top. If it
reaches the groundwater, most of the TPH contamination would float on top, moving along
with the general flow of the water table. A smaller fraction would dissolve into the
groundwater, creating a groundwater plume. In low concentrations, TPH will naturally
degrade into benign compounds. In higher concentrations, TPH will create a widespread
Contaminants of Environmental Concern
plume.
Volatile organic compound, or VOC, is the term for a wide range of chemicals used to make
solvents such as degreasers, industrial cleaning solvents, and paint thinners. When VOCs are
released to the environment, some break down and volatize very quickly; others break down
very slowly and some break down into compounds that are more toxic than the original
chemical.
Lead (Pb) and heavy metals tend to remain on the surface of the soil. The small particles can
be carried in stormwater runoff and blown dust, but for the most part remain in the topsoil.
Lead was also used as a gasoline additive up until the late 1970s and early 1980s. This gasoline
additive was in a liquid or dissolved phase, which, if released to the environment, could
migrate deeper into the soil and potentially contaminate the groundwater. Acids and caustics
used in anodizing shops allow greater mobility of dissolved metals in soil and groundwater.
Lead and heavy metals do not break down.
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, or PAHs, are found naturally in the environment and can
also be man-made. PAHs are most commonly created when products like coal, oil, gas, wood,
and garbage are burned but the burning process is not complete. Once released into the
environment, some PAHs can degrade naturally under very specific conditions. However, it is
more common for PAHs to accumulate in soils and sediments. PAHs are generally not
soluble, although some PAH compounds can move into the liquid phase under the right
conditions.
Asbestos is a common name given to a group of naturally occurring mineral fibers. Asbestos
was commonly used in pipe wraps, insulation, gaskets, concrete pipe, and adhesive mastics
until the 1970s to 1980s. Asbestos is only a hazard when small particles become airborne, are
inhaled, and deposited within the lungs. Asbestos fibers do not break down.
Alternative-specific Impacts Alternative B

Alternative B would encounter the same six
The numbers associated with each feature of features of environmental concern identified
environmental concern discussed in this section previously (Features 1 through 6), as well as one
correlate with the numbers in Table 3.22-1 and additional feature of environmental concern (with
on Figure 3.22-1. the temporary detour bridge option only):
Alternative A 7. Sellwood Riverfront Park, located northwest
Alternative A would encounter the same six
of SE Spokane Street and SE Oaks Park Way,
features of environmental concern identified which had earth-moving activity, and there is
previously (Features 1 through 6), as well as one
a possibility that this site was a former landfill
additional feature of environmental concern:
Alternative C
7. Sellwood Riverfront Park, located northwest Alternative C would encounter the same six
of SE Spokane Street and SE Oaks Park Way, features of environmental concern identified
which had earth-moving activity, and there is previously (Features 1 through 6), as well as four
a possibility that this site was a former landfill additional features of concern:
8. Office Furniture Refinishers, a former environmental concern identified previously

furniture refinishing shop located at (Features 1 through 6), as well as one additional
530 SE Tenino Street; this site was also an feature of environmental concern:
auto repair shop in the 1960s
7. Sellwood Riverfront Park, located northwest
9. Anodizing Incorporated Parts, a metal of SE Spokane Street and SE Oaks Park Way,
refinishing shop located at 8222 SE 6th
which had earth-moving activity, and there is
Avenue
a possibility that this site was a former landfill
10. Sellwood Transfer Garage, a repair shop
located at 531 SE Umatilla Street Alternative D Refined
11. Masterscreen Products, Inc., an industrial No additional features of environmental concern
facility located at 8225 SE 7th Avenue are associated with Alternative D Refined. The
Alternative D only features of environmental concern are the
No additional features of environmental concern six identified under Common Impacts (Features 1
are associated with Alternative D. The only through 6).
features of environmental concern are the six
identified under Common Impacts (Features 1 3.22.4 Summary of Alternatives by
through 6). Differentiating Hazardous
Materials Impact
Alternative E
The main bridge structure for Alternative E
would encounter the same six features of
TABLE 3.22-2
Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Hazardous Materials Impact
No
Impact Type Build A B C D E D Refined
Number of sites potentially directly
impacted 0 7 6a 10 6 7 6
Number of sites potentially indirectly
impacted 0 2 2 2 2 2 2
a
With the temporary detour bridge option, seven sites potentially would be directly impacted.
Relations hip of S hort -ter m Uses of t he E nviro nme nt a nd L ong-te rm Pro ducti vity
with the maintenance and enhancement of long-

3.23 Relationship of Short- term productivity.
term Uses of the
Environment and Long- 3.23.2 Build Alternatives
Short-term Uses of the Environment
term Productivity
All Build alternatives would involve replacing
This section discusses the trade-offs of local existing infrastructure with new infrastructure. In
short-term impacts and resource uses, and the the short-term, the effects of the Build
maintenance and enhancement of long-term alternatives would likely be greater than those of
productivity related to the Sellwood Bridge the No Build Alternative. The Build alternatives
project. would have local short-term effects on the
surrounding environment for three to four years
3.23.1 No Build Alternative of construction. Even with the best planning and
Short-term Uses of the Environment coordination, construction would be disruptive
The No Build Alternative would have local short- to people who live, work, and travel in the area.
term effects on the surrounding environment for
Examples of short-term natural environment
approximately 1 year of maintenance activities to
effects would include vegetation removal, soil
keep the bridge operational and in as good a
erosion, water quality degradation, increased
condition as possible for the next 20 years.
noise levels, and increased levels of particulates in
Examples of short-term environmental effects
the air. Following construction, these increased
would include increased noise levels, traffic
impact levels would diminish, except for
diversion, increased commuter cost and time, and
vegetation removal. New vegetation planted after
no bicycle or pedestrian facilities to cross the
construction, especially trees, would take a
river. Economic activity in the bridge area would
significant amount of time to mature.
decrease from construction activities. Because
traffic would not be allowed across the bridge for Examples of short-term social environment
approximately 6 to 8 months, decreased traffic effects if no bridge crossing were provided during
volumes would impact businesses that rely on construction would include traffic diversion,
drive-by traffic. increased commuter cost and time, and no
bicycle or pedestrian facilities to cross the river.
Long-term Productivity With or without a bridge crossing during
The No Build Alternative would not provide construction, construction activities would
long-term productivity because additional decrease the economic activity in the bridge area.
investment would be required to continue to use Decreased traffic volumes would impact
the bridge beyond a 20-year period, it would not businesses that rely on drive-by traffic. Other
eliminate the existing 10-ton weight limit on the short-term social environment impacts would
bridge, it would not improve the geometric include temporary displacement of parking spaces
deficiencies of the interchange with OR 43 on the and land temporarily committed during
west side, it would not improve the existing construction to staging and laydown areas.
bicyclist and pedestrian facilities, and it would not
retrofit the bridge to existing seismic standards. Long-term Productivity
For these reasons, the No Build Alternative Over the long term, a rehabilitated or new bridge
would not meet the project’s purpose and need would improve the short-term local effects on
(Sections 1.5 and 1.6). The short-term effects of the surrounding environment. Traffic congestion
the No Build Alternative would not be consistent during construction would be replaced by
Relations hip of S hort -ter m Uses of t he E nviro nme nt a nd L ong-te rm Pro ducti vity
long-term improvements in traffic mobility on the natural environment by removing invasive

OR 43, reinstatement of transit service across species, restoring the area with native species,
the bridge, structural capacity to accommodate and restoring and enhancing streams for use by
various vehicle types (including transit vehicles, fish species. Some of the right-of-way used during
trucks, and emergency vehicles), and the construction could be returned to productive
structural integrity of a rehabilitated or uses, such as for redevelopment or for park or
new bridge. recreational use.
All Build alternatives would implement sustainable Transportation improvement projects are based
transportation—improved bicycle and pedestrian on planning efforts that consider the need for
facilities across the bridge, improved connections existing and future multi-modal transportation
for bicyclists and pedestrians to existing facilities, system requirements, and roadway safety, design,
and the reinstatement of transit service across and structural integrity of the transportation
the bridge. Improved bicyclist and pedestrian infrastructure. All modes would benefit from
facilities and connections to area parks and improving the structural capacity of the bridge to
recreational resources would make the area safely accommodate various vehicle types
more attractive to bicyclists and pedestrians. A (including transit vehicles, trucks, and emergency
rehabilitated or new bridge would also be vehicles); increasing the structural integrity of the
designed to accommodate streetcar service bridge to withstand moderate seismic events;
across the bridge. (The City of Portland’s Portland implementing a roadway design that would meet
Streetcar System Concept Plan [2009] designates applicable standards; improving bicyclist and
the Sellwood Bridge as a future streetcar pedestrian facilities; and improving mobility on
corridor.) Truck service would be reinstated OR 43. All Build alternatives would contribute to
across the bridge, improving the cost efficiency of a long-term network of sustainable integrated
business deliveries. The Build alternatives would transportation. Therefore, the short-term effects
also treat stormwater runoff. Improved water of the Build alternatives would be consistent with
quality might promote slightly increased local the maintenance and enhancement of long-term
productivity in the Willamette River. Mitigation productivity.
planned for the west-side parks would enhance

Irre versi ble a nd I rretrie va ble Com mitme nt of Resources
following irreversible and irretrievable

3.24 Irreversible and commitments of resources would occur under
Irretrievable the Build alternatives:
Commitment of  The conversion of vegetation and riparian
Resources areas to provide for new transportation
right-of-way and infrastructure. The Build
This section discusses the irreversible and
alternatives would shift the land used for
irretrievable commitment of resources related to
transportation closer to the Willamette River
the Sellwood Bridge project.
and remove existing vegetation and riparian
area.
Maintenance activities on the existing Sellwood  The loss of the Sellwood Bridge, a historic
Bridge under the No Build Alternative would resource eligible for the National Register of
involve the commitment of physical, human, and Historic Places.
fiscal resources. The following irreversible and
irretrievable commitment of resources would  The adverse impact to River View Cemetery
occur under the No Build Alternative: and the Superintendent’s House in River
View Cemetery, which are both eligible for
 Physical materials used for maintenance the National Register of Historic Places.
activities.
 Physical materials used to build the project
 Labor for maintenance activities. Use of the (such as aggregate used to make cement and
labor would not have an adverse effect upon asphalt, steel needed to make rebar and steel
continued availability of labor resources. The structures, oil to make asphalt, and fill
regional pool of necessary skills is sufficient material). These materials are finite
to meet the project needs without any resources, but they are not currently in short
disruption in development activities. supply.
 Local public service efforts expended during  Labor for construction efforts. Use of the
maintenance activities, including emergency labor would not have an adverse effect upon
service providers. continued availability of labor resources. The
regional pool of necessary skills is sufficient
 The energy used during maintenance
to meet the project needs without any
activities. Energy consumed would include the
disruption in development activities.
gasoline used by vehicles to drive on the
roadway; the electricity needed to keep lights  Local public service efforts expended during
and electrical systems running; and gasoline, project construction, including those by
diesel fuel, oil, and electricity needed for the emergency service providers.
maintenance activities.
 The energy used during construction and
 Local (and, if applicable, federal and state) operation. Energy consumed would include
funds for maintenance activities the gasoline used by vehicles to drive on the
roadway; the electricity needed to keep lights
3.24.2 Build Alternatives and electrical systems running; and gasoline,
Rehabilitating or replacing the existing Sellwood diesel fuel, oil, and electricity needed for
Bridge would involve the commitment of natural, construction. The amount of energy
physical, human, and fiscal resources. The consumed during construction would be a
Irre versi ble a nd I rretrie va ble Com mitme nt of Resources
small fraction of the energy consumed The Build alternatives would require the
annually for transportation in Oregon, and commitment of the resources listed previously.
would not put substantial additional demand The proposed commitment of natural, physical,
on energy sources or fuel availability in the human, and fiscal resources is based on the belief
region. that businesses, employees, and residents of the
immediate area and the region would benefit
 Land used during operation for from the improved quality of the transportation
transportation facilities. Although these system under the Build alternatives. The Build
facilities conceivably could be converted to alternatives would improve transportation,
other land uses at some time in the future, accessibility, and safety, as well as providing
there is no reason at present to believe that greater availability to an integrated, sustainable
such a conversion would be necessary or transportation system. These benefits would
desirable. consist of increased structural integrity, improved
 Federal, state, and local funds for roadway safety and design, reinstated transit
construction and operation. service, and improved bicyclist and pedestrian
facilities and connections. These benefits are
 Potential loss of archaeological and historic anticipated to outweigh the commitment of
resources from presently unknown sites, resources.
which could occur during construction.

Cumulative Impacts
Sections 3.25.2 (general summary) and 3.25.3

3.25 Cumulative Impacts (by resource).
Cumulative impacts on the environment result
from the incremental impact of the proposed 3.25.1 Past and Present Actions
action when added to other past, present, and Native Americans have occupied or traveled
reasonably foreseeable future actions. A number through the study area for thousands of years.
of actions have been (or are likely to be) Those activities had little effect on current
undertaken that, when combined with any of the environmental conditions in the study area. In the
Build alternatives, would have cumulative impacts 1800s, European-American settlement began in
on the social and natural environment. To the Portland and Vancouver area, which
evaluate cumulative impacts of all Sellwood increased the local population and began to
Bridge alternatives (the No Build Alternative and change the environment in the study area. The
the Build alternatives), the project team: following summary of key historic events
provides a basis for analysis of past and present
• Defined a geographic study area for each
actions that have helped shape current
resource.
conditions.
• Established a time frame of reference for
• 1840s. The first European-American
evaluating how past actions have shaped the
settlements were established, primarily
social and natural environment of the study
residential and related businesses along the
area, and suggested how future actions might
banks of the river. Development eventually
further change the conditions resulting from
spread eastward.
these past actions. The “past” runs from the
1840s (settlement of the Sellwood area) to • 1850s. Steamboats began serving river
the present (2010). Future impacts are communities on the lower Willamette River,
estimated to 2030, by which the reasonably including the Sellwood area.
foreseeable actions (listed in Section 3.25.2)
are expected to be implemented. • 1866. Reverend John Sellwood purchased
more than 300 acres of land on the east side
• Identified the current status, viability, and of the Willamette River.
historical context for each resource.
• 1873. Willamette Falls locks were
• Identified direct and indirect impacts of the constructed and industrialization began
project that could contribute to a cumulative around the falls. Construction of the locks
impact. (Direct and indirect impacts are and channel blasting altered the flow of the
documented by discipline in Sections 3.1 river upstream of the Sellwood area and
through 3.22 of this Final Environmental reduced the tendency of the Willamette
Impact Statement [FEIS].) River to flood.
• Identified other current and reasonably • 1882. Fish ladder was installed at Willamette
foreseeable actions (listed in Section 3.25.2). Falls because industrialization of the area had
diminished salmon and steelhead runs.
• Using the information from the process
described, identified and assessed cumulative Sellwood was officially established. The plat
impacts, and assessed the need for mitigation. map, drawn for the subdivision of the
property, has as its boundaries the
• Documented the results of the cumulative
Willamette River on the west edge,
impacts analysis, which are provided in
SE Ochoco Street to the south, SE 19th

Cumulative Impacts
Street on the east, and SE Miller Street on estimated total of 365,000 crossings. The
the north. east-side landing was at the end of
SE Spokane Street in Sellwood, and the
River View Cemetery was established. The
west-side landing was at 8420 SW Macadam
cemetery originally included the existing
Avenue, now the location of the Staff Jennings
west-side interchange area and Powers
property.
Marine Park.
Oaks Amusement Park was opened. The park
• 1887. Portland & Willamette Valley Railroad attracted people to the area for recreation.
(later the Southern Pacific Railroad) line on
the west side began operation. The rail line is • Early 1900s. The first branch of the
now used by the Willamette Shoreline Portland Library Association was opened in
Trolley. Sellwood; the first public swimming pool in
the City of Portland was constructed in
• 1888. A hydroelectric dam was constructed Sellwood Park; and the first branch of the
at Willamette Falls, upstream of the Sellwood Portland YMCA opened in Sellwood.
area, which reduced the tendency of the
Willamette River to flood. East Side Mill and Lumber Company and the
Oregon Door Company factory dominated
• 1880s and 1890s. The intersections of the large parcels west of SE 6th Avenue.
SE Umatilla Street and SE 17th Avenue and of Single-story residences were only sparsely
SE Tacoma Street and SE 17th Avenue situated on large lots between SE Nehalem
became centers of commercial activity. Street and SE Umatilla Street from
• 1892. Sellwood streetcar line was completed. SE 7th Avenue to SE 9th Avenue; east of
The line provided service down SE Milwaukie SE 9th Avenue, many lots were subdivided
Avenue to SE Bybee Street, turned west on and developed into single-family residences.
SE Bybee Street, and then traveled south on • 1914. Superintendent’s House at River View
SE 13th Avenue. With improved Cemetery was constructed.
transportation, Sellwood became slightly
more urban. Electrical lines were strung to • 1925. Sellwood Bridge was opened and
provide power to the streetcars. This line connected to SE Tacoma Street on the east
expansion increased the number of power side and what is now OR 43 on the west
lines available for other uses. Many new side. SE Tacoma Street quickly transitioned
businesses that came to the area during this from a relatively quiet residential street to a
era were factories and mills, whose owners major local arterial.
recognized the economic advantages of sites
• 1926. City of Portland acquired land for
for their companies near these new sources
Powers Marine Park.
of electricity and along the riverbank for
water transport. • Late 1920s and 1930s. Construction of
OR 99E (SE McLoughlin Boulevard)
• 1893. Sellwood was annexed to the City of
completed. With the Sellwood Bridge, this
Portland. Interurban electric railway service
roadway encouraged growth around the
was established between Oregon City and
SE Tacoma Street corridor and its
Portland.
intersection with SE 13th Street.
• 1905. The John F. Caples ferry began
• 1958. City of Portland acquired land for
operations, making 56 trips a day, with an
Oaks Pioneer Park.

Cumulative Impacts
• 1961. Oaks Pioneer Church was moved from • 2002. The City of Portland adopted the
Milwaukie to Oaks Pioneer Park. Tacoma Main Street Plan (City of Portland,
2001). This multi-modal transportation plan
• 1965. City of Portland acquired land for supports regional and local land-use
Sellwood Riverfront Park. objectives for SE Tacoma Street.
• 1970s. City of Portland established the • 2003. Springwater Corridor Trail was
current boundaries for the combined opened in the study area.
Sellwood-Westmoreland neighborhood,
which are the Willamette River on the west, • 2004. Weight restrictions were instituted on
SE Ochoco Street on the south, and the Sellwood Bridge and bus service across
SE McLoughlin Boulevard along the north the bridge was stopped.
and east.
• 2005. City of Portland Transportation System
• 1980. City of Portland Comprehensive Plan, Plan (originally adopted in 1996) was updated
which designated long-term land-use planning and adopted. The plan designated the
for the study area, was originally adopted. functional classifications to OR 43, SE
(Plan was updated in 2006.) Tacoma Street, and other study area
roadways.
Sellwood Harbor Condominiums were
constructed south of the Sellwood Bridge • 2005 to present. Ecological restoration
east bridgehead. activities were conducted at Willamette
Moorage Park and Powers Marine Park by
• 1983. Freight service on the Southern Pacific
the City of Portland.
Railroad (west side of river) ended.
• 2007. Willamette River Water Trail was
• 1987. River Park Center office building north
established; water trail guide was published.
of the Sellwood Bridge east bridgehead was
constructed. • 2008. Multnomah County distributed the
Sellwood Bridge Draft Environmental Impact
• 1988. City of Portland adopted the
Statement (Federal Highway Administration
Willamette Greenway Plan, whose goal was “to
[FHWA] et al., 2008), which evaluated five
protect, conserve, maintain, and enhance the
Build alternatives and a No Build Alternative
scenic, natural, historical, economic, and
to rehabilitate or replace the existing
recreational qualities of lands along the
Sellwood Bridge.
Willamette River.”
• 2009. City of Portland approved the Portland
• 1999. Metro adopted the South Willamette
Streetcar System Concept Plan, which provides
River Crossing Study. The study established
guidance on where the City should expand its
regional policy reinforcing the main street
existing streetcar system. The plan identifies
land-use objectives of SE Tacoma Street and
the OR 43 corridor between downtown
directed that improvements to the Sellwood
Portland and Lake Oswego (“Portland to
Bridge and SE Tacoma Street support these
Lake Oswego”) and the Sellwood Bridge and
objectives.
SE Tacoma Street (“Tacoma Street
• 2001. River Park Condominiums north of the Extension”) as streetcar corridors.
Sellwood Bridge east bridgehead was
constructed.

Cumulative Impacts
3.25.2 Foreseeable Actions • Resumption of bus transit service across the

Sellwood Bridge
• Provision of light rail transit service on
Oregon 99E (Portland–Milwaukie Light Rail • Removal of weight/load restrictions on the
Project) Sellwood Bridge
• Multi-modal improvements to Oregon 99E • Continued restoration activities at Sellwood
between the Ross Island Bridge and Riverfront Park, Willamette Moorage Park,
Milwaukie and Powers Marine Park
• Multi-modal improvements to SE Tacoma • Private land development and redevelopment
Street between the Sellwood Bridge and in the study area. Future private development
Oregon 99E would be expected to be consistent with the
City of Portland Comprehensive Plan (City of
• Improvements to the Willamette Greenway
Portland, 2006). The City of Portland Bureau
Trail (West Bank) between the Sellwood
of Development Services confirmed that no
Bridge and Portland city limits
applications for private developments had
• Provision of Intelligent Transportation System been submitted within the study area. Land
(ITS) enhancements on OR 43 between the along SE Tacoma Street at the east
Sellwood Bridge and SW Hood Street/ bridgehead is designated for commercial land
SW Bancroft Street uses in the Comprehensive Plan. One individual
who owns a two-block area at the east
• Construction of bicyclist and pedestrian bridgehead has expressed interest in
improvements on SW Taylors Ferry Road redeveloping the property to contain two
between SW 35th Avenue and OR 43 four-story buildings with condominiums on
the upper stories and businesses on the
• Provision of ITS enhancements to four traffic
street level. Plans are on hold pending
signals on SE Tacoma Street between the
decisions regarding the Sellwood Bridge,
Sellwood Bridge and SE 45th Street
additional land acquisition, and market
• Construction of a shared-use path segment conditions. On the west end of the Bridge,
to complete the Springwater Corridor Trail limited to no potential for private
between SE Umatilla Street and SE 19th development exists because of the River
Avenue at SE Ochoco Street View Cemetery, the transportation
infrastructure, and park and recreational
• Improvements to the SE Spokane Street and facilities.
SE Umatilla Street bicycle boulevards
• Construction of streetcar/commuter transit 3.25.3 Future Cumulative Impacts

line or bus rapid transit along OR 43 (Lake This subsection generally describes the Sellwood
Oswego to Portland Transit Corridor Study) Bridge area after implementation of any Build
alternative and the foreseeable future actions
• Installation of streetscape and pedestrian described previously. The next subsection
improvements on SE Tacoma Street (3.25.4) provides a more detailed description of
future cumulative impacts by specific social and
• Construction of increased vehicle capacity on
natural environmental resource topics.
regional facilities in the vicinity of Sellwood,
such as OR 99E and OR 224 The Build alternatives would substantially
improve the opportunity for sustainable

Cumulative Impacts
multi-modal travel. The Sellwood Bridge area limited amount of infrastructure. It is likely that
would be a multi-modal transportation hub with streetcar service, if implemented, would be
improved bicyclist and pedestrian facilities and available much later, based on its priority level in
connections; reinstatement of transit service the Portland Streetcar System Concept Plan. The
across the bridge; and a station for the west-side bridge project design anticipates the potential
streetcar between downtown Portland and Lake future streetcar, so it would be “project ready”
Oswego. More person trips would be made when the streetcar was funded, assuming that the
across the bridge and through the OR 43 bridge and interchange had been funded prior to
corridor using sustainable transportation modes the streetcar.
than under current conditions.
More trucks would use SE Tacoma Street
Bicyclist and pedestrian facilities across the river because truck service would be reinstated across
would be significantly improved, as would the bridge. The truck traffic would be composed
connections from the bridge to the parks and primarily of delivery trucks using the bridge to
trails on both sides of the river. On the east side, access Sellwood and other areas in southeast
the Springwater Corridor Trail gap south of the Portland. Large trucks would not be expected
Sellwood Bridge would be completed. because SE Tacoma Street is not a state highway,
Connections between the trail and the west side it is not designated as a major freight route, and
of the river (via the Sellwood Bridge) would be the relatively congested nature of the street does
improved. On the west side, the Willamette not attract through-truck traffic. Future land-use
Greenway Trail (West Bank) between downtown planning activities are focused on enhancing a
and the Portland city limits would be completed, pedestrian-friendly environment for SE Tacoma
providing a continuous off-street bicyclist and Street, so the route would remain unattractive to
pedestrian facility to downtown Portland through anything but local truck traffic. Despite more
Johns Landing and the South Waterfront areas. truck traffic, SE Tacoma Street would not
The bicyclist and pedestrian facilities on the become a barrier to the cohesion of the
bridge deck would provide the connection Sellwood community.
between southeast and southwest Portland and
Existing land uses and land-use trends would
to the Portland metropolitan area’s 40-Mile Loop
continue. The area would likely become more
trail system.
attractive because of the high number of
Transit service on SE Tacoma Street and across recreational and open-space amenities; accessible
the bridge would be reinstated. Transit service transit and bicyclist/pedestrian commuting
on SE Tacoma Street would provide a connection options; restaurants and cafes within walking
between the Sellwood Bridge, recreational trails, distance; and pleasant pedestrian environment.
and the South Corridor light rail transit line on This trend would increase the popularity of
OR 99E. New transit stops at the west-side Sellwood as a regional destination.
interchange would provide a multi-modal
The popularity of the area would induce demand
connection to the Willamette Greenway Trail
for redevelopment and increased density. The
(West Bank) and the future streetcar on the
historic housing stock would be maintained, but
Willamette Shoreline Trolley line. The
SE Tacoma Street, SE 13th Avenue, and
reinstatement of transit service would induce a
SE 17th Avenue would moderately increase in
slight mode shift from automobile to transit and
density. Redevelopment would occur within its
non-motorized modes.
existing zones in the adopted City of Portland
Initially, transit would consist of bus transit, Comprehensive Plan (City of Portland, 2006). This
because it could be implemented rapidly with a type of development would be similar to that of

Cumulative Impacts
other Portland neighborhoods, such as Belmont However, all of these modes are still active in and
in southeast Portland and the NW 23rd Avenue around the bridge, but with a different focus and
area in northwest Portland. These areas have ridership.. .
multiple-story commercial, residential, and
With population growth in Sellwood, southeast
mixed-use buildings on the main street, but the
Portland, and the southeast area of the Portland
historic housing stock on the side streets has
metropolitan area and construction of the
been maintained. Moderately increased density
existing Sellwood Bridge in 1925, SE Tacoma
would be a cumulative benefit to the Portland
Street changed from a local neighborhood street
region as a whole because it would accomplish a
to a major local arterial. Originally, the west side
regional land-use objective to increase density in
of OR 43 in the vicinity of the Sellwood Bridge
areas with transit service and other multi-modal
was all River View Cemetery, but is now a
travel options.
transportation corridor that includes OR 43, the
The City of Portland will continue to conduct OR 43/Sellwood Bridge interchange, the railroad
biological restoration and enhancement activities line, and city parks. . The west-side interchange
that would improve the overall environment on area is being planned as a significant
the west side. However, the west side would transportation hub. Several transportation modes
have less parkland, natural area, and riparian area. will come together at this hub, and exchanges
In addition, the wildlife habitat would be between modes will be important.
fragmented between the Willamette River
riparian area and upland vegetation. It is likely • The Build alternatives would provide
that Powers Marine Park and Willamette improved traffic operations between
Moorage Park would experience more recreation southwest and southeast Portland through at
use because of increased visibility from bicyclists least the year 2035, but eventually the facility
and pedestrians using the Willamette Greenway would reach capacity for longer periods
Trail (West Bank) and from streetcar riders. during the day if demand continues to
Improved access to Powers Marine Park and increase.
Willamette Moorage Park would be detrimental • The Build alternatives would contribute to
to these natural-area parks and could increase modal change for trips between southwest
the number of transients camping in the parks. and southeast Portland, and would be able to
However, because of the City’s ongoing support many more person trips than the No
restoration activities, it is likely that the health of Build Alternative while maintaining the same
natural areas at Powers Marine Park and level of motor-vehicle trips. The
Willamette Moorage Park, including the Stephens reinstatement of bus service across the
Creek area, would improve. This improved bridge would be expected to stimulate a
environment would increase the amenity value of mode change from automobile to transit for
these parks, which would be an asset for both the some trips. By restoring trucks to the bridge,
South Portland and the Sellwood neighborhoods. out-of-direction travel for delivery trucks
would no longer be required, which would
3.25.4 Future Cumulative Impacts improve the efficiency of the overall
by Discipline transportation network between southwest
Transportation and southeast Portland, and incrementally
The transportation infrastructure in Sellwood, improve the efficiency of the transportation
southwest Portland, and southeast Portland has network within the Portland area.
changed as transportation technology has evolved
from water to rail to motorized vehicles.

Cumulative Impacts
• Although it is expected that the number of bicycles, pedestrians, and passenger cars. The
vehicles on the Sellwood Bridge would be streetcar station and bus stops would provide
similar for all alternatives (including the No transfers between modes within the
Build Alternative), the vehicle mix would be interchange. More streetcar trips beyond the
different, with some traffic being heavy immediate Sellwood Bridge vicinity in
vehicle trips (trucks and buses) with the Build southwest and southeast Portland would be
alternatives. Because bicyclist and pedestrian expected. The streetcar would incrementally
facilities and connections would also be increase non-motorized trips within
improved, more person trips over the bridge southwest and southeast Portland.
would occur, but without an increase in the
number of motorized vehicles, as is expected Bicyclists and Pedestrians
for the No Build Alternative. Bicyclist and pedestrian facilities have
incrementally improved in the vicinity
• Compared to current conditions, by the year (approximately 0.5 mile) of the Sellwood Bridge
2035, all alternatives would be expected to over the last 30 years. These improvements have
produce a 33 percent increase in motorized included construction of facilities such as the
traffic using the Sellwood Bridge (to 39,000 Springwater Corridor Trail and designated bicycle
vehicles). The bicyclist and pedestrian boulevards on SE Spokane and SE Umatilla
facilities with the Build alternatives would be streets. The Sellwood Bridge, however, remains a
expected to produce an approximately 500 substantial barrier for bicyclists and pedestrians
percent increase in trips compared to the No between southwest and southeast Portland.
Build Alternative, resulting in approximately
9,350 person trips daily by these two modes. • The Build alternatives would enhance existing
The cumulative impact of any of the Build bicyclist and pedestrian connections to the
Alternatives would be a substantial shift in Springwater Corridor Trail; the 40-Mile Loop
modal split across the Sellwood Bridge, with trail system; SE Spokane Street and
19 percent of the traffic traveling by non- SE Umatilla Street (which are City-designated
motorized modes in the future. Increased bicycle boulevards); and planned connections
non-motorized trips would provide far with OR 43. The Build alternatives would
greater efficiency of the transportation facility supplement west-side bicyclist and pedestrian
than would be achievable with the No Build improvements, facilities provided by the
Alternative. More non-motorized trips Oregon Health & Science University Aerial
beyond the immediate Sellwood Bridge Tram, and improvements and extension of
vicinity in southwest and southeast Portland the streetcar line from the South Waterfront
would be expected, as well. An increase in area. The cumulative impact of these
non-motorized trips with any of the Build enhancements would substantially support
alternatives would incrementally improve the Portland’s plan for multi-modal
efficiency of the transportation network transportation and sustainability goals.
within southwest and southeast Portland. The
• The Build alternatives would increase bicyclist
proposed streetcar on the west side would
and pedestrian travel within and between
increase mobility between the Sellwood
southwest and southeast Portland. More
Bridge area and downtown Portland. If all
bicyclist and pedestrian trips beyond the
plans were realized, the west-side
immediate Sellwood Bridge vicinity in
interchange would become a hub for multiple
southwest and southeast Portland would be
motorized and non-motorized modes of
expected after bicyclist and pedestrian
surface travel, including buses, streetcar,
facilities and connections were enhanced.

Cumulative Impacts
Right-of-Way and Relocation service from utility providers would not be

Within the general vicinity (approximately compromised; no cumulative impacts arising
0.5 mile) of the existing Sellwood Bridge, on the from the transportation project would occur.
west side of the Willamette River, previous The project is not expected to preclude any
transportation projects and improvements in the future expansion of utilities, if that should
area acquired land from River View Cemetery (in become necessary.
the 1920s) and also created park and recreational
Land Use
facilities between the roadway and the river.
It is expected that future land uses on the west
On the east side of the Willamette River, the side of the Willamette River within the general
area changed from industrial uses to commercial vicinity (approximately 0.5 mile) of the existing
uses, then to residential and commercial uses. Sellwood Bridge would be similar to current-day
The area available for redevelopment on the east land uses because the amount of land that could
side of the Sellwood Bridge is limited. However, be developed or redeveloped (most of the land is
this area could be redeveloped and retain uses River View Cemetery or parkland) would
similar to today’s uses. Because repair, continue to be limited.
rehabilitation, or replacement of the bridge
On the east side, the popularity of the Sellwood
would relieve uncertainty about the future of the
neighborhood has increased because of its
bridge, development of these properties could
proximity to downtown Portland and other parts
occur fairly rapidly after the project was
of the region; its park and recreational facilities;
underway or completed.
and its neighborhood livability. Sellwood’s
• Because there is limited land available for popularity has increased population density within
development, the Build alternatives would the neighborhood.
not affect the long-term viability of the
• The City of Portland Comprehensive Plan (City
commercial or residential character of the
of Portland, 2006) identifies long-term
general vicinity of the Sellwood Bridge;
desired land uses for the Sellwood
minimal cumulative right-of-way impacts
neighborhood. Because land available for new
would be expected.
development within the neighborhood is
• Following construction, some of the land limited, the cumulative impact of new
purchased for the purposes of deconstructing development would be small. However, the
the existing bridge or because access was Sellwood neighborhood would become
eliminated would become available for moderately denser from redevelopment of
redevelopment. With Alternative C, the Staff existing land uses. More urban land uses
Jennings property would likely be converted (such as mixed-use retail/residential,
to park use. With Alternative E, vacated land condominiums, apartments, and transit-
on the east side could be redeveloped for oriented development) would be expected to
park or residential use. occur in the Sellwood neighborhood,
particularly along SE Tacoma Street.
Utilities
As the area has developed, new utilities have • The Sellwood neighborhood would likely
been constructed, implemented, and modernized. become more populated, which would
benefit the Portland region as a whole by
• All impacted utilities would be replaced, accomplishing the regional land-use objective
reconstructed, and realigned as the project of increasing density in certain urbanized
was constructed. The long-term level of areas. Local businesses would benefit through

Cumulative Impacts
an expanded local customer base. The Economic

increased neighborhood population could Because of its proximity to the Willamette River,
also be considered a negative effect for the Sellwood neighborhood has historically
residents unhappy with increased density. shown economic vitality. The area between the
• The neighborhood would experience an river and SE Sixth Avenue developed as an
increase in truck traffic, especially along industrial area where lumber mills and wood
SE Tacoma Street. Although, for some product factories were located. The river was
residents, the increased truck traffic could used to deliver logs to the mill. Later, the railroad
detract from the quality of the street served this industrial area. The railway tracks
environment, it would be unlikely to create a were probably located next to the river because
barrier to community cohesion. While of the gradient that floodplains offer. Now the
improved truck access would allow more river attracts recreationists, residents interested
efficient servicing of existing residential and in views of the river, and commercial offices (for
commercial land uses, SE Tacoma Street is which the river provides positive ambiance). The
not expected to become an attractive popularity of the Sellwood neighborhood just
through route for very large cargo trucks. It beyond the bridge’s location has cumulatively
is expected that the increased truck usage on benefited local businesses near the bridge, and
the bridge would support delivery of goods the bridge gives access for residential areas on
and services to the local area. Large trucks the west side to Sellwood businesses.
would not be expected because SE Tacoma • The Sellwood neighborhood would likely
Street is not a state highway, it is not become more vibrant because of the high
designated as a major freight route, and the number of recreational open-space amenities,
travel environment would remain congested the transit and non-motorized travel
and slow. Future land-use planning activities accessibility, and the pedestrian-oriented
are focused on enhancing a pedestrian- commercial core along SE Tacoma Street.
friendly environment for SE Tacoma Street. These cumulative impacts could benefit local
Despite more truck traffic, SE Tacoma Street businesses.
would not become a barrier to the cohesion
of the Sellwood community. The commuting • The Sellwood neighborhood could become
habits of Sellwood residents would shift moderately dense in character from
toward non-automobile modes as transit and improved motorized and non-motorized
bicyclist-and-pedestrian facilities and access, expanding the customer base for local
connections continued to improve. Changed businesses. Business activity would expand
commuting habits might lead to more transit- moderately, and local employment
oriented development and improved transit opportunities would increase slightly.
service.
Social Elements
• In off-peak hours, the parking supply in The period of development between 1892 and
Sellwood might be stressed by its attraction 1925 was an era of substantial growth for the
as a regional shopping and entertainment Sellwood community. Sellwood had already
destination. This could necessitate demand or grown into a working-class suburb of Portland
supply measures such as more aggressive when it was annexed to the City in 1893. One of
metering, on-street parking spaces, and the new businesses was the East Side Mill and
construction of parking garages. Lumber Company in Sellwood, located at the
foot of what is now SE Spokane Street, near the

Cumulative Impacts
landing for the Sellwood Ferry. One of the prices and, therefore, the median income of its
existing bridge piers goes through what was once residences.
part of the mill. The Sellwood neighborhood has
maintained vitality, and many of the homes have • With the Build alternatives, populations
been renovated in the last 30 years. The dependent on transit, bicycle, and pedestrian
commercial district was one of the first in the transportation would have increased
Portland metropolitan area to be rejuvenated. opportunities for using these modes because
The Sellwood neighborhood has strong service and facilities between southwest and
community involvement, which consistently southeast Portland would be improved.
protects and enhances the neighborhood’s small-
town atmosphere.
Within southwest and southeast Portland, the
• The Sellwood neighborhood would land designated for park and recreational facilities
experience a moderate increase in the has increased since 1926. At that time, the land
number of service-based businesses available for Powers Marine Park was acquired. Over the
to reflect the moderate increase in years, land for other parks (including the
population density. Willamette Moorage Park, Sellwood Riverfront
Park, and Oaks Pioneer Park) has also been
• Improved emergency and medical response acquired. Recreational trails have been
services across the river would be sustained, constructed. The most recent trail is the
which would benefit southwest and southeast Springwater Corridor Trail, which opened in the
Portland residents. study area in 2003. Paddling and motorized
• The bicycle/pedestrian bridge (Alternative A) boating on the Willamette River in the Sellwood
and the alignment of Alternative E could Bridge area has increased. Future improvements
diminish the appeal of Oaks Pioneer Park and to the Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank)
Oaks Pioneer Church as a site for events. are planned. It is predicted that the connectivity
These effects could lead to an indirect provided by the proposed bicyclist and pedestrian
negative impact to the Sellwood Moreland facilities will significantly increase the use of all
Improvement League (SMILE), a community- recreational facilities in southwest and southeast
based organization. SMILE relies on revenues Portland, particularly use of the bicyclist and
from functions held at Oaks Pioneer Church pedestrian trails themselves.
to carry out its programs and events, which • Despite the reduction in park acreage with
benefit the community. The potential the Build alternatives, more people would use
decrease in events is not expected to Powers Marine Park and Willamette Moorage
jeopardize the long-term effectiveness of Park because the improved Willamette
SMILE in serving as a local community Greenway Trail (West Bank), the streetcar
advocacy group. service, and improved connection to the east
side of the river would provide increased
Environmental Justice
visibility and improved accessibility.
When it was annexed to the City of Portland in
1893, Sellwood was a working-class suburb, with • With the Build alternatives, these parks
its residents primarily working in industrial would maintain their natural-area values even
businesses. The popularity of the Sellwood though more people might use them because
neighborhood has increased gradually over time. of potential streetcar service and improved
Much of the housing stock has been renovated in bicyclist and pedestrian facilities. On the
the last 30 years, which has increased the housing other hand, improved accessibility could be

Cumulative Impacts
detrimental to these natural-area parks, and construction. River View Cemetery originally
could increase the number of transients owned the land on the west end of the Sellwood
camping in the parks. With Alternative D Bridge, from OR 43 to the Willamette River. OR
Refined, the new multi-use trail between the 43 was built on land purchased from River View
Sellwood Bridge and SW Miles Street Cemetery, and the remnant on the east side of
(through Willamette Moorage Park) would the roadway was converted to a park (Powers
improve bicyclist and pedestrian facilities, but Marine Park). This changed the setting of the
could increase the number of people who cemetery and the Superintendent’s House. The
would use Willamette Moorage Park and setting around Oaks Pioneer Church on the east
Powers Marine Park. side of the river, near the end of the Sellwood
Bridge, has also changed, because the church was
• Ongoing restoration activities by the City of moved there from Milwaukie.
Portland would improve the native plant
community in Sellwood Riverfront Park, • The historic Sellwood Bridge would be lost
Powers Marine Park, and Willamette with all the alternatives. With the No Build
Moorage Park. These improvements would Alternative, the bridge would ultimately be
benefit those visiting these parks or using the closed, deteriorate, and lose its historic value.
Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank). With the Build alternatives, the bridge would
With Alternative D Refined, natural-area be either altered to the extent that it was no
restoration and enhancement along Stephens longer eligible for the National Register of
Creek in Willamette Moorage Park and along Historic Places (Alternatives A and B) or
two streams in Powers Marine Park would replaced entirely (Alternatives C, D, E, and
improve the natural area within these parks D Refined).
and benefit park users.
• Alternative E would degrade the long-term
• The Sellwood neighborhood’s increasing setting around Oaks Pioneer Church. To a
reputation as a recreational destination lesser extent, Alternative A could also
would likely generate an increase in park degrade the long-term atmosphere around
usage. Increased park usage could create a Oaks Pioneer Church if care were not taken
shortage of parking at park locations, to integrate the bridge visually through
especially at Sellwood Riverfront Park. landscaping within Oaks Pioneer Park.
However, a better bicyclist and pedestrian
connection from the bridge might encourage • The Build alternatives would be located
more park users to bicycle or walk to the closer to the Superintendent’s House than
park, rather than drive. with the existing conditions, therefore
degrading the setting. With Alternative C,
Archaeological and Historic removal of access from OR 43 could force
Resources the existing business in the house to close,
Five historic resources in the vicinity of the which could lead to a long-term degradation
Sellwood Bridge are either listed (Oaks Pioneer of the resource. With the other Build
Church) or eligible for listing (Sellwood Bridge, alternatives, the new access road would likely
River View Cemetery, Superintendent’s House at allow for continuation of the business and
River View Cemetery, and the Willamette lead to long-term maintenance of the
Shoreline Trolley) on the National Register of resource.
Historic Places. These resources have maintained • The conversion of River View Cemetery land
their historic qualities, but the settings around to transportation use with all Build
these resources have changed since their

Cumulative Impacts
alternatives would cumulatively add to land landslide may have added enough weight to
that has been lost from the cemetery. (OR 43 modify the topography.
was originally built on land purchased from
the River View Cemetery, with the remnant • Construction of the project could provide
on the east side of the roadway converted to long-term landslide stability through the
a park.) addition of stabilization measures, which
would reduce maintenance and benefit public
• Shovel tests have been preformed to detect safety.
the possible presence of both historic and
prehistoric archaeological sites. The tests did • Incorporating proper seismic design as part
not reveal the presence of sites. Therefore, it of the bridge rehabilitation or new bridge
has been concluded that there would be no construction would provide better
known archaeological cumulative impacts protection from earthquakes. Seismic
other than what may have already occurred. standards have recently been increased so
that the bridge design would be scaled to
Visual Resources handle a 1,000-year seismic event. The
Over time, construction of the existing Sellwood 1,000-year event is based on having only a
Bridge in 1925 and other developments have 5 percent chance of occurring in the next 50
gradually changed the visual landscape of the years.
Willamette River in the vicinity of the Sellwood • Constructing the rock cuts for Build
Bridge. alternatives with stable slopes and
• The rehabilitated or new bridge with the appropriate rock fall mitigation techniques
Build alternatives would be a new visual would provide a safer environment for
resource in the area, but it would replace the motorists.
existing structure. A bicyclist/pedestrian
Water Quality
bridge with Alternative A would create an
additional, new, permanent visual resource in Urbanized development within the lower
the area. A temporary detour bridge with Willamette River watershed (between
Alternative B would create a temporary Willamette Falls and the river’s confluence with
visual resource in the area. the Columbia River) and the associated increase
in impervious surface area have increased the
• The retaining walls and rock cuts associated pollutant load of stormwater. The water quality
with the Build alternatives on the west side level of the lower Willamette River is significantly
would create more rock faces, but these degraded from its pre-settlement period.
features could soften over time as vegetation Recently, federal and state regulations have
matured. stemmed the degradation and are incrementally
improving water quality.
If the Tacoma Street area, and the properties
near the east-side bridge-ending, redevelop in the • The Build alternatives would incrementally
future, the visual resources would be somewhat contribute to improved lower Willamette
modified. River water quality because stormwater
treatment would be provided for more
Geology stormwater than would be added by the
Construction of the existing Sellwood Bridge may project. The No Build Alternative would
have led to the instability of an ancient landslide maintain existing conditions and would not
that exists at the west end of the bridge. The
placement of fills and bridge piers on top of the

Cumulative Impacts
incrementally improve lower Willamette the base flood elevation. These Build
River water quality. alternatives would contribute to a cumulative
impact that would alter the floodway by
• The Build alternatives would cause an removing material from the floodway or by
increase of dissolved copper and zinc into the redefining the boundary of the regulated
Willamette River. Although the levels would floodway so that property not currently
be below Oregon Department of within the floodway would be designated as
Environmental Quality (DEQ) limits, they such. This floodway alteration could reduce
would add to the quantity of dissolved metals other property owners’ abilities to develop
in the river. New technologies are currently property. Further design work would be
under development and would likely be undertaken on the Build alternative that is
available by the time of project construction. selected to determine whether the piers
These technologies could greatly improve could be altered to avoid the impact.
dissolved metals removal, incrementally
improving lower Willamette River water • With all alternatives, future development
quality. within the lower Willamette River floodplain
could contribute to a small increase in the
• The City of Portland is currently constructing base flood elevation. However, these projects
the Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) would be required to comply with local
project, which will divert stormwater from floodplain regulations to avoid or mitigate
flowing into the Willamette River, therefore floodplain impacts.
improving water quality in the Willamette
River in Portland. Other transportation Aquatic Resources
projects and large developments within the More urbanized development within the lower
lower Willamette River watershed would Willamette River watershed, along with
result in additional impervious surfaces. channelization of the river and its tributaries,
However, these projects would be required have incrementally decreased the aquatic habitat
to provide water quality mitigation, such as area along the Willamette River and its
new or rehabilitated stormwater facilities. tributaries. Several fish species are Endangered
Overall, this would incrementally improve Species Act (ESA)-listed as threatened. In
water quality in the lower Willamette River addition, the lower Willamette River between its
watershed. confluence with the Columbia River and
Willamette Falls is identified as critical habitat for
Hydraulics
listed salmonid species, and is proposed as critical
Increased stormwater runoff from new habitat for the Southern Distinct Population
impervious surfaces within the lower Willamette Segment (DPS) of North American green
River watershed and new structures within the sturgeon. While the main concerns are pollutants
Willamette River floodway has changed the in the water and issues related to stormwater
historical and pre-development floodway and runoff, the steady reduction of riparian habitat
floodplain boundaries. In addition, upstream dams along the lower Willamette River has contributed
and urbanization along the Willamette River have to degradation of the aquatic habitat. The City of
reduced the tendency of the Willamette River to Portland has begun restoration of aquatic habitat
flood. within the lower Willamette River watershed,
• Alternatives A, B, C, E, and D Refined, as including on the west side of the Willamette
evaluated during the preliminary design River between OR 43 and the Willamette River
phase, would contribute to a small increase in near the existing Sellwood Bridge.

Cumulative Impacts
• Proposed mitigation and ongoing habitat Alternative D Refined would improve

restoration activities by the City of Portland vegetation in the Stephens Creek area and
would improve aquatic resource habitat in along two unnamed streams within Powers
the Stephens Creek area and at off-site Marine Park.
mitigation areas.
• The project would permanently remove
• The Build alternatives would result in impacts between 0.5 and 0.7 acre of Westside
to a very small additional increment of Riparian habitat. Approximately 150 acres of
riparian area. With the Build alternatives, riparian habitat would remain on the lower
treatment of stormwater in the project area Willamette River between Willamette Falls
would be improved, even though the volume and its confluence with the Columbia River.
would be incrementally increased. A net While the impact would be relatively small,
improvement in the quality of water riparian habitat is important to the health of
delivered into the Willamette River is the river, and even small increments of lost
expected with the Build alternatives. With riparian habitat would add up to permanent
Alternative D Refined, natural area degradation.
restoration and enhancement along Stephens
• Temporarily disturbed existing vegetation
Creek in Willamette Moorage Park and along
within the right-of-way would be revegetated
two streams in Powers Marine Park would
where feasible or would be mitigated by
improve aquatic habitat along the Willamette
restoration or enhancement at another
River in the lower Willamette River
location. Disturbed vegetation would mature
watershed.
to improve wildlife habitat and cover some
• In-stream habitat could be affected by future retaining walls.
development or redevelopment. However,
• Existing vegetation restoration and
impacts would be mitigated on-site or at off-
enhancement activities by the City of
site mitigation areas.
Portland on the west side would improve the
Vegetation natural areas and overall wildlife habitat.
Urbanization has incrementally reduced Benefits would result from the removal of
vegetation along the Willamette River within the non-native plant species (such as Himalayan
lower Willamette River watershed (between blackberry and Japanese knotweed) and
Willamette Falls and the confluence of the river replacement with native species.
with the Columbia River) by fragmenting and
Wetlands
decreasing the quantity and quality of vegetated
More urbanized development near the river and
areas. The City of Portland has been conducting
within the lower Willamette River watershed, as
ongoing vegetation restoration and enhancement
well as channelization of the river from industrial
projects throughout the city, including a program
land uses and dam construction in the Willamette
to restore native vegetation on the west side
Falls area, have incrementally decreased the
between OR 43 and the river near the existing
wetland area along the Willamette River in the
Sellwood Bridge.
lower Willamette River watershed. However, the
• The Build alternatives would permanently City of Portland has enhanced or restored
remove large native trees and shrubs and historic wetland areas within the lower
some riparian vegetation, and would Willamette River watershed (such as within
permanently reduce the natural area on the Powers Marine Park, Willamette Moorage Park,
west side. However, mitigation with Ross Island, Oaks Bottom, and the South

Cumulative Impacts
Waterfront District) and has plans for further temporarily reducing the quality of habitat,
wetland restoration along the Willamette River. within the project right-of-way. Connectivity
on the west side between River View
• Unavoidably disturbed wetlands (0.1 acre) Cemetery and the Willamette River would be
with Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E would be slightly improved because the project would
restored in place or mitigated by restoration create a very-low-volume access road under
or enhancement at another location, such as OR 43. It is likely that wildlife would use this
the Stephens Creek, Oaks Bottom, or South access road, particularly at night, thus
Waterfront areas. There would be no net avoiding attempts to cross OR 43. The
loss in wetland area in the lower Willamette creation of a wildlife-friendly passage of the
River watershed. crossing of Stephens Creek would slightly
• The preferred alternative (Alternative D improve connectivity within park areas. The
Refined) would not impact any wetlands. wildlife species found in the project area,
however, are common species, generously
Wildlife distributed throughout the urban area.
The construction of transportation facilities on
• Ongoing restoration activities by the City of
the west side of the Willamette River has
Portland at Stephens Creek and Willamette
incrementally reduced wildlife habitat by
Moorage Park and mitigation in the study
fragmenting and decreasing the quantity and
area or off-site mitigation areas would
quality of wildlife habitat. During the pre-
improve wildlife habitat, particularly fish
settlement period, this area probably supported
habitat.
an abundance of wildlife, including bear and game
animals. This area, which has been urbanized for Noise
over 100 years, now typically supports wildlife Increased traffic on OR 43 and the Sellwood
that is adapted to urban habitats. Although the Bridge has incrementally contributed to
area has been urbanized, the habitats located increasing noise levels. Historic noise levels are
within the surrounding natural-area parks support not known. However, it is safe to assume that
abundant wildlife, including raccoon, opossum, mill activities created a certain noise environment
river otter, beaver, and small rodents. Over on the east side of the project area. The
200 species of birds have been recorded within presence of train tracks also indicates an
2 miles of the project area, most within the parks environment that was fairly noisy. As the mill was
fringing the river. The City of Portland has replaced by commercial businesses and rail use
started a program to restore wildlife habitat on diminished, the primary source of noise became
the west side between OR 43 and the river. vehicle traffic on the bridge. Starting when the
• The Build alternatives would further reduce bridge was built in 1925, traffic on the bridge has
and fragment the remaining wildlife habitats steadily increased. As evidenced by fairly new
and corridors in the study area. However, condominiums built under the bridge itself, the
removal of non-native species and planting of current noise levels are not sufficient to
native species would improve the habitat that discourage development and use of the
would remain. immediate area. It is expected that future noise
generated would be the same with either the
• The wider right-of-way, infrastructure, and Build alternatives or the No Build Alternative
retaining walls of the Build alternatives would because the traffic is expected to be similar with
adversely impact wildlife by permanently all the alternatives. However, the configuration of
reducing the quantity of habitat, and by the bridge (primarily the deck width) and the

Cumulative Impacts
alignment of the bridge affect which properties • Volume projections for future-year traffic
are impacted. Therefore, the cumulative noise incorporated traffic related to other
effect would vary slightly based on the alternative. reasonably foreseeable actions. As a result,
Alternative E would create the greatest shifts in the impacts identified as direct impacts
noise impacts. None of the alternatives would included expected cumulative impacts. No
significantly increase the level of noise in the significant additional cumulative energy
project area. Nor would the alternatives be impacts would be expected.
expected to significantly increase noise levels in
the future. Volume of traffic, speed of traffic, mix • The Build alternatives would substantially
of traffic, distance from traffic, and pavement improve the opportunity for multi-modal
types affect noise levels. Because the capacity of travel by improving bicyclist and pedestrian
the road network in the area is very limited, facilities across the river, improving bicyclist
traffic increases would not contribute enough and pedestrian connections from the bridge
growth to substantially increase noise levels. In on each side of the river, and reinstating
addition, as traffic volumes increased, speeds transit service on the bridge. These modes
would decrease, offsetting the noise-related are more fuel efficient than auto travel.
impact of the traffic growth that would occur. Therefore, all Build alternatives would
The other issues mentioned previously would support strategies for reducing energy
contribute little, or perhaps not at all, to the consumption.
increase in noise levels. Probably the greatest • The energy model used to project energy
potential to increase the number of noise- usage does not address alternative fuel usage,
impacted residences is the likelihood that more innovations in vehicle fuel efficiency, or policy
residences will be constructed in the trends designed to reduce vehicle miles
noise-impacted area. traveled.
• Increased traffic would contribute a small
Air Quality
increment of additional noise in the study
Gradually increasing traffic volumes over the last
area. The noise impacts of the Build
80 years on OR 43 and the Sellwood Bridge have
alternatives in 2035 would constitute a just-
incrementally contributed to increased vehicular
perceivable increase in noise levels over the
emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases in
existing conditions, representing a small
the study area. Since the advent of the Clean Air
incremental contribution to the overall noise
Act, air quality standards regulating auto
levels.
emissions have decreased regulated pollutants in
Energy the Portland metropolitan area. Greenhouse gas
Increased traffic on OR 43 and the Sellwood emissions continue to increase in the Portland
Bridge has incrementally contributed to increased metropolitan area, however, primarily because of
transportation-related energy consumption in the the growth in traffic volume.
Portland metropolitan area. Vehicles have • Total vehicular emissions of pollutants has
become more fuel-efficient. However, further declined and is expected to continue to
reductions in transportation-related energy decline because of new technology; phasing
consumption on the Sellwood Bridge would be out of older, more polluting vehicles; and
limited because transit has been restricted on the increased emphasis on low carbon fuels,
current bridge and the bicyclist and pedestrian vehicle fuel efficiency, and policies to reduce
facilities on the current bridge are inadequate. greenhouse gas emissions.

Cumulative Impacts
• Climate change is an increasing local, regional, materials and finished products. These historic
national, and global concern. As described in and existing land uses have contributed to
Section 3.1 (Transportation), 2035 traffic contaminated sites and potential hazards. Hazards
demands in the study area are estimated to associated with various businesses have been
be similar with the No Build Alternative and identified in the Sellwood Bridge area. The area is
with each of the Build alternatives. This is in transition away from light industrial uses
because none of the Build alternatives would toward residential, service, and office-space uses.
increase vehicle-traffic-carrying capacity along Most of the newer land uses do not present a
OR 43 beyond the immediate area of the high risk of creating contamination. In general,
bridge or along SE Tacoma Street east of the contaminated sites are being cleaned up and new
bridge. Peak-hour vehicle miles traveled on hazards are not being created. Therefore, the
roadways with each of the Build alternatives long-term outlook is for a less contaminated
would be similar to those of the No Build environment in the Sellwood Bridge area.
Alternative. As described in Section 3.21.2,
• Contaminated sites and potential hazards
greenhouse gas emissions would be the same
have been identified. The businesses and
among all Build alternatives, and likely less
individuals at these sites have curtailed their
than with the No Build Alternative, because
polluting activities, and the sites are being
the Build alternatives would encourage travel
cleaned up. With the Build alternatives, if
modes that would emit fewer greenhouse
identified contaminated sites were acquired
gases per capita. (The Build alternatives
as right-of-way, cleanup activities would
would provide new bicyclist and pedestrian
continue.
facilities, reinstate transit service across the
bridge, and be designed to accommodate a • Accidental polluting spills could occur.
future streetcar line.). Because best management practices govern
Regional growth in population will increase hazardous materials associated with
traffic and congestion in the Sellwood Bridge construction activities, it is not likely that
corridor. By 2035, a 33 percent increase in construction would cause pollution.
travel demand is expected in the corridor for • By reinstating truck traffic across the bridge,
both the No Build Alternative and the Build a truck carrying hazardous materials could be
alternatives. However, in the future, the source of a hazardous-material spill.
expected environmental improvements to However, the Build alternatives would
automotive and fuel technologies will tend to improve both roadway design and safety;
decrease greenhouse gas emissions. In therefore, the accident potential would be
addition, reinstating transit service across the low. The Build alternatives could be designed
bridge and improving bicyclist and pedestrian to ensure that any hazardous material spills
facilities and connections would promote and would be prevented from entering the river.
encourage travel modes that have fewer or
no greenhouse gas emissions compared to
automobile travel.
Hazardous Materials
Industrial land uses were historically located in
the Sellwood area between SE 6th Avenue and
the Willamette River because of its reliance on
the river and then rail lines for transport of raw

Chapter 4. Comparison of Alternatives
Chapter 3 presented an evaluation of the  Transit and freight use

environmental consequences of the No Build
Alternative and the Build alternatives for social  Bicyclist and pedestrian use
and natural environmental disciplines. Based on  Visual impacts
these findings and input from the public and
project groups throughout the project’s planning 4.1.1 Structural Integrity and
process, the project team developed key
Motorized Vehicle Safety
differentiators to help the public and decision-
makers understand the differences between The existing bridge has inadequate structural
alternatives. This chapter compares alternatives integrity. It cannot safely accommodate various
by identifying key items that distinguish the vehicle types (including transit vehicles, trucks,
following: and emergency vehicles) and cannot withstand
moderate seismic events. In addition, the
 No Build Alternative versus Build roadway design for the bridge and the west-side
alternatives. No Build Alternative impacts interchange with OR 43 is substandard and
and impacts common to all Build alternatives. unsafe.
 Among Build alternatives. Impacts unique The Build alternatives would provide structural
to individual Build alternatives. and safety improvements by:
 Among elements of the Build  Eliminating the existing 10-ton weight

alternatives. Elements of the Build limit. This would allow trucks, buses, and
alternatives include alignment, west-side emergency vehicles to cross the bridge. The
interchange type, basic bridge cross-section, No Build Alternative would maintain the
SE 6th Avenue intersection—neighborhood existing 10-ton weight limit and restrict
cut-through traffic versus traffic operations, trucks, buses, and emergency vehicles from
and rehabilitation versus replacement. using the bridge.
 Improving the existing geometric

4.1 Key Differentiators deficiencies of the interchange with
between the No Build OR 43. This would upgrade the interchange
Alternative and the to meet existing roadway design standards,
which would improve safety for automobiles
Build Alternatives and emergency, transit, and freight vehicles.
The following subsections describe the key The No Build Alternative would not improve
differentiators between the No Build Alternative existing geometric deficiencies.
and all of the Build alternatives:
 Retrofitting or upgrading the bridge to
 Structural integrity and motorized vehicle existing seismic standards. This would
safety improve the ability of the rehabilitated or
replaced bridge to withstand a seismic event.
 OR 43 traffic flow

Key Differentiators between the No Build Alternative and the Build Alternatives
The No Build Alternative would not retrofit 4.1.3 Transit and Freight Use
the bridge to existing seismic standards.
The existing bridge cannot safely accommodate
 Providing a 75-year design life. The No transit and freight vehicles because it has
Build Alternative would provide only a inadequate structural integrity. Because the Build
20-year design life. Additional investment alternatives would eliminate the 10-ton weight
would be required to continue use of the restriction on the Sellwood Bridge, transit and
bridge beyond the 20-year period. freight vehicles would be allowed on the bridge.
Table 4.1-1 summarizes the structural integrity All the bus routes serving the study area would
and safety elements for the No Build Alternative continue to operate, and the two bus lines that
and the Build alternatives. were discontinued when weight-limit restrictions
were placed on the bridge would be reinstated.
4.1.2 OR 43 Traffic Flow The reintroduction of the bus routes would
Traffic traveling to the Sellwood Bridge currently result in a slight mode shift from automobile trips
affects mobility on OR 43. A short ramp from to transit because of increased transit accessibility
OR 43 northbound and no ramp from OR 43 to Sellwood residents. This would result in a
southbound cause vehicles to backup onto lower percentage of automobile trips across the
OR 43. This situation affects traffic traveling bridge under the Build alternatives than under the
between Portland and Lake Oswego. The existing No Build Alternative.
signalized intersection south of the bridge on Currently, trucks of more than 10 tons that
OR 43 also causes traffic backups. The Build would normally use the Sellwood Bridge must
alternatives would improve OR 43 traffic flow by: travel out-of-direction to other bridge crossings,
 Providing free-flow north/south such as the Ross Island Bridge and the I-205
movement on OR 43 through the Abernethy Bridge. This truck detour would be
bottom level of a new interchange. The removed in all the Build alternatives, resulting in
No Build Alternative would not allow free- more direct routes for freight to and from their
flow traffic movement because it would destinations in the Sellwood area.
maintain the existing signalized intersection Table 4.1-3 summarizes transit and freight use
on the south side of the existing OR 43/ questions for the No Build Alternative and the
Sellwood Bridge interchange. Build alternatives.
 Increasing the vehicle storage area to
reduce backups. The new interchange
4.1.4 Bicyclist and Pedestrian
would provide ramps to the Sellwood Bridge Use
from OR 43. During the peak periods, Under the No Build Alternative, the facilities
vehicles traveling to the Sellwood Bridge would remain the same, which would continue to
would backup on these ramps rather than on challenge bicyclist and pedestrian travel across
OR 43, reducing backups on OR 43. The No the bridge. All Build alternatives would improve
Build Alternative would maintain existing bicyclist and pedestrian conditions compared to
conditions—that is, Sellwood Bridge traffic the No Build Alternative, and would therefore
would continue to force vehicles to backup increase bicyclist and pedestrian use across the
onto OR 43, impeding north/south traffic. bridge.
Table 4.1-2 summarizes OR 43 traffic flow for the Table 4.1-4 summarizes bicyclist and pedestrian
No Build Alternative and the Build alternatives. use for the No Build Alternative and the Build
alternatives. The analysis identified impacts

TABLE 4.1-1
Structural Integrity and Safety by No Build Alternative and Build Alternatives
No Build Build
Element Alternative Alternatives
Allow trucks, transit vehicles, and emergency vehicles to use the
bridge? No Yes
Improve safety for motorists at the OR 43 interchange? No Yes
Improve the bridge’s ability to withstand a seismic event? No Yes
Extend the bridge’s design life? Yes, for 20 years Yes, for 75 years
TABLE 4.1-2
OR 43 Traffic Flow by No Build Alternative and Build Alternatives
No Build Build
Provide north-south free-flow mobility on OR 43 without a
signalized intersection? No Yes
Reduce backups on OR 43, especially during the
afternoon/evening peak period? No Yes
Provide additional storage area for vehicles traveling to the
Sellwood Bridge? No Yes
TABLE 4.1-3
Transit and Freight Use Questions by No Build Alternative and Build Alternatives
No Build Build
Allow buses to cross the bridge? No Yes
Reinstate two bus lines across the bridge? No Yes
Allow trucks of more than 10 tons to cross the bridge? No Yes
Reduce out-of-direction travel for freight and transit vehicles? No Yes
TABLE 4.1-4
Bicyclist and Pedestrian Use by No Build Alternative and Build Alternatives
No Build Build
Improve bicyclist and pedestrian facilities? No Yes
Projected daily bicyclist and pedestrian usage in 2035 (weekday) 1,970 9,350
Projected daily bicyclist and pedestrian usage in 2035 (weekend) 3,020 14,350

of the different bicycle and pedestrian facilities  Business displacements

among the Build alternatives.
 Maintenance of access to businesses and
4.1.5 Visual Impacts residences
The three types of west-side interchanges  Park and recreational facility impacts
proposed under the Build alternatives
 Section 4(f)
(roundabout, trumpet, and single-point signalized)
would significantly change the landscape west of  Regulated floodway
the river. Although mitigation measures could
mediate the visual impacts from retaining walls 4.2.1 Bridge Closure
and rock face cuts, the Build alternatives would Alternatives A, B (without temporary detour
still cause significant negative visual impacts from bridge), and C would require bridge closure
tree loss, rock face cuts, and retaining walls during most of the construction period, resulting
above the southbound ramps of the interchanges. in significant negative impacts. These impacts
would vary by the length of bridge closure.
To construct the interchange, the hillside above
Although the No Build Alternative would result
OR 43 would be cut and vegetation would be
in bridge closure for 6 to 8 months for
removed. These activities would have significant
maintenance activities, closure periods for the
adverse impacts to the visual environment. New
Build alternatives would be much longer and
structures on the west riverbank would include
would be expected to have more severe
retaining walls and elevated ramps on bridges.
economic impacts. The largest losses to business
New retaining walls at least 20 feet higher than
income could be expected under Alternative C
the proposed southbound ramps would be
because of the longer construction period
exposed. The views from Sellwood toward the
(42 months) compared to Alternatives A and B
West Hills across the Willamette River would be
without temporary detour bridge (24 months
the most strongly impacted by hillside cuts and
each).
retaining walls. The views of those traveling on
OR 43 also would be highly impacted with any of Major negative impacts related to bridge closure
the Build alternatives. would include the following:
 Businesses. Regional businesses would be

4.2 Key Differentiators
affected by increased travel times for their
among Build customers and suppliers. Businesses on
Alternatives SE Tacoma Street and within a few blocks of
SE Tacoma Street between SE 6th Avenue
The following subsections describe the key and SE 17th Avenue would have reduced
differentiators among Build alternatives: access during the closure period. Reduced
 Bridge closure access would translate to lower sales and loss
of owner and labor income, all else being
 Construction cost equal. Total annual owner income losses for
 Ability to phase construction businesses in this area are estimated to range
from $782,000 to $2,018,000 (in 2005
 Bicyclists and pedestrians dollars), about 9 percent to 22 percent of
 Transit total business income in that area. Total
annual labor income losses within the same
 Residential displacements area are estimated to range from $1.1 million

to $2.8 million, about 5 percent to construction. These delays would result in

13 percent of total labor income in that area. travel time and vehicle operating cost
Businesses located on SE Tacoma Street increases for Sellwood Bridge users and
would be expected to experience more other drivers ranging from $63.3 million to
negative impacts than those on side streets. $110.8 million (in 2008 dollars) for
Alternatives A, B (without the temporary
 All bridge users. All existing bridge users detour bridge), and C.
would have increased travel times and more
circuitous routes because of detours. Table 4.2-1 summarizes information about
Pedestrians (for whom several miles of out-of whether the bridge would be closed and, if
direction travel to other bridges might make closed, the duration, business loss, and commuter
walking trips infeasible) would incur the most cost. Quantified business loss estimates are for
substantial impacts. Bicyclists would also the immediate project vicinity; additional losses
incur substantial increases in travel times. would be expected across a larger geographic
area.
 Transportation system users. Out-of-
direction travel for Sellwood Bridge users 4.2.2 Construction Cost
would also affect other users of the Construction cost estimates were prepared for
transportation system. Rerouting of the Build alternatives. These estimates, which are
peak-hour Sellwood Bridge trips to other, based on conceptual design-level data, provide a
already congested, facilities would increase basis for cost comparisons among alternatives.
travel times and costs for all users of those More detailed cost data will be available following
facilities. Travel model results estimate the preliminary design of the preferred
additional morning and afternoon weekday alternative.
peak-hour vehicle hours of delay caused by
the Sellwood Bridge closure during
TABLE 4.2-1
Bridge Closure, Duration, Business Loss, and Commuter Cost
Commuter
Business Loss Cost during
Bridge during Closure Closure
Alternative Closure? If Closed, Duration of Closure (2005 dollars)a (2008 dollars)b
A Yes 24 months (Same duration of $3.8 to $9.8 million $63.3 million
closure for bicyclists and
pedestrians on separate
bicycle/pedestrian bridge)
B Yes 24 months $3.8 to $9.8 million $63.3 million
B with Temporary No Not closed Not applicable Not applicable
Detour Bridge
C Yes 42 months $6.7 to $17.0 million $110.8 million
D No Not closed c Not applicable Not applicable
E No Not closed Not applicable Not applicable
D Refined No Not closed c Not applicable Not applicable
a
Owner and labor income
b
Travel time and operating costs
c
Except for interim closures to replace the existing bridge and construct the new bridge

Figure 4.2-1 shows the total estimated 4.2.3 Ability to Phase

construction cost for each alternative in year
2012 dollars. The construction costs for the Build
Construction
alternatives would range between $280 million This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)
and $361 million. considers each Build alternative as a complete
packaged project. However, funding for the
Figures 4.2-2, 4.2-3, and 4.2-4 summarize the entire project has not been secured. If available
construction costs for three elements of the funding were less than the full project cost, the
Build alternatives: bridge, west-side interchange, project could be phased to construct various
and east-side connection. These estimates are portions at different times during a 20-year
based on conceptual-design-level data to provide timeframe. The bridge could be rehabilitated or
a basis for cost comparisons among alternatives. newly constructed in a first phase and the
More detailed cost data will be available following west-side interchange could be constructed in a
the preliminary design. second phase.
Figure 4.2-2 shows the estimated bridge As shown on Figure 4.2-5, Alternatives A, B, C,
construction cost for each alternative in year D, and D Refined would rehabilitate or construct
2012 dollars. The bridge construction costs for a new bridge on the existing alignment.
the Build alternatives would range between Therefore, if sufficient funding were not available
$173 million and $269 million. to construct both the bridge and the interchange
elements at the same time, a rehabilitated or new
Figure 4.2-3 shows the estimated west-side
bridge could use the existing west-side
interchange construction cost for each alternative
interchange until there was adequate funding to
in year 2012 dollars. The west-side interchange
reconstruct the interchange.
construction costs for the Build alternatives
would range between $88 million and Construction of Alternative E could not be
$111 million. The construction cost for the phased in this way because it would not use the
signalized interchange for Alternative D Refined existing alignment. A new bridge and interchange
would be higher than for the other alternatives would need to be built at the same time to
because the roadway from the west side of the connect the new bridge with OR 43 north of the
signalized intersection that would provide access existing interchange. Alternative E would require
to the Superintendent’s House at River View full funding to complete the new bridge and the
Cemetery, Powers Marine Park, and the Staff west-side interchange.
Jennings property would pass behind (west of)
the Superintendent’s House, as preferred by the Alternative A could be staged in three phases if
City of Portland, in order to accommodate a necessary—construction of the bicycle and
future streetcar line. pedestrian bridge, rehabilitation of the vehicular
bridge, and reconstruction of the west-side
Figure 4.2-4 shows the estimated east-side interchange.
connection construction cost for each alternative
in year 2012 dollars. The east-side connection Construction of a new bridge under
construction costs for the Build alternatives Alternatives D and D Refined would be phased.
would range between $1.6 million and Half of the bridge would be constructed alongside
$5.4 million. the existing bridge. Traffic would be switched to
the new half-bridge, and the existing bridge would
be demolished. The second half of the bridge
would then be constructed and traffic would be
centered on the new structure.

FIGURE 4.2-1
Total Construction Cost in 2012 Millions of Dollars by Alternative and Bridge Type
FIGURE 4.2-2
Bridge Construction Cost in 2012 Millions of Dollars by Alternative and Bridge Type

FIGURE 4.2-3
West-side Interchange Construction Cost in 2012 Millions of Dollars by Alternative
FIGURE 4.2-4
East-side Connection Construction Cost in 2012 Millions of Dollars by Alternative

FIGURE 4.2-5
Build Alternative Alignments
4.2.4 Bicyclists and Pedestrians

Table 4.2-2 summarizes the potential ability to Bicyclist and pedestrian facilities and connections
phase construction of the Build alternatives. to other facilities would vary among the Build
alternatives, as shown in Table 4.2-3.
4.2.5 Transit
TABLE 4.2-2 Transit over the Sellwood Bridge would be
Can Construction Be Phased? reinstated under all Build alternatives. All Build
Alternative Phase Construction? alternatives would provide for 44 feet of railway
right-of-way at the west end of the bridge to
A Yes
accommodate two streetcar rail tracks and space
B Yes for a paved Willamette Greenway Trail (West
C Yes Bank). Among Build alternatives, the west-side
interchange and basic bridge cross-section would
D Yes affect transit.
E No
(On a new alignment)  Bus stops. Bus stops for Alternatives B, D,
E, and D Refined would be located in the
D Refined Yes west-side interchange area, allowing for
efficient connections among bicyclists,

TABLE 4.2-3
Bicyclist and Pedestrian Elements by Build Alternative
Element A B C D E D Refined
Is there separation from Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
motorized traffic for (Separate (Railing (Separates (For (Curb only) (For pedes-
bicyclists and pedestrians bridge) and curb) bicyclists and pedestrians trians only;
on the shared-use path? pedestrians only; bicycle bicycle lane
on separate lane next to next to
bridge deck) motorized motorized
traffic) traffic)
What is the total width 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 37 feet 24 feet 37 feet
designated for bicyclists
and pedestrians?
How many potential 0 3 0 4 4 4
bicyclist and pedestrian (North, (All four (All four (All four
conflict points with south, and legs) legs) legs)
vehicles exist in the west- west legs)
side interchange?
Might visually impaired No Yes No No No No
pedestrians be adversely
impacted?
Are bicyclists and No Yes No Yes Yes Yes
pedestrians routed
through the interchange?
Are there safety and Yes No Yes No No No
security concerns due to (Separate (Separate
complete separation from bridge) bridge deck)
other bridge users?
Is there a link to the Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Willamette Greenway (Both sides (Both (Both sides (Both sides (Only from (Both sides
Trail and the future of bridge) sides of of bridge) of bridge) north side of of bridge)
streetcar line? bridge) bridge)
Is there a link to the Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Springwater Corridor (Must use (Must use (Ramp (Must use (Must use (Must use
Trail? surface surface provided surface surface surface
streets) streets) from bridge) streets) streets) streets)
Is there a protected No No No Yes (at SE Yes (at SE Yes (at SE
crossing of SE Tacoma 6th Avenue) 6th Avenue) 6th Avenue)
Street near the east bridge
approach?

pedestrians, transit, and the planned future 4.2.7 Business Displacements

streetcar line. For Alternatives A and C, bus
The number of business displacements would
stops would be located north of the west-
vary among the Build alternatives. Business
side interchange at SW Taylors Ferry Road.
displacements under the Build alternatives would
 Ability to provide transit reliability and affect the following businesses:
to accommodate future transit.
 Sellwood Building (a professional office
Dedicated transit lanes on the bridge
building with nine businesses that is located
(Alternative E) would increase transit
below the east approach of the existing
reliability compared to basic bridge cross-
bridge)
sections under the other Build alternatives.
The dedicated transit lanes would provide for  River Park Center (a three-story professional
free flow of transit vehicles across the bridge office building with approximately 37 separate
(unimpeded by automobile and truck traffic) businesses that is located east of the existing
and would better accommodate future transit bridge on SE Spokane Street)
options, such as streetcars. However, the
improvement in transit reliability would be  Riverside Corral (an adult entertainment
minimal because of peak-period traffic lounge that is located in the northwest
congestion and because dedicated transit quadrant of the SE Tacoma Street/SE 6th
lanes would not exist on OR 43 or Avenue intersection)
SE Tacoma Street. (Such dedicated lanes
 Staff Jennings (a former commercial boat
would only be on the bridge.) dealership [closed March 2010] that is
Table 4.2-4 summarizes information about transit located on the west side immediately north
elements among the Build alternatives. of the existing bridge)
 Grand Place (with two vacant office spaces

4.2.6 Residential Displacements
that is located in a mixed-use building north
Residential displacements would vary among the of SE Tacoma Street between SE Grand
Build alternatives. All residential displacements Avenue and the Springwater Corridor Trail)
would occur on the east side of the river affecting
the following developments: Each Build alternative would displace between
9 and 48 businesses, as shown in Table 4.2-6.
 Sellwood Harbor Condominiums
(immediately south of the existing bridge) Figure 4.2-7 shows the business displacements by
Build alternative.
 River Park Condominiums (immediately
north of the existing bridge) In addition to these business displacements, the
following business impacts would occur:
 Grand Place Condominiums (north of
SE Tacoma Street between SE Grand Avenue  Alternative B with temporary detour
and SE Oaks Park Way) bridge. Buildings in the portion of Brinsfield
Boat Basin north of SE Tacoma Street would
Each Build alternative would displace between be demolished and displaced. No buildings in
one and six residential units, as shown in the portion of Brinsfield Boat Basin south of
Table 4.2-5. SE Tacoma Street would be displaced.
Figure 4.2-6 shows the residential displacements
by Build alternative.

TABLE 4.2-4
Transit Elements by Build Alternative
Are bus stops located within the west-side

No Yes No Yes Yes Yes
interchange area?
Are there dedicated transit lanes? No No No No Yes No
TABLE 4.2-5
Residential Displacements by Build Alternative
Alternative Number of Displaced Residential Units
A 1 unit in River Park
B 1 unit in River Park
B with Temporary Detour Bridge 1 unit in River Park
C 1 unit in River Park
D 5 (4 units in Sellwood Harbor, 1 unit in River Park)
E 6 (All units in Grand Place)
D Refined 5 (4 units in Sellwood Harbor, 1 unit in River Park)
TABLE 4.2-6
Business Displacements by Build Alternative
Alternative Number of Displaced Businesses
A 9 (Sellwood Building)
B 9 (Sellwood Building)
B with Temporary 10 (Sellwood Building and Riverside Corral)
Detour Bridge
C 10 (Sellwood Building and Staff Jennings [vacant; closed March 2010])
D 9 (Sellwood Building)
E 48 (Sellwood Building, River Park Center, and Grand Place)
D Refined 9 (Sellwood Building)

FIGURE 4.2-6
Residences Displaced by Build Alternatives

FIGURE 4.2-7
Businesses Displaced by Build Alternative

FIGURE 4.2-7, cont.


FIGURE 4.2-7, cont.


 Alternative C. Some of the accessory different location if the access from OR 43 were
buildings part of Brinsfield Boat Basin south closed.
of SE Tacoma Street would be displaced with
Table 4.2-7 summarizes the status of the River
the SE Grand Avenue Loop option (which is
View Cemetery access from OR 43 under each
described in Subsection 4.3.4). Access from
Build alternative.
OR 43 to River View Cemetery would be
removed. (This is discussed in
4.2.9 Park and Recreational
Subsection 4.2.8.)
Facility Impacts
 Alternative E. The accessory buildings part Impacts at the following three park and
of the Staff Jennings property would be recreational facilities would be similar for all Build
displaced. alternatives:
4.2.8 Maintenance of Access to  Springwater Corridor Trail

Businesses and Residences  Willamette Greenway Trail (East Bank)
Access to all non-displaced businesses and  Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank)
residences in the project area would be Impacts at six other park and recreational
maintained during and after construction under facilities would be specific to individual Build
all Build alternatives. However, the design of the alternatives, as described in Table 4.2-8.
trumpet interchange in Alternative C would
require removal of the existing access point to 4.2.10 Section 4(f)
River View Cemetery from OR 43 immediately Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of
south of the existing OR 43/ Sellwood Bridge Transportation (USDOT) Act of 1966 applies to
interchange. It is expected that this change in this project because eligible recreational
access would negatively impact the existing resources and historic properties are present and
funeral home business within the cemetery; would be impacted by the Build alternatives. The
instead of the using the existing access from Final Section 4(f) Evaluation is appended to this
OR 43, visitors would have to use a circuitous FEIS.
route to reach the funeral home business from
the existing River View Cemetery access point on Section 4(f) requires that particular attention be
SW Taylors Ferry Road. The cemetery owners given to the proposed use of any land from a
have indicated they would move the business to a significant publicly owned park or recreation
area; wildlife and waterfowl refuge; or historic
site that is on or considered eligible for the
TABLE 4.2-7
Status of River View Cemetery Access from National Register of Historic Places (NRHP or
OR 43 National Register). Project actions requiring the
use of such resources must document that no
Alternative Access from OR 43?
feasible and prudent alternatives to their use
A Yes exist, and must fully consider measures to
B Yes minimize harm to those resources.
C No Section 4(f) specifies that the Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA) may only approve a
D Yes
transportation project requiring the use of a
E Yes Section 4(f) resource if:
D Refined Yes

TABLE 4.2-8
Alternative-specific Adverse Impacts to Park and Recreational Facilities
Park or
Recreation
al Facility A B B/TDB C D E D Refined
Oaks Pioneer 0.12 acre None Visual and None None Visual and None
Park (bike/ped noise impacts noise
bridge east from impacts
landing temporary from
within detour bridge
park) bridge structure
structure
Sellwood 0.38 acre None None None None None None
Riverfront (Bike/ped (but new
Park bridge bridge is
crosses adjacent to
above park)
park)
Sellwood Bike/ped Bike/ped None Bike/ped None None None
Bridge facility over facility over (bike/ped facility over (bike/ped (bike/ped (bike/ped
Recreational river river closed facility river facility facility facility
Trail closed during provided closed provided provided provided
during construc- across river) during across across across
construction construc- river) river) river)
tion tion
Willamette None None None East-end East-end East-end None
Greenway connection connection connection
Trail (SE adds adds adds
Spokane vehicles to vehicles to vehicles to
Street SE Spokane SE Spokane SE Spokane
Section) Street Street Street
Powers 1.57 acres a 2.15 acres a 2.15 acres a 1.46 acres a 2.11 acres a 0.76 acre a 1.02 acres a
Marine Park
Willamette 2.22 acres a 1.75 acres a 2.15 acres a 2.86 acres a 1.75 acres a 3.05 acres a 0.35 acre a
Moorage
Park
Total 8 6 6 7 6 7 5
Facilities
Impacted c
a
A partial acquisition that includes acquisition for transportation use (such as roadway or bicycle and pedestrian
facilities) and for project right-of-way. For percent of park converted, see Tables 3.9-1 and 3.9-2. For more detail
on park impacts, see Section 3.9 of this FEIS (Parks and Recreation) or the Final Section 4(f) Evaluation.
b
An additional 0.74 acre would be converted from one park use to another park use for mitigation
(bicycle/pedestrian trail).
c
Total of all park and recreational facilities impacted by the Build alternative, including the Springwater Corridor
Trail, the Willamette Greenway Trail (East Bank), and the Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank).

1. There is no prudent and feasible alternative 7) Substantial differences in costs among the
to using that land; and alternatives
2. The program or project includes all possible As noted in Subsection 4.2.9, impacts at the
planning to minimize harm to the park, following three park and recreational facilities
recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl would be similar for all Build alternatives:
refuge, or historic site resulting from the use.
A feasible alternative is one that could be built
 Willamette Greenway Trail (East Bank)
based on sound engineering principles.
 Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank)
A determination of prudence requires weighing
numerous factors, such as: social, economic, Impacts at six other park and recreational
environmental justice, and environmental impacts; facilities would be specific to individual Build
community disruption; extraordinary alternatives, as described in Table 4.2-8.
construction, maintenance, or operational costs;
unique problems; or a combination of these The Final Section 4(f) Evaluation, appended to
factors. this FEIS, addresses each of the seven factors for
the preferred alternative (Alternative D Refined).
Section 4(f) resources in the study area Multnomah County and Portland Parks &
(Willamette Greenway Trail [East and West Recreation (PP&R) have reached agreement on
banks] and Springwater Corridor Trail) could not measures to mitigate park impacts at Powers
be avoided under any feasible or prudent Marine Park and Willamette Moorage Park.
alternative because these resources are aligned
north-south and extend outside the study area. 4.2.11 Regulated Floodway
Because there is no feasible and prudent The 100-year base flood elevation is the flood
avoidance alternative, FHWA may approve only level that has a one percent chance of being
the alternative that causes the least overall harm equaled or exceeded each year. The Build
based on an assessment of the following seven alternatives vary in how they would change the
factors: base flood elevation, as shown in Table 4.2-9. The
1) The ability of the alternative to mitigate regulated floodway is within the 100-year base
adverse impacts to each Section 4(f) property flood elevation. Impacts to the regulated
(including any measures that result in benefits floodway depend on the number of piers, the
to the property) location of the piers in the river, and the size and
design of the piers.
2) The relative severity of the remaining harm,
after mitigation, to the protected activities, Limited bridge design has been completed to
attributes, or features that qualify each date. However, as currently designed, all Build
Section 4(f) property for protection alternatives other than Alternative D and the
3) The relative significance of each Section 4(f) delta-frame bridge cofferdam approach with
property Alternative D Refined would contribute to a
small increase in the base flood elevation.
4) The views of the official(s) with jurisdiction
over each Section 4(f) property During subsequent design efforts, a detailed
hydraulic analysis of the selected alternative
5) The degree to which each alternative meets
the purpose and need for the project would be required. This analysis would model the
effects of the project on the elevation of the river
6) After reasonable mitigation, the magnitude of during the 100-year base flood event to
any adverse impacts to resources not determine whether the bridge would increase
protected by Section 4(f)

floodwater elevations. This analysis would  Alignment

determine if the boundaries of the regulated
floodway or the conveyance capacity of the  West-side interchange type
floodway would need to be altered to bring the  Basic bridge cross-section
net rise back to zero. Multnomah County would
work with the City of Portland and the Federal  SE 6th Avenue intersection—neighborhood
cut-through traffic versus traffic operations
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to
identify the best approach to meet the applicable  Rehabilitation versus replacement
regulations. Engineering design work is one
possible approach to avoid this impact. If the
4.3.1 Alignment
bridge piers could not be redesigned to avoid this The Build alternatives would have two potential
impact, a floodplain map revision through the alignments—the existing alignment
City of Portland and FEMA is another approach (Alternatives A, B, C, D, and D Refined) and an
that could be pursued. alignment to the north of the existing alignment
(Alternative E), as shown on Figure 4.2-5 in
4.3 Key Differentiators Subsection 4.2.3.
among Build Alternative Because Alternative E would be on a different

alignment than the other five Build alternatives, it
Elements would have different impacts. Alternative E
The following subsections describe the key would:
differentiators among the following elements of
 Displace 48 businesses (216 employees),
the Build alternatives:
although the viability of the displaced
TABLE 4.2-9
Change in Base Flood Elevation by Build Alternative and Bridge Type
100-Year Base Flood
Alternative Bridge Type Elevation Change
A Rehabilitated bridge with cable-stayed
0.06 foot
Rehabilitated bridge with stress-ribbon

0.07 foot
B Rehabilitated bridge 0.03 foot
C Through-arch 0.02 foot
D Deck-arch No change
Delta-frame -0.02 foot
E Box-girder 0.02 foot
Through-arch 0.02 foot
D Refined Deck-arch 0.01 foot (cofferdam approach)

0.08 foot (perched approach)
Delta-frame -0.01 foot (cofferdam approach)

0.08 foot (perched approach)

businesses is not dependent on a specific 4.3.2 West-side Interchange

location. The businesses could likely find
replacement office space without major
Type
difficulty. The other Build alternatives would Three different grade-separated interchange
displace either 9 or 10 businesses (between configurations have been proposed for the west
30 and 62 employees). end of the Sellwood Bridge at OR 43—
roundabout (Alternatives A and B), trumpet
 Maintain a river crossing (via the existing (Alternative C), and single-point signalized
Sellwood Bridge) during construction (similar (Alternatives D, E, and D Refined) interchanges.
to Alternatives D and D Refined and to Figure 4.3-1 shows these interchange
Alternative B with a temporary detour configurations.
bridge). Alternatives A, B, and C would not
maintain a river crossing during construction. Traffic
It is expected that under all three interchange
 Require the most right-of-way acquisition types, eastbound traffic during the
(11.6 acres). The other Build alternatives afternoon/evening peak period would continue to
would require acquisition of between 8.9 and backup across the Sellwood Bridge. Such backups,
10.8 acres of right-of-way. when reaching the west-side interchange, would
 Adversely impact Oaks Pioneer Church by its differ based on the interchange type.
alignment adjacent to the church. No other  Roundabout. A roundabout interchange
Build alternative would have permanent could impede westbound traffic flow within
adverse effects on the church. the roundabout during the afternoon/evening
 Be inconsistent with the City of Portland’s peak period because eastbound traffic would
Willamette Greenway Plan (1987) because it backup along SE Tacoma Street and the
would cross a designated view corridor on Sellwood Bridge, which would shut down
SE Spokane Street. The other Build traffic circulation within the roundabout. This
alternatives would be consistent with this would cause intersection gridlock that might
plan because they would not cross not occur in the single-point signalized or
SE Spokane Street. trumpet interchange types. This gridlock
could exacerbate traffic queue lengths
 Not be able to be phased. A new bridge and extending from each approach to the
interchange would need to be built at the roundabout. To mitigate this occurrence,
same time to connect the new bridge with ramp metering would be installed on
OR 43 north of the existing interchange. incoming ramps to the roundabout,
Alternative E would require full funding to somewhat undermining the free traffic flow a
complete the new bridge and the west-side roundabout is designed to promote.
interchange.
 Trumpet. A trumpet interchange would not
 Impact the Staff Jennings property more than create traffic gridlock in the interchange
Alternatives A, B, D, and D Refined because during the peak period. This would be a free-
more right-of-way would be required, flow design in a system with inherent
structures would be displaced, and the bridge bottlenecks.
would be adjacent to the main building (see
Figure 4.2-7).

FIGURE 4.3-1
West-side Interchange Types

TABLE 4.3-1
Traffic Operations by Interchange Type at the Sellwood Bridge/OR 43 Interchange
Signalized
Trumpet (D, E, and D
Element Roundabout (A) Roundabout (B) (C) Refined)
Would interchange Moderately Moderately Moderately Moderately
be congested at congested congested congested congested
morning peak
period?
Would interchange Highly congested Severely congested Highly Highly
be congested during (with ramp (bicyclists and congested congested
afternoon and metering) pedestrians in
evening peak roundabout)
period?
Could westbound Yes Yes No No
traffic impede
eastbound traffic
during afternoon
and evening peak
period?
 Single-point Signalized. A single-point Alternative B routing through the

signalized interchange would not create traffic roundabout would be less direct than that of
gridlock in the intersection during the peak Alternatives D, E, and D Refined. Alternatives
period. A and C would remove bicyclists and
pedestrians from the west-side interchange.
Each Build alternative’s intersections at OR 43
and the Sellwood Bridge would operate  Visually impaired pedestrians. The west-
acceptably before and after the afternoon/evening side interchange roundabout with
peak period. Table 4.3-1 summarizes traffic Alternative B would include unsignalized
operations by interchange type at the Sellwood crossings on single-lane approaches. Visually
Bridge/OR 43 interchange. impaired pedestrians would experience
greater crossing difficulties and safety risks at
Bicyclists and Pedestrians roundabouts compared with at intersections
The west-side interchange would also affect having typical traffic controls. This would be
bicyclist and pedestrian travel. Although considered an adverse impact to the visually
Alternatives A and B would have a roundabout impaired.
for the west-side interchange, bicyclist and
pedestrian travel would differ because  Bus stops. Bus stops for Alternatives B, D,
Alternative A would include a separate E, and D Refined would be located in the
bicycle/pedestrian bridge. west-side interchange area, allowing for
efficient connections among bicyclists,
 Routing. Alternatives D, E, and D Refined pedestrians, transit, and the planned future
would provide the most direct routing streetcar line. For Alternatives A and C, bus
through the west-side interchange for stops would be located north of the west-
bicyclist and pedestrian movements. side interchange at SW Taylors Ferry Road.

TABLE 4.3-2
Potential Bicyclist and Pedestrian Conflict Points with Vehicles and Transit Access by West-side
Interchange Type
Roundabout Roundabout Trumpet Signalized
Element (A) (B) (C) (D, E, and D Refined)
Removes bicyclists and Yes No Yes No
pedestrians from the
interchange?
How many potential bicyclist 0 3 (North, 0 4 (All four legs)
and pedestrian conflict points south, and
with vehicles? west legs)
Might visually impaired No Yes No No
pedestrians be adversely
impacted?
Includes bus stops within the No Yes No Yes
interchange area?
Table 4.3-2 shows the differences among the  Consistency with regional and
Build alternatives’ west-side interchange types community plans. Metro’s South Willamette
related to potential bicyclist and pedestrian River Crossing Study (1999) recommended that
conflict points with vehicles and transit access. the Sellwood Bridge be rehabilitated or
replaced as a two-lane bridge. This
Although Alternatives D and D Refined would
recommendation was incorporated into
have four conflict points, the signalized
Metro’s 2004 Regional Transportation Plan.
intersection would allow bicyclists and
Alternative C would be inconsistent with
pedestrians to safely maneuver through the these documents because the basic bridge
intersection. Under Alternative B, free-flow cross-section would have three vehicular
movements in the roundabout would be through lanes. However, three through lanes
interrupted by bicyclists and pedestrians in the would provide flexibility for future transit
roundabout area, which could negatively affect (such as instituting streetcar service across
bicyclist and pedestrian safety. the bridge) and flexibility during maintenance
and emergency response. Although
4.3.3 Basic Bridge Cross-section Alternative E would have four through lanes,
Total bridge width, curb-to-curb width two would be dedicated for transit only.
(roadway), and number of travel through lanes Therefore, Alternative E would be consistent
characterize the benefits and drawbacks for each with the study because its basic bridge cross-
of the basic bridge cross-sections (cross-section section would have two vehicular through
at the middle of the bridge). The following lanes. Alternatives A, B, D, and D Refined
elements summarize the differentiating benefits would be consistent with both documents.
and impacts of the basic bridge cross-sections
 Width of roadway for motorized
related to criteria developed through the public
vehicles. The cross-section of lane width
input process to evaluate project concepts and
plus shoulder affects the ability of the
alternatives.
roadway to handle larger vehicles and

provide passing area for emergency vehicles; because they would be on the separate
affects the operations of the roadway when bicycle/pedestrian bridge.
vehicles are disabled; and provides a margin
of safety or a recovery area when vehicles  Bicyclist and pedestrian connectivity,
depart the lane because of driver error or mobility, and safety. Alternatives A, B, C,
accident. The minimum shoulder width D, and D Refined would provide separation
required to keep a disabled car from for the shared bicycle/pedestrian path from
obstructing the travel lane is 6 feet. The motorized traffic, but Alternative E would
width of travel lanes and shoulder areas only provide a curb for separation from
would vary by alternative. motorized traffic. Alternatives D and
D Refined would include designated bicycle
 Alternatives A, C, D, E, and D Refined lanes, which would separate recreational
would have standard 12-foot-wide travel bicyclists (who would likely use the shared-
lanes. Shoulders for these alternatives use path) and commuting bicyclists (who
would vary from zero (Alternative E) to would likely use the bicycle lanes).
6.5 feet, where the shoulder was also a Alternatives D and D Refined also would
bike lane (Alternatives D and D Refined). have the most width designated for bicyclists
and pedestrians (37 feet) compared to the
 Alternative A would have two 12-foot- other Build alternatives (Alternative E would
wide travel lanes with 6-foot-wide have 24 feet; Alternatives A, B, and C would
shoulders. have 20 feet).
 Alternative B would have two 11-foot-  Residential displacements. The basic
wide travel lanes, but these would be bridge cross-section of Alternative E would
combined with 5-foot-wide shoulders be 75 feet wide. On its proposed alignment
that could be shared with bicyclists. north of the existing bridge, it would displace
 Alternative C would have three 12-foot- more residences than Alternatives A, B, C, D,
wide travel lanes with two 3-foot-wide or D Refined. Alternatives D and D Refined
shoulders. would have the widest basic bridge cross-
section on the existing bridge alignment
 Alternatives D and D Refined would have (64 feet wide). Consequently, it would
two 12-foot-wide travel lanes and displace more residences than Alternatives A
6.5-foot-wide bike lanes that could serve (39 feet wide), B (57 feet wide),
as shoulders, but in doing so, would or C (45 feet wide).
create conflicts with bicyclists.
 Ability to accommodate emergency
 Alternative E would have four 12-foot- and disabled vehicles and maintenance
wide travel lanes and no shoulders. activities. Basic bridge cross-sections with
However, the outside lanes would be more than two through lanes (Alternatives C
transit-only lanes, which could act as an and E) would provide better opportunities
escape area when not occupied by a for emergency vehicles to navigate safely
transit vehicle. through traffic, a designated vehicle
breakdown area, and increased flexibility in
Of the Build alternatives, Alternative A would
staging traffic flow during periods of required
offer the standard lane width with the widest
maintenance than would Alternatives A, B, D,
shoulder without creating conflicts with bicyclists
or D Refined.

 Ability to provide flexibility for would attract cut-through traffic trying to avoid
responding to future transportation congestion on SE Tacoma Street.
needs. Wider basic bridge cross-sections
Under all Build alternatives, SE Tacoma Street
(Alternatives C, D, E, and D Refined) would
would be heavily congested during the
maintain the bridge’s flexibility to address
afternoon/evening peak period. Only minimal
future transportation needs because they
gaps in the steady stream of westbound vehicles
would provide opportunities for future
would allow eastbound motorists to make left
rechannelization or reconfiguration of the
turns onto side streets, such as SE 6th Avenue.
bridge deck.
Crossing SE Tacoma Street on SE 6th Avenue
 Ability to provide transit reliability and would be extremely difficult at unsignalized
to accommodate future transit. intersections during the peak period.
Dedicated transit lanes on the bridge
At the SE Tacoma Street/SE 6th Avenue
(Alternative E) would increase transit
intersection, four options have been evaluated.
reliability compared to the basic bridge cross-
Although the options have been evaluated with
sections under the other Build alternatives.
specific alternatives, most are applicable to any of
The dedicated transit lanes would provide for
the Build alternatives. The exception is that the
free flow of transit vehicles across the bridge
SE Grand Avenue Loop option would not work
(unimpeded by automobile and truck traffic).
with Alternative E. The four options are:
Four-lane basic bridge cross-sections would
better accommodate future transit options,  Maintain existing conditions. An
such as streetcars, than would the two-lane eastbound left turn would be permitted at
and three-lane alternatives. However, the SE 6th Avenue. This option was evaluated
improvement in transit reliability would be under Alternatives A and B.
minimal because of peak-period traffic
congestion and because the dedicated transit  Create a SE Grand Avenue Loop.
lanes would not exist on OR 43 or Eastbound left-turn movements from
SE Tacoma Street. (Such dedicated lanes SE Tacoma Street to SE 6th Avenue would be
would only be on the bridge.) rerouted to a right-turn loop. A raised
median would restrict left-turn movements
Table 4.3-3 summarizes information about the to SE 6th Avenue. Vehicles would turn right
basic bridge cross-section elements among the at SE 6th Avenue, turn right at SE Tenino
Build alternatives. Street, pass under the bridge via SE Grand
Avenue (lowered and extended to SE Tenino
4.3.4 SE 6th Avenue Intersection— Street), and intersect with SE Spokane Street.
Neighborhood Cut-through This option was evaluated under
Traffic versus Traffic Alternative C.
Operations  Install a signal. The intersection of
Neighborhood cut-through traffic and ease of SE Tacoma Street/SE 6th Avenue would
operations of intersections that cross SE Tacoma include a signal. This option was evaluated
Street are related. Improving the opportunity for under Alternatives D and E.
vehicles to cross SE Tacoma Street at SE 6th
Avenue would be a tradeoff because it would  Install a bicyclist/pedestrian-activated
relieve the frustration of local traffic trying to signal. The intersection of SE Tacoma
cross SE Tacoma Street, but at the same time Street/SE 6th Avenue would include a
bicyclist/pedestrian-activated signal. This

TABLE 4.3-3
Basic Bridge Cross-section Elements by Alternative
Consistent with Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes
South Willamette River
Crossing Study (Metro,
1999)?
Number of vehicular 2 2 3 2 2 (and 2 transit- 2
travel through lanes only lanes)
Number of 1 1 1 5 6 5
residential units
displaced
Total basic bridge 39 feet 57 feet 45 feet 64 feet 75 feet 64 feet
cross-section width
Curb-to-curb width 36 feet 32 feet 42 feet 37 feet 48 feet 37 feet
Ability to High Low Moderate Moderate High Moderate
accommodate (2 lanes (2 11- (3 lanes, (2 lanes, plus (4 lanes, no (2 lanes, plus
emergency and plus 6-foot foot 3-foot 6.5-foot bike shoulders). 6.5-foot bike
disabled vehicles and unob- lanes, shoulders). lanes). Space exists to lanes).
maintenance structed plus Would Space for pull over for Space for
activities? shoul- 5-foot depend on emergency emergency emergency
ders). shoul- the ability passage and vehicles and passage and
ders). of vehicles disabled disabled disabled
in the vehicles vehicles. vehicles
second lane would come However, doing would come
to move at the so would at the
out of the expense of conflict with expense of
way of the bicycle transit vehicles. the bicycle
opposing lane. Would lane. Would
emergency create safety create safety
traffic. risks for risks for
bicyclists. bicyclists.
Ability to provide Low Medium Medium Medium High Medium
flexibility for (39 feet (57 feet (45 feet (64 feet (75 feet wide, (64 feet
responding to future wide) wide) wide, three wide) four lanes) wide)
transportation lanes)
needs?
Ability to increase Low Low Low Low Medium Low
transit reliability and (No (No (No (No (Dedicated (No
accommodate future dedicated dedi- dedicated dedicated transit lanes, dedicated
transit? transit cated transit transit lanes) but no transit transit lanes)
lanes) transit lanes) lanes on OR 43
lanes) or SE Tacoma
Street)

FIGURE 4.3-2
East-side Connection

option was evaluated under Alternative D Alternatives D and E, but could be incorporated
Refined. into any of the Build alternatives. Because of the
negative performance of this option, Alternatives
Figure 4.3-2 shows the four options at the
D and E were evaluated without this option in
SE Tacoma Street/SE 6th Avenue intersection.
the Sellwood Bridge Project Transportation Technical
Maintain Existing Conditions Report (CH2M HILL et al., 2008; updated 2010)
to determine operations levels for the west-side
Maintaining existing conditions would either not
interchange.
would continue to make north-south operations Install a Bicyclist/Pedestrian-activated
on SE 6th Avenue very difficult during peak Signal
hours. Essentially, only right turns could be made
Installing a bicyclist/pedestrian-activated signal at
with ease. Any of the Build alternatives could
the SE Tacoma Street/SE 6th Avenue intersection
maintain existing operations of intersections that
would allow pedestrians and bicyclists to safely
cross SE Tacoma Street.
cross SE Tacoma Street without substantially
Create a SE Grand Avenue Loop increasing neighborhood cut-through traffic.
The extension of SE Grand Avenue would Table 4.3-4 summarizes the potential for
improve accessibility between the Sellwood neighborhood cut-through traffic increases by
Bridge and the areas north of SE Tacoma Street Build alternative.
and west of SE 13th Avenue, but could
moderately increase cut-through traffic. North- According to the Portland Bureau of
south traffic could also use the SE Grand Avenue Transportation, the bicyclist/pedestrian-activated
undercrossing of the bridge to freely move signal at SE 6th Avenue would result in a slight
between north of SE Tacoma Street and south of decrease in SE Tacoma Street performance
it without engaging SE Tacoma Street itself or a during congested hours. This decrease in
signal. This option could be incorporated into any performance would not reach unacceptable levels
of the Build alternatives except Alternative E. during the peak traffic periods and would be
substantially less than the full signal option

Install a Signal
evaluated under Alternatives D and E. Eastbound
Installing a signal at the SE Tacoma Street/SE 6th traffic would queue towards the bridge due to
Avenue intersection could substantially increase the existing signal at the SE Tacoma Street/
neighborhood cut-through traffic without SE 13th Avenue intersection. This queue would
providing improved access to existing land uses. not extend to the west end of the bridge and
The signal would provide a “sheltered” left-turn would not affect operations in the west-side
onto SE 6th Avenue, providing motorists the intersection.
option of using the signal to avoid congestion on
SE Tacoma Street. Those using the signal to turn 4.3.5 Rehabilitation versus
onto SE 6th Avenue would increase cut-through
traffic. The effect of the signal on operations on
Replacement
SE Tacoma Street, however, would be to backup Alternatives A and B would rehabilitate the
traffic into the OR 43 interchange. Operations at existing bridge. Alternatives C, D, E, and
the signal would be at level of service (LOS) F, D Refined would replace the existing bridge.
meaning that it would take more than one phase Although Alternatives A and B are called bridge
of the signal for traffic to make it through the rehabilitation options, most of the elements of
intersection. This option was evaluated with the existing bridge would be replaced. The only
elements of the bridge that would be retained

TABLE 4.3-4
Potential for Neighborhood Cut-through Traffic Increases by Build Alternative
No Signal at SE Signal at SE Bicyclist/Pedestrian-
Tacoma Street Tacoma Street activated Signal at SE
and SE 6th SE Grand and SE 6th Tacoma Street and SE
Avenue Avenue Loop Avenue 6th Avenue
Element (A and B) (C) (D and E) (D Refined)
Potential increases in None to Minimal to Moderate to None to
neighborhood cut- minimal moderate substantial minimal
through traffic
Does the option No No Yes No
affect operations at
west-side
interchange?
would be the steel truss and piers. New elements $326 million and $356 million. Cost estimates for
would include the deck, deck support, two Alternatives C, D, E, and D Refined would range
additional trusses, and new approach spans. The between $280 million and $361 million.
existing piers would be widened to provide Alternatives A and B would limit the bridge type
structural support for accommodating heaver to use of the existing continuous-truss span.
vehicles and to support the wider deck required Alternatives D, E, and D Refined would have
for auxiliary lanes that would provide better more flexibility for the bridge type.
operations at the interchange.
Table 4.3-5 summarizes the number of vehicular
As illustrated on Figure 4.2-1 (located in bridge design types and the cost ranges for the
Section 4.2), the construction cost to rehabilitate rehabilitation and the replacement alternatives.
the existing bridge would be higher than the
construction cost to replace the bridge under
Alternatives C, D, E (box-girder bridge), and
TABLE 4.3-5
Vehicular Bridge Design Types and Cost Ranges (2012 Dollars) of Rehabilitation and
Replacement Alternatives
Rehabilitation Alternatives Replacement Alternativesa
Element (A, B) (D, E, and D Refined)
Number of vehicular bridge design 1 At least 2

types (Existing truss) (Bridge types could include
through-arch, delta-frame, deck-arch, or
box-girder)
Construction cost range (2012 $326–$356 million $280–$361 million
dollars)
a
Although Alternative C is a replacement alternative, it could only be one bridge type (through-arch) because
there would be two bridge decks.
D Refined. In 2012 dollars, the construction cost

estimates for Alternatives A and B range between

iv) The views of the official(s) with jurisdiction

4.4 Section 4(f) Preliminary over each Section 4(f) property
Least Harm Analysis v) The degree to which each alternative meets
According to 23 Code of Federal Regulations the purpose and need for the project
(CFR) 774.3(c), because there is no feasible and
vi) After reasonable mitigation, the magnitude
prudent avoidance alternative, FHWA may of any adverse impacts to resources not
approve only the alternative that causes the least protected by Section 4(f)
overall harm based on an assessment of the seven
factors listed in 23 CFR 774.3(c)(1): vii) Substantial differences in costs among the
alternatives
i) The ability of the alternative to mitigate
adverse impacts to each Section 4(f) The Draft Environmental Impact Statement
property (including any measures that result (DEIS; Multnomah County, et al., 2008) provided
in benefits to the property) a preliminary least harm analysis for each
Section 4(f) resource (at which a use would
ii) The relative severity of the remaining harm, occur from one or more Build alternatives).
after mitigation, to the protected activities,
Findings of the least harm analysis were used to
attributes, or features that qualify each
identify a preferred alternative. The Final
Section 4(f) property for protection
Section 4(f) Evaluation, appended to this FEIS,
iii) The relative significance of each Section 4(f) addresses each of the above factors for
property Alternative D Refined (the preferred alternative).

Chapter 5. Public Involvement and
Agency Coordination
Chapter 5. Public Involvement
and Agency Coordination
Multnomah County and its agency partners had been accomplished, and future decisions. The
developed a stakeholder involvement approach process defined how stakeholders would
to accomplish the following tasks: participate to answer the following questions
typically asked by stakeholders:
 Delivering a “transparent” analysis and
environmental review process that provided  Who will make the decisions?
ongoing, inclusive, and meaningful two-way
 How can I influence the decisions?
communication between the project team
and the public  When will I have an opportunity to
participate?
 Meeting the applicable regulatory
requirements, such as the National  Who will consider my input?
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)
 Encouraging active participation of those
5.1 Decision Structure and
stakeholders with an interest in the outcome Public Involvement
of the project Process
A key element of the stakeholder involvement The following subsections summarize the decision
approach was a structured decision-making structure and public involvement process. For a
process that included a well-defined decision- more detailed summary, see the Sellwood Bridge
making organization. This process created a clear Project Decision Process and Public Involvement
path for the project using major “decision Summary Report (Jeanne Lawson Associates [JLA],
points.” This structure enabled the project team 2008).
to inform stakeholders of current progress, what
On January 1, 1970, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) was signed into
law. NEPA established a national environmental policy intentionally focused on federal
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
activities and the desire for a sustainable environment balanced with other essential needs of
present and future generations. NEPA established a supplemental mandate for federal
agencies to consider the potential environmental consequences of their proposals, document
the analysis, and make this information available to the public for comment prior to
implementation.
NEPA requires, to the fullest extent possible, that the policies, regulations, and laws of the
federal government be interpreted and administered in accordance with its environmental
protection goals. NEPA also requires federal agencies to use an interdisciplinary approach in
planning and decision-making for any action that adversely impacts the environment.
While NEPA established the basic framework for integrating environmental considerations
into federal decision-making, it did not provide the details of the process by which it would be
accomplished. Federal implementation of NEPA is the charge of the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ), which interprets the law and addresses NEPA’s action-forcing
provisions in the form of regulations and guidance.
This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), which was prepared following the Federal
Highway Administration’s (FHWA’s) environmental process and guidelines for preparing an
FEIS, complies with FHWA NEPA regulations. FHWA was the final approver of this
document.

Decision Structure and Public Involvement Process
Chapter 5. Public Involvement and Agency Coordination
FIGURE 5.1-1
Sellwood Bridge Project Decision Structure
5.1.1 Project Groups Metro, and the consulting team. The PMT’s
responsibilities included the following:
Because the Sellwood Bridge project is complex,
with many stakeholders and interest groups  Management of project scope, schedule, and
wanting to participate, the project team budget
established a structured decision-making process
at the outset. This process helped to direct  Direction, production, and quality assurance
community input related to key project of technical and public/agency involvement
milestones, referred to as major decision points. work
Primary groups involved in the decision-making  Staff support to the Policy Advisory Group
process included the following: (PAG), Senior Agency Staff (SAS), and
Community Task Force (CTF)
 Project Management Team
 Community Task Force Community Task Force
 Policy Advisory Group The CTF was comprised of a balanced
 Senior Agency Staff representation of stakeholder interests. The
 Working Groups group included representatives from
neighborhoods on both sides of the bridge; local
Figure 5.1-1 illustrates the decision structure. The
and regional business groups; advocates for
following subsections describe the composition,
different bridge user groups (such as bridge
roles, and responsibilities of each group.
commuters, freight and transit users, river users,
Project Management Team pedestrians, and bicyclists); and representatives of
The Project Management Team (PMT), which natural resource, historic resource, and aesthetic
guided the project, consisted of staff members interests. The Multnomah County Board of
from Multnomah County, Oregon Department of Commissioners appointed members to the CTF
Transportation (ODOT), Federal Highway at the beginning of the project. CTF
Administration (FHWA), the City of Portland, responsibilities included:

TABLE 5.1-1
Sellwood Bridge Project Policy Advisory Group Members and Agencies/Jurisdictions
Member Agency/Jurisdiction
PAG Chair, Commissioner Maria Rojo de Steffey Multnomah County
County Chair, Commissioner Ted Wheeler Multnomah County
Commissioner Sam Adams City of Portland
Councilor Robert Liberty Metro
Commissioner Lynn Peterson Clackamas County
Mayor Jim Bernard City of Milwaukie
Fred Hansen TriMet
Senator Kate Brown Oregon State Senate
Representative Carolyn Tomei Oregon State House
Jason Tell Oregon Department of Transportation
Phillip Ditzler Federal Highway Administration
 Representing their constituents’ perspectives  Setting the policy framework for the project
and input during group deliberations
 Representing the interests of their agencies
 Communicating project progress with their or jurisdictions in group deliberations
constituents
 Communicating project progress to their
 Preparing for and attending CTF meetings fellow elected or appointed officials, and to
and public outreach events their constituents
 Working to develop consensus  Reviewing recommendations from the CTF

recommendations for presentation to the and other background materials and making
PAG decisions at key decision points
Policy Advisory Group Table 5.1-1 lists PAG members.

The PAG consisted of elected and appointed
Senior Agency Staff
officials of local agencies and jurisdictions with
The SAS group consisted of senior level staff
regulatory responsibility for the project or those
from each of the PAG member organizations.
who had a strong interest in the outcome. These
Each PAG member appointed a representative to
officials included individuals from Multnomah
serve on the SAS to stay current on project
County, Clackamas County, City of Portland,
activities, gather input from the staffs of the
City of Milwaukie, Metro, ODOT, TriMet,
organizations, and provide timely and accurate
FHWA, and the Oregon Legislature.
project information and recommendations to
Responsibilities of the PAG included:
the PAG.

FIGURE 5.1-2
Project Schedule and Decision Points
Working Groups 4. Develop Alternatives

Working groups were organized to provide 5. Screen Alternatives
detailed input to the PMT and CTF in the areas of 6. Identify Preferred Alternative
bridge design; bicycle and pedestrian facility These major decision points, all of which have
design; freight interests; bridge type; and been completed, featured public involvement
aesthetics. The groups consisted of consultants, activities that included the following elements:
agency staff, and experts who volunteered their briefings, newsletters, open houses, an interactive
services. Each group met several times project Web site, online surveys, and a speakers’
throughout the project to provide input on bureau. Figure 5.1-2 shows the project schedule
alternative development, evaluation of with the six decision points.
alternatives, and selection of alternatives for the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS; The following subsections summarize the six
Multnomah County et al., 2008). A special City of major decision points and the associated public
Portland Technical Advisory Committee, which involvement activities. The Sellwood Bridge Project
consisted of representatives of those city Decision Process and Public Involvement Summary
departments with an interest in the project, met Report (JLA, 2008) provides the public
to provide input during each round of outreach. involvement materials, including stakeholder
interviews, newsletters, technical memorandums,
and summaries of open houses and meetings.
5.1.2 Decision Process and
Structure Decision Point 1: Establish Decision
Creating a decision-making process was a key Process and Structure
element of the project. The CTF, PMT, and PAG The first major decision point ensured
guided its development, forming a logical path understanding and agreement about the project’s
with major decision points throughout the decision process and structure, and about the
project. The public involvement program was roles, responsibilities, and membership of the
established around the six major decision points various project groups (CTF, PAG, SAS, and
shown on Figure 5.1-2. PMT). The PAG formally reached this decision
point on June 7, 2006.
1. Establish Decision Process and Structure
2. Define Purpose and Need
3. Establish Evaluation Framework

Decision Point 2: Define Purpose and evaluation framework for the project. The
Need evaluation framework included the following ten
The second major decision point, conducted in evaluation criteria categories (project goals), each
the summer and fall of 2006, established the need with separate evaluation criteria and performance
for the project and defined the problems the measures:
project was expected to address. To develop the  Aesthetics
purpose and need statement, the PMT and the
CTF considered:  Bicycle and Pedestrian
 Comments from a project newsletter  Community Quality of Life

(October, 2006)
 Automobiles, Freight, and Emergency
 Issues raised in the first open house (Scoping Vehicles
Open House, October 2006)
 Construction
 An online survey (Community Values and
 Cost and Economic Impacts
Issues) available on the project Web site
between early September and late October  Natural Environment
2006
 Material Resources
 Stakeholder interviews with business, freight,
neighborhood, and transit interests  Mass Transit
Most issues were addressed directly in the  Seismic

purpose and need statement. Issues raised that
The PAG adopted the evaluation framework on
could not be addressed by the project were
January 29, 2007 (Multnomah County, 2007a).
referred to other agencies, as appropriate. In
November 2006, the PAG adopted the purpose Decision Point 4: Develop Alternatives
and need statement, located in Section 1.5 (What The fourth major decision point, conducted in
is the purpose of the project?) and Section 1.6 the spring of 2007, developed a broad range of
(Why is the project needed?). alternatives to address the purpose and need of
the project (Decision Point 2). This step ensured
Decision Point 3: Establish Evaluation
that the stakeholders were consulted and their
Framework
ideas were considered. Public involvement
The third major decision point, conducted in late activities included an informative newsletter
2006 and early 2007, established threshold and (March 2007), an alternatives development open
evaluation criteria that were used in subsequent house in April 2007, and a second online survey
decision points for screening and identifying (Proposed Alignment and Interchange Concepts).
alternatives for further study. The evaluation The online survey, conducted between March
framework set criteria and quantitative and April 2007, solicited input on alignments, the
performance measures to gauge the effectiveness west-side interchange types, and bridge cross-
of alternatives—how well they solved the sections. The CTF considered this public input
identified problems and how well they performed when recommending a range of alternatives for
against the broad range of stakeholder values. further consideration. The PAG adopted the
Public comments from the October 2006 scoping range of alternatives in June 2007. Chapter 2
open house and the first online survey summarizes the concepts and alternatives
(Community Values and Issues) influenced the developed during this process.

Key Issues and Themes
Decision Point 5: Screen Alternatives weighed public input from the fourth online
The fifth major decision point, conducted in the survey and the fourth open house before
summer of 2007, selected alternatives for analysis selecting the bridge types for evaluation in the
in the DEIS. A newsletter (July 2007), an open DEIS.
house in July 2007, and a third online survey The CTF and PAG screened alternatives using
(Alternative Screening), conducted from July to the evaluation criteria and selected five
the beginning of September 2007, accompanied alternatives (that the PAG adopted) to be carried
this decision point. forward for additional analysis in the DEIS.
The newsletter summarized the decision points The project team then prepared the DEIS to
that had been reached, the alternatives under analyze the alternatives identified for further
consideration, and information about the third study. FHWA approved the DEIS before it was
open house. released in November 2008. The project team
The July 2007 open house provided a project provided the results of the DEIS to project
update and explained the results of the stakeholders, the public, and elected officials for
alternative-screening process. Participants had use in identifying a preferred alternative.
the opportunity to use an online decision-making
Decision Point 6: Identify Preferred
tool called “Build a Bridge.” The process involved
Alternative
looking at unique combinations of alternative
elements, including interchange types, roadway The project completed the sixth and final major
alignments, and bridge cross-sections. Participants decision point, identification of the preferred
built their own virtual bridges by combining their alternative, in early 2009. A formal public
favored elements. The tool displayed the comment period and a formal public hearing
performance of favored elements, including costs were held following distribution of the DEIS. The
and displacements of businesses and households. PAG considered the analysis documented in the
DEIS, CTF input, and public comments when
The Alternative Screening online survey, posted identifying a preferred alternative. The
on the project Web site, asked the public to Multnomah County Board of Commissioners,
compare the pros and cons of the alternatives Clackamas County Board of Commissioners,
using the Build a Bridge tool. Metro Council, Portland City Council, and
ODOT, adopted the preferred alternative.
A newsletter (October 2007) included
FHWA will ultimately select the preferred
information on the alternatives that would be
alternative when it issues the Record of Decision.
evaluated in the DEIS. The alignments, cross-
Section 5.5.1 outlines the process used to identify
sections, and west-side interchange types in the
the preferred alternative in more detail.
Build alternatives reflect community input.
This decision step also selected bridge design 5.2 Key Issues and Themes
types for the replacement alternatives. In the fall
The project team received thousands of public
of 2007, a Bridge Type Working Group of local
comments throughout the public involvement
bridge experts recommended six replacement
process. These comments included issues and
bridge options for further consideration. A fourth
themes that have influenced project decision-
online survey (Bridge Types), conducted in
making, directly shaping the range of alternatives
November 2007, obtained public input on the
and, ultimately, the elements of the alternatives
various bridge types. A fourth public open house
analyzed in this document. This Final
in November 2007 obtained additional public
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) addresses
feedback on bridge types. The CTF and PAG

many of the issues raised. The other comments Table 5.2-1 lists the most frequently voiced issues
are outside the scope of the project and, from public involvement activities, along with the
therefore, are not in this FEIS. However, the associated responses.
project team has attempted to respond to the
most frequently voiced issues through community
meetings and in public outreach information, such
as the project Web site and newsletters.
TABLE 5.2-1
Key Issues, Themes, and Associated Responses
Issue/Theme Response
Build a new bridge in another Multnomah County officials reviewed the findings of a 1999 study conducted
corridor by Metro (South Willamette River Crossing Study) that considered various bridge
alignments. The study concluded that improvements were needed to the
existing Sellwood Bridge or the existing bridge would need to be rebuilt in the
existing east-west corridor. Additional project studies confirmed that
assumptions of the 1999 Metro study are still valid.
Neighborhood livability in Livability is defined as maintaining a two-travel lane bridge, making bridge
Sellwood improvements compatible with the Tacoma Main Street Plan (City of Portland,
2001), and reducing commuter and neighborhood cut-through traffic impacts.
In this FEIS, Alternatives A, B, D, and D Refined are two-lane bridge options
for a new and rehabilitated bridge. (Alternative A also features a narrow cross-
section width [39 feet] to reduce right-of-way impacts.) Neighborhood
livability elements, such as community cohesion, are addressed in Section 3.7
(Social Elements) for the No Build Alternative and the Build alternatives.
Neighborhood cut-through The No Build Alternative would maintain existing conditions on SE Tacoma
traffic Street east of the bridge. The Build alternatives include four different options
for the intersection of SE Tacoma Street and SE 6th Avenue—existing
conditions, a right-turn loop under the bridge, a signal, and a
bicyclist/pedestrian-activated signal. Section 3.1 (Transportation) addresses the
potential for neighborhood cut-through traffic for each of the four intersection
options.
Consistency with the policies, The adopted Tacoma Main Street Plan (City of Portland, 2001) and other
goals, and objectives in the approved planning documents call for two travel lanes on the Sellwood Bridge
Tacoma Main Street Plan (City and two travel lanes on SE Tacoma Street. Alternatives A, B, D, E, and
of Portland, 2001) D Refined would include two travel lanes on the Sellwood Bridge. Alternative
E would include two additional lanes limited to transit use. The No Build
Alternative and the Build alternatives would maintain two travel lanes on
SE Tacoma Street.
Private property impacts Property impact evaluation criteria were included in the evaluation framework
to screen the range of alternatives. Multnomah County communicated and
coordinated with private property owners in the area to minimize private
property impacts throughout this phase of the project. Section 3.3 (Right-of-
Way and Relocation) addresses private property impacts of the No Build
Alternative and the Build alternatives.

TABLE 5.2-1
Residential and business Residential and business impact evaluation criteria were included in the
impacts evaluation framework to screen the range of alternatives. Sections 3.6
(Economic), 3.7 (Social Elements), and 3.3 (Right-of-Way and Relocation)
address residential and business impacts of the No Build Alternative and the
Build alternatives.
Route a new bridge to the The project team developed and analyzed three alignments (Pink, Teal, and
north to reduce residential Gold alignments; Subsection 2.1.4) to the north of the existing alignment to
impacts address public comments. The PAG adopted Alternative E (hybrid of the Pink
and Teal alignments) for analysis in the DEIS and this FEIS to address public
comments and to minimize impacts to the residential units immediately north
and south of the existing bridge. In addition, the PAG eliminated other
alignments closer to the existing alignment (Blue and Purple; Subsection 2.1.5)
from consideration because of the residential impacts of these alignments.
Bicycle and pedestrian access Bicycle and pedestrian connectivity, mobility, and safety to and across the river
and connections to area trails in the corridor were included in the evaluation framework as a threshold
criterion. Bicycle and pedestrian evaluation criteria were also included in the
evaluation framework. Section 3.2 (Bicyclists and Pedestrians) addresses
benefits and impacts to bicyclists and pedestrian safety, mobility, and
connectivity. The Build alternatives include wider facilities for bicyclists and
pedestrians and improve connections to the trail facilities on the east and west
sides of the river. The No Build Alternative would maintain existing bicycle and
pedestrian facilities.
Build for the long-term future The 2035 traffic demands in the study area are estimated to be similar under
and ensure adequate bridge the No Build Alternative and each of the Build alternatives because none of the
capacity for all users Build alternatives would increase vehicle-traffic-carrying capacity along OR 43
beyond the immediate area of the bridge or along SE Tacoma Street east of
the bridge. However, the Build alternatives would provide substantially
increased person-throughput in the project corridor because the Build
alternatives could serve mass transit and dramatically increase bicyclist and
pedestrian trips. The PAG adopted alternatives with two travel lanes
(Alternatives A, B, and D) and three travel lanes (Alternative C) in the DEIS to
evaluate the tradeoffs (benefits and impacts) of the number of travel lanes on
the bridge. Alternative E includes four lanes, but two are dedicated transit
lanes. Because only transit vehicles would be allowed to use these lanes,
Alternative E is categorized as a two-lane bridge. No alternatives consider four
travel lanes for automobiles and trucks. Chapter 3 addresses the impacts of
the No Build Alternative and the Build alternatives (including Alternative D
Refined) to the natural and built environment. Specifically, Section 3.1
(Transportation) addresses traffic operations for the No Build Alternative and
the Build alternatives.

TABLE 5.2-1
Bus transit on the bridge Connectivity, reliability, and operations of existing and future public transit
and/or future streetcar were included in the evaluation framework as a threshold criterion. Transit
evaluation criteria were also included in the evaluation framework. Section 3.1
(Transportation) addresses transit impacts. Each of the Build alternatives
would restore TriMet bus service across the Sellwood Bridge and would
include building the bridge strong enough to accommodate streetcar transit in
the future, if this mode is pursued. The existing 10-ton weight restriction
would continue under the No Build Alternative, precluding buses from
crossing the bridge.
Accommodate large vehicles, A geometrically functional and safe roadway design was included in the
including transit, trucks, and evaluation framework as a threshold criterion. Providing for improved freight
emergency vehicles mobility to and across the bridge was also included as a threshold criterion in
the evaluation framework. The Build alternatives would meet applicable
geometric roadway design standards to safely accommodate various vehicle
types (including transit vehicles, trucks, and emergency vehicles). The No Build
Alternative would not improve geometric roadway deficiencies or remove the
10-ton weight restriction that precludes large vehicles from crossing the
bridge.
Structural integrity for large Providing structural integrity to accommodate safely various vehicle types
vehicles and seismic events (including transit vehicles, trucks, and emergency vehicles) and to withstand
moderate seismic events was included as a threshold criterion and as an
evaluation criterion in the evaluation framework. Section 3.12 (Geology)
addresses seismic protection. All Build alternatives would meet current seismic
design standards and have a design life of 75 years. The No Build Alternative,
which is designed for a 20-year design life, would not meet these design
standards.
Bridge approach and A geometrically functional and safe roadway design was included as a threshold
interchange safety criterion in the evaluation framework. The Build alternatives would improve
the bridge approaches to meet current engineering design standards. The No
Build Alternative would not improve the geometric deficiencies of the
Sellwood Bridge/OR 43 interchange on the west side.
West-side landslide The No Build Alternative would rebuild the west-side bridge approach with
drilled shafts, which could help to stabilize the existing landslide in the area.
The Build alternatives would include mitigation measures to improve stability
of the existing landslide. Section 3.12 (Geology) addresses landslide and other
geologic impacts.
Bridge closure during Traffic across the river during construction would be maintained under
construction Alternatives D, E, and D Refined, except for interim closures to replace the
existing bridge and construct the new bridge under Alternatives D and
D Refined. Alternative B includes the option of a temporary detour bridge
during construction. Traffic across the river would not be maintained during
maintenance activities under the No Build Alternative and during construction
activities under Build alternatives A, B (without the temporary detour bridge),
and C. Chapter 2 addresses estimated bridge construction time and
construction methods.

TABLE 5.2-1
Construction impacts Construction impact evaluation criteria were addressed in the evaluation
framework to screen the range of alternatives. Section 2.2 (Alternatives
Carried Forward to and Evaluated in the DEIS) addresses construction impacts
of the No Build Alternative and the Build alternatives.
Funding to construct bridge Chapter 2 provides the estimated cost for the No Build Alternative and the
improvements Build alternatives. Section 3.6 (Economic) discusses economic impacts,
including funding to construct bridge improvements. Multnomah County has
identified a preliminary Financial Plan to fund construction of the Sellwood
Bridge project from various funding sources. Multnomah County would not be
able to move ahead with construction until future project phases are included
in the financially constrained Regional Transportation Plan (anticipated to be
adopted by Metro in June 2010), and a Financial Plan demonstrating how the
project would be funded is developed and approved by FHWA.
Recreational facility impacts Recreational facility impacts were included in the evaluation framework to
screen the range of alternatives. Section 3.9 (Parks and Recreation) addresses
impacts to these facilities. The Final Section 4(f) Evaluation, appended to this
FEIS, also addresses impacts to recreational resources. The visual simulations
in Section 3.11 (Visual Resources) illustrate the impacts of the Build
alternatives to selected recreational facilities. The No Build Alternative would
have no impact on recreational facilities.
Historic resource impacts Historic resource impact evaluation criteria were included in the evaluation
framework to screen the range of alternatives. On the west side, the Build
alternatives were designed to minimize impacts to River View Cemetery and
the Superintendent’s House. The Build alternatives would avoid direct impacts
to Oaks Pioneer Church. All Build alternatives, including the rehabilitation
alternatives, would adversely affect the historic status of the Sellwood Bridge.
Section 3.10 (Archaeological and Historic Resources) and the Final Section 4(f)
Evaluation, appended to this FEIS, address the criteria to determine historic
resources and document impacts to historic resources. The No Build
Alternative would not impact historic resources.
Natural environment impacts, Natural environment evaluation criteria were included in the evaluation
including riparian vegetation, framework to screen the range of alternatives. Sections 3.13 (Water Quality),
fish, water quality, and 3.14 (Hydraulics), 3.15 (Aquatic Resources), 3.16 (Vegetation),
wetlands 3.17 (Wetlands), and 3.18 (Wildlife) address natural environment impacts.
River users and navigation The No Build Alternative and the Build alternatives would maintain or improve
the existing vertical clearance between the Willamette River and the bottom
of the bridge. Section 3.1 (Transportation) addresses navigational and river-
user impacts.
Bridge aesthetics and visual Aesthetic evaluation criteria were included in the evaluation framework to
impacts screen the range of alternatives. The public commented on proposed bridge
types through an online survey in November 2007. Section 3.11 (Visual
Resources) addresses visual impacts.
Use of resources to construct An evaluation criterion addressed material use in the evaluation framework to
the project screen the range of alternatives. Section 3.20 (Energy) addresses energy
impacts of the No Build Alternative and the Build alternatives.

Agency Review and Coordination
TABLE 5.2-1
Include all of SE Tacoma Street Multnomah County owns and maintains the existing Sellwood Bridge. This
in the project project addresses the Sellwood Bridge and its immediate bridge approaches,
owned by Multnomah County and ODOT. Its aim is development of a solution
for the structurally deficient structure. Because SE Tacoma Street (owned and
maintained by the City of Portland) is not part of the bridge structure, it is out
of scope for this project. Section 3.1 (Transportation) includes traffic impacts
beyond the Sellwood Bridge and its approaches. Improvements on SE Tacoma
Street for any of the Build alternatives would include the necessary transition
and approach work to match with the new or rehabilitated Sellwood Bridge.
 FHWA
5.3 Agency Review and
Coordination  National Marine Fisheries Service
This FEIS is prepared to comply with NEPA,  U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
which is a federal law that governs all projects
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
receiving federal funding or receiving permits
from federal agencies. NEPA regulations are  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
contained in 40 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) 1500–1508. Three agencies are leading  Oregon Department of Environmental
the NEPA process for this project—Multnomah Quality
County, FHWA, and ODOT. Groups formed
 Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
to carry out specific project roles (the PMT,
CTF, PAG, SAS, and working groups) were  Oregon Department of Land Conservation
described in Subsection 5.1.1. The following and Development
subsections summarize additional agency
coordination activities.  Oregon Department of State Lands
 Oregon State Historic Preservation Office

5.3.1 Collaborative
Environmental and The charter agreement among these agencies is
intended to facilitate environmental
Transportation Agreement
streamlining and stewardship in environmental
for Streamlining Process programs. The Major Transportation Projects
ODOT established the Collaborative Agreement is a follow-on agreement that
Environmental and Transportation Agreement provides the framework for tracking
for Streamlining (CETAS) process to transportation projects undergoing NEPA
coordinate review of transportation environmental impact statements.
construction projects. The process establishes
a working relationship between ODOT and CETAS agencies have provided input
10 federal and state transportation, natural throughout this project and have concurred on
resource, cultural resource, and land-use project decisions (such as the purpose and
planning agencies. In addition to ODOT, the need [Chapter 1], the range of alternatives to
agencies include: be studied [Chapter 2]), the criteria for the

identification of the preferred alternative, and The lead agencies for this project are
the identification of a preferred alternative. Multnomah County, FHWA, and ODOT. In
accordance with Section 6002 of SAFETEA-LU,
5.3.2 Lead, Cooperating, and letters were sent to various local agencies that
Participating Agencies might have been interested in participating in
The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient the project as cooperating or participating
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users agencies. Cooperating agencies are certain
(SAFETEA-LU) authorized federal surface federal agencies having jurisdiction by law or
transportation programs through fiscal year special expertise with respect to any
2009. (The United States Congress has environmental impact in a proposed project or
extended SAFETEA-LU into fiscal year 2010.) project alternative. Participating agencies
Section 6002 of SAFETEA-LU created include all federal, state, regional, or local
consolidated and enhanced environmental governmental agencies and tribes that have
streamlining regulations. It requires interest in the project. By definition,
transportation agencies to work together with cooperating agencies are also participating
the public, resource agencies, and other agencies. These agencies included local
interested parties to establish timeframes for jurisdictions, natural resource agencies, and
the environmental review of transportation other agencies that FHWA suggested. The
projects. The efficient and effective cooperating and participating agencies that
coordination of multiple environmental were involved in the project are listed in
reviews, analysis, and permitting actions is Table 5.3-1. Each of these agencies was
essential for meeting the environmental afforded the opportunity to comment at each
streamlining mandates under SAFETEA-LU. of the six decision points in the project.
TABLE 5.3-1
Cooperating and Participating Agencies
Federal Agencies
Federal Emergency Management Agency (p) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (c)
National Marine Fisheries Service (c) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (c)
U.S. Coast Guard (c) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (c)
State Agencies
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (p) Oregon Department of State Lands (p)
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (p) Oregon State Historic Preservation Office (p)
Oregon Department of Land Conservation and
Development (p)
Tribes and Local Agencies
Confederated Tribes of Siletz (p) Clackamas County (p)
City of Milwaukie (p) Metro (p)
City of Portland (p) TriMet (p)
c = cooperating agency
p = participating agency

This FEIS followed and complied with the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) Section 6002
requirements. The following list summarizes how this FEIS complies with Section 6002
requirements:
 Multnomah County, ODOT, and FHWA are joint lead agencies.
 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the Notice of Intent in the
Federal Register on November 9, 2006, to announce the initiation of the project.
 Invitation letters were mailed to cooperating and participating agencies on October 6,
2006.
 Scoping comments were collected from cooperating and participating agencies during
an agency scoping meeting in December 2006, and additional written comments were
mailed to the lead agencies and the project team. Cooperating and participating
SAFETEA-LU Section 6002 Compliance
agencies also helped prepare and adopt a Coordination Plan in December 2006.
 The public was invited to attend a public scoping open house on October 25, 2006, and
to take an online survey to collect public opinions on the draft Purpose and Need
statement.
 Cooperating and participating agencies were involved in the development of the
Purpose and Need statement and the Range of Alternatives. They also commented as
members of the Policy Advisory Group (PAG) and Project Management Team (PMT;
described in Section 5.1), and as agencies in the Collaborative Environmental and
Transportation Agreement for Streamlining (CETAS) process (described in
Section 5.3).
 The public was asked to help develop the Range of Alternatives at public scoping
workshops in April 2007 and July 2007 and through an online survey.
 The cooperating and participating agencies reviewed the methodology and coordinated
with the project to determine the correct level of detail for analyzing each alternative in
July 2007.
 The lead agencies established a comment period on the DEIS (November 18, 2008,
through December 22, 2008) and advertised the comment period through notices,
postcards, and the project Web site.
 The lead agencies identified a preferred alternative (Alternative D Refined). The
development of the preferred alternative to a higher level of detail than the other
alternatives evaluated in this FEIS will not prevent the lead agencies from making an
impartial decision on the appropriate course of action. In addition, identifying a
preferred alternative was necessary to facilitate the development of mitigation
measures.
 Following distribution of this FEIS, if any comments received on this FEIS can be
satisfied within the context of the preferred alternative, FHWA will issue a Record of
Decision.

Comments on the DEIS
provided directly to those on the Distribution

5.4 Comments on the DEIS List (Appendix E).
The public and agencies were offered the
opportunity to comment on the alternatives, 5.4.1 Public Briefings, Hearing,
their potential impacts, and the proposed and Open House
mitigation measures identified during the DEIS Public briefings, a public hearing, and a public
comment period. The comment period began open house were held to provide information
on November 18, 2008. Multnomah County and accept comments on the DEIS.
accepted comments through December 22,
2008. The comment period was publicized  Public Briefings. Written comments
through: were collected at these informational
briefings. The informational presentation
 A mailing to 23,000 households in the was posted on the project Web site.
project vicinity
 November 10, 2008
 An email announcement to the project Multnomah County Building
mailing list 501 SE Hawthorne Boulevard, Portland
6:00 to 7:00 p.m. and 7:15 to 8:15 p.m.
 Information in the local media, including
newspapers and radio  November 13, 2008
Oaks Park Dance Pavilion
 A banner over the bridge 7100 SE Oaks Park Way, Portland
6:00 to 7:00 p.m. and 7:15 to 8:15 p.m.
Comments could be made on the project Web
site at http://www.sellwoodbridge.org, emailed  Public Hearing and Public Open
to comment@sellwoodbridge.org, sent to House. Written and oral comments were
Multnomah County, or provided at the public taken during the Open House. Oral
briefings, hearings, and open house (which are testimony was taken during the public
described in the next section). hearing that members of the PAG attended
and Multnomah County Chair Ted
In October 2008, approximately 330 postcards
Wheeler led.
were mailed to those individuals on the project
mailing list who did not have an email address.  December 10, 2008
Recipients were encouraged to return the Oregon Museum of Science and
postcard to order a copy of the DEIS, a DEIS Industry
CD-ROM, or an Executive Summary of the 1945 SE Water Avenue, Portland
DEIS. On November 7 and 8, 2008, email 6:00 to 8:30 p.m. (Public Hearing from
messages with the same information were sent 7:00 to 8:30 p.m.)
to the remaining individuals on the project
5.4.2 DEIS Comment Summary
mailing list (over 5,000 email addresses).
A total of 184 individuals, 13 agencies, and
The DEIS was made available at the project 12 organizations commented on the DEIS:
Web site (http://www.sellwoodbridge.org), on
a CD-ROM (which could be obtained free of  Public Comments
charge from Multnomah County), and as  98 individuals submitted comments
printed copies (at select Multnomah County through the project Web site
and Clackamas County libraries). Printed copies  32 individuals gave oral testimony at
or CD-ROM versions of the DEIS were the December 10, 2008, Public Hearing

Activities Completed after Distribution of the DEIS
 29 individuals mailed comments to comments. Appendix J provides the text of the

Multnomah County comments received on the DEIS and copies of
the original comments received via the Open
 14 individuals submitted comments at
House and mail-in.
the December 10, 2008, Open House
 11 individuals gave oral testimony at 5.5 Activities Completed
the December 10, 2008, Open House
after Distribution of the
 Agency Comments
DEIS
 10 agencies mailed comments to
Multnomah County 5.5.1 Identification of a
 3 agencies submitted comments Preferred Alternative
through the project Web site The following information summarizes the CTF
 Organization Comments and PAG process used to identify a preferred
 6 organizations gave oral testimony at alternative. The process is outlined in more
the December 10, 2008, Public Hearing detail in the Identification and Refinement of the
Preferred Alternative Technical Memorandum
 3 organizations submitted comments (CH2M HILL, 2009b).
through the project Web site
Community Task Force Deliberations
 3 organizations mailed comments to
Multnomah County The CTF deliberated five times to discuss and
recommend a preferred alternative to the PAG.
Primarily, the public and organization The following items summarize each of the five
comments related to the traffic and economic CTF meetings (two of which were joint
impacts of closing the bridge during meetings with the PAG):
construction and the livability impacts with a
temporary detour bridge. (During construction,  October 26, 2008, Joint CTF/PAG
the preferred alternative, as outlined in Meeting. The project team presented
Section 5.5.1, would maintain bridge access preliminary findings of the DEIS to the CTF
across the river without a temporary detour and PAG.
bridge.)
 November 17, 2008, Meeting. After its
Primarily, the agency comments related to independent review of the DEIS, the CTF
natural resource impacts and park and was provided the opportunity to ask
recreational facility impacts. (The preferred questions about the DEIS findings. The CTF
alternative, as outlined in Section 2.3, was discussed the strengths and weaknesses of
refined to minimize natural resource and park each of the six alternatives evaluated in the
and recreational facility impacts.) DEIS and the elements of the alternatives
(alignment, bridge closure, bridge cross-
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Public, section, west-side interchanges, and east-
Agency, and Organization Comment Summary side connection).
Technical Memorandum (CH2M HILL, 2009a)
summarizes public and agency comments  January 5, 2009, Meeting. The project
received during the DEIS comment period in team presented to the CTF a summary of
more detail. Appendix I presents a summary of comments received on the DEIS and the
the comments received during the comment results of the online survey that allowed
period and provides responses to these interested people to identify a preferred

alternative and to suggest desired  The higher cost and construction

modifications to that alternative. The CTF impacts of a project phased over many
discussed the strengths and weaknesses of years would not be ideal for the
alternatives and their elements. In addition, community
the CTF developed topics they wanted the  It is important to develop a financing
project team to provide more information plan for building the entire project at
on at the next meeting. one time
 January 19, 2009, Meeting. The project  The bridge is in poor condition and the
team presented their findings related to the project needs to start soon
more detailed information the CTF
requested at its January 5, 2009, meeting. Policy Advisory Group Deliberations
After discussion, the CTF reached a strong At its meeting on February 6, 2009, the PAG
consensus on the following elements for discussed elements of the CTF-recommended
the preferred alternative: preferred alternative in the following order:
 A grade-separated and signalized  Alignment

interchange on the west side at the  East-side connection
intersection with Oregon 43 (OR 43)  West-side interchange
 Bridge cross-section
 The existing alignment built to the
south (alignment “D” in the DEIS) to The PAG considered the analysis documented
accommodate a cross-section with no in the DEIS, CTF input, and public comments
long-term bridge closure during when identifying the preferred alternative. The
construction PAG unanimously endorsed the
 A bicyclist/pedestrian-activated signal at recommendations of the CTF and adopted the
the SE Tacoma Street/SE 6th Avenue following as the preferred alternative:
intersection 1. Alignment “D” (existing bridge alignment
The CTF could not reach a consensus on and widen to the south)
the bridge cross-section. There was a split
2. A bicyclist/pedestrian-activated signal at the
decision amongst CTF members regarding
SE Tacoma Street/SE 6th Avenue
the width of the two-lane cross-section
intersection as the east-side connection
(either 64 feet wide or 74 feet wide at its
narrowest point). 3. A grade-separated and signalized
interchange on the west side at the
 January 26, 2009, Joint CTF/PAG
intersection with OR 43
Meeting. The CTF presented its
recommended preferred alternative to the 4. A bridge cross-section of 64 feet or less at
PAG. The PAG clarified with the CTF the its narrowest point
process and primary considerations the
The PAG endorsed this preferred alternative
CTF used to identify the preferred
predicated on the following conditions:
alternative. In its presentation, the CTF
emphasized the following points:  Strive to reduce total project cost
 Although the preferred alternative  Consider project phases as constrained by
could be phased, phasing was not a funding availability
driver in the recommendation

 Recognize that the established purpose of have been phased if full funding for the project
the project is: "To rehabilitate or replace were not available. In addition, compared to
the Sellwood Bridge within its existing east- Alternative D, Alternative E would have
west corridor to provide a structurally safe displaced more residences and businesses, and
bridge and connections that accommodate caused greater adverse impacts to parks and
multi-modal mobility needs" historic resources.
 Explore options for reducing the cost of 5.5.2 Local Jurisdiction

the west-side interchange without making
Adoption of a Preferred
traffic conditions worse than with the No
Build Alternative Alternative
The Multnomah County Board of
 Design the bridge as narrow as possible Commissioners, Clackamas County Board of
while maintaining two vehicular travel lanes, Commissioners, Metro Council, Portland City
bike lanes/shoulders, and sidewalks Council, and ODOT adopted the preferred
alternative in February and March of 2009.
 Produce a design consistent with the
FHWA will select one of the alternatives
adopted Tacoma Main Street Plan (City of
evaluated in this FEIS (that is, the No Build
Portland, 2001)
Alternative or Alternatives A through E,
 Design the bridge to accommodate including Alternative D Refined, the preferred
streetcar use alternative) when it issues a Record of Decision
(see Section 5.5.6).
 Minimize impacts to affected property
owners 5.5.3 Agency Coordination
 Strive to use sustainable construction After local jurisdictions adopted the preferred
materials and practices alternative, Multnomah County coordinated
with other agencies to:
The primary concern for the CTF in
recommending, and the PAG in adopting,  Address the PAG’s preferred alternative
Alternative D as the preferred alternative was conditions (summarized in Section 5.5.1)
to maintain traffic across the river during
 Further develop project elements (such as
construction. The temporary detour bridge was
access locations and stormwater facilities)
not preferred because of its social and natural
environmental impacts during construction.  Develop mitigation measures
While Alternative E would have also maintained
traffic across the river during construction, the  Meet permitting and approval requirements
bridge would have been located on a new Table 5.5-1 summarizes the agency
alignment. Therefore, construction could not coordination meetings that were conducted.

TABLE 5.5-1
Agency Coordination Meetings
Agencies Present
Date Meeting (in addition to Purpose of Meeting
Multnomah County)
May 18 and 19, Interchange Area ODOT, Portland Bureau of Develop access options for the
2009 Management Plan Transportation (PBOT) IAMP
(IAMP) Charette
May 28, 2009 IAMP Preferred Access PBOT Discuss IAMP preferred access
resolution
June 4, 2009 Stormwater ODOT Discuss stormwater facility options
Management
June 25, 2009 IAMP Meeting ODOT Discuss access options for the
IAMP
July 1, 2009 IAMP Meeting ODOT, PBOT Discuss access options for the
IAMP
IAMP
IAMP
July 13, 2009 Mitigation Approach  PBOT Discuss approach and process for
 City of Portland Bureau developing measures to mitigate
of Development Services impacts to City of Portland
(BDS) resources
 Portland Parks &
Recreation (PP&R)
 Portland Bureau of
Environmental Services
(BES)
 Portland Water Bureau
IAMP
July 16, 2009 Willamette River BDS Discuss approach and requirements
Greenway Goal for the Goal Exception application
Exception
July 22, 2009 Archaeological and State Historic Preservation Discuss archaeological and historic
Historic Resources Office (SHPO), ODOT resource mitigation options
Mitigation
July 23, 2009 Parks and Recreation PP&R, BES, Portland Water Discuss park and recreational
Mitigation Bureau facility impact mitigation options
August 4, 2009 Sellwood Bridge ODOT, PBOT Discuss opportunities to
Streetcar Access incorporate a streetcar into the
project design
August 5, 2009 Parks and Recreation PP&R Discuss park and recreational
Mitigation facility impact mitigation options

TABLE 5.5-1
Agencies Present
Multnomah County)
August 6, 2009 Bicycle/pedestrian PBOT Discuss the project’s bicycle and
Facilities pedestrian facilities
August 12, Parks and Recreation PP&R, BES Discuss park and recreational
2009 Mitigation facility impact mitigation options
August 24, Willamette Moorage PP&R, BES, Oregon Discuss park and recreational
2009 Park and Powers Marine Department of Fish and facility impact mitigation options
Park Site Visit Wildlife (ODFW) on-site
August 24, FEIS Coordination ODOT Discuss FEIS coordination
2009
August 27, Coordination with TriMet Discuss the status of the Sellwood
2009 Portland to Lake Bridge project and receive an
Oswego Streetcar update on the Portland to Lake
Project Oswego Streetcar Project
September 2, Parks and Recreation PP&R, BES, Portland Water Discuss park and recreational
2009 Mitigation Bureau facility impact mitigation options
September 3, Coordination with TriMet, Metro Discuss the status of the Sellwood
2009 Portland to Lake Bridge project and receive an
Oswego Streetcar update on the Portland to Lake
Project Oswego Streetcar Project
September 4, Greenway Goal BDS Discuss requirements for the Goal
2009 Exception Pre-Submittal Exception application
Meeting
September 15, ODOT Collaborative  FHWA Receive concurrence on the criteria
2009 Environmental and  National Marine for selecting the preferred
Transportation Fisheries Service (NMFS) alternative and the identification of
Agreement for  U.S. Army Corps of a preferred alternative
Streamlining (CETAS) Engineers
Process (Section 5.3.1  U.S. Environmental
describes CETAS) Protection Agency
 U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service
 ODOT
 ODFW
 Oregon Department of
State Lands
 SHPO
September 16, Biological Assessment ODOT, NMFS Discuss approach for development
2009 of the Biological Assessment
September 24, Archaeological and SHPO, ODOT Discuss and finalize archaeological
2009 Historic Resources and historic resources mitigation
Mitigation options

TABLE 5.5-1
Agencies Present
Multnomah County)
November 12, IAMP Coordination ODOT Discuss process to prepare and
2009 adopt the IAMP
January 20, FHWA and ODOT FHWA, ODOT Discuss process to finalize and
2010 Consultation distribute the FEIS and
requirements for a Record of
Decision
February 1, Greenway Goal BDS Public hearing for Greenway Permit
2010 Exception Public
Hearing (City of
Portland)
BDS = City of Portland Bureau of Development Services
BES = Portland Bureau of Environmental Services
IAMP = Interchange Area Management Plan
NMFS = National Marine Fisheries Service
ODFW = Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
ODOT = Oregon Department of Transportation
PBOT = Portland Bureau of Transportation
PP&R = Portland Parks & Recreation
SHPO = State Historic Preservation Office
5.5.4 Refinement of the 5.5.5 Other Federal, State, and

Preferred Alternative Local Actions Required for
After the PAG adopted a preferred alternative the Proposed Action
(Alternative D evaluated in the DEIS with a A number of actions are required before final
bicyclist/pedestrian-activated signal at the project approval would occur, as shown in
SE Tacoma Street/SE 6th Avenue intersection), Table 5.5-2.
the project team made various design
refinements to Alternative D. Section 2.3 of FHWA, in cooperation with ODOT and
this FEIS summarizes how Alternative D was Multnomah County, intends to issue a “statute
refined to incorporate new features that would of limitations” (SOL) notice in the Federal
minimize environmental impacts and address Register, pursuant to 23 United States Code
public and agency comments received on the (USC) Section 139(l). This notice would
DEIS and at the December 10, 2008, public indicate that one or more federal agencies have
hearing. taken final action on permits, licenses, or
approvals for this transportation project. This
SOL notice would establish that claims seeking
judicial review of those federal-agency actions
would be barred unless such claims were filed
within 180 days after the date of publication of

the notice in the Federal Register. Multnomah (Alternative D Refined). Following distribution
County will also make the SOL notice available of this FEIS, if any comments received on this
on the project website at FEIS can be satisfied within the context of the
http://www.sellwoodbridge.org. preferred alternative, FHWA will issue a
Record of Decision. FHWA approval of any of
5.5.6 Record of Decision the Build alternatives, including the preferred
This FEIS evaluates the economic, social, and alternative, would allow Multnomah County to
natural resource effects of the No Build move ahead with selection of a bridge type and
Alternative, the five Build alternatives evaluated project design.
in the DEIS, and the preferred alternative
TABLE 5.5-2
Federal Highway Administration Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation
Act of 1966
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/Oregon Department Clean Water Act, Section 404
of State Lands
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/Oregon Department Oregon’s Removal-Fill Law
of State Lands
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/Oregon Department Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act
of State Lands
Biological Opinion
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/National Marine Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
Fisheries Service
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/National Marine Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Fisheries Service Management Act
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/National Marine Migratory Bird Treaty Act
Fisheries Service
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Clean Water Act Section 401: Water Quality
Certification
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Clean Water Act Section 402: National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Clean Water Act Section 402: NPDES Municipal
Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Program

TABLE 5.5-2
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Conformance with Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality’s National Ambient Air Quality
Standards
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Fish Passage Plan Approval (Oregon Administrative
Rule [OAR] 635-012)
Oregon Department of Transportation Interchange Area Management and Access
Management Plan (OAR 734-051-0155)
Oregon Department of Transportation Access spacing deviation
State Historic Preservation Office Section 106 Consultation, National Historic
Preservation Act

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
S e l l w o o d B r i d g e P r o j e c t F i n a l S e c t i o n 4 ( f ) E v a l u a t i o n 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

S e l l w o o d B r i d g e P r o j e c t F i n a l S e c t i o n 4 ( f ) E v a l u a t i o n 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.
S e l l w o o d B r i d g e P r o j e c t F i n a l S e c t i o n 4 ( f ) E v a l u a t i o n 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 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?
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
W h a t i s t h e P u r p o s e o f the Project?
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 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

Why is the Project Needed?
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
Why is the Project Needed?
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.

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
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:

 Willamette Greenway Trail (East Bank)
 Willamette Greenway Trail (SE Spokane Street Section)
 Sellwood Riverfront Park
 Oaks Pioneer Park
 Sellwood Bridge Recreational Trail
 Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank)
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
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
FIGURE 1.6-1
Section 4(f) Resources in Impact Area of Build Alternatives

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.
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
TABLE 2.2-1
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

TABLE 2.2-1
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
TABLE 2.2-1
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).

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

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.
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.

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

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.

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).
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

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

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

FIGURE 2.2-4
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.
FIGURE 2.2-5
Alternative B Bridge Configuration and Cross-sections

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.

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.

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.
FIGURE 2.2-6
Temporary Detour Bridge Cross-section

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

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).

FIGURE 2.2-7
Alternative C: Right-of Way Footprint on Section 4(f) Resources
FIGURE 2.2-8
Alternative C Bridge Configuration and Cross-sections

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

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.

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.

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


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
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:
 West end. The bridge would include two travel lanes eastbound to facilitate movements
from the west-side interchange, which would merge into one travel lane eastbound.
Likewise, one travel lane westbound on the bridge would widen to three travel lanes
approaching the west-side interchange to separate northbound and southbound movements
and to provide for queuing.
 East end. There would be one travel lane in each direction. An eastbound left-turn lane
would be provided at the intersection of SE 6th Avenue with SE Tacoma Street. East of SE
6th Avenue, SE Tacoma Street would be one travel lane in each direction with a center-turn
lane (the same as the existing conditions).
Replacement Bridge
The bridge types being evaluated with Alternative D are the delta-frame and the deck-arch.
Figures 2.2-12 and 2.2-13 show the bridge types; these illustrations are conceptual and not
based on design. A delta-frame bridge would have eight bridge piers within the ordinary high
water elevation; a deck-arch bridge would have seven bridge piers within the ordinary high
water elevation. Both bridge types would have five smaller piers within the ordinary high water
elevation for the bicycle/pedestrian spiral ramps on the west side.
FIGURE 2.2-12
Delta-frame Bridge

FIGURE 2.2-13
Deck-arch Bridge

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

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

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

Figure 2.2-15 shows the bridge configuration and cross-sections for Alternative E.

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

FIGURE 2.2-17
Through-arch Bridge

The west-side interchange configuration would consist of a signalized intersection on the upper
level of the interchange to control traffic entering and exiting the Sellwood Bridge and River
View Cemetery (Figure 2.2-15). OR 43 would pass under this intersection on the lower level.
Ramps from the signalized intersection would provide access to and from OR 43. Signalized
crosswalks at the intersection would accommodate bicyclist and pedestrian access to west-side
destinations. A spiral ramp on the north side of the bridge would provide access to the
Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank). A roadway that would diverge from the new River
View Cemetery access and pass under OR 43 south of the roundabout would provide access to
Powers Marine Park and the Staff Jennings property. The loop for this access would be similar to
that of Alternatives A, B, or D, but more elongated.

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.

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
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
 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

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.
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.

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
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.
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.

P r e f e r r e d A l t e r n a t i v e (Alternative D Refined)
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
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.

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.
TABLE 2.4-1
Build Alternative Characteristics Including Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined)
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
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-
railings (total width of deck with two 1.5-
23 feet) foot-wide railings
to Phase IIa 23 feet)
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
 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

TABLE 2.4-1
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
SE Tacoma Street/SE
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
 Stress-ribbon or cable- span)
bridge
Property Access  New roadway to provide  New roadway to provide  No motor vehicle  New roadway to  New roadway to  Revised new roadway to
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
Bay Club Club Club
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
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
TABLE 2.4-1
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
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
e
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.

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
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

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

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

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.
 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.

FIGURE 2.4-7
Willamette Moorage Park and Macadam Bay Club Access Driveway –
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:

 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.
 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
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.
FIGURE 2.4-9
Willamette Moorage Park/Stephens Creek and Powers
Marine Park Mitigation and Enhancement Areas – Preferred Alternative

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
 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.
 Traffic control would be required on OR 43 during blasting activities. Nights and weekends
would be the most likely times to perform the work, coupled with temporary detours to
manage the traffic. Ten to 20 sessions would likely be required to excavate the rock.
Construction Storage and Fabrication Areas

 The construction contractor would need laydown areas for construction of the project. These
laydown areas, located on 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.
 The contractor would need river access near the bridge site. SE Spokane Street near the east
roadway approach of the existing bridge, one block north of SE Tacoma Street, has been
identified as a possible location where the contractor could establish access to the river. On the
west side, access would be at or near the existing boat ramp next to the Staff Jennings property.
 An approximately 5.0- to 8.0-acre site outside the project area would be needed to store bridge
components and additional pieces of equipment, and for assembly of bridge members. Materials
and equipment are expected to be assembled, stored, transported, and shipped by barge to the
project area from this staging area. The contractor would need a temporary loading dock facility
for assembly or loading of bridge members onto a barge.
 No mandatory construction storage, fabrication, or staging areas have been identified. The
contractor would be responsible for all environmental investigation, permitting, and mitigation.
In-Water Construction
Piers in the River
The existing river crossing has five piers within the ordinary high water elevation. Both bridge types
(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.

 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.
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.
S e l l w o o d B r i d g e P r o j e c t F i n a l S e c t i o n 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
 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

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
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.
Avoidance Concept 4: Tunnel Alignment
FIGURE 3.3-1
Bridge Alignment Concepts Evaluated
FIGURE 3.4-1
Tunnel Alignment

Avoidance Concept 4: Tunnel Alignment
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.
Section 4(f) Resources,
Section 4.
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.
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)

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.
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.

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

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.
below:
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
(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.
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).
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
amenities. The County would ensure that trail amenities would be returned to existing
conditions at the completion of the Sellwood Bridge project.
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.
Finding. As noted previously, although no damage is anticipated, Multnomah County would

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.
conditions have been met for the Willamette Greenway Trail (East Bank).

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).

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)

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

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.

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-

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.

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.
 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
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.

4.1.8 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.

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

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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]).

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:

 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).
Historic and Archaeological Resources
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.

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.

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.

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:

 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
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).

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

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
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

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.

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
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.
 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

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.

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.
Section 4(f) Assessment Summary
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.
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
Springwater A No
Corridor Trail
B No
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
(East Bank) B No
would be the same as for all the DEIS Build
B/TDB No alternatives.

TABLE 4.3-1
C No
D No
E No
D Refined No
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
bridge), and E
TABLE 4.3-1
D No Not a Section 4(f) use; overall project impacts

equal to Alternatives B, C, and D Refined, but less
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
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
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
Refined and E

TABLE 4.3-1
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
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
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
TABLE 4.3-1
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
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
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 Yes Overall project impacts equal to Alternatives A, B,
B (with temporary detour bridge), D, and D
Refined, but less than Alternative C

TABLE 4.3-1
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
TABLE 4.3-1
D No None
E No None
D Refined No None
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
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

TABLE 4.3-3
 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.
TABLE 4.3-3
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 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.

TABLE 4.3-3
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.
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
 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.
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
August 12, 2009 CH2MHILL Center PP&R, BES, PBOT, Multnomah
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
October 7, 2009 Portland Parks & Recreation PP&R, Multnomah County,
Portland Building CH2M HILL
Portland, OR
4(f)-102 S e l l w o o d B r i d g e P r o j e c t F i n a l S e c t i o n 4 ( f ) E v a l u a t i o n
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.
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
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 S e l l w o o d B r i d g e P r o j e c t F i n a l S e c t i o n 4 ( f ) E v a l u a t i o n
Attachment 1. Section 4(f) Temporary
Use Documentation: Springwater
Corridor Trail
Use Documentation: Willamette
Greenway Trail (East Bank)
Attachment 3. De minimis Findings
Documentation: Powers Marine Park
Use Documentation: Willamette
Greenway Trail (West Bank)
Attachment 5. De minimis Findings
Documentation: Willamette Moorage
Park
Attachment 6. Section 106
Determination of Eligibility (DOE) Forms
OREGON INVENTORY OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES
SECTION 106 DOCUMENTATION FORM
Individual Properties
Agency/Project: Oregon Department of Transportation and Multnomah County/Sellwood Bridge Project, Key No. 13762,
Federal Aid No. C051(68) PE
Property Name: Oaks Pioneer Church, formerly St. John’s Episcopal Church (1974)
Street Address: 455 Spokane Street City, County: Portland, Multnomah
USGS Quad Name: Lake Oswego Township: 1S Range: 1E Section: 22
This property is part of a District Grouping/Ensemble (see instructions)
Name of District or Grouping/Ensemble:
Number and Type of Associated Resources in Grouping/Ensemble:
Current Use: Social Construction Date: 1851

Architectural Classification / Resource Type: Neoclassical originally, Alterations & Dates: Various, see description
Gothic Revival after 1883 remodeling
Window Type & Material: Wood, double-hung sash and Exterior Surface Materials:
fixed Primary: Wood
Secondary:
Roof Type & Material: Wood
Decorative: Wood
Condition: Excellent Good Fair Poor Integrity: Excellent Good Fair Poor
Preliminary National Register Findings: National Register listed: 1974

Potentially Eligible: Individually As part of District
Not Eligible: In current state Irretrievable integrity loss Lacks Distinction Not 50 Years
State Historic Preservation Office Comments:

Concur Do Not Concur: Potentially Eligible Individually Potentially Eligible as part of District Not Eligible
Signed _____________________________________________________ Date ______________________________

Comments:
Surveyor/Agency: Jessica B. Feldman/CH2M HILL Date Recorded: June 19, 2007 Pg 1

106 Documentation: Individual Properties Rev. 08/03
Property Name: Oaks Pioneer Church, formerly St. John’s Episcopal Church
Architect, Builder or Designer (if known): Owner: Private Local Government State
Federal Other
Description of Property (including exterior alterations & approximate dates) (VERBATIM from the 1974 National Register
of Historic Places nomination):
It is a simple rectangle in plan measuring about 18 x 42 feet, with a heavy post and beam frame which is mortise and
tenoned together. There are three lancet windows on each side of the nave, one flanking either side of the slightly
extended vestibule tower and a single broad arched window over the altar. The medium pitched roof has simple boxed
eaves and a small plain frieze. There is an arched louvred opening and a small round window in the tower base above the
square-headed vestibule door. The double leaf doors contain four panels each. A small four-sided spire atop a square
belfry with an arched louvred opening on each side rises above the tower. The lanced (sic) windows of the nave contain
double-hung sashes: the upper sashes contain clear glass set in tracery mullions, the lower sashes four light symmetrically
arranged. Panels of the stained glass window at the chancel end are set in tracery mullions. The horizontal exterior drop
siding has vertical corner board trim. The tongue and groove interior wall finish is laid diagonally in a large chevron pattern.
Alterations and associated changes

1862: moved to Main Street in Milwaukie;
1869: chancel of the church extended by 3 bays;
1883: windows changed from square to gothic arch, steeple and stained glass windows added, enclosed entry vestibule
added;
1928: a basement was excavated for use as a kitchen and meeting area;
1950: moved to 2036 SE Jefferson in Milwaukie, the vestibule and entry were removed and a brick veneer structure with a
shed room was added between the church and adjacent structures;
1961: moved to current location;
After 1961 (date unknown): vestry added;
1969: flagpole added;
1980s: interior decorative alterations, rose garden, and brick walkways added.
Significance Statement (VERBATIM from the 1974 National Register of Historic Places nomination)
St. John’s Church is the first Episcopal church in the Oregon country, the oldest intact church building in Oregon, and for a
while served as the cathedral seat of the Episcopal Diocese of Oregon. When given by Lot Whitcomb, a pioneer operator
of steamboats on the Willamette River, in 1851, it was a partially completed double house outside the town of Milwaukie,
which Whitcomb had founded in the 1840s as a cooperative colony but which had largely dissolved with the general exodus
of the colonists to the California gold fields in 1849. Appropriate alterations were made and the building was completed as
a church.
In 1862 it was decided to move the building to a more central location within the town of Milwaukie, and according to some
sources, alterations were made to the chancel end in 1869. The most significant alterations however were made in 1888,
at which time the building was given its present Gothic Revival character. The original square-headed windows were given
pointed-arch heads, new siding was put on, and alterations were made to the tower and belfry, including the addition of a
spire and a small extended vestibule. The diagonal interior paneling probably dates from this time, as well as a small vestry
which once stood to the right of the nave at the chancel end. The belfry still houses the ship’s bell given by Whitcomb.
The building was moved again in 1928 temporarily while a new foundation and basement were constructed. After the
construction of a new church building in 1948, the venerable old structure served for a while as a chapel, but in 1969 (sic),
the decision was made to raze it. Through private efforts funds were raised to load it aboard a barge and float it a short
way down the Willamette River to its present site, where, minus the vestry and extended vestibule, it now serves as a
museum and is used [for] weddings. [Author’s note: 300 weddings a year are performed at this location.]
The National Register nomination was prepared after the building was moved three separate times from its original location.
Therefore, it lacks integrity of location and some elements of the historic setting and feeling. However, it retains integrity of
design (Gothic Revival), materials, workmanship, and association (as the oldest church in Oregon still in use and as the
oldest intact Episcopal Church in the state).
Under Criterion A, the period of significance would span 1851 (founding) to 1961 (end of era as St. John’s Episcopal
Church), while under Criterion C, the period of significance would span 1883 (Neo-Gothic architectural style) to 1928 (new
foundation and basement).
(See continuation sheet, page 6)

SECTION 106: DOCUMENTATION FORM
Continuation Sheet
View: Front view of the Oaks Pioneer Church, showing the vestry on the west side and the 1980 brick walkway.

Continuation Sheet
View: Rear view of Oaks Pioneer Church.
View: Dedication Plaque (1851).

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

Continuation Sheet
Sources
Norman, James B., Jr. Portland’s Architectural Heritage. Oregon Historical Society Press: Portland, 1991.
“Oaks Pioneer Church home page,” http://www.oakspioneerchurch.org/history.html.
“St. John’s Episcopal Church,” National Register of Historic Places Inventory – Nomination Form, prepared by D.W.
Powers, III, Temporary Assistant with the Parks and Recreation Section of the State Parks Department on August 5, 1974.
“St. John’s History,” http://www.stjohnsmilwaukee.org/history/history.htm.

Continuation Sheet

Property Name: Riverview Cemetery
Street Address: 8421 SW Macadam Avenue City, County: Portland, Multnomah
Name of District or Grouping/Ensemble: Riverview Cemetery
Number and Type of Associated Resources in Grouping/Ensemble: See continuation sheet
Current Use: Riverview Cemetery Construction Date: 1882 – 1945?

Architectural Classification / Resource Type: Cemetery Alterations & Dates: Various
Window Type & Material: N/A Exterior Surface Materials:

Primary:
Secondary:
Roof Type & Material: N/A
Decorative:
Preliminary National Register Findings: National Register listed


Signed _____________________________________________________ Date ______________________________

Comments:
Surveyor/Agency: Jessica B. Feldman/CH2M HILL Date Recorded: August 6, 2007 Pg 1

Federal Other
Description of Property (including exterior alterations & approximate dates)
Located south of downtown Portland, Riverview Cemetery is bounded by SW Macadam on the east, Taylors Ferry Road on
the north, the Greenwood Hills Cemetery and Boones Ferry road on the west, and Palatine Hill Road and Lewis & Clark
College on the south. The main entrances to the cemetery are located on SW Macadam Avenue, near the Sellwood
Bridge, and on Taylors Ferry Road. Original plans or correspondence relating to the original design of Riverview Cemetery
were not found in the course of the preparation of this form, but it is known that it was established in 1882 and designed by
Edward O. Schwagerl. The cemetery is approximately 300 acres in size and is situation on a wooded, sloping terrain
crisscrossed with unnamed curvilinear roads. The roads are paved or are gravel, and the cemetery is divided into sections.
The Superintendent’s House/Caretaker’s House (1914), which replaced an earlier building at the same location, and the
cemetery gates (1928) are located at the SW Macadam Avenue entrance. The cemetery office (1945), Mausoleum (1945),
and Charles Francis Adams Memorial Chapel (1943) are accessible from Taylors Ferry Road. In addition to the many
gravestones and family plot markers, a 1902 “Roll Call” statue, surrounded by the graves of 165 Oregonians who died in
the Spanish American War, is located to the northeast of the entrance from Taylors Ferry Road.
Significance Statement
The cemetery is considered locally significant. It was entered into the City of Portland Historic Resource Inventory (HRI)
circa 1982. It was given a Rank III code, which according to the City of Portland Historic Resource Protection Overlay Zone
ordinance (33.445.030) signifies that the resource may be eligible for listing in the National Register (of Historic Places) as
part of a Historic District. The HRI entry identifies the areas of significance as “Social” and “Landscape Architecture.”
According to the inventory form, “Members of many of Portland’s leading families were buried in Riverview Cemetery. This
cemetery was among those developed during the rural cemetery movement for which landscaping was very important.”
Criterion A: The cemetery appears to be eligible under Criteria A because it is one of the oldest cemeteries in the City of
Portland, and the oldest cemetery still owned and maintained by a private entity. Because of its age and its establishment
in the early 1880s, it contains the remains of persons who are considered important in the history, politics, and social
landscape of the city in the late 19th century. First settled in the 1840s, Portland was incorporated in 1851. By the 1880s,
Portland was a thriving port city on the Willamette River. At that time, Portland was five times larger than Seattle and had a
thriving downtown business and civic center on the west side of the river; the east side residential areas were slowly being
acquired, annexed, and developed.
Lone Fir Cemetery is the oldest cemetery in Portland. It was initially established in 1846 as a family gravesite on private
property. It was sold to the city of Portland in 1866 and named for the solitary tree at the site. Considered a historic
pioneer cemetery, it is now managed by Metro, the regional government. Lone Fir Cemetery is located between Stark and
Morrison streets on the north and south, and between SE 20th and SE 26th on the west and east.
Criterion B: Many people who were associated with the cemetery can be considered significant, especially in the
incorporation of the Riverview Cemetery Association in the late 1880s. The Association’s board included members of the
Failing, Corbett, and Ladd families. The Ladd family donated the land on which the cemetery would be situated. Twelve
former Portland mayors, including Henry Failing and William Ladd (both of whom were founding members of the cemetery
board), are buried at the cemetery. These persons have been established as significant for their contributions to the history
th
of the city of Portland in the late 19 century; however, this association does not meet the requirement for the cemetery to
be eligible for the National Register under Criterion B.
Criterion C: Under Criterion C, a cemetery may be eligible for the National Register if the property represents the work of
master artists, designers, and craftsman, or the highest artistic values of the period. Riverview Cemetery may be the first
cemetery in Portland to have been established by committee and designed as a “rural” cemetery, a style that reflected the
romantic notions of the period. The cemetery, which opened in the late 19th century, retains integrity of location, design,
setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. It exhibits those elements that distinguish the rural cemetery
design, continues to evoke the period in which it was first established, and possesses high artistic value. Therefore, it
appears eligible for the National Register under Criterion C.
Although Lone Fir Cemetery and Riverview Cemetery are early important examples of cemeteries in Portland and both
contain the final resting places of significant person in local and state history, there are several essential differences
between the two cemeteries. These differences include their origin (family plot/organized development), date of
establishment (1866/1882), design (designed landscape), size (30 acres/300+ acres), location (urban/rural), and ownership
(municipal/private non-profit).

SECTION 106: SUPPLEMENTAL PHOTOGRAPHS
View: Superintendent’s House and cemetery gates.
View: The Helms Mausoleum.

Continuation Sheet

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

Continuation Sheet
th
Doyle, who practiced architecture in the first decades of the 20 century, designed buildings referred to as “distinctly above
the ordinary as to be considered of national artistic importance.” [Bosker and Lencek, p.36] He began practicing in 1909,
and opened his own office in Portland. Some of his best known works include the downtown Meier and Frank department
store building (1909), the United States National Bank (1917), and the Bank of California (1924). He also served on the
City Planning Commission. Doyle was considered the “master builder” of Portland in the early 20th century, having shaped
much of the architectural tone of the downtown area between 1909 and 1929. Pietro Belluschi, a designer, led the firm of
A.E. Doyle and Associates after Doyle’s death. In his own right, Belluschi was renowned for his use of the modern Art
Deco/Moderne and International styles for commercial and civic structures. He is most noted for Portland’s Equitable
Building (1948), which many consider the first curtain-walled skyscraper in the United States. Later he was the Dean of
Architecture at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1951-1965).
Criteria Consideration D: The Riverview Cemetery meets the requirements of Criteria Consideration D because it is
eligible for the National Register under Criteria A and C; it contains the graves of numerous persons of importance in local
and state history, including members of some of the founding families, industrialists, and politicians from Portland (such as
William L. Ladd, Henry Failing, Henry Corbett, two Governors, two Senators, a Representative to Congress, an early mayor
of Portland, the first state Chief of Water Works, and a State Surveyor General [who was also the City’s Superintendent of
Streets and a City Engineer]), important local artists, the organizer of the first local volunteer fire department, a Rose
Festival Queen and Princess, and the second Chinese woman to have received a pilot’s license; it possesses important
historic associations with Portland’s early period of settlement; and it embodies those characteristics that distinguish it as
th
an important local example of the “rural cemetery” movement of the 19 century.
Associated Properties/Contributing Features (not inclusive):

Curvilinear drives (to be determined) and their associated brick culverts and gutters; Paths and trails (to be determined);
Retaining walls (to be determined); Original landscaping (to be determined); Helms Mausoleum, designer unknown,
constructed circa 1910; Superintendent’s House, designed by Ellis Lawrence, constructed 1914; cemetery gate(s), design
attributed to A.E. Doyle, constructed circa 1928; Charles Francis Adams Memorial Chapel, designed by Pietro Belluschi,
constructed 1943; Mausoleum, designed by Pietro Belluschi, completed 1945; Office, designed by Pietro Belluschi,
completed 1945.
Sources:
Bosker, Gideon, and Lena Lencek. Frozen Music, A History of Portland Architecture. Western Imprints, The Press of the
Oregon Historical Society: Portland, OR, 1985.
Curl, James Stephen. “The Architecture and Planning of the Nineteenth Century Cemetery,” Garden History, Vol. 3, No. 3
Summer 1975.
“E.O. Schwagerl and Seattle Parks,” www.halcyon.com/tmend/schwagerl.htm, accessed on multiple dates.
French, Stanley. “The Cemetery as Cultural Institution: The Establishment of Mount Auburn and the ‘Rural Cemetery
Movement,’” American Quarterly, Vol. 26, No. 1, March 1974.
Hawkins, William J., III, and William F. Willingham. Classic Houses of Portland, Oregon: 1850-1950. Timber Press, Inc:
Portland, Oregon, 1999.
Historic Preservation Program, School of Architecture and Allied Arts, University of Oregon. “Oregon Inventory of Historic
Property, Ellis Lawrence Building Survey.” April 1, 1989.
Lansing, Jewel. Portland, People, Politics, and Power, 1851-2001. Oregon State University Press: Corvallis, OR, 2005.
MacColl, E. Kimbark. The Growth of a City: Power and Politics in Portland, Oregon 1915 to 1950. The Georgian Press:
Portland, OR, 1979.
MacColl, E. Kimbark. The Shaping of a City: Business and Politics in Portland, Oregon 1885 to 1915. The Georgian Press:
Portland, OR, 1976.
Maddux, Percy. City on the Willamette. Binfords & Mort: Portland, OR, 1952.
“National Historic Site Nomination for Historic Woodlawn Cemetery,” www.historic-woodlawn.com/historynps.html,
accessed on March 20, 2008.
Ochsner, Jeffrey Karl, Ed. Shaping Seattle Architecture. University of Washington Press: Seattle, WA.
O’Donnell, Terence, and Thomas Vaughan. Portland, A Historical Sketch and Guide. Oregon Historical Society/Glass-
Dahlstrom Printers: Portland, OR, 1976.
Potter, Elisabeth Walton, and Beth M. Boland. Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Cemeteries and Burial Places.
National Register Bulletin 41. United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1992.
th th
Ritz, Richard Ellison. Architects of Oregon: A Biographical Dictionary of Architects Deceased – 19 and 20 Centuries.
Lair Hill Publishing: Portland, OR, 2002.
“Riverview Cemetery in Cleveland,” www.riversidecemeterycleveland.org, accessed on multiple dates.
“Seattle Parks and Recreation: Park History,” www.seattle.gov/parks/history/default.org, accessed on March 20, 2008.

Continuation Sheet
View: The Charles Francis Adams Memorial Chapel, designed by Pietro Belluschi, 1943.
View: The Riverview Cemetery Funeral Home, Mausoleum, and Office, designed by Pietro Belluschi, 1945.

Continuation Sheet
View: Noting the landscaping, foliage, and retaining walls.
View: An example of the curvilinear road design and the landscaping.

Continuation Sheet
View: The “Roll Call” statue and surrounding circle of military-style markers.
View: A section of road showing the brick gutter.

Continuation Sheet

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

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

Continuation Sheet

Property Name: Riverview Cemetery, Superintendent’s House/Caretaker’s House
Current Use: Other Construction Date: 1914

Architectural Classification / Resource Type: Georgian Revival Alterations & Dates: Removal of widow’s walk,
(sometimes referred to in publications as Colonial Revival) Domestic and possible roof replacement after 1988.
Window Type & Material: Multi-pane, double-hung wood Exterior Surface Materials:
Primary: Brick
Secondary: Wood
Roof Type & Material: Hipped with composition shingle
Decorative: Wood balustrade atop truncated hip roof, cornice
with block modillions, shutters, round arch hood with shell motif,
brackets, and sidelights


Signed _____________________________________________________ Date ______________________________

Comments:

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

Continuation Sheet
When the building was constructed in 1914, its setting would have been somewhat similar to its current setting – a cleared
parcel at the base of a forested slope containing a large cemetery facing the river across SW Macadam. The setting is still
somewhat rural because of its location at the edge of the cemetery. However, there have been some changes to the
setting of the property. These changes include the construction of the Sellwood Bridge in 1925 (within the period of
significance), the 1960s alteration of the west end ramp alignment of the Sellwood Bridge, and the construction of the
parking lot and wheelchair ramps. Key exterior materials, such as the brick construction, the wood details like the cornice,
the front door surrounds (pediment, pilasters, etc.), and windows remain intact. Therefore, in general, the integrity of
materials is intact. Although this is not as important an issue of integrity as several other aspects, the workmanship
appears to be intact. In general, because the location, design, setting, materials, and workmanship are largely intact, the
property is still able to convey its significance. Feeling is intact and association (which requires the presence of physical
features that convey the property’s historic character) is also intact.
The Superintendent’s House does not appear to meet National Register Criterion A because it has no known associations
with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history. Furthermore, this property does
not appear to be individually eligible for the National Register under Criterion B because the association with Lawrence, a
prominent local architect, does not meet the specification that this property illustrates his important contributions to the field
of architecture. Typically, architects are best represented by work that may be eligible for the National Register under
Criterion C.
This structure is eligible for the National Register under Criterion C as representing a stylistic achievement by Lawrence.
According to the Oregon Inventory of Historic Property form prepared for the Ellis Lawrence Building Survey, the structure
is a prime example of its style and is unique when compared to Lawrence’s other surviving designs locally and within the
state. As stated in that document, it is one of his best works. Therefore, it is eligible for the National Register under
Criterion C for its high artistic value and as a rare example of the use of a style by this particular architect, because it
displays those distinctive characteristics that evoke the Georgian style of residential architecture.
Sources:
Bosker, Gideon, and Lena Lencek. Frozen Music, A History of Portland Architecture. Western Imprints, The Press of the
Oregon Historical Society: Portland, OR, 1985.
City of Portland, Oregon. “8421 S.W. Macadam Avenue.” Historic Resource Inventory Form. 1982.
Curl, James Stephen. “The Architecture and Planning of the Nineteenth Century Cemetery.” Garden History, Vol. 3, No. 3,
Summer 1975.
Demuth, Kimberly, Kimberly Lakin, and Patricia Sackett. “Architecture of Ellis F. Lawrence Multiple Property Submission
(MPS).” Submitted to the United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 1990.
French, Stanley. “The Cemetery as Cultural Institution: The Establishment of Mount Auburn and the ‘Rural Cemetery
Movement.’” American Quarterly, Vol. 26, No. 1, March 1974.
Hawkins, William J., III, and William F. Willingham. Classic Houses of Portland, Oregon, 1850-1950. Timber Press,
Portland, OR, 1999.
Historic Preservation Program, School of Architecture and Allied Arts, University of Oregon. “Oregon Inventory of Historic
Property, Ellis Lawrence Building Survey.” April 1, 1989.
Portland, OR, 1979.
Potter, Elisabeth Walton, and Beth M. Boland. Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Cemeteries and Burial Places.
National Register Bulletin 41. United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 1992.
Ritz, Richard Ellison. Architects of Oregon, A Biographical Dictionary of Architects Deceased – 19th and 20th Centuries.
Lair Hill Publishing, Portland, OR, 2002.


View: Looking northwest towards the front (east) and north façades; also note the concrete ramp and other landscaping.
View: The rear (west) and south sides of the building, looking east/northeast.

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


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


SECTION 106 BRIDGE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY FORM
Structure Name and Number: Sellwood Bridge, No. 6879 City, County: Portland, Multnomah County
Location: Willamette River mile 16.5 Lat: 45.4640846 Long: -122.6657715
USGS Quad Name: Lake Oswego General Class of Main Structure
Township: 1S Range: 1E Section: 22 Truss Arch Moveable Slab/Beam/Girder Other
Structural Information: Dimensions: Date of Construction: 1925

Super Structure: Steel Roadway Width: 24 feet Designer: Gustav Lindenthal
Main Span: Steel Structure Length: 1,092 feet Contractor: Gilpin Construction
Secondary Span(s): Steel Structure Width: 28 feet
Floor/decking: Steel Floor/decking: Alterations/moved (dates): Various, see continuation sheet
Support Structure: Reinforced
concrete
Plaque Sidewalk Other Features:
Material:
Concrete Steel
Rail type: Reinforced concrete window arch
Wood
Condition: Integrity:
Excellent Good Fair Poor Excellent Good Fair Poor
Preliminary National Register Findings:

National Register listed Potentially Eligible: Individually As part of District Name of District________________________
As part of Multiple Property Submission Name of MPS_____________________________________

Concur Do Not Concur:
Potentially Eligible Individually Potentially Eligible As part of District Not Eligible
Signed _____________________________________________________ Date ______________________________

Comments:
Surveyor/Agency: Jessica B. Feldman/CH2M HILL Date Recorded: June 15, 2007 106 Bridge Documentation Pg. 1
SECTION 106 BRIDGE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY FORM
Structure Name and Number: Sellwood Bridge, ODOT No.

6879 City, County: Portland, Multnomah
Location: Willamette River mile 16.5
Owner: Private Local Government State Federal Other
Name: Multnomah County
Address: Business and Community Services Department, 501 SE Hawthorne Boulevard
City, State, Zip: Portland, OR, 97214
Phone: (503) 988-3043
Significance:
Technological Significance: Historical Significance: National Register Criteria:
Represents the work of a master Associated with significant persons Criterion A
Possesses high artistic values Associated with significant events or patterns Criterion B
Represents a type, period or method of construction Contributes to historical district Criterion C
DESCRIPTION:
The Sellwood Bridge is a fixed span bridge consisting of four continuous deck trusses, which are subdivided Warren
trusses. It spans the Willamette River between the Sellwood neighborhood on the east side and Riverview Cemetery on
the west side of the river. Its eastern terminus is the intersection of SE Sixth Avenue and Tacoma Street and its western
terminus intersects with SW Macadam Avenue at Riverview Cemetery. The bridge carries two lanes of traffic in each
direction, each 12 feet wide with a 4-foot wide pedestrian sidewalk on the north side of the bridge. The total length of the
continuous truss is 1,092 feet, with each center span measuring 300 feet long. The approach spans, which are reinforced
concrete, measure 246 feet in length. The steel plate girder spans at the end of the truss came from the 1894 Burnside
Bridge. The five piers supporting the spans are reinforced concrete as well.
(See Continuation Sheet)
SIGNIFICANCE:
The Sellwood Bridge was evaluated for significance using the National Register of Historic Places (National Register)
Criteria and was found to be eligible under Criterion A and Criterion C.
In order to meet the requirements of Criterion A of the National Register, a structure must be associated with one or more
events considered important within a historic context. As one of the 10 Willamette River bridges in the vicinity of Portland,
Oregon, the construction of the Sellwood Bridge was part of the large-scale, publicly funded, bridge construction program
that Multnomah County began in the early 20th century. These 10 vehicular bridges represent different eras of bridge
design and the concepts of different engineers, designers, and planners. Collectively, however, the bridges represent and
are associated with significant periods of development of the city of Portland.
“Portland’s ten Willamette River vehicular bridges began as solutions to the problem of linking the city’s east side with its
west side business center. They also reflected the powerful economic influences of real estate developers, street railways
companies, and railroads. By the 1920s, common use of the automobile motivated building of new bridges to handle more
traffic and serve outlying areas such as Sellwood and St. Johns.” [HAER OR-55, “WILLAMETTE RIVER BRIDGES, p. 1]
The Sellwood Bridge was also the first local through-truss bridge to be designed and built with the automobile clearly
defined as the primary user of these crossing; it was the first constructed without trolley tracks. Along with the Ross Island
Bridge (1926) and the Burnside Bridge (1926), the Sellwood Bridge was designed as a deck truss, to provide more width for
trucks and cars. Furthermore, the completion of these three bridges in the mid-1920s coincided with, and influenced, the
increasing number of cars and trucks transporting goods, services, and workers between the downtown business district on
the west side of the river and the growing residential areas on the east side of the river, as well as to the south. Therefore,
the Sellwood Bridge is eligible for the National Register under Criterion A.
(See Continuation Sheet)
SECTION 106: BRIDGE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY FORM
Continuation Sheet
Structure Name and Number: Sellwood Bridge, ODOT No. City, County: Portland, Multnomah
6879
HISTORY:
In the early 20th century, Multnomah County began a bridge-building program to construct several spans across the
Willamette River. The original team hired to design these bridges was removed from the project because of evidence of
bribe-taking. Gustav Lindenthal was hired by the County in the wake of the scandal. Lindenthal’s directions were to review
the existing design plans for the Sellwood, Ross Island, and new Burnside bridges and propose changes. In the case of
the Sellwood Bridge, Lindenthal recommended that elements of the original design, specifically the approach spans and the
river substructure, be retained. However, he decided that a new truss design was preferred and the result was the four-
span continuous sub-divided Warren truss design. The bridge was originally designed to carry 15,000 cars per day. It did
not reach that capacity until the 1960s. When it was completed, the cost for the bridge was $541,000. The Sellwood
Bridge was officially dedicated on December 15, 1925. It replaced a ferry crossing, the Spokane Street Ferry, which had
been in operation for more than 30 years. It served the Sellwood neighborhood, which was platted in the early 1880s by
Henry L. Pittock’s Sellwood Real Estate Company and was annexed by Portland in 1893. Between 1892 and 1925, the
ferry John F. Caples transported passengers from the east side of Spokane Street, one block north of SE Tacoma Street
west across the river. The west side landing was located at what is now a dead-end street – Sellwood Ferry Road.
CONTEXT:
Measures of Rarity/Uniqueness/Distribution [In Oregon]
Total number of type built prior to 1940: 23
Total number of type built 1941 to present: 15
Total number of type built prior to subject bridge: 6
Total number of type built during the year of subject bridge: 2 (including subject bridge)
Total number of type that are longer: 1
Total number of type in same county: 10
Total number of type on same highway: 0
Total number of type in region:
Oregon Coast: 4
Willamette Valley: 12
Southern Oregon: 14
Eastern Oregon: 6
Discussion of Rarity or Uniqueness
“Sellwood Bridge is: 1) one of only 215 known truss highway bridges in Oregon; 2) one of only five known continuous
highway trusses (of any type or span length) in Oregon; and 3) the state’s only known highway continuous deck truss. In
addition, Sellwood is one of five Portland spans associated with Gustav Lindenthal during the period 1925-1928 and is
among the last bridges of this master American bridge designer’s career. A rare example of a Lindenthal highway-only
deck truss, Sellwood is significant because of its unusually finely subdivided Warren Truss with Verticals, that part of its
superstructure and its entire substructure designed by Kansas City engineer Ira G. Hedrick, a one-time partner of J.A.L.
Waddell.” [Sellwood Bridge, HAER OR-103, pp. 2-3]
There were other spans across the Willamette River before the Sellwood Bridge was constructed, but it was the first built
without a moveable span and was also the first to be designed without trolley tracks.
SOURCES:
Bottenberg, Ray. Bridges of Portland. Arcadia Publishing: Charleston, SC, 2007.
City of Portland Historic Resource Inventory, Sellwood Bridge form.
National Bridge Inventory, http://nationalbridges.com/.
Parsons Brinckerhoff and Engineering and Industrial Heritage. “A Context For Common Historic Bridge Types.”
October 2005.
Steinman, David B., and Sara Ruth Watson. Bridges and their Builders. Dover Publications, Inc.: New York, NY, 1957.
Wortman, Sharon Wood, for the Historic American Engineering Record (HAER). “Sellwood Bridge, HAER OR-103.” Circa
2000.
Wortman, Sharon Wood, with Ed Wortman. The Portland Bridge Book. Urban Adventure Press: Portland OR, 2006.
Wortman, Sharon Wood, and Edward J. Wortman. “Response to ‘Evolution of the Continuous Truss Bridge’, by Francis E.
Griggs, Jr.” Originally published in American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Vol. 12, No. 1, January/February 2007.
SECTION 106: BRIDGE DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY FORM
Continuation Sheet
6879
Description: continued
According to several sources, the substructure and superstructure of the bridge remain essentially intact; the west end
approach has been altered through reconstruction. These alterations include but are not limited to reconstructing Pier 21
by adding piling, concrete buttresses, and truss-bearing modifications circa 1961 and the new west approach interchange
completed in 1981. According to the HAER report, the original lighting system was replaced in 1952 with mercury vapor
luminaires with aluminum pendant standards. The 1952 lighting system was replaced by a high intensive discharge lighting
system in 1976.
Significance: continued
In order for a structure to be eligible under National Register Criterion C as “a true representative of a particular type,
period, or method of construction,” it must exhibit the character-defining features of that type, period, or style. The
Sellwood Bridge retains the important character-defining features of the subdivided Warren truss, and appears to retain
integrity of location, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.
The Warren truss was patented in 1848 by James Warren and Willoughby Monzoni in the United Kingdom. The defining
characteristics include the presence of isosceles or equilateral triangles formed by the web members, which then connect
the top and bottom chords. The Warren truss has become one of the most ubiquitous bridge forms since the 1920s, mainly
because of the economy of the truss bridge—it uses less material, but the organization of the reinforcing framework is
stronger and can carry more weight than other designs. Therefore, the bridge structure itself can be lighter and the spans
longer.
The continuous truss bridge design was first used by Lindenthal for the Sciotioville Bridge (1917) over the Ohio River. One
source referred to the latter bridge as, “the prototype for long continuous-truss bridges in America.” [Steinman, p.372]
According to Lindenthal, continuous span bridges were a superior choice because: 1) A continuous structure generally will
require less material, 2) deflections and vibrations are smaller in a continuous structure as compared to a cantilever
structure, 3) a continuous span is more damage-proof than either a simple span or a cantilever type, 4) portions of a
continuous structure can be erected by the cantilever method and, therefore, would not require the cost and construction of
erecting falsework and will not interfere with river traffic, and 5) the profile of the continuous span is more attractive than
cantilever types or simple spans. [HAER, p.9]
A subset of the Warren truss bridge design is the Subdivided Warren Truss, where the triangles are further split, generally
with a vertical member. According to “A Context For Common Historic Bridge Types,” the Subdivided Warren Truss is
considered to be one of the least common bridge types. Examples that retain their character-defining features are,
therefore, highly significant within the context of the study. Character-defining features of the subdivided Warren truss
include parallel top and bottom chords, diagonal members, floor beams, stringers, and struts; method of construction; portal
features; and vertical members.
The Sellwood Bridge is also eligible for listing on the National Register under Criterion C because it appears to be a rare
bridge type locally and within the state. It is the only known highway continuous deck truss in Oregon, and one of just five
in the state. The other four are either two- or three-span continuous through trusses, which makes the Sellwood Bridge
unique amongst this type of bridge design. Additionally, the other continuous truss bridges were built between 1929 and
1950, making the Sellwood Bridge the oldest remaining one. The Sellwood Bridge demonstrates the application of a
common bridge type in an unusual way, increasing the number of spans from two or three to four, in order to achieve an
artistic effect.
Under National Register Criterion C, to be eligible for listing as the “work of a master,” a structure must express a particular
phase in the development of that person’s career, an aspect of his or her work, or a particular idea or theme in his or her
craft. The Sellwood Bridge is eligible for listing under Criterion C of the National Register as a work of a master, Gustav
Lindenthal. The legacy of Gustav Lindenthal as one of the most significant bridge engineers of the late 19th and early 20th
centuries has been established. The Sellwood Bridge was designed less than 10 years after Lindenthal first erected the
Sciotioville Bridge, his first continuous span bridge. He prepared design plans for five Portland-area bridges in less than
5 years, but the Sellwood bridge was his first, the longest, and the only four-span truss bridge.
6879
View: Looking north towards a section of the bridge railing, with a view of the current asphalt covering the deck (taken June 2007).
View: Close-up of the bridge railing, looking north/northwest from the east end (taken June 2007).
6879
View: Looking east to west from the sidewalk on the north side of the bridge; this gives a good view of the current lighting standards (taken
June 2007).
View: Looking northeast. See page 83 of The Portland Bridge Book, date of image unknown.
6879
View: Looking west to east from the bridge during its construction. This image is on page 84 of The Portland Bridge Book.
View: Looking southeast at the bridge from the west side of the Willamette River. This image is from 1961 and can be found on page 53 of
Bridges of Portland.
6879
View: Possibly taken in 1926, this view is looking northeast from south of the bridge. See page 52 of Bridges of Portland.
View: Looking straight down the center of the bridge, from the east towards the west side terminus. See page 54 of Bridges of Portland, which
states that this image dates from 1965.
SECTION 106 BRIDGE SUPPLEMENTAL FORMS
MAP/DRAWING
Continuation Sheet
6879
Agency/Project: Oregon Department of Transportation & Multnomah County, Sellwood Bridge Project, Key No. 13762,
Property Name: Southern Pacific Railroad Red Electric Eastside Line (aka Jefferson Street Line)
Street Address: Six miles of rail line from the intersection of SW
Bancroft St. and SW Moody Ave. in Portland, heading south to 0.5 mile City, County: Portland, Multnomah and
north of the intersection of N State St. and Foothills Rd. in Lake Lake Oswego, Clackamas
Oswego.
Township: 1S Range: 1E Sections: 10, 15, 22, 27, 35

USGS Quad Names: Portland and Lake Oswego
Township: 2S Range: 1E Sections: 2, 3
Current Use: Rail-related Construction Date: Orig. 1887

Architectural Classification / Resource Type: Other, railroad, trestles, Alterations & Dates: Various, including new rails
tunnel and addition and removal of catenary wire and
related apparatus for electrification and signals.
Window Type & Material: N/A Exterior Surface Materials:
Primary: N/A
Roof Type & Material: N/A Secondary: N/A
Decorative: N/A

Signed _____________________________________________________ Date ______________________________

Comments:

Property Name: Sellwood Bridge Replacement Project
Street Address: Southern Pacific Railroad Red Electric Eastside Line City, County: Portland, Multnomah
Southern Pacific Railroad Federal Other
Description of Property (including exterior alterations & approximate dates). (Use continuation sheets if necessary):
The Southern Pacific Railroad Red Electric Eastside Line is part of a railroad corridor in the Willamette Valley, located
between Portland and St. Joseph. It comprises the east side of a loop that ran on the west bank of the Willamette River
from Union Station in downtown Portland and south along SW Fourth Avenue before heading east on SW Jefferson Street
to a levee at the Willamette River. From there, it ran south to Oswego (now known as Lake Oswego). Then, the line turned
west towards Newberg and on to the communities of St. Joseph and McMinnville. The line returned to Portland on the
“west side,” traveling north towards Forest Grove before turning east to Hillsboro, Beaverton, and Bertha (now Hillsdale),
before arriving back at Portland Union Station.
The Southern Pacific Railroad Red Electric Eastside Line (aka Jefferson Street Line) portion of the Red Electric lines begins
at the intersection of SW Bancroft Street and SW Moody Avenue in southwest Portland heading south 6 miles to 0.5 mile
north of the intersection of N State Street and Foothills Road in Lake Oswego.
The extant portion of the old Jefferson Street line has a high degree of original integrity. It still lies between SW Macadam
Avenue and the Willamette River in the mixed commercial/residential neighborhood of southwest Portland. When it leaves
the city, the route enters Dunthorpe, a primarily affluent residential area of unincorporated Multnomah County. Then it
arrives at the north end of the city of Lake Oswego. Two important contributing features in this segment, the Elk Rock
Tunnel and the Riverwood Trestle, remain intact. In addition, the line has the ballast, ties, rails, and related equipment and
structures necessary to handle rail traffic. However, the line is no longer electrified; all overhead power lines are gone.
Passenger stations no longer exist. One electrical substation associated with the Eastside Line is east of the southern
terminus and not included as a contributing feature in this determination. Nevertheless, the Southern Pacific Railroad Red
Electric Eastside Line retains a relatively high degree of integrity—its location, design, setting, materials, workmanship,
feeling, and association for the period of significance (1914 to 1929).
After the Red Electric ceased operations on the line, it continued to serve freight traffic for over 50 years. Since 1987, the
Willamette Shore Trolley has provided seasonal excursion service between Portland and Lake Oswego on two historic
trolley cars. The Oregon Electric Railway Historical Society has operated the trolley cars since 1995.
Significance Statement
(Transportation)
In 1887, the Portland & Willamette Valley Railroad opened its steam lines in western Oregon. Shortly afterwards, the
Southern Pacific Railroad announced control of the Portland & Willamette Valley Railroad and improved the line. This
created a loop that served many communities south and west of Portland. It also became part of the larger Southern
Pacific rail network in western Oregon. By 1914, the Southern Pacific had electrified the loop and had begun employing
red-colored electric cars, hence the name “Red Electric.”
According to The Red Electrics Southern Pacific’s Oregon Interurban by Tom Dill and Walter Grande, “This line was unique
among electric interurbans in the West. It was the only major electric railroad converted from steam to electric interurban
passenger use; one of the few systems with all-steel equipment, and one of the largest in the country.” By 1920, 64 cars
ran daily between Portland and Lake Oswego. After 1929, however, the Southern Pacific abandoned its interest in
streetcars in Portland; freight trains used the line until 1983. The Southern Pacific Railroad Red Electric Eastside Line was
one of the last electric interurbans constructed in the country and was subsequently one of the first to shut down.
The segment of the Southern Pacific Railroad Red Electric Eastside Line that ran between Portland and Lake Oswego may
be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) under Criterion A. It has been noted that this
railroad corridor was part of an important transportation network that connected Portland with its hinterland, and it was a
vital link in connecting the larger communities of Portland, Eugene, and Corvallis with smaller towns in the Willamette
Valley. The interurban was a strong influence in the growth and development (and the physical shaping) of the outer
suburbs south and west of Portland (such as Tigard, Hillsboro, and Beaverton) because the roads and highways to and
around those communities were constructed following the existing railroad alignments.

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

View: Looking west towards the trestle over the access road to the Staff Jennings property at 8420 SW Macadam Avenue.
View: A closer view of the vertical elements and part of the deck of the trestle near 8420 SW Macadam Avenue.
Continuation Sheet
Sources
Dill, Tom, and Walter Grande. The Red Electrics Southern Pacific’s Oregon Interurban. Pacific Fast Mail: Edmonds, WA,
1994.
Portland, OR, 1979.
Schwantes, Carlos A. Railroad Signatures across the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press: Seattle, WA,
1993.
Thompson, Richard. Portland’s Streetcars. Arcadia Publishing: Charleston, SC, 2006.

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

Continuation Sheet
View: From page 170 in Railroad Signatures across the Pacific Northwest.
View: An inset from the above map showing the stops on the “loop,” including those between Portland and Lake Oswego.

Continuation Sheet


Continuation Sheet


Attachment 7. Section 106 Findings of
Effect (FOE) Forms
SECTION 106 LEVEL OF EFFECT FORM
Street Address: 455 SE Spokane Street City, County: Portland, Multnomah County
bridge types would have two piers within the ordinary high water. Two switchback ramps originating north of
the bridge would provide access to the north and south sides of the bridge deck from the Willamette Greenway
Trail (West Bank).
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. OR 43 would
pass under this intersection on the lower level. Ramps from the signalized intersection would provide access to
and from OR 43. Signalized crosswalks at the intersection would accommodate bicyclist and pedestrian access
to west-side destinations. Switchback ramps originating north of the bridge would provide access to the
Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank). A new roadway originating on the west side of the signalized
intersection would provide access to River View Cemetery and the Superintendent’s House at the cemetery.
The new roadway would pass under OR 43 south of the signalized intersection to provide access to Powers
Marine Park and Staff Jennings.
On the east side of the bridge, the intersection of SE Tacoma Street/SE 6th Avenue would have a
bicyclist/pedestrian-activated signal. The signal would allow bicyclists and pedestrians to safely cross
SE Tacoma Street to access the Springwater Corridor Trail (via SE Spokane Street) and the City of Portland-
designated bicycle boulevards on SE Spokane and SE Umatilla streets. 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.
Resource Description:
The Oaks Pioneer Church, formerly St. John’s Episcopal Church, was listed in the National Register of Historic
Places in 1974. The church was listed under Criterion A of the National Register, due to its important
association with events relating to the establishment of the Episcopal Church in western Oregon and under
Criterion C as an excellent example of the Neo-Gothic style of architecture. The bridge, constructed circa 1851
in Milwaukie, OR, was moved temporarily in 1928 within Milwaukie, and then in 1959 to its current location.
The period of significance for this building is 1883 to 1928.
Avoidance Alternatives Considered:
Four avoidance alternatives were examined: a No Building Alternative; an alternative to improve the
transportation facility in a manner that addressed purpose and need without the use of a Section 4(f) resource;
an alternative wherein a new bridge facility at a new location would be constructed without the use of a Section
4(f) resource; and an alternative which proposed a tunnel alignment. All four avoidance alternatives were
dismissed. The No Build Alternative would result in the continuation of unacceptably unsafe conditions at the
Sellwood Bridge crossing. The second concept was determined to not be 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. Building a new bridge, concept three, would not accomplish the stated purpose and
need of the project. And finally, the fourth concept, to construct a tunnel as an alternative to a new crossing, is
not prudent because it would not correct the specific transportation needs that prompted the proposed project.
Effects Evaluation:
Direct effects on historic properties are evaluated according to the procedure found in 36 CFR Part 800 -
§800.5 (Assessment of Adverse Effect). Direct effects are determined where proposed project footprints
intersect physically with the historic properties identified, resulting in direct physical effects through demolition,
modification, or other loss of archaeological data.
From an evaluation of the Preferred Alternative for the project (Alternative D Refined) and application of the
criteria of adverse effect (36 CFR 800.5), the following has been determined related to direct effects:
No direct effects would occur as a result of the Preferred Alternative.
Indirect or secondary effects on historic properties are also evaluated according to the procedure found in
36 CFR Part 800 - §800.5 (Assessment of Adverse Effect). Indirect/secondary effects are determined where
proposed project footprints do not intersect directly with historic properties, but where construction and
operation of the project would create changes in current conditions that would result in adverse effects to
Surveyor/Agency: Jessica B. Feldman/CH2M HILL Date Recorded: March 24, 2010 Pg 2
106 Level of Effect Rev. 08/03
historic properties.
From an evaluation of the Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) and application of the criteria of
adverse effect (36 CFR 800.5), the following has been determined related to indirect/secondary effects:
No indirect or secondary effects would occur as a result of the Preferred Alternative.
Coordination and Public Involvement:
The coordination and public involvement approach for this project was wide-reaching and varied. The lead
agencies are Multnomah County, FHWA and ODOT. Multnomah County and the other lead agencies
developed a stakeholder involvement approach to coordinate the decision-making process. This included
adherence to the Collaborative Environmental and Transportation Agreement for Streamlining (CETAS)
process as well as identifying interested parties wanting to participate in the project under the SAFETEA-LU
regulations. Stakeholders were informed of the progress of the project, the accomplishments to date and
decisions made by the agencies. Project groups were established: the Project Management Team, the
Community Task Force, the Policy Advisory Group, the Senior Agency Staff, and Working Groups. Examples
of public involvement include the public comment period of the DEIS, public briefings, and a hearing and open
houses.
Conclusion:
The application of the Criteria of Adverse Effect has resulted in the finding of “No Historic Properties Affected”
by the project.


Continuation Sheet
View: Side view of the Oaks Pioneer Church, looking northwest.
View: Rear view of Oaks Pioneer Church.

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

Street Address: Six miles of rail line from the intersection of SW Bancroft St.
and SW Moody Ave. in Portland, heading south to 0.5 mile north of the City, County: Portland, Multnomah County
intersection of N State St. and Foothills Rd. in Lake Oswego.
Trail (West Bank).
The Southern Pacific Railroad Red Electric Eastside Line is part of a railroad corridor in the Willamette Valley,
located between Portland and St. Joseph. The Southern Pacific Railroad Red Electric Eastside Line (aka
Jefferson Street Line) portion of the Red Electric lines begins at the intersection of SW Bancroft Street and SW
Moody Avenue in southwest Portland heading south 6 miles to 0.5 mile north of the intersection of N State
Street and Foothills Road in Lake Oswego.
The segment of the Southern Pacific Railroad Red Electric Eastside Line that ran between Portland and Lake
Oswego may be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) under Criterion A. It
has been noted that this railroad corridor was part of an important transportation network that connected
Portland with its hinterland, and it was a vital link in connecting the larger communities of Portland, Eugene,
and Corvallis with smaller towns in the Willamette Valley. The interurban was a strong influence in the growth
and development (and the physical shaping) of the outer suburbs south and west of Portland (such as Tigard,
Hillsboro, and Beaverton) because the roads and highways to and around those communities were constructed
following the existing railroad alignments.
Effects Evaluation:
There are no anticipated direct effects on the Southern Pacific Railroad Red Electric Eastside Line as a result
of the Preferred Alternative.

criteria of adverse effect (36 CFR 800.5), the following related to indirect/secondary effects has been
determined:
There are no anticipated indirect or secondary effects on the Southern Pacific Railroad Red Electric Eastside
Line as a result of the Preferred Alternative.

Continuation Sheet

Continuation Sheet
View: Looking north from crossing at the yacht club (approximately 7900 block of SW Macadam Avenue)
View: An example of the signal base and pole at the yacht club.

Continuation Sheet
View: Looking west towards the trestle over the access road to the Staff Jennings property at 8420 SW Macadam Avenue.
View: A closer view of the vertical elements and part of the deck of the trestle near 8420 SW Macadam Avenue.

Property Name: River View Cemetery
Street Address: 8421 SW Macadam Avenue City, County: Portland, Multnomah County
Trail (West Bank).
Located south of downtown Portland, River View Cemetery is bounded by SW Macadam on the east, Taylors
Ferry Road on the north, the Greenwood Hills Cemetery and Boones Ferry road on the west, and Palatine Hill
Road and Lewis & Clark College on the south. The main entrances to the cemetery are located on SW
Macadam Avenue, near the Sellwood Bridge, and on Taylors Ferry Road. The cemetery is approximately 300
acres in size and is situation on a wooded, sloping terrain crisscrossed with unnamed curvilinear roads. The
roads are paved or are gravel, and the cemetery is divided into sections. The Superintendent’s
House/Caretaker’s House (1914), which replaced an earlier building at the same location, and the cemetery
gates (1928) are located at the SW Macadam Avenue entrance. The cemetery office (1945), Mausoleum
(1945), and Charles Francis Adams Memorial Chapel (1943) are accessible from Taylors Ferry Road. In
addition to the many gravestones and family plot markers, a 1902 “Roll Call” statue, surrounded by the graves
of 165 Oregonians who died in the Spanish American War, is located to the northeast of the entrance from
Taylors Ferry Road.
The River View Cemetery meets the requirements of Criteria Consideration D because it is eligible for the
National Register under Criteria A and C. It contains the graves of numerous persons of importance in local
and state history, including members of some of the founding families, industrialists, and politicians from
Portland (such as William L. Ladd, Henry Failing, Henry Corbett, two Governors, two Senators, a
Representative to Congress, an early mayor of Portland, the first state Chief of Water Works, and a State
Surveyor General [who was also the City’s Superintendent of Streets and a City Engineer]), important local
artists, the organizer of the first local volunteer fire department, a Rose Festival Queen and Princess, and the
second Chinese woman to have received a pilot’s license. Furthermore, the cemetery possesses important
historic associations with Portland’s early period of settlement; and it embodies those characteristics that
th
distinguish it as an important local example of the “rural cemetery” movement of the 19 century.
The Preferred Alternative would require the acquisition of land from River View Cemetery along SW Macadam
Surveyor/Agency: Jessica B. Feldman Date Recorded: March 24, 2010 Pg 2

Avenue, north and south of the Superintendent’s House. Only a small portion of the cemetery (which is more
than 300 acres in size) would need to be acquired for the widening of the SW Macadam Avenue interchange.
However, the removal of any property associated historically with the cemetery would constitute an adverse
effect because it would change the character of the historic property’s use and the property’s setting, both of
which contribute to its historic significance.
Additionally, the Preferred Alternative would require the relocation of two contributing elements of River View
Cemetery—the cemetery gates and the southern entrance road at SW Macadam Avenue. This would be a
direct adverse effect because it would change the character of the property’s use and physical features within
the property’s setting that contribute to its historical significance.
criteria of adverse effect (36 CFR 800.5), the following has been determined related to indirect/secondary
effects:
No indirect or secondary effects are anticipated as a result of the Preferred Alternative. However, the Preferred
Alternative would have the potential to introduce visual elements that would diminish the integrity of significant
features of the Superintendent’s House because the SW Macadam Avenue interchange would be wider.
houses.
Conclusion:
The application of the Criteria of Adverse Effect has resulted in the finding of “Historic Properties Adversely
Affected” by the project.


Continuation Sheet
View: A copy of a map produced by the River View Cemetery.

Continuation Sheet
View: Looking south, with the Superintendent’s House to the right and the entrance gates on SW Macadam Avenue at the center.
View: An example of the curvilinear road design and the landscaping.

Property Name: River View Cemetery, Superintendent’s House/Caretaker’s Cottage
Trail (West Bank).
The current Superintendent’s House/Caretaker’s House replaced a 19th century building in the Gothic Revival
style at Riverview Cemetery (one of the oldest cemeteries in the city and the final resting place for many of
Portland’s founding families). The Riverview Cemetery is locally significant in part due to its age and
th
prominence as the cemetery of choice and because it evokes the rural cemetery design movement of the 19
century. The cemetery is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places under Criteria A and C. The
Superintendent’s House is considered locally significant as one of the only buildings Ellis Lawrence designed in
the Georgian style. This structure is eligible for the National Register under Criterion C as representing a
stylistic achievement by Lawrence. According to the Oregon Inventory of Historic Property form prepared for
the Ellis Lawrence Building Survey, the structure is a prime example of its style and is unique when compared
to Lawrence’s other surviving designs locally and within the state. As stated in that document, it is one of his
best works. Therefore, it is eligible for the National Register under Criterion C for its high artistic value and as a
rare example of the use of a style by this particular architect, because it displays those distinctive
characteristics that evoke the Georgian style of residential architecture.
Avoidance Alternatives Considered:
Four avoidance alternatives were examined: a No Building Alternative; an alternative to improve the
transportation facility in a manner that addressed purpose and need without the use of a Section 4(f) resource;
an alternative wherein a new bridge facility at a new location would be constructed without the use of a Section
4(f) resource; and an alternative which proposed a tunnel alignment. All four avoidance alternatives were
dismissed. The No Build Alternative would result in the continuation of unacceptably unsafe conditions at the
Sellwood Bridge crossing. The second concept was determined to not be 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. Building a new bridge, concept three, would not accomplish the stated purpose and
need of the project. And finally, the fourth concept, to construct a tunnel as an alternative to a new crossing, is
not prudent because it would not correct the specific transportation needs that prompted the proposed project.
Effects Evaluation:


Following an evaluation of the Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) and application of the criteria of
adverse effect (36 CFR 800.5), the following has been determined:
Under the Preferred Alternative, the proposed realignment of the access road to the Superintendent’s House,
as well as the widening of SW Macadam Avenue (which would bring the road closer to the historic property),
would have an adverse effect because they would change physical features within the property’s setting that
contribute to its historic significance.
From an evaluation of the Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) and application of the criteria of adverse
effect (36 CFR 800.5), the following has been determined related to indirect/secondary effects:
The Preferred Alternative would have the potential to introduce visual elements that would diminish the integrity
of significant features of the Superintendent’s House because the SW Macadam Avenue interchange would be
wider.
houses.
Conclusion:


Continuation Sheet
View: The primary façade, looking north/northwest.
View: The rear (west) and south side of the building, looking east/northeast.

Property Name: Willamette River (Sellwood) Bridge No. 6879
Street Address: None, Willamette River mile 16.5 City, County: Portland, Multnomah County
Trail (West Bank).

The Sellwood Bridge, designed by Gustav Lindenthal, was officially dedicated on December 15, 1925, and
replaced the Spokane Street Ferry. It served the Sellwood neighborhood, which was platted in the early 1880s
by Henry L. Pittock’s Sellwood Real Estate Company and was annexed by Portland in 1893.The bridge is a
fixed-span bridge consisting of a four-span continuous truss. The bridge was the first built in Portland across
the Willamette River without a moveable span. It was also the first bridge in Portland built without trolley tracks.
The steel-plate girder spans at the truss ends were reused from the 1894 Burnside Bridge. The bridge is
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion A, as one of the 10 Willamette River bridges
in the vicinity of Portland, Oregon, the construction of the Sellwood Bridge was part of the large-scale, publicly
th
funded, bridge construction program that Multnomah County began in the early 20 century. The Sellwood
Bridge is also eligible for the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion C, because it demonstrates
the application of a common bridge type in an unusual way, increasing the number of spans from two or three
to four, in order to achieve an artistic effect, is the work of a master, is a rare example of its type both locally
and in the state and retains the important character-defining features of a subdivided Warren truss.
Effects Evaluation:
The Preferred Alternative (Alternative D Refined) would require the demolition of the Sellwood Bridge. This is a
direct adverse effect under 36 CFR 800 because it would cause the physical destruction of a historic property.
It was determined that there are no indirect or secondary effects from the Preferred Alternative.

houses.
Conclusion:

Continuation Sheet
View: Looking north/northwest towards the bridge from the east bank of the Willamette River.
View: Close-up of the bridge railing, looking north/northwest from the east end.

Continuation Sheet
View: Looking east to west from the sidewalk on the north side of the bridge; this gives a good view of the current lighting standards.

Attachment 8. Historic Resources
Memorandum of Agreement: River
View Cemetery and
Sellwood Bridge
Appendix A. Acronyms and
Abbreviations
Appendix A. Acronyms and Abbreviations
ºC degrees centigrade
ºF Fahrenheit
µg/m3 micrograms per meter cubed
AADT annual average daily traffic

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act

a.m. ante merideum
APE area of potential effect

B/TDB Alternative B with temporary detour bridge
BA Biological Assessment
BDS City of Portland Bureau of Development Services

BES Portland Bureau of Environmental Services
BMP best management practice

BO Biological Opinion
BRT bus rapid transit
Btu British thermal units

CD compact disk
Census 2000 United States Census

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality
CETAS Collaborative Environmental and Transportation Agreement for Streamlining
CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CO carbon monoxide (CO)
Comprehensive Plan City of Portland Comprehensive Plan (City of Portland, 2006)

Comprehensive Plan Map City of Portland Comprehensive Plan Map (City of Portland, 2007b)
CRD Columbia River Datum
CSO Combined Sewer Overlay
Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement A-1

Appendix A: Acronyms and Abbreviations
CTF Community Task Force
CWA federal Clean Water Act
dBA decibels on an A-weighted scale
DEIS Sellwood Bridge Draft Environmental Impact Statement (FHWA et al., 2008)
DEQ Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
DOE Determination of Eligibility
EIS environmental impact statement
EO Executive Order
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Endangered Species Act
ESCP erosion and sediment control plan
FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FOE Finding of Effect
FWS fall, winter, and spring
HABS/HAER Historic American Building Survey/Historic American Engineering Record
HGM Hydrogeomorphic
HRI Historic Resource Inventory
I-5 Interstate 5
I-205 Interstate 205
IAMP Interchange Area Management Plan
ID No. identification number
ITS Intelligent Transportation System
JLA Jeanne Lawson Associates
JPACT Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation
Leq equivalent sound level
Leq(h) hourly equivalent sound level
lf lineal feet
A-2 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

LOS level of service
LRT light rail transit

LWCF Land and Water Conservation Fund
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act

Metro Portland area metropolitan planning organization
MOA Memorandum of Agreement
mph miles per hour

MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
MSATs Mobile Source Air Toxics

MUTCD Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (FHWA, 2009)
NA not applicable
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NAC Noise Abatement Criteria
National Register National Register of Historic Places

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NMFS U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service
NO2 nitrogen dioxide

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRHP National Register of Historic Places

NWI National Wetlands Inventory
O3 ozone
OAR Oregon Administrative Rule

ODA Oregon Department of Agriculture
ODFW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

ODOT Oregon Department of Transportation
OHSU Oregon Health & Science University
OHWE ordinary high water elevation

ONHIC Oregon Natural Heritage Information Center

OPB Oregon Public Broadcasting
OR 43 Oregon 43, also known as SW Macadam Avenue in the City of Portland

OR 99E Oregon 99E, also known as SE McLoughlin Boulevard
OR 99W Oregon 99W, also known as SW Barbur Boulevard

OTIA Oregon Transportation Investment Act
PAG Policy Advisory Group
PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (by-product of incomplete combustion)

Pb lead
PBOT City of Portland Bureau of Transportation

PGE Portland General Electric
p.m. post meridiem
PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers in aerodynamic diameter

PM10 particulate matter less than 10 micrometers in aerodynamic diameter
PMSA Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area

PMT Project Management Team
PP&R Portland Parks & Recreation
ppm parts per million (by volume)

RTP Regional Transportation Plan (Metro, 2004)
SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy

for Users
SAS Senior Agency Staff
Section 4(f) Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966
(49 U.S.C. 303[c])
Section 6(f) Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Act of 1965
Section 106 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
SFHA Special Flood Hazard Area

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office
SIP State Implementation Plan

SMILE Sellwood Moreland Improvement League
SO2 sulfur dioxide
A-4 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

SOI Secretary of the Department of the Interior
SOL statute of limitations

SP&S Spokane, Portland and Seattle
SPIS Safety Priority Index System

STIP Statewide Transportation Improvement Program
STORET U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Storage and Retrieval database
TCM transportation control measure

THPO Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
TIP Transportation Improvement Program

TNM Traffic Noise Model developed by Federal Highway Administration
TPH total petroleum hydrocarbon (such as gasoline, diesel, heating oil, motor oil)
TSS total suspended solids

Uniform Act Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act
of 1970
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

U.S.C. United States Code
U.S. Census Bureau U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census
USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS U.S. Geological Survey

VMT vehicle miles traveled
VOC volatile organic compound (such as cleaning solvents, degreasers, paint thinners)
WQS water quality standards

WSE water surface elevation
yd3 cubic yards

zoning code Title 33 of Portland’s Code and Charter

Altman, B., C.M. Henson, and I.R. Waite. 1997. A Review of Aquatic Biological and Habitat Information in
the Willamette Basin, Oregon, through 1995. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources
Investigations Report 97–4023.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AAHSTO). 2004. A Policy on
Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. 5th Edition.
Bosker, Gideon, and Lena Lencek. 1985. Frozen Music, a History of Portland Architecture. Western
Imprints, the Press of the Oregon Historical Society, Portland, OR.
CH2M HILL. 2007a. Sellwood Bridge Project Evaluation Framework Technical Memorandum. January
2007.
http://www.sellwoodbridge.org/ProjectLibrary/EvaluationFrameworkMemo_adopted_01.29.
07.pdf.
CH2M HILL. 2007b. Sellwood Bridge Project Range of Alternatives Technical Memorandum. May 2007.
http://www.sellwoodbridge.org/MeetingMaterials/PAG_RangeAlternatives_Memo_05.21.07.
pdf.
CH2M HILL. 2007c. Sellwood Bridge Project Final Alternatives Evaluation Findings Technical
Memorandum. September 2007.
http://www.sellwoodbridge.org/MeetingMaterials/Alternatives_Evaluation_Findings_FINAL_0
92407.pdf.
CH2M HILL. 2007d. Sellwood Bridge Project Alternatives Adopted by the Policy Advisory Group for
Analysis in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Technical Memorandum. October 2007.
http://www.sellwoodbridge.org/ProjectLibrary/DEIS_Alternatives_10.2007.pdf.
CH2M HILL. 2007e. Sellwood Bridge Planning Project Phase I Revenue Analysis. August 2007.
CH2M HILL. 2008a. Sellwood Bridge Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Multnomah County, Oregon,
Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation Technical Report. Prepared for Multnomah County, Oregon.
Prepared by Michael Hoffmann. October 2008.
CH2M HILL. 2008b. Sellwood Bridge Project Air Quality Technical Report. Prepared for Multnomah
County, Oregon. Prepared by Natalie Liljenwall. October 2008; updated April 2010.
CH2M HILL. 2008c. Sellwood Bridge Project Biological Resources Technical Report. Prepared for
Multnomah County, Oregon. Prepared by Peggy O'Neill, Katina Kapantais, and Greg White.
October 2008; updated April 2010.
CH2M HILL. 2008d. Sellwood Bridge Project Construction Activities and Impacts Technical Memorandum.
Prepared by Jason Moller. October 2008; updated April 2010.
CH2M HILL. 2008e. Sellwood Bridge Project Cultural Resources Technical Report. Prepared for
Multnomah County, Oregon. Prepared by Jessica Feldman. October 2008; updated April
2010.
Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement B-1

Appendix B: References
CH2M HILL. 2008f. Sellwood Bridge Project Energy Technical Report. Prepared for Multnomah County,
Oregon. Prepared by Josh Cooper. October 2008; updated April 2010.
CH2M HILL. 2008g. Sellwood Bridge Project Environmental Justice Technical Report. Prepared for
Multnomah County, Oregon. Prepared by Theresa Carr. October 2008; updated April 2010.
CH2M HILL. 2008h. Sellwood Bridge Project Geological Resources Technical Report. Prepared for
Multnomah County, Oregon. Prepared by Dave Dailer, Ben Hoffman, and Greg Warren.
October 2008; updated April 2010.
CH2M HILL. 2008i. Sellwood Bridge Project Hazardous Materials Technical Report. Prepared for
Multnomah County, Oregon. Prepared by Patrick Heins. October 2008; updated April 2010.
CH2M HILL. 2008j. Sellwood Bridge Project Hydraulics Technical Report. Prepared for Multnomah
County, Oregon. Prepared by Mark Anderson. October 2008; updated April 2010.
CH2M HILL. 2008k. Sellwood Bridge Project Land Use Technical Report. Prepared for Multnomah
County, Oregon. Prepared by Michael Hoffmann. October 2008; updated April 2010.
CH2M HILL. 2008l. Sellwood Bridge Project Noise Technical Report. Prepared for Multnomah County,
Oregon. Prepared by Natalie Liljenwall. October 2008; updated April 2010.
CH2M HILL. 2008m. Sellwood Bridge Project Social Technical Report. Prepared for Multnomah County,
Oregon. Prepared by Sumi Malik. October 2008; updated April 2010.
CH2M HILL. 2008n. Sellwood Bridge Project Utility Conflict Analysis Technical Memorandum. Prepared for
Multnomah County, Oregon. Prepared by Jason Moller. October 2008; updated April 2010.
CH2M HILL. 2008o. Sellwood Bridge Project Visual Resources Technical Report. Prepared for Multnomah
County, Oregon. Prepared by Larry Weymouth. October 2008; updated April 2010.
CH2M HILL. 2008p. Sellwood Bridge Project Water Resources Technical Report. Prepared for Multnomah
County, Oregon. Prepared by Rick Attanasio. October 2008; updated April 2010.
CH2M HILL. 2009a. Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Public, Agency, and
Organization Comment Summary Technical Memorandum. January 2009.
CH2M HILL. 2009b. Sellwood Bridge Project Identification and Refinement of the Preferred Alternative
Technical Memorandum. September 2009.
CH2M HILL, Parisi Associates, and Alta Planning + Design. 2008. Sellwood Bridge Project
Transportation Technical Report. Prepared for Multnomah County, Oregon. Prepared by Sumi
Malik (CH2M HILL), David Parisi (Parisi Associates), and Rory Renfro (Alta Planning +
Design). October 2008; updated April 2010.
City of Milwaukie. Planning Department. 2007. Transportation System Plan.

http://www.cityofmilwaukie.org/milwaukie/projects/tspupdate/documents/04CompleteTSP/C
omplete%20TSP%202007.pdf.
City of Portland. 1991. Scenic Resources Protection Plan.
City of Portland. 1998a. Bicycle Master Plan.

http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=40414 .
B-2 S e l l w o o d B r i d g e P r o j e c t F i n a l E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t S t a t e m e n t
City of Portland. 1998b. Portland Pedestrian Design Guide.

http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=84048.
City of Portland. 2004, updated in 2007. Transportation System Plan.

http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?c=diidi.
City of Portland. 2006. City of Portland Comprehensive Plan.
City of Portland. 2006. Freight Master Plan.
City of Portland. 2007. City of Portland Comprehensive Plan Map.
City of Portland, 2008. Portland Stormwater Management Manual Draft.
City of Portland. 2009. Portland Streetcar System Concept Plan. Draft.
City of Portland. Bureau of Environmental Services. Stephens Creek Wetlands Delineation Map.
Prepared with Oregon Department of State Lands concurrence.
City of Portland. Bureau of Planning. 1987. Willamette Greenway Plan. http://www.metro-

region.org/library_docs/trans/willamette_greenway_plan_w.pdf.
City of Portland. Planning Department. 1998. Sellwood-Moreland Neighborhood Plan.
City of Portland. Bureau of Transportation. 2009. Draft Portland Streetcar System Concept Plan.
City of Portland. Portland Office of Transportation. 2001. Tacoma Main Street Plan.
Clinton, William J., President of the United States. February 11, 1994. Executive Order 12898. Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations.
Federal Register, Vol. 59, No. 32, Wednesday, February 16, 1994, 7629-7633. Washington,
D.C.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1988. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater
Habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Office
of Biological Services, Washington, D.C.
Csuti, B., A.J. Kimerling, T.A. O’Neil, M.M. Shaughnessy, E.P. Gaines, and M.M.P. Huso. 1997.
Distribution, Habitat, and Natural History: Atlas of Oregon Wildlife. Oregon State University
Press.
ECONorthwest. 2008. Sellwood Bridge Project Economic Technical Report. Prepared for Multnomah
County, Oregon, and CH2M HILL. Prepared by Johanna Young and Terry Moore. October
2008; updated April 2010.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2004. Flood Insurance Study City of Portland, Oregon,
Multnomah, Clackamas, and Washington Counties.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2004. Flood Maps.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 1987. Guidance for Preparing and Processing Environmental
and Section 4(f) Documents. Technical Advisory T6640.8a.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 1990. Pollutant Loadings and Impacts from Highway
Stormwater Runoff. FHWA-RD-88-006.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 1998. Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations. FHWA Order 6640.23.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 1999. Guidebook to Estimating Bicycle and Pedestrian
Demand. FHWA-RD-98-165. July 1999.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2005. Section 4(f) Policy Paper.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2006. Interim Guidance on Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA
Documents. U.S. Department of Transportation. February 2006.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2009. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), and

Multnomah County. 2008. Sellwood Bridge SE Tacoma Street and Oregon State Highway 43
Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation. Prepared by
CH2M HILL. November 2008.
Jeanne Lawson Associates (JLA). 2008. Sellwood Bridge Project Decision Process and Public Involvement
Summary Report. Prepared for Multnomah County, Oregon, and CH2M HILL. Prepared by
Alex Cousins. October 2008.
Johnson, D.H., and T.A. O’Neil. 2001. Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington. Oregon
State University Press, Corvallis.
Metro. 1992. Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan.
Metro. 1999. South Willamette River Crossing Study. May 1999.

http://www.sellwoodbridge.org/ProjectLibrary/SouthWillametteRiverCrossingStudy-
May1999.pdf.
Metro. 2004. Regional Transportation Plan. http://www.metro-region.org/article.cfm?ArticleID=137.
Metro. 2004. Trolley Trail Master Plan.
Metro. 2005. Regional Framework Plan.
Metro. 2007. Lake Oswego-to-Portland Transit and Trail Analysis.
National Park Service. 1995. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties.
Natural Heritage Advisory Council to the State Land Board. 2003. 2003 Oregon Natural Heritage
Plan.
Northwest Power and Conservation Council. 2004. Draft Willamette Subbasin Plan.
Oregon Department of Energy. 2007. Oregon Electricity Net Resource Mix, 2007 Provisional Analysis,
Prepared by Kip Pheil.
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). 2004. State of Oregon Clean Air Act
Implementation Plan. ORS 468.020.
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). 2007. 2006 Oregon Air Quality Data
Summaries.
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). 2007. Factsheet: Protecting and Restoring the
Willamette River.
http://www.deq.state.or.us//wq//pubs//factsheets//willamette//protectwillriver.pdf.
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). 2008. Oregon Water Quality Index Report for lower
Willamette, Sandy and lower Columbia Basins.
http://www.deq.state.or.us/lab/wqm/wqindex/lowillsandy.htm.
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2005. Biology, Behavior, and Resources of Resident
and Anadromous Fish in the Lower Willamette River. Final Report of Research, 2000-2004.
Edited by Thomas A. Friesen. March 2005.
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2006. Unpublished Bald Eagle Nest Sites.
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2007. Unpublished data.
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2007. Willamette Falls fish counts.
Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). 1999. Oregon Highway Plan.

http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TP/orhwyplan.shtml.
Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). 2008. Hydraulics Manual. Chapter 14 – Water

Quality.
Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). 2008. Oregon Standard Specifications for

Construction.
Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). 2010. OR 43: Sellwood Bridge Interchange Area
Management Plan, Portland, Oregon.
Oregon Natural Heritage Information Center (ONHIC). 2008. Records of species observations
within 2 miles of the proposed project area. March 2008.
Oregon Natural Heritage Information Center (ONHIC) and StreamNet. 2007. Database search for
rare, threatened, and endangered plant and animal species within the Sellwood Bridge
vicinity.
Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board. 1998. The Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds. Salem,
Oregon.
Pheil, Kip, Oregon Department of Energy. 2009. Personal communication with Donna Kilber-
Kennedy, CH2M HILL. November 16, 2009.
Pisarski, Alan. 2006. Commuting in America III. NCHRP 550/TCRP 110.

Real Property Consultants. 2008. Sellwood Bridge Project Right-of-Way Technical Report. Prepared for
Multnomah County, Oregon, and CH2M HILL. Prepared by George Donnerberg. October
2008; updated April 2010.
Standard and Poor. 2008. Case-Schiller Home Price Indices Report. January 2008.
Titus, J.H., J.A. Christy, D. Vanderschaaf, J.S. Kagan, and E.R. Alverson. 1996. Native Wetland,
Riparian, and Upland Plant Communities and Their Biota in the Willamette Valley, Oregon. Phase I
Project: Inventory and Assessment Report to Environmental Protection Agency, Region X,
Seattle, Washington Willamette Basin Geographic Initiative Program. November 1996.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1983. Soil Survey of Multnomah County Area, Oregon.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census (U.S. Census Bureau). 2000. United States
Census 2000. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census (U.S. Census Bureau). 2006. American
Community Survey.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1981. National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map, Lake
Oswego, Oregon, 7.5-minute quadrangle map.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007. Species List for Multnomah County.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008. List of Threatened, Endangered and Candidate Species for
Multnomah County.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1961; photo revised 1984. Topographic map, Lake Oswego, Oregon,
7.5-minute quadrangle.
Willamette Restoration Initiative. 2004. Draft Willamette SubbasinPlan. Prepared for The Northwest
Power and Conservation Council.
Wortman, Sharon Wood, with Ed Wortman. 2006. The Portland Bridge Book. Urban Adventure
Press, Portland, OR.
TABLE C-1
List of Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement Preparers
Area of EIS Years of
Name Affiliation Responsibility Education Experience
Management Team
Michael Eaton Multnomah Project Manager B.S. Civil Engineering and 25
County Biology
Marcy Schwartz CH2M HILL Consultant Project M.A. Urban Planning, B.A. 39
Manager English
Jeff Buckland ODOT ODOT Environmental M.R.P. Regional Planning, 22
Lead (for the FEIS) B.A. Geography
ODOT ODOT Environmental 9
Emily Moshofsky B.A. Geography
Lead (for the DEIS)
Donna Kilber-Kennedy CH2M HILL Consultant M.B.A. Business 35
Environmental Lead Administration, B.S.
General Social Science
Technical Team Leads
Darren Muldoon CH2M HILL Lead Author M.U.R.P. Urban and 7
Regional Planning, B.S.
Environmental Science
Steve Katko CH2M HILL Lead Engineer B.S. Civil Engineering 13
Kath Althen CH2M HILL Lead Technical Editor M.A. Economics, B.A. 29
Economics
Aimee Hobson CH2M HILL Lead Graphics B.A. English and Fine 13
Designer (for the Appplied Arts
FEIS)
Kathryn Westcott CH2M HILL Lead Graphics B.A. Journalism/Public 4
Designer Relations
Technical Team
Mark Anderson CH2M HILL Hydraulics M.S. Civil Engineering, B.S. 11
Civil Engineering
Rick Attanasio CH2M HILL Water Resources M.S. Environmental 28
Engineering, B.S. Civil
Engineering
Theresa Carr CH2M HILL Environmental Justice M.U.R.P. Urban and 11
Economics
Josh Cooper CH2M HILL Energy B.A. Economics 4
Dave Dailer CH2M HILL Geological Resources M.S. Geotechnical 28
Engineering, B.S. Civil
Engineering
Jessica Feldman CH2M HILL Archaeological and M.A. Historic Preservation 12
Historic Resources Planning, B.S. History
Patrick Heins CH2M HILL Hazardous Materials B.A. Biology, B.S. 11
Environmental Management
Ben Hoffman CH2M HILL Geological Resources M.S. Civil Engineering, B.S. 7
Civil Engineering
Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement C-1

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

Appendix C: List of Preparers
TABLE C-1
Rory Renfro Alta Planning + Bicyclists and M.U.R.P Urban and 8
Design Pedestrians Regional Planning, B.S.
Urban and Regional
Planning
Johanna Young EcoNorthwest Economics M.U.R.P. Urban and 5
Regional Planning, M.S.M.E.
Mechanical Engineering, B.S.
Mechanical Engineering
Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement C-3

Appendix D. List of Supporting
Technical Documentation
Appendix D. List of Supporting Technical
Documentation
Sellwood Bridge Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Multnomah County, Oregon, Draft Section 4(f)
Evaluation Technical Report (CH2M HILL, 2008a; available upon request)
Sellwood Bridge Project Air Quality Technical Report (CH2M HILL, 2008b, updated in 2010; available upon
request)
Sellwood Bridge Project Alternatives Adopted by the Policy Advisory Group for Analysis in the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement Technical Memorandum (CH2M HILL, 2007d; located on the project Web
site at http://www.sellwoodbridge.org/ProjectLibrary.aspx)
Sellwood Bridge Project Biological Resources Technical Report (CH2M HILL, 2008c, updated in 2010; available
upon request)
Sellwood Bridge Project Construction Activities and Impacts Technical Memorandum (CH2M HILL, 2008d,
updated in 2010; available upon request)
Sellwood Bridge Project Cultural Resources Technical Report (CH2M HILL, 2008e, updated in 2010; available
upon request)
Sellwood Bridge Project Decision Process and Public Involvement Summary Report (Jeanne Lawson Associates
[JLA], 2008; available upon request)
Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Public, Agency, and Organization Comment
Summary Technical Memorandum (CH2M HILL, 2009a; located on the project Web site at
http:www.sellwoodbridge.org/ProjectLibrary.aspx)
Sellwood Bridge Project Economic Technical Report (ECONorthwest, 2008, updated in 2010; available upon
request)
Sellwood Bridge Project Energy Technical Report (CH2M HILL, 2008f, updated in 2010; available upon
request)
Sellwood Bridge Project Environmental Justice Technical Report (CH2M HILL, 2008g, updated in 2010;
available upon request)
Sellwood Bridge Project Evaluation Framework Technical Memorandum (CH2M HILL ,2007a; located on the
project Web site at http://www.sellwoodbridge.org/ProjectLibrary.aspx)
Sellwood Bridge Project Final Alternatives Evaluation Findings Technical Memorandum (CH2M HILL, 2007c;
located on the project Web site at http://www.sellwoodbridge.org/ProjectLibrary.aspx)
Sellwood Bridge Project Geological Resources Technical Report (CH2M HILL, 2008h, updated in 2010;
Sellwood Bridge Project Hazardous Materials Technical Report (CH2M HILL, 2008i, updated in 2010;
Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement D-1

Appendix D: List of Supporting Technical Documentation
Sellwood Bridge Project Hydraulics Technical Report (CH2M HILL, 2008j, updated in 2010; available upon
request)
Sellwood Bridge Project Identification and Refinement of the Preferred Alternative Technical Memorandum
(CH2M HILL, 2009b; located on the project Web site at
http://www.sellwoodbridge.org/ProjectLibrary.aspx)
Sellwood Bridge Project Land Use Technical Report (CH2M HILL, 2008k, updated in 2010; available upon
request)
Sellwood Bridge Project Noise Technical Report (CH2M HILL, 2008l, updated in 2010; available upon
request)
Sellwood Bridge Project Range of Alternatives Technical Memorandum (CH2M HILL, 2007b; located on the
Sellwood Bridge Project Right-of-Way Technical Report (Real Property Consultants, 2008, updated in 2010;
Sellwood Bridge Project Social Technical Report (CH2M HILL, 2008m, updated in 2010; available upon
request)
Sellwood Bridge Project Transportation Technical Report (CH2M HILL et al., 2008, updated in 2010; available
upon request)
Sellwood Bridge Project Utility Conflict Analysis Technical Memorandum (CH2M HILL, 2008n, updated in
2010; available upon request)
Sellwood Bridge Project Visual Resources Technical Report (CH2M HILL, 2008o, updated in 2010; available
upon request)
Sellwood Bridge Project Water Resources Technical Report (CH2M HILL, 2008p, updated in 2010; available
upon request)
South Willamette River Crossing Study Findings and Recommendations Report (Metro, 1999; located on the
Technical documentation listed as available upon request can be obtained by sending a request to:
Mike Pullen
2020 SW 4th Avenue, Suite 300
Portland, OR 97201
Or by email at: comment@sellwoodbridge.org
D-2 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E. Distribution and Notice of
Availability Lists
Appendix E. Distribution and Notice of
Availability Lists
1.1 Distribution List

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

 Federal Emergency Management Agency
 National Marine Fisheries Service
 National Park Service
 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
 U.S. Coast Guard
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1.1.2 State Agencies
 Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
 Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
 Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development
 Oregon Department of Parks and Recreation
 Oregon Department of State Lands
 Oregon Department of Water Resources
 Oregon State Historic Preservation Office
 Oregon State Marine Board
1.1.3 Tribes
 Confederated Tribes of Siletz
1.1.4 Local Agencies
 City of Milwaukie
 City of Portland
 Clackamas County
 Metro
 TriMet
1.1.5 Organizations
 American Automobile Association of Oregon
 Association of Portland Neighborhood Business Associations
 Bicycle Transportation Alliance
 Clackamas County Economic Development Commission
 Oregon Trucking Association
 Portland Business Alliance
 Sellwood Moreland Improvement League (SMILE)
Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement E-1

Appendix E: Distribution and Notice of Availability Lists
 South Portland Neighborhood Association

 Westmoreland Business Alliance
1.1.6 Local Libraries
 Clackamas County
 Multnomah County
1.2 Notice of Availability Recipients

The following federal, state, and local agencies, tribes, organizations, and individuals have been notified
that this FEIS is available and provided instructions related to accessing the document.
1.2.1 Elected Officials

 Ron Wyden, U.S. Senator, Oregon
 Jeff Merkley, U.S. Senator, Oregon
 Earl Blumenauer, U.S. Representative, Oregon
 Carolyn Tomei, Oregon State Representative
 Diane Rosenbaum, Oregon State Senator
1.2.2 Organizations and Businesses
 Brinsfield Boat Basin
 Macadam Bay Club
 Oaks Amusement Park
 Portland Kayak and Canoe Team
 Portland Streetcar
 River Park Homeowners Association
 Riverside Corral
 Sellwood Harbor Homeowners Association
 Southeast Uplift
 Union Pacific Railroad (Oregon Pacific Railroad)
 Willamette Pedestrian Coalition
 Willamette Shoreline Trolley
 All 9 businesses in the Sellwood Building
 All 37 businesses in the River Park Center
 All businesses on the project’s mailing list
 Other businesses within several miles of the bridge
1.2.3 Educational Organizations
 Oregon Health & Science University
 Portland Public Schools
 Portland State University
1.2.4 Media
 KATU
 KGW
 KOIN
 KPTV
E-2 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix E: Distribution and Notice of Availability Lists
 Oregon Public Broadcasting (OPB)

 Portland Tribune
 Sellwood Bee
 The Oregonian
 Willamette Week
1.2.5 Citizens
An email was sent to the project mailing list announcing the availability of this FEIS and providing
instructions related to accessing and reviewing the document on the project Web site. This list was
comprised of over 5,000 individuals who took one of the five online surveys, attended an open house, or
commented during the previous project phases, including during the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS) comment period.
Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement E-3

Appendix F. Summary of Permits and
Clearances Needed
Appendix F. Summary of Permits
and Clearances Needed
TABLE F-1
Summary of Permits and Clearances Needed
Federal Highway Administration Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of
1966
(Alternative A only)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/Oregon Clean Water Act, Section 404
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/Oregon Oregon's Removal-Fill Law
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/Oregon Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act
Biological Opinion
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service /National Marine Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
Fisheries Service
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service /National Marine Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
Fisheries Service
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service /National Marine Migratory Bird Treaty Act
Fisheries Service
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Clean Water Act Section 401: Water Quality Certification
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Clean Water Act Section 402: National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Program
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Clean Water Act Section 402: NPDES Municipal Separate
Storm Sewer System (MS4) Program
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Conformance with Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality’s National Ambient Air Quality Standards
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Fish Passage Plan Approval (Oregon Administrative Rule
[OAR] 635-012)
Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement F-1

Appendix F: Summary of Permits and Clearances Needed
TABLE F-1
Summary of Permits and Clearances Needed
Oregon Department of Transportation Access spacing deviation (OAR 734-051)

State Historic Preservation Office Section 106 Consultation, National Historic Preservation Act
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), in cooperation with the Oregon Department of
Transportation (ODOT) and Multnomah County, intends to issue a “statute of limitations” (SOL) notice
in the Federal Register, pursuant to 23 United States Code (U.S.C.) Section 139(l). This notice would
indicate that one or more federal agencies have taken final action on permits, licenses, or approvals for
this transportation project. This SOL notice would establish that claims seeking judicial review of those
federal-agency actions would be barred unless such claims were filed within 180 days after the date of
publication of the notice in the Federal Register. Multnomah County will also make the SOL notice
available on the project website at http://www.sellwoodbridge.org.
F-2 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix G. Summary of Mitigation
and Environmental Commitments
Summary of Mitigation
Appendix G.
Measures and Environmental
Commitments
Appendix G consists of two sections:
 Summary of Mitigation Measures and Environmental Commitments –

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

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

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

Appendix G: Summary of Mitigation and Environmental Commitments
TABLE G-1
and E
A, B Consider metering lights to control traffic flow into the roundabout from Oregon
(OR) 43's off-ramps because capacity constraints on SE Tacoma Street would extend
eastbound traffic across the Sellwood Bridge into the roundabout during the
afternoon/evening peak period. This would impede traffic flow and cause additional
traffic delays and backups. In addition, consider vehicle queue detectors on the
Sellwood Bridge, tied to the traffic signals at SE Tacoma Street/SE 13th Avenue and SE
Tacoma Street/SE 17th Avenue.
C Because direct access from OR 43 to River View Cemetery would be removed,
provide improved access at the cemetery’s main entrance on SW Taylors Ferry Road
by providing pavement marking, a left-turn lane at the access, and signage on OR 43
guiding motorists to SW Taylors Ferry Road to access River View Cemetery.
C Monitor traffic volumes along neighborhood roadways, including SE Spokane Street, SE
Nehalem Street, and SE 7th Avenue. Consider implementation of additional traffic
calming measures, if appropriate. Do this because, even though the SE Grand Avenue
extension would provide improved accessibility between the Sellwood Bridge and
areas north of SE Tacoma Street and west of SE 13th Avenue, moderate levels of
increased traffic volumes could result.
C With the SE Grand Avenue extension, consider providing pedestrian refuge islands on
SE Tacoma Street's western legs at SE 6th Avenue and SE 7th Avenue, substantially
improving pedestrian mobility and safety in crossing SE Tacoma Street. Consider these
measures during final design if this alternative or this option were selected.
D, E To obtain acceptable level of service (LOS) conditions with a traffic signal, either
(1) remove left-turn lanes in addition to on-street parking and pedestrian refuge
islands on SE Tacoma Street or (2) widen SE Tacoma Street to one or both sides. Both
options would increase traffic levels along local streets parallel to SE Tacoma Street
west of SE 13th Avenue. Do this because signalization of the SE Tacoma Street/SE 6th
Avenue (or SE Tacoma Street/SE 7th Avenue) intersection would result in LOS F
conditions, with traffic demands exceeding the intersection's capacity by about 40
percent. This would cause unacceptable vehicle delays and backups, as well as
substantial increases in neighborhood cut-through traffic levels. Consider these
measures if one of the alternatives with this option were selected.
A, B, C, D, E Because access would be closed temporarily for construction equipment staging and
construction activities in the west-side interchange area between River View
Cemetery and the Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank), redirect bicyclists and
pedestrians to detour routes, such as SW Taylors Ferry Road. Routes might be
circuitous roadways with high traffic volumes, high vehicle speeds, and few or no
bicyclist and pedestrian facilities. Provide signage to alert motorists to the presence of
bicyclists.
A, B, C, D, E Because the Springwater Corridor Trail would be temporarily closed near the existing
Sellwood Bridge for construction equipment staging and construction activities,
redirect bicyclists and pedestrians to detour routes, depending on the location of the
trail closure, the topography, and the street system connectivity. Provide signage to
direct bicyclists.
A, C On the separate bicycle/pedestrian bridge (Alternative A) or separate bridge deck
(Alternative C), provide signage, striping, and pavement markings; install lighting,
emergency call boxes, and security cameras; and conduct routine police patrols.
A, B Install marked crosswalks, warning signage, pedestrian refuge islands, and/or pedestrian
signals at the SE Tacoma Street/SE 6th Avenue intersection.
G-2 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

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

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

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

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

TABLE G-1
and E
A, B, C, D, E During final design, consider refining the alignment of the interchange and ramps to
lessen the hillside cuts.
A, B, C, D, E During final design, consider preserving existing stands of mature trees and other
attractive natural vegetation to the greatest extent possible; minimizing clearing for
construction; and marking trees for preservation.
Geology
A, B, C, D, E Sellwood Construct new piers and abutments in stable ground below the slide and use drilled
Slide shafts and driven piling to provide structural mitigation. This technique involves driving
or drilling the piles or shafts through the slide mass and into stable rock below the
slide. Removing the existing fill and replacing it with lightweight fill, such as Styrofoam,
would reduce the force on the landslide and reduce the weight of fills.
A, B, C, D, E Include basic rockfall mitigation techniques, such as installing rockfall nets or catch
fences to cover slopes and constructing a rock catchment ditch) with a barrier
between the ditch and OR 43. Stabilize high rockfall hazard areas using bolts and mesh
to cover these areas of weathered zones of rock. The use of rock anchors would
increase the stability of the slope. If highly weathered rock or soil-like zones were
exposed in rock cuts, employ stabilization techniques (such as mesh or soil nails) to
mitigate slope hazards.
A, B, C, D, E Apply standard erosion control techniques including Stormwater and Erosion Best
Management Practices (BMPs) in construction zones to minimize erosion. For the
long-term, control erosion by hydroseeding and establishing vegetation as soon as
possible. Also, consider other measures such as diverting stormwater runoff away
from cuts and fills and constructing erosion retention basins.
A, B, C, D, E During design, evaluate the level of loading to be expected. As mitigation for seismic
hazards to bridges, structures, and retaining walls, perform structural design to
withstand the anticipated loads. In foundation design, consider liquefaction and found
the structure on rock or more stable ground (such as the Troutdale formation), if
encountered at depth. Use slope stabilization measures (such as installing drilled shafts
or micropiles and increasing soil strength) to provide mitigation for seismic hazards.
Water Resources and Water Quality
A, B, C, D, E Obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 1200-C permit.
These permits identify activities during construction to assure an acceptable standard
of water quality. In addition, the Federal 404 Wetland Removal Fill permit requires
that construction stormwater management and construction practices be addressed.
Address major areas during construction, such as erosion prevention, sediment
control, and in-water work. The project will follow ODOT BMPs.
A, B, C, D, E Incorporate water-quality mitigation with the proposed Build alternatives to reduce
pollutant loading to the river, with the exception of pollutants that were entirely
dissolved.
A, B, C, D, E Obtain permits from the City of Portland for stormwater runoff from new impervious
areas.
A, B, C, D, E Treat the west side of the project area with two 6-foot-by-12-foot manufactured
underground filter vaults within the project right-of-way that would discharge to the
Willamette River. No additional right-of-way would be needed for stormwater
facilities. However, more vaults might be required to partition maintenance
responsibilities among the responsible jurisdictions (Multnomah County, ODOT, and
the City of Portland).

TABLE G-1
and E
A, B, C, D, E Consider water quality swales on the east side. Runoff from the east end of the bridge
could be treated partially or fully using one 6-foot-by-12-foot manufactured
underground filter vault within the project right-of-way that would discharge to the
Willamette River.
Hydraulics
A, B, C, D, E During final design, explore the opportunity to reduce hydraulic impacts by reducing
the base flood elevation change. This could be accomplished by minimizing the number
of in-water piers and shaping piers in a streamlined manner.
A, B, C, D, E Develop many of the mitigation measures after hydraulic designs for the bridge have
been completed. The following are potential mitigation measures:
 Design the bridge to span the width of the natural channel. Set the abutments
back onto the overbank areas so construction would not encroach into the
channel
 Size bridge openings to pass the 100-year peak flood discharge with little or no
increase to the water surface elevation
 Minimize interior piers
A, B, C, D, E Request review and approval from Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW)
of fish passage mitigation measures resulting from the proposed bridge.
A, B, C, D, E Prohibit construction equipment from entering watercourses, except when a specific
task can only occur in the stream, such as the construction of piers. This activity
would be limited to the in-water work periods for watercourses with listed fish
species.
A, B, C, D, E Prohibit equipment washing in the watercourses.
A, B, C, D, E Prohibit equipment from crossing the watercourses, except at temporary crossings,
unless impractical. A temporary crossing plan would be prepared in coordination with
the ODFW and ODOT. The plan would identify proposed construction methods and
develop appropriate mitigation measures to rehabilitate the watercourse habitats that
would be affected by the temporary crossings.
A, B, C, D, E Perform a “no rise” analysis and obtain a City of Portland Floodplain Development
Permit prior to construction. Any substantial impacts to the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) Special Flood Hazard Area could be mitigated by one or
a combination of the following techniques:
 Excavate part of the streambank to compensate for the permanent loss in flow
area (that is, the loss created by the installation of bridge piers)
 Investigate pier shaping to minimize energy losses
A, B, C, D, E Size bridge openings to pass the 100-year peak flood discharge with little or no
increase to the water surface elevation.
A, B, C, D, E Obtain federal and state removal/fill permits prior to construction.
A, B, C, D, E Prepare a detailed erosion control plan during the final design. The plan would meet or
exceed requirements of the NPDES 1200-C permit.
B Determine that a permit could be obtained for the temporary detour bridge prior to
commitment because the bridge would create an obstruction in the river’s flow for up
to 39 months. If a 100-year flood event were to occur during the 39 months of
construction, water surface elevation could reach 36.42 feet (an increase of 2.81 feet),
and velocities could increase to nearly 8.33 feet per second (an increase of 1 foot per
second over the current velocity).

TABLE G-1
and E
B Minimize temporary impacts during construction (such as streambank erosion and
temporary changes in water surface elevations resulting from other temporary
structures) by implementing appropriate construction techniques (such as the careful
design of temporary structures) and erosion control BMPs.
Aquatic Resources
A, B, C, D, E Implement ODOT BMPs to minimize or alleviate temporary impacts, see ODOT
Hydraulic Manual, Chapter 14 – Water Quality (2008).
A, B, C, D, E Restore topographic contours.
A, B, C, D, E Stabilize and revegetate disturbed surfaces with native plant species.
A, B, C, D, E Treat stormwater according to National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) guidance and
City of Portland requirements to reduce the pollutant loads that would result from
construction of the Build alternatives.
A, B, C, D, E Implement appropriate BMPs to minimize or alleviate hydroacoustic impacts.
A, B, C, D, E Within Willamette Moorage Park, replace the existing Stephens Creek culvert (which
is beneath the Willamette Shoreline Trolley, the new multi-use trail, and the
Willamette Moorage Park and Macadam Bay Club driveway) with a fish-and-wildlife-
friendly passage.
A, B, C, D, E Within Powers Marine Park, design and implement stream restoration along two
streams to provide an off-river habitat for juvenile salmonids.
Vegetation
A, B, C, D, E Incorporate BMPs and environmental criteria into pre-construction planning and
design, and by good construction and maintenance practices.
A, B, C, D, E Replant disturbed riparian areas with native vegetation to reduce the pollutant loads
that would result from construction of the Build alternatives.
A, B, C, D, E Within Willamette Moorage Park, construct sloped, stepped, vegetated walls along a
new multi-use trail, where feasible, to minimize visual and aesthetic impacts to the
park, and to provide for wildlife use and passage.
Wetlands
A, B, C, D, E Implement erosion control measures to ensure there is no impact to wetlands
functions.
A, B, C, D, E Because adverse unavoidable impacts associated with this project are primarily related
to construction impacts (mainly the construction of a new access point and driveway
to the Macadam Bay Yacht Club and Willamette Moorage Park from OR 43),
implement conservation and mitigation measures for impacts such as the following
sequentially performed actions:
 Avoid the impact altogether through design modification or by not taking a certain
action or parts of an action
 Minimize impacts through design modification or by limiting the degree or
magnitude of the action and its implementation
 Rectify the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected
environment
A, B, C, D, E Compensate for the impact to wetlands by restoring, creating, or enhancing wetlands
at another location within the Lower Willamette River Watershed. Construction area
is too small for mitigation on site. Select a site with input from PP&R and Portland
Bureau of Environmental Services.

TABLE G-1
and E
A, B, C, D, E Meet with PP&R and Portland Bureau of Environmental Services to identify
appropriate mitigation sites that would be established either at the project site or
nearby.
A, B, C, D, E To ensure that no accidental or indirect impacts occur to wetlands outside the
proposed disturbance areas, clearly mark wetland boundaries and use sediment fencing
or other erosion control methods to protect the wetland.
A, B, C, D, E Employ sediment-containment methods during construction of the new bridge piers to
minimize impacts to the waterway. Restrict in-water work to the ODFW-
recommended work period to reduce potential impacts to fisheries.
Wildlife
A, B, C, D, E Within the disturbed construction areas, plant native species to help restore riparian
functions and improve the health of the existing riparian habitats.
A, B, C, D, E Implement appropriate BMPs to minimize or alleviate noise impacts on wildlife.
A, B, C, D, E Within Willamette Moorage Park, replace the existing Stephens Creek culvert (which
is beneath the Willamette Shoreline Trolley, the new multi-use trail, and the
Willamette Moorage Park and Macadam Bay Club access driveway) with a fish-and-
wildlife-friendly passage.
A, B, C, D, E Within Willamette Moorage Park, construct sloped, stepped, vegetated walls along a
new multi-use trail, where feasible, to minimize visual and aesthetic impacts to the
park, and to provide for wildlife use and passage.
Noise
A, B, C, D, E Make a final decision on installation of any mitigation or potential noise abatement
measures upon completion of the project design and the public involvement process.
All noise mitigation measures will be disclosed in the Record of Decision.
A, B, C, D, E Consider placing an 8-foot-wide noise barrier in the right-of-way between property
boundaries and sidewalks south of SE Tacoma Street at 8105 SE 7th Avenue to
provide sufficient noise reduction for outdoor seating at the restaurant for all Build
alternatives. However, because this location is a commercial property, the final
determination of reasonable cost and feasibility will be made during final design of the
project. Other noise-abatement measures were considered for the potential impacts
associated with the Build alternatives, including noise walls. However, no mitigation
measures that were both reasonable in cost and feasible were possible for receivers
that would be impacted by the 2035 Build alternatives.
A, B, C, D, E Do not perform any construction within 300 meters of an occupied dwelling unit on
Sundays, legal holidays, and between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. on other
A, B, C, D, E Provide sound-control devices no less effective than those provided on the original
equipment on all equipment used. No equipment shall have unmuffled exhaust.
A, B, C, D, E Comply with all pertinent equipment noise standards of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
A, B, C, D, E Do not perform any pile-driving or blasting operations within 900 meters of an
occupied dwelling unit on Sundays, legal holidays, and between the hours of 8:00 p.m.
and 8:00 a.m. on other days, without the approval of the Multnomah County Managing
Construction Engineer.
A, B, C, D, E Strategically place material stockpiles between the operation and the affected dwelling
or by other means approved by the Multnomah County Managing Construction
Engineer.

TABLE G-1
and E
A, B, C, D, E Should a specific noise-impact complaint occur during the construction of the project,
potentially implement one or more of the following noise mitigation measures:
A, B, C, D, E  Locate stationary construction equipment as far from nearby noise-sensitive
properties as possible
 Shut off idling equipment
 Reschedule construction operations to avoid periods of noise annoyance identified
in the complaint
 Notify nearby residences whenever extremely noisy work will be occurring
 Install temporary or portable acoustic barriers around stationary construction
noise sources
 Operate electric-powered equipment using line voltage power
A, B, C, D, E Conduct construction activities in a manner that would comply with all applicable local
noise ordinances, including Title 18 of the City of Portland’s Noise Control code
(Section 18.10.060), unless a variance was granted.
A, B, C, D, E River View To mitigate possible noise impacts to River View Cemetery during construction,
Cemetery where possible, restrict the hours of noisier operation.
Energy
A, B, C, D, E Attempt to minimize roadway congestion and adhere to practices that encourage
efficient energy use, such as limiting idling equipment, locating construction staging
areas near work sites, and encouraging carpooling.
Air Quality
A, B, C, D, E Use, where possible, water or other suitable materials to control dust.
A, B, C, D, E Apply asphalt, oil, water, or other suitable materials on unpaved roads, material
stockpiles, and other surfaces that can create airborne dust.
A, B, C, D, E Completely enclose material stockpiles. Stockpiles can be partially enclosed where the
application of oil, water, or chemicals is not sufficient to prevent particulate matter
from becoming airborne.
A, B, C, D, E Use wind fencing to reduce soil disturbances.
A, B, C, D, E Locate construction equipment and the truck staging area as far away from sensitive
receptors as practical and in consideration of potential effects on other resources.
A, B, C, D, E Schedule work tasks to minimize disruption of the existing vehicle traffic on streets.
A, B, C, D, E Cover, at all times when in motion, open-bodied trucks that are transporting materials
likely to become airborne.
A, B, C, D, E When possible, restrict road or land closures to non-peak traffic periods to reduce
the effect construction delays might have on traffic flow and resultant emissions.
A, B, C, D, E Promptly remove from paved streets any earth or other material that may become
airborne.
A, B, C, D, E Look for opportunities to employ other environmentally friendly techniques to control
emissions from vehicles and machines used in construction. Such practices might
include but are not limited to the following:
 Use low-sulfur diesel fuel on all diesel equipment
 Use construction equipment with new generation diesel engines when available or
equipment with tailpipe diesel particulate removal when available
 Use environmentally friendly lubricants, solvents, and chemicals to the greatest
extent practicable.

TABLE G-1
and E
A, B, C, D, E Require that Contractors comply with Section 290 of ODOT’s Standard Specifications
for Construction Manual (2008), which has requirements for environmental protection,
including air-pollution-control measures. These control measures, which are designed
to minimize vehicle track-out and fugitive dust, would be documented in the pollution
control plan that the Contractor is required to submit prior to the pre-construction
conference.
Hazardous Materials
A, B, C, D, E Conduct a lead and asbestos survey of the existing bridge prior to construction or
demolition. This work should include an analysis of existing paint layers for total and
toxicity characteristic leaching procedures for heavy metals, such as cadmium,
chromium, zinc, and lead.
A, B, C, D, E Investigate and address areas of known contaminated soil before or during
construction to limit exacerbation. These measures could include direct removal of
contaminated media, capping or covering contaminated soils, and pumping
contaminated groundwater from impacted aquifers.
A, B, C, D, E Implement construction-phase monitoring to identify and manage unknown or
unanticipated media.
A, B, C, D, E Characterize waste generated during construction (such as excavated soil, wastewater,
and construction debris) and assign each waste stream to appropriate waste-disposal
facilities.
A, B, C, D, E Avoid cross-contamination or carryover of contaminated material to clean areas.
A, B, C, D, E Control stormwater runoff from the construction site.
A, B, C, D, E Identify appropriate waste disposal for all waste streams.
A, B, C, D, E Limit access to contaminated areas.

Summary of Mitigation Measures and Environmental

Commitments – Preferred Alternative
Because the lead agencies have identified a preferred alternative (Alternative D Refined), that alternative
was developed to a higher level of detail than the other alternatives evaluated in this FEIS. Identifying a
preferred alternative was necessary to facilitate the development of mitigation measures and
environmental commitments. Table G-2 summarizes proposed and committed mitigation measures and
environmental commitments for Alternative D Refined, the preferred alternative. These measures
include proposed avoidance, minimization, and conservation measures (the last section of this table)
from the project’s Biological Assessment. Avoidance, minimization, and conservation measures are
proposed until the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) issues a Biological Opinion. That Biological
Opinion might require modification of some of these measures before they become environmental
commitments.
TABLE G-2
Summary of Mitigation Measures and Environmental Commitments for the Preferred Alternative
Proposed or Locale Mitigation Measure(s) and Environmental Commitment(s)
Committed
Transportation
Committed Coordinate with the Oregon Pacific Railroad during construction to ensure efficient
maintenance of their operation through the project area. Develop new easement and
operations and maintenance agreements.
Committed Have the City of Portland monitor performance of the SE Tacoma Street/SE 13th
Avenue intersection. Consider part-time or full-time removal of on-street parking on
the west side of the northern (southbound) leg of the intersection.
Committed Replace the Willamette Shoreline Trolley tracks and sufficient right-of-way for the
proposed transit project. (The Sellwood Bridge project has assumed the cost for
replacing one track; fill or structure associated with one track; and retaining walls for
the future plan.)
Committed Establish a safe work zone to safely accommodate the Willamette Shoreline Trolley
through the construction area during some points of construction.
Committed Make changes at the Willamette Moorage Park and Macadam Bay Club driveway
access if safety problems arise in the future.
Committed At the SE Tacoma Street and SE 6th Avenue intersection, have the City of Portland
monitor the effects on traffic operations and make adjustments, as necessary, to
ensure safe and efficient conditions for motorists traveling along SE 6th Avenue and
the Sellwood Bridge, as well as for bicycles, pedestrians, and vehicular traffic on SE 6th
Avenue.
Committed Because access would be closed temporarily for construction equipment staging and
construction activities in the west-side interchange area between River View
Cemetery and the Willamette Greenway Trail (West Bank), redirect bicyclists and
pedestrians to detour routes, such as SW Taylors Ferry Road. Routes might be
circuitous roadways with high traffic volumes, high vehicle speeds, and few or no
bicyclist and pedestrian facilities. Provide signage to alert motorists to the presence of
bicyclists.

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

TABLE G-2
Committed
Committed Powers Compensate Portland Parks & Recreation (PP&R) at fair market value for the land
Marine Park within Powers Marine Park incorporated into a transportation use.
Committed Powers Remove invasive plant species and replace with native plant species within the
Marine Park construction disturbed areas.
Willamette
Moorage
Park
Committed Springwater Provide a temporary detour for the trails, which would include the following elements,
Corridor as necessary—surfacing, signage, and pavement markings.
Trail
Willamette
Greenway
Trail —East
and West
banks
Committed Willamette Construct an approximately 0.30-mile-long, 18-foot-wide trail from Macadam Bay Club
Moorage north to SW Miles Street. The trail would contain a 14-foot-wide surface with 2-foot-
park wide gravel shoulders on both sides of the paved trail. The trail would be aligned
parallel to the existing Willamette Shoreline Trolley tracks between the Willamette
Moorage Park boundary and SW Miles Street on City-owned right-of-way. Upon
completion of trail construction, the City of Portland would assume ownership of the
trail and would be responsible for all trail maintenance.
Committed Willamette Within Willamette Moorage Park, replace the existing Stephens Creek culvert (under
Moorage the Willamette Shoreline Trolley and the new multi-use trail and Macadam Bay Club
Park access driveway) with a fish-and-wildlife-friendly passage that would be constructed
according to Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife standards.
Committed Willamette Within Willamette Moorage Park, provide sloped, stepped, vegetated walls along the
Moorage multi-use trail extending from the Sellwood Bridge to Macadam Bay Club to minimize
Park visual and aesthetic impacts to Willamette Moorage Park and to provide structural
support and wildlife habitat, where feasible.
Committed Powers Within Powers Marine Park, design and implement stream restoration in the area
Marine Park shown on Figure 3.9-2 (from the railroad tracks to the river) to provide off-river
habitat for juvenile salmonids. The planting and stream restoration design would be
prepared in coordination with PP&R and in accordance with applicable City of Portland
development requirements.
Committed Powers Reach an agreement on the shared use of the PP&R parking lot adjacent to Willamette
Marine Park Moorage Park by having Multnomah County work with Freeman Motors, and have
Multnomah County work with PP&R to renegotiate the lease.
Committed Powers Design and implement a parking and pedestrian access plan for Powers Marine Park
Marine Park that would include the provision of a minimum of seven vehicle parking spaces.
Committed Powers Provide seven parking spaces for Powers Marine Park along the roadway to Staff
Marine Park Jennings.

TABLE G-2
Committed
Committed In the unlikely event that human remains were discovered during project completion,
implement the proper protocol for such a discovery.
 Immediately stop work in the area of the discovery and secure the area.
 Contact the Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office and Medical Examiner, the
Oregon State Archaeologist, the Multnomah County project manager, and the
Multnomah County archaeologist.
 If the discovery were determined not to be European-American, notify the tribal
representatives of the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians and the Confederated
Tribes of the Grand Ronde Indians, along with the Oregon State Museum of
Anthropology.
 If the remains were determined to be Native American, have the Tribes, SHPO,
and Multnomah County confer related to an appropriate course of action.
Committed Prepare and implement a data recovery plan to direct retrieval and analysis of
information from National Register-eligible sites within the area of ground disturbance.
Although discovery protocols would be implemented, active archaeological monitoring
of such project-related ground disturbance areas would be undertaken by a qualified
archaeologist, as described in 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 61.
Committed Include stipulations in the project’s construction contracts. All Multnomah County
employees and all Multnomah County contractors and subcontractors would follow
these stipulations should any archaeological, historic, or paleontological resources be
discovered during construction of the project. The following items summarize the
stipulations outlined in an Agreement between FHWA, ODOT, Multnomah County,
and SHPO:
− Immediately suspend construction operations in the vicinity of the discovery if a
suspected historic, archaeological, or paleontological item, feature, prehistoric
dwelling site, or artifact of historic or archaeological significance is encountered.
− Notify the responsible FHWA and ODOT personnel and SHPO as soon as
possible of the nature an exact location of the discovery.
− Consult with a qualified historian or archaeologist to advise FHWA, ODOT, and
SHPO regarding the significance and recommended disposition of the discovery.
− Protect the discovered objects from damage, theft, or other harm prior to
contacting the responsible personnel from FHWA, ODOT, and SHPO.
− Consult with SHPO in accordance with 36 CFR 800.13(b) toward developing and
implementing an appropriate treatment plan prior to resuming construction.
Multnomah County would not resume construction until SHPO had agreed to
that resumption.
Committed Sellwood Prepare a supplemental recordation of the Sellwood Bridge in accordance with the
Bridge standards set forth by the Historic American Engineering Record (HAER). The
supplemental HAER documentation of the Sellwood Bridge would document the
changes to the Sellwood Bridge since it was recorded as part of the Willamette River
Bridges Project in 1999.
Committed Place interpretive signage at the east and west ends of the new bridge, or in Sellwood
Riverfront Park. This would provide information regarding the history of river
crossings in the immediate area, the Sellwood neighborhood, and River View
Cemetery.

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

TABLE G-2
Committed
Committed Include basic rockfall mitigation techniques, such as installing rockfall nets or catch
fences to cover slopes and constructing a rock catchment ditch) with a barrier
between the ditch and OR 43. Stabilize high rockfall hazard areas using bolts and mesh
to cover these areas of weathered zones of rock. The use of rock anchors would
increase the stability of the slope. If highly weathered rock or soil-like zones were
exposed in rock cuts, employ stabilization techniques (such as mesh or soil nails) to
mitigate slope hazards.
Committed Apply standard erosion control techniques including Stormwater and Erosion Best
Management Practices (BMPs) in construction zones to minimize erosion. For the
long-term, control erosion by hydroseeding and establishing vegetation as soon as
possible. Also, consider other measures such as diverting stormwater runoff away
from cuts and fills and constructing erosion retention basins.
Committed During design, evaluate the level of loading to be expected. Perform structural design
to withstand the anticipated loads as mitigation for seismic hazards to bridges,
structures, and retaining walls. In foundation design, consider liquefaction and found
the structure on rock or more stable ground (such as the Troutdale formation), if
encountered at depth. Use slope stabilization measures (such as installing drilled shafts
or micropiles and increasing soil strength) to provide mitigation for seismic hazards.
Committed Remove existing fill material, which would remove the driving force causing the
existing landslide to move. Recent movement of the existing landslide may be the
result of adding fill material.
Committed Construct a secant-pile wall along the roadway to Powers Marine Park and Staff
Jennings to stabilize the cuts into the landslide mass.
Committed Construct a structure on the roadway to Powers Marine Park and Staff Jennings
beneath and east of the OR 43 northbound off-ramp to avoid cuts or fills into the toe
of the landslide. If a cut were required in this vicinity, the cut slope would be stabilized
using a soil nail wall or a retaining wall.
Committed Use micropiles in the vicinity of the toe of the landslide to provide structural
stabilization for the lower part of the landslide mass. These structural elements would
add additional shear capacity at the failure plane of the slide, which would resist the
driving force of the landslide and increase safety.
Committed Construct the streetcar alignment on the slide approximately at grade, which would
eliminate the need for cuts or fills.
Committed Stabilize the weathered rock at the southbound OR 43 off-ramp using tiebacks (upper
portion of this rock cut).
Committed Found bridge piers on materials with suitable strength. Use the latest probabilistic
seismic hazard analyses to design the piers to withstand damage from seismic shaking
and liquefaction based on fully characterized subsurface conditions and seismic
potential.
Committed Relocate the existing water-line pipes, as necessary, to avoid destabilization of the soil
supporting these pipes (which could damage the pipes, causing them to fail).
Proposed For additional measures, see the Avoidance, Minimization, and Conservation Measures
section in this table.

TABLE G-2
Committed
Water Resources and Water Quality
Committed Obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 1200-C permit.
These permits identify activities during construction to assure an acceptable standard
of water quality. In addition, the Federal 404 Wetland Removal Fill permit requires
that construction stormwater management and construction practices be addressed.
Address major areas during construction, such as erosion prevention, sediment
control, and in-water work. The project will follow ODOT BMPs.
Committed Incorporate water-quality mitigation to reduce pollutant loading to the river, with the
exception of pollutants that were entirely dissolved.
Committed Obtain permits from the City of Portland for stormwater runoff from new impervious
areas.
Committed Treat the west side of the project area with two 6-foot-by-12-foot manufactured
underground filter vaults within the project right-of-way that would discharge to the
Willamette River. No additional right-of-way would be needed for stormwater
facilities. However, more vaults might be required to partition maintenance
responsibilities among the responsible jurisdictions (Multnomah County, ODOT, and
the City of Portland).
Committed Consider water quality swales on the east side. Runoff from the east end of the bridge
could be treated partially or fully using one 6-foot-by-12-foot manufactured
underground filter vault within the project right-of-way that would discharge to the
Willamette River.
Hydraulics
Committed During final design, explore the opportunity to reduce hydraulic impacts by reducing
the base flood elevation change. This could be accomplished by minimizing the number
of in-water piers and shaping piers in a streamlined manner.
Committed Develop many of the mitigation measures after hydraulic designs for the bridge have
been completed. The following are potential mitigation measures:
 Design the bridge to span the width of the natural channel. Set the abutments
back onto the overbank areas so construction would not encroach into the
channel
 Size bridge openings to pass the 100-year peak flood discharge with little or no
increase to the water surface elevation
 Minimize interior piers
Committed Request review and approval from Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW)
of fish passage mitigation measures resulting from the proposed bridge.
Committed Prohibit construction equipment from entering watercourses, except when a specific
task can only occur in the stream, such as the construction of piers. This activity
would be limited to the in-water work periods for watercourses with listed fish
species.
Committed Prohibit equipment washing in the watercourses.
Committed Prohibit equipment from crossing the watercourses, except at temporary crossings,
unless impractical. A temporary crossing plan would be prepared in coordination with
the ODFW and ODOT. The plan would identify proposed construction methods and
develop appropriate mitigation measures to rehabilitate the watercourse habitats that
would be affected by the temporary crossings.

TABLE G-2
Committed
Committed Perform a “no rise” analysis and obtain a City of Portland Floodplain Development
Permit prior to construction. Any substantial impacts to the FEMA Special Flood
Hazard Area could be mitigated by one or a combination of the following techniques:
 Excavate part of the streambank to compensate for the permanent loss in flow
area (that is, the loss created by the installation of bridge piers)
 Investigate pier shaping to minimize energy losses
Committed Size bridge openings to pass the 100-year peak flood discharge with little or no
increase to the water surface elevation.
Committed Obtain federal and state removal/fill permits prior to construction.
Committed Prepare a detailed erosion control plan during the final design. The plan would meet or
exceed requirements of the NPDES 1200-C permit.
Aquatic Resources
Committed Implement ODOT BMPs to minimize or alleviate temporary impacts, see ODOT
Hydraulic Manual, Chapter 14 – Water Quality (2008).
Committed Restore topographic contours.
Committed Stabilize and revegetate disturbed surfaces with native plant species.
Committed Treat stormwater according to National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) guidance and
City of Portland requirements to reduce the pollutant loads that would result from
construction of the Build alternatives.
Committed Implement appropriate BMPs to minimize or alleviate hydroacoustic impacts.
Committed Willamette Within Willamette Moorage Park, replace the existing Stephens Creek culvert (which
Moorage is beneath the Willamette Shoreline Trolley, the new multi-use trail, and the
Park Willamette Moorage Park and Macadam Bay Club driveway) with a fish-and-wildlife-
friendly passage.
Committed Powers Within Powers Marine Park, design and implement stream restoration along two
Marine Park streams to provide an off-river habitat for juvenile salmonids.
Vegetation
Committed Incorporate BMPs and environmental criteria into pre-construction planning and
design, and by good construction and maintenance practices.
Committed Riparian Replant disturbed riparian areas with native vegetation to reduce the pollutant loads
area that would result from construction of the Build alternatives.
Committed Willamette Within Willamette Moorage Park, construct sloped, stepped, vegetated walls along a
Moorage new multi-use trail, where feasible, to minimize visual and aesthetic impacts to the
Park park, and to provide for wildlife use and passage.
Wetlands
Committed Implement erosion control measures to ensure there is no impact to wetlands
functions.
Committed To ensure that no accidental or indirect impacts occur to wetlands outside the
proposed disturbance areas, clearly mark wetland boundaries and use sediment fencing
or other erosion control methods to protect the wetland.

TABLE G-2
Committed
Committed Employ sediment-containment methods during construction of the new bridge piers to
minimize impacts to the waterway. Restrict in-water work to the ODFW-
recommended work period to reduce potential impacts to fisheries.
Wildlife
Committed Within the disturbed construction areas, plant native species to help restore riparian
functions and improve the health of the existing riparian habitats.
Committed Implement appropriate BMPs to minimize or alleviate noise impacts on wildlife.
Committed Willamette Within Willamette Moorage Park, replace the existing Stephens Creek culvert (which
Moorage is beneath the Willamette Shoreline Trolley, the new multi-use trail, and the
Park Willamette Moorage Park and Macadam Bay Club access driveway) with a fish-and-
wildlife-friendly passage.
Committed Willamette Within Willamette Moorage Park, construct sloped, stepped, vegetated walls along a
Moorage new multi-use trail, where feasible, to minimize visual and aesthetic impacts to the
Park park, and to provide for wildlife use and passage.
Noise
Committed Make a final decision on installation of any mitigation or potential noise abatement
measures upon completion of the project design and the public involvement process.
All noise mitigation measures will be disclosed in the Record of Decision.
Committed Consider placing an 8-foot-wide noise barrier in the right-of-way between property
boundaries and sidewalks south of SE Tacoma Street at 8105 SE 7th Avenue to
provide sufficient noise reduction for outdoor seating at the restaurant. However,
because this location is a commercial property, the final determination of reasonable
cost and feasibility will be made during final design of the project. Other noise-
abatement measures were considered, including noise walls. However, no mitigation
measures were both reasonable in cost and feasible.
Committed Do not perform any construction within 300 meters of an occupied dwelling unit on
Sundays, legal holidays, and between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. on other
Committed Provide sound-control devices no less effective than those provided on the original
equipment on all equipment used. No equipment shall have unmuffled exhaust.
Committed Comply with all pertinent equipment noise standards of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
Committed Do not perform any pile-driving or blasting operations within 900 meters of an
occupied dwelling unit on Sundays, legal holidays, and between the hours of 8:00 p.m.
and 8:00 a.m. on other days, without the approval of the Multnomah County Managing
Construction Engineer.
Committed Strategically place material stockpiles between the operation and the affected dwelling
or by other means approved by the Multnomah County Managing Construction
Engineer.
Committed Should a specific noise-impact complaint occur during the construction of the project,
potentially implement one or more of the following noise mitigation measures:
Committed  Locate stationary construction equipment as far from nearby noise-sensitive
properties as possible

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

TABLE G-2
Committed
Committed Require that Contractors comply with Section 290 of ODOT’s Standard Specifications
for Construction Manual (2008), which has requirements for environmental protection,
including air-pollution-control measures. These control measures, which are designed
to minimize vehicle track-out and fugitive dust, would be documented in the pollution
control plan that the Contractor is required to submit prior to the pre-construction
conference.
Hazardous Materials
Committed Conduct a lead and asbestos survey of the existing bridge prior to construction or
demolition. This work should include an analysis of existing paint layers for total and
toxicity characteristic leaching procedures for heavy metals, such as cadmium,
chromium, zinc, and lead.
Committed Investigate and address areas of known contaminated soil before or during
construction to limit exacerbation. These measures could include direct removal of
contaminated media, capping or covering contaminated soils, and pumping
contaminated groundwater from impacted aquifers.
Committed Implement construction-phase monitoring to identify and manage unknown or
unanticipated media.
Committed Characterize waste generated during construction (such as excavated soil, wastewater,
and construction debris) and assign each waste stream to appropriate waste-disposal
facilities.
Committed Avoid cross-contamination or carryover of contaminated material to clean areas.
Committed Control stormwater runoff from the construction site.
Committed Identify appropriate waste disposal for all waste streams.
Committed Limit access to contaminated areas.
Avoidance, Minimization, and Conservation Measures
Proposed Riparian Revegetation:
Include native trees, shrubs and herbaceous vegetation selected from the Portland
Plant List in the new (mitigation) plantings of riparian vegetation along the river bank.
The dominant vegetation community near the Sellwood Bridge is riparian forest. Small
open areas of predominantly weedy shrub and herbaceous vegetation are also present
and consist of Himalayan blackberry and Japanese knotweed. Compensation for the
removal of mature trees in designated Environmental-Zone (E-Zone) areas would
follow guidance of the City of Portland’s Title 33.430.140 Zoning Code (City of
Portland, 1991). These regulations define the number and size of trees (Option A) or
the combination of trees and shrubs (Option B) that are needed to replace each cut
tree.

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

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

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

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

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

TABLE G-2
Committed
 Place waste materials and spoils above the bank line and away from any wetlands.
 Do not dispose of rubble from demolition of the existing bridge on the bed or
banks of any waters or in any wetlands of the state without prior approval of the
Oregon Department of State Lands.

Appendix H. SHPO Findings of Effect
(FOE) Concurrence Letter
Appendix I. Responses to DEIS
Comments
Appendix I. Responses to DEIS Comments
Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) were collected between November 7
and December 22, 2008. Individuals and agencies submitted comments online using the project Web
site’s comment form, in mailed letters, and in email correspondence with the project team. Because
many commenters expressed the same ideas, comments with similar themes were grouped together to
create a single consolidated comment that was matched with a single response. Table I-1 (pages I-1
through I-80) includes a response for each consolidated comment.
Table I-2 is a companion to Table I-1, listing the names of the commenters in Commenter ID order
(pages 1-81 and 1-82).
If you are looking for the response to your comment, review Table I-3 (pages I-83 through I-86) to find
your name (organized alphabetically by last name) and the consolidated comment number that includes a
response to your comment. If your comment contained thoughts on more than one topic, a response to
each topic is provided under a separate consolidated comment number. A copy of your original
comment is provided in Appendix J, which is available at http://www.sellwoodbridge.org/FinalEIS.aspx or
on a CD.
TABLE I-1
Responses to DEIS Comments
ID Category Comment / Response Commenter IDs
1 Preference I prefer Alternative A as presented, if a temporary bridge can be combined 80, 157, 216
with this alternative.
Alternative A could have been constructed using a temporary detour bridge.
However, this would have created three bridges during construction, with
greater impacts to both residential properties and aquatic species. Local
elected/appointed officials determined that a temporary detour bridge would not
be as cost-effective as using the existing bridge while the new bridge was under
construction. Only Alternatives D and E would allow for this approach.
2 Preference I object to Alternative A because of the separate bike/ped bridge. 166
Local elected/appointed officials rejected the separate bicycle/pedestrian bridge
concept for the following reasons:
• The additional cost.
• Safety/security concerns because motorists would not have been able to
observe bicyclists and pedestrians who were not traveling directly adjacent to
them. Bicyclists and pedestrians feel safer with this passive observation.
• The increased impact to the natural and social environment because two
bridges (and their piers) would have existed instead of just one.
• Concerns from the bicyclist community that, if funding were limited, the
construction of the bicycle bridge would have been delayed.
Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement I-1

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

TABLE I-1
7 Preference I object to Alternative C because: 154, 166, 191, 204
• It creates security issues for bikes and peds.
• I don't like the three lane design of this alternative.
The biking and pedestrian communities expressed security concerns about the
double-deck design because passing drivers would not be able to observe them.
In addition, many residents are concerned about having several lanes because
they think it could potentially lead to four lanes on SE Tacoma Street. Both of
these factors affected the local elected/appointed officials’ determination to reject
this alternative.
8 Preference I prefer Alternative D because I like the sleek look of the delta frame design 137, 143
and less cost.
A refined version of Alternative D has been identified and recommended as the
preferred alternative. There will be a process for selecting the bridge design that
involves a citizens advisory committee and opportunities for general public
comment. The design selection process will begin after the Federal Highway
Administration issues a Record of Decision.
9 Preference I prefer Alternative D because it has the least closure time. Closure time 52, 101, 103, 104,
would seriously affect my business. It will keep business open and provide 120, 137, 166, 180,
access from Lake Oswego to the East side. 225
The preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined, can be constructed without
closing the bridge to traffic and without the cost of a temporary detour bridge.
Local elected/appointed officials considered the potential economic impact to the
business community and to the commuting public a significant factor when they
identified and recommended this alternative as the preferred alternative.
10 Preference I prefer Alternative D because: 61, 122, 204
• It has space for each function, autos, bikes and pedestrians. Therefore, it
provides the best bike and pedestrian facility.
• It would encourage more pedestrian and bike use of the bridge and
therefore reduce carbon dioxide producing traffic.
Bicyclists and pedestrians strongly support this comment. The Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) found that all Build alternatives
supported greatly increased bicycle and pedestrian use in the corridor. All of the
Build alternatives improve connectivity to both the Willamette Greenway Trail
and the Springwater Corridor Trail, and they provide a significantly safer bridge
crossing.
• Encouragement of bicycle and pedestrian travel modes would improve the
carbon footprint of the project.
Sellwood Bridge Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement I-3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

included graphics where the authors felt they were needed for the planning phase
of project development. Bridge types and designs will be studied in depth during
the design phase after the Federal Highway Administration issues a Record of
Decision. At that time, additional graphics will be prepared.
145 Minor Comments on the DEIS presentation: 188
Gram-
matical and
• ODFW suggests mapping proposed locations of water quality treatment
Technical facilities for inclusion in the FEIS
Edits
This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) addresses water quality
treatment options and locations more specifically.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TABLE I-1
202 Biology Page 3-175: Alternative Specific Impacts and Mitigation: 188
• Mitigation measures to minimize impacts to wildlife from blasting should
be included in the FEIS.
Blasting hazards include fly rock, air blast, noise, and vibration. It is estimated that
the project would require 10 to 20 blasting sessions during the course of
construction. A blasting specialist would design the blasts; a preblast survey
would be made before the blasts; and air blast, vibration, and noise would be
monitored during the blasts. Typical practices used would be smaller shots,
adjusted in a delay pattern that would reduce (rather than amplify) the impacts of
the blasts. Blasting mats would be used to control fly rock and reduce noise
impacts. The time of year of the blasts might need to be adjusted to avoid
disturbing nesting birds.
203 Typos/Word Appendix F-Summary of Permits and Clearances Needed: 188
Changes/Te
chnical but
• Need to include ODFW-Fish Passage Plan approval (OAR 635-412)
not
substantive
comments
Your comment is noted. The edit has been made in this Final Environmental
Impact Statement (FEIS).
204 Typos/Word 3-13 Water Quality-ODFW suggests mapping proposed locations of water 188
Changes/Te quality treatment facilities for inclusion into the FEIS.
chnical but
not
substantive
comments
This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) discusses water quality

treatment facilities and their locations.
205 Hydraulics 3-14 Hydraulics-Balancing of cut/fill 188
Your comment is noted. During final design of the project, balance in cut and fill
would be refined to comply with floodplain ordinances.
206 Hydraulics Page 3.151: 3.14.3 Mitigation- 188
• ODFW recommends round piers as a mitigation option. Inwater bents
with square pier designs create greater scour than round piers. Inwater
bents with square piers also increase the amount of large woody debris
captured which can lead to gravel bar development.
The final design of the in-water piers has not been determined. Piers will be
optimally designed to adequately support the structure, minimize scour, avoid
capture of large woody debris, comply with Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) no “net rise” requirements, and minimize impacts to fish and fish
habitat. In-water structures will be the subject of a Biological Assessment and of
various permits, including floodplain and navigational permits.
207 Bike/Pedest (Mitigation) Mitigate the lack of eyes on the street, noise, pigeon droppings 226
rian by hanging the bike/pedestrian shared path to side of bridge. It could
alternate as proposed by Arun Jain, City of Portland, Planning Department
or remain on one side.
These issues have been addressed by advancing a preferred alternative that places
the bicycle and pedestrian facilities on the same level as the vehicle traffic.

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

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

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

TABLE I-1
223 Parks and If the proposed crossing location into Willamette Moorage Park is not 226
Recreation changed, then include a fish friendly crossing such as a bridge over Stephens
Creek.
A fish and wildlife friendly crossing of Stephens Creek is now part of the
mitigation plan.
224 Parks and Land-Based Construction - Construction Storage and Fabrication Areas: 0.5 226
Recreation to 1.0-ac. site will be needed near the proposed bridge construction and 5.0
to 8.0-acre site outside the project area. PP&R understands that the sites
will be selected based on land availability during construction. Our
preference is for sites not immediately adjacent to PP&R property.
Laydown and storage sites have not yet been identified. Of the two, the one of
concern is the site or sites required within the project area. Usually these are flat
areas, often paved. They might include parking lots, areas cleared for
construction, and other vacant areas. Because Portland Parks & Recreation
(PP&R) property abuts the project for almost its full length on the west side, it is
likely that some sites would be established adjacent to PP&R property.
225 Parks and Figures 3.2-2, 3.2-4, 3.2-6, 3.2-8, 3.2-10: West-side diagrams should show 226
Recreation the bike/pedestrian facility to which the new construction will connect
(cemetery road); East-side diagram should show the existing Springwater
Corridor. This will clarify the length of on-street connection needed to
reach off-street trail; please confirm whether or not the stairway between
SWC and SE Spokane will be replaced.
This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) provides more detailed
drawings of the bike/pedestrian facilities for the preferred alternative, Alternative
D Refined. The stairway from the bridge to the Springwater Corridor Trail would
not be replaced. Access from the bridge to the trail would be by SE 6th Avenue
and SE Spokane Street.
226 Typos/Word Alternative C: Please note the reduced amount of vertical distance that 226
Changes/Te pedestrians and cyclists have to travel in this option. A flatter route should
chnical but be more attractive to all human-powered users. Are profiles available for
not
the bike/pedestrian route of each alternative?
substantive
comments
The preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined, includes a pedestrian and bicycle

ramp similar to the one in Alternative C. Please see the updated drawings in this
Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS).
227 Transpor- Mitigation) Do not build the east-side under-crossing 226
tation
Local elected/appointed officials have eliminated the east-side undercrossing from
consideration as part of the preferred alternative.
228 Typos/Word Table 3.2-7 and 3.208: Signalized intersection improves bicyclist and 226
Changes/Te pedestrian crossing of SE Tacoma Street unless it is a vehicle signal. Adding
chnical but vehicles would make cycling more dangerous on SE Spokane as well.
not
substantive
comments
The preferred alternative signal is a bicyclist/pedestrian-activated signal to provide
safe crossing for bicycles and pedestrians.

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

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

TABLE I-1
239 Typos/Word Willamette Moorage Park (3-108) please change "hiking" trail to "shared- 226
Changes/Te use" trail.
chnical but
not
substantive
comments
This correction was made in this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS).
240 Parks and Willamette Moorage Park, first column, last paragraph (3-108) include: the 226
Recreation project also included riparian enhancement, removal of invasive and
planting native species.
241 Parks and Springwater Corridor Trail (3-108) please add "downtown Portland to" 226
Recreation after "connecting" in second sentence of second paragraph
The correction was made in this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS).
242 Parks and Willamette Greenway Trail (East Bank; 3-109) Add second sentence in 226
Recreation second paragraph: SE Umatilla Street. There is a two-block gap and trail
continues between SE Tenino and SE Linn.
The correction was made in this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS).
243 Typos/Word Table 3.9-1 (3-110) as noted elsewhere, remove "undeveloped" 226
Changes/Te
chnical but
not
substantive
comments

244 Typos/Word Table 3.9-1 (3-110): Area; Functions Impacted column does not address the 226
Changes/Te functions and values of the park that are impacted by each alternative. The
chnical but EIS needs to address the riverine and riparian functions impacted by the
not
land conversion.
substantive
comments
The functions and values impacted varied only in magnitude by alternative, and
even the magnitude varied little among the alternatives. The preferred alternative,
Alternative D Refined, would improve riverine functions through planned
mitigation. Such mitigation would include stream restoration of two unnamed
drainages and the creation of off-channel habitat for fish. In addition, a fish-and-
wildlife passage would be restored on Stephens Creek by replacing a culvert with
a fish-and-wildlife-friendly crossing structure.
245 Typos/Word Table 3.9-2 (3-110): Area; Functions Impacted column does not adequately 226
Changes/Te address the impacts to the functions and values of the riverine and riparian
chnical but habitats impacted by the build alternatives. All alternatives convert
not
approximately 20% or greater area of the park to transportation uses. This
substantive
comments will have a large impact on the functions and values of the natural area.
The project team modified the preferred alternative, Alternative D Refined, to

reduce impacts to the natural habitat values within the park. Planned mitigation
would provide stream restoration to two unnamed drainages that are currently
degraded. For the most part, the footprint of the project would be similar to the
existing footprint, and would cross the park in an area that is already significantly
degraded.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

102 Joan Beckley 163 Eric Miller

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

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

TABLE I-3
Information about the Commenters Organized by Last Name
Organization or Affiliation
Name (Commenter IDa) How Received Consolidated Comment ID
(if applicable)
Steve and Megan Adkins (208) Mail In 23, 35, 48, 57, 65, 81, 82, 85
Bob Akers (174) 40-Mile Loop Land Trust Mail In 75, 133
Douglas R. Allen (223) Mail In 35, 103
Cindy Anderson (148) Web Site 39
Mary Anderson (108) Open House 81, 108
Tom Armstrong (172) Portland Bureau of Planning Mail In 33, 120, 125, 127, 129, 131, 157
Richard Atiyeh (199) Mail In 20, 160
Clarke Balcom (65) Web Site 18, 19, 23, 24, 74
Adam Barka (187) Web Site 6, 44, 49, 50, 50, 52, 52, 55, 56, 94,
161, 317
Joan Beckley (102) Open House 14, 37
Joan Beckley (160) Riverpark Homeowners Assoc. Web Site 14, 20, 37, 81
Chelsea Bianchi (51) Web Site 11
Bernie Bottomly (166) Portland Business Alliance Web Site 2, 7, 9, 11, 34, 39, 40, 47, 82, 94, 96,
316
Jim Brick (188) Oregon Department of Fish and Mail In 34, 145, 146, 147, 148, 159, 200, 201,
Wildlife 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 208, 209,
210, 211, 212
Judith Brock (92) Web Site 20
Judith (Mrs. Richard H.) Brock Web Site 20
(93)
Michael Brodeur (179) Sellwood Medical Clinic Web Site 13
Loulie Brown (134) Web Site 4
Linda Cahan (218) Web Site 79
Shanta Calem (149) Web Site 117, 119
Blair Campbell (95) Web Site 19
Sheila Catterall (151) Web Site 21
Victor Christiansen (200) Mail In 20
Mr. Clopton (81) Web Site 109
David Collins (155) Web Site 162, 163
Clifford Colvin (59) Web Site 6
Sue Conachan (78) Web Site 113
Lois and Marty Coplea (117) Mail In 13, 138
Lois and Marty Coplea (201) Mail In 25, 27, 114
Mike Coyle (157) Web Site 1, 65, 84
Michael Crean (184) Web Site 94, 115
Tony Dal Molin (144) Web Site 116, 117
William Danneman (107) South Portland Neighborhood Open House 123, 127, 132
Association
Anne Darrow (203) Mail In 20
Monika DeBrakeleer (105) Open House 36, 66, 117, 156
Steven DeMonnin (90) Web Site 6, 28, 52, 55, 66
Allen and Mary Lou Dobbins Mail In 13, 17, 18, 21, 111, 139
(215)
Jan Dockstader (150) Web Site 62
Christine Donnelly (220) Web Site 21, 81
Priscilla Downing (125) Web Site 20, 49
Alice Duff (216) Web Site 1
Tom Edwards (147) Daimler Corp Web Site 67
Robert Ehni (202) Mail In 20
Joel Fields (225) The UPS Store Mail In 9, 18, 27, 83, 162, 163, 314, 315
Margaret Foster (207) Mail In 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 23, 25, 26, 81
Gerald Fox (195) Mail In 31, 43, 53, 79, 86, 94, 127
Jim Friscia (185) SMILE Web Site 34, 38, 43, 83
Rolph B. Fuhrman (98) Mail In 14, 35, 136, 306

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

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

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

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

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

Appendix J: Text of the Comments Received on the DEIS
TABLE J-1
then Alternatives A and B, and allow for future adaptations thus keeping all neighborhoods viable
parts of Portlands infostructure and not disconnected segments that have a hard time connecting.
Please consider Alternative D as the best answer to the Sellwood Bridge Issue.
52 John Russell Received via Web Site
If the bridge needs to have at least 3' shoulders, why not double their functionality and make them
functional bike lanes, at least 6' or 6.5' wide?
If shoulders weren't needed, I would, as a cyclists prefer a Hawthorne-bridge-style sidewalk with
enough room for cyclists and pedestrians. With the expected number of pedestrians, it might even be
acceptable to make the sidewalks somewhere in the range of 12' to 18' wide, but only to reduce the
overall size and cost of the bridge, not to add vehicle lanes.
As it appears that shoulders are in fact required, why not make them double as large-enough bike
lanes?
The vehicle congestion problem would not be solved in any way by adding more lanes, as the bottle
neck would simply be moved to either side of the bridge. The real solution to that specific problem
would be to look at a bridge in the vicinity of Lake Oswego.
In the aforementioned aspects, along with the second lowest average cost, along with the absence of a
closure, D is clearly the best option.
53 Derek Holmgren Received via Web Site
Because the alternatives have different bridge designs, it is assumed the different bridge designs would
have different lighting schemes. Chapter 3.11 (Visual Resources) does not analyze how the
alternatives would affect the visual landscape at night. Please provide a description of the Sellwood
Bridge's sources of nighttime light (such as bridge lighting, safety/roadway lighting, and lighting for
pedestrians) in the affected environment. Then, please identify impacts on the visual landscape at night
for each alternative. For example, would one alternative have more sources of light than another? Or,
would one alternative have more visible sources of light than another? The visibility of light could be
influenced by the color of the light, whether the light is flashing or steady, and the elevation of the
light). Also, please identify mitigation to minimize nighttime light and its spread. For example, would
shrouds be affixed to the bridge's light fixtures to prevent light from straying off-site? Would any of
the light fixtures make use of solar panels for electricity?
54 Chris Pheil Received via Web Site
I have already completed the last survey regarding the preferred bridge/interchange designs but then
had another thought.
My preferred design has always been a double deck design in order to lessen the impact that bridge
width has on the adjacent bridges and residences.
On the East end, has anyone considered moving the bridge on ramp back to 7th or 8th Avenue in
order to allow the bridge height to soar over the businesses and residences in order to allow them to
remain?
Just a thought.
Thanks,
Chris Pheil
55 Doug Prentice Received via Web Site
Being a Sellwood resident I favor the no build alternative. With the economy in such turmoil it makes
J-2 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

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

TABLE J-1
place, but since they are there it seems there is no way of avoiding some displacement.
62 Jim Larpenteur, Sellwood Harbor Received via Open House (062_JimLarpenteur.pdf)
1. The survey is flawed because it doesn't lend itself to voting on the hybrid alternatives that are
supposed to be available.
2. The EIS is flawed because it doesn't address hybrid alternatives.
We, you (CTF), and the PAG were promised to have the ability to mix and match within the 5
alternatives. There is no mix and match cost information. The Count in it's zeal to promote
alternative D, designates 2 span of 64 ft. for Alt. D and saddles Alternative E, the preferred alternative
for many of us, with a span of 75 ft. What would Alt E with a span of 64 ft cost? Does a "no" vote for
Alt E mean the voter doesn't like the route or is it rejection of a 75 ft span for our neighborhood
bridge?
63 John Lattig, Sellwood Harbor Condo Received via Open House (063_johnLattig.pdf)
Association
• The Draft EIS is inadequate as a decision-making tool. Although it's been said that a “hybrid”
solution may be the final recommendation, there is insufficient information in the EIS to allow
for cost comparisons of alignmentlcross section/bridge type combinations. For example,
there needs to be a cost matrix that allows one to identify the cost savings of pairing a
narrower cross section with alignment F.
• The EIS lacks any documentation that would support the assumption only 4 residential units
at Sellwood Harbor will be destroyed by Alternative D. Three of those units would be
stripped off the northern end of a 3-story building with below grade parking, and one unit
stripped of the end of a 3 unit townhouse structure. The EIS should include certification by a
structural engineer that what remains will be structurally sound.
• In Section 3, it's acknowledged that the loss of one condo unit at River Park may result in
fmancial harm to the condo association as a whole because of diminished dues revenue. No
such acknowledgement is made for the potentially greater harm of destroying 4 of 38 units at
Sellwood Harbor (Alternative D.). This is a serious omission.
• More explicit detail regarding right-of-way costs should be included so that decision makers
can verify the adequacy of the cost projections.
Some of the statements in Section 4, Key Differentiators, are misleading:
• It's implied as a negative factor that Alternative E will require the most right-of-way
acquisition (11.7 acres vs. 10.5 acres.). This is mitigated by information presented in other
sections of the EIS: Alternative E takes less parkiand space than other alternatives, and it
reclaims land on the east side that can be used for other constructive public use such as
Sellwood Riverfront Park expansion and transit facilities.
• It's stated that Alternative E will adversely impact Oaks Pioneer Church, but the section 106
process concluded with a finding of “no adverse impact” and it's also stated there will be no
4(f) impact to the church.
• With respect to Alternative E noise impact on the church, the projected change is only 2db
at 2035 traffic levels and the overall db level is below the Oregon State criterion of 65db.
64 Thomas Walsh Received via Open House (064_ThomasWalsh.pdf)
I ask that the CTh review and discuss the adequacy of the Seliwood Bridge DEIS before undertaking
the process of selecting an alternative. If the DEIS has unnoticed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TABLE J-1
86 Emory Powell Received via Web Site

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

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

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

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

TABLE J-1
96 Fred Nomura Received via Mail In (96_Fred_Nomura.pdf)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TABLE J-1
Sellwood Bridge Project.
127 Martha Mattus Received via Web Site

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

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

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

TABLE J-1
131 Ariel Smits Received via Web Site

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TABLE J-1
181 Dee Horne Received via Web Site

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

TABLE J-1
185 Jim Friscia, SMILE Received via Web Site

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TABLE J-1
198 G. Livingston Received via Mail In (198_Livingston.pdf)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TABLE J-1
223 Douglas R. Allen Received via Mail In (223_DouglasAllen.pdf)

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

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

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

TABLE J-1
226 Emily Roth, Portland, Parks & Received via Mail In

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

49 John Shurts Received via Web Site
50 John Tipton Received via Web Site
51 Chelsea Bianchi Received via Web Site
52 John Russell Received via Web Site
53 Derek Holmgren Received via Web Site
54 Chris Pheil Received via Web Site
55 Doug Prentice Received via Web Site
58 Dan Pence Received via Web Site
59 Clifford Colvin Received via Web Site
60 Daniel Kaufman Received via Web Site
61 Sharon Marcus Received via Web Site
62 Jim Larpenteur, Sellwood Harbor Received via Open House (062_JimLarpenteur.pdf)
63 John Lattig, Sellwood Harbor Condo Received via Open House (063_johnLattig.pdf)
Association
64 Thomas Walsh Received via Open House (064_ThomasWalsh.pdf)
65 Clarke Balcom Received via Web Site
66 Jim Rech Received via Web Site
67 Don Henderson Received via Web Site
68 Roland Haertl, Haertl Development / Received via Web Site
Consulting
69 Wayne Skall Received via Web Site
S e l l w o o d B r i d g e P r o j e c t F i n a l E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t S t a t e m e n t J-1
REVIEW DRAFT–NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Appendix J: Copies of Comments on the DEIS
TABLE J-2
70 Zephyr Moore, One Earth Society Received via Web Site

71 Philip Haynes Received via Web Site
72 Austin Pratt, US Coast Guard Received via Mail In (072_US_Coast_Guard.pdf)
73 Robert E and Lucy Wiegand, Sellwood Received via Mail In (73_Robert_and_Lucy_Wiegand.pdf)
Harbor
74 Peter Sweet Received via Web Site
75 Ed Murphy, Sellwood Harbor Received via Web Site
76 Renee Moog Received via Web Site
77 Bob and Kristin Howell Received via Mail In (077_ Bob_and_Kristin_Howell.pdf)
78 Sue Conachan Received via Web Site
79 Charles Tindall, Blue Line Received via Web Site
Transportation
80 Mark Scherzinger Received via Web Site
81 Mr. Clopton Received via Web Site
82 Mary and Gene Sayler Received via Web Site
83 Kenneth Ruecker Received via Web Site
84 Richard Poulton Received via Web Site
85 Harriet Lesher, River View Cemetery Received via Web Site
Plot Owner
86 Emory Powell Received via Web Site
87 Karen Ripplinger, The Silver Lining Received via Web Site
Clothing Co.
88 Robert Peterson Received via Web Site
89 Patricia Powell, RiverPark Received via Web Site
90 Steven DeMonnin Received via Web Site
91 Tyler Havener, Resonant Media Co Received via Web Site
92 Judith Brock Received via Web Site
93 Judith (Mrs. Richard H.) Brock Received via Web Site
94 Jamie Strohecker Received via Web Site
95 Blair Campbell Received via Web Site
96 Fred Nomura Received via Mail In (96_Fred_Nomura.pdf)
97 Dee Poth Received via Mail In (097_Dee_Poth.pdf)
J-2 S e l l w o o d B r i d g e P r o j e c t F i n a l E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t S t a t e m e n t
TABLE J-2
98 Rolph B. Fuhrman Received via Mail In (098_Rolph_Fuhrman.pdf)

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

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

155 David Collins Received via Web Site
156 Sheila Strachan Received via Web Site
157 Mike Coyle Received via Web Site
158 Christie Glynn Received via Web Site
160 Joan Beckley, Riverpark Homeowners Received via Web Site
Assoc.
161 Stan Scotton Received via Web Site
162 Frank Winicki, West Linn/ Wilsonville Received via Web Site
School District
163 Eric Miller, Sellwood Playgroup Received via Web Site
Association
164 Dorene Petersen Received via Web Site
165 Kathleen P. Holahan Received via Web Site
166 Bernie Bottomly, Portland Business Received via Web Site
Alliance
167 Dick Springer Received via Web Site
168 Miriam Nolte Received via Web Site
169 Sanford Rome, Theresa Terrace Received via Web Site
Apartments
170 Kate MacCready Received via Web Site
171 John Gillam, Portland Bureau of Received via Mail In
Transportation (171_Memo_Sellwood_Bridge_PDOT_EIS_Comments.doc)
171 Mauricio Leclerc, Portland Bureau of Received via Mail In
Transportation (171_Memo_Sellwood_Bridge_PDOT_EIS_Comments.doc)
172 Tom Armstrong, Portland Bureau of Received via Mail In
Planning (172_BOP_Sellwood_Bridge_DEIS_comments_12-22-08.pdf)
173 Alan Mela Received via Mail In (173_AlanMela.pdf)
174 Bob Akers, 40-Mile Loop Land Trust Received via Mail In (174_Sellwood_Br_Final_EIS_letter.doc)
175 Zari Santner, Portland Parks & Received via Mail In (175_Sellwood_Bridge_001.pdf)
Recreation
176 Erin Hayes Received via Web Site
TABLE J-2
177 Greg Olson, Multnomah County Received via Mail In (177_12-19-

Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory 08_BPCAC_Sellwood_DEIS_Letter.pdf)
Committee
178 Paul Henson, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Received via Mail In (178_SellwoodbrDEIS.doc.pdf)
Service
179 Michael Brodeur, Sellwood Medical Received via Web Site
Clinic
180 Julie Weis Received via Web Site
181 Dee Horne Received via Web Site
183 Barbara Sloop Received via Web Site
184 Michael Crean Received via Web Site
185 Jim Friscia, SMILE Received via Web Site
186 Dustin Posner Received via Web Site
187 Adam Barka Received via Web Site
188 Jim Brick, Oregon Department of Fish Received via Mail In (188_Sellwood_Bridge_DEIS.doc)
and Wildlife
189 Thomas J. Walsh Received via Mail In (189_TomWalsh-SellwoodCommentL.pdf)
191 Claudia Martinez Received via Mail In (191_Martinez.pdf)
192 Jerome and Judith Partch Received via Mail In (192_Partch.pdf)
193 Wayne Skall Received via Mail In (193_Skall.pdf)
194 Dee Poth Received via Mail In (194_Poth.pdf)
195 Gerald Fox Received via Mail In (195_Fox.pdf)
196 Martha Irvine Received via Mail In (196_Irvine.pdf)
197 C. Clark Leone Received via Mail In (197_Leone.pdf)
198 G. Livingston Received via Mail In (198_Livingston.pdf)
199 Richard Atiyeh Received via Mail In (199_Aityeh.pdf)
200 Victor Christiansen Received via Mail In (200_Christiansen.pdf)
201 Lois and Marty Coplea Received via Mail In (201_Coplea.pdf)
202 Robert Ehni Received via Mail In (202_Ehni.pdf)
203 Anne Darrow Received via Mail In (203_Darrow.pdf)
204 Mary King Received via Mail In (204_King.pdf)
205 Jerry Renfro Received via Mail In (205_Renfro.pdf)
TABLE J-2
206 Donaldina Yim Received via Mail In (206_Yim.pdf)

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

233 Susan Narizny Received via Web Site
234 Sandi Swinford Received via Web Site
235 Bob Marshall Received via Web Site
236 Maury Wickman Received via Web Site
237 Barb Pakula Received via Web Site
238 Susan Glosser Received via Web Site
239 Mary Sayler Received via Web Site
240 Gerald Fox Received via Web Site
241 Bernie and Barb Marlia Received via Web Site
242 rc Received via Web Site
243 David McCurry, HNTB Received via Web Site
244 Ed Williams Received via Web Site
245 Robert Platt, R. J. Platt Const. Inc. Received via Web Site
246 Jennifer Goodridge, Portland Bureau Received via Mail In (246_FW__Sellwood_Bridge_DEIS.msg)
of Environmental Services
247 Cherri Warnke, Portland Water Received via Mail In
Bureau (247_DEIS_Review_Comments_16Dec08.xls)
ID FName LName Organization ScannedDocument
62 Jim Larpenteur Sellwood Harbor 062_JimLarpenteur.pdf
Go to Page 1
SELLW000 BRIDGE
MULTNOMAH COUNTY Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comment

* Name:
These comments will be recorded and included in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
Please print CLEARLY.
Affiliation:
* Address:
~ L& r o ~
Email: ~G
Phone: \~-c’
* Comments WITHOUT a name or address wifi NOT be included or responded to in the Final EIS.
Please print clearly so that we can accurately record your comment.
COMMENTS
7 -___________
Z ~ ~u ~ v~7y e~~
~ ~[ ~ if ?~ ~ A yIn d ~‘/≠e ~
- ~ ~e
/~ ~
A ~ p~~ ~
~ z~v ~ 1~ ~e0 L~
~ ~ 7~ ~
~7’~/~-1 ~ C~7 i:’ 71!~5~ Y7p~ 1; ,~, )Ø /)C ‘7
,Z~?1— A? r~ ~
~z~c~2 P7~P, f/7r,7~≥7~ ~.
o’ Øj~ C~ ~ L1~C~~ ,D i5cxzid/E~j

~fJ(~72 ~ ~ fr~/~/4~5’~
c~ c ~ c≥~ C-2-5 14~7~I & ~ ~ 7~
)~/frt ~t2/~/ 4~’~ P ~ &V ~ ~
cDv~s ~ ~ 7~ ~ f~ ~f/ 7
-~ ,~Y € ~rn ~* ~27~ E
?~e~ ~ ~ r~-fe ;~ r~’c~,2 ~5~>
~ ~•
Z3~ I) ~ C- I) ~ 9Jd)~’J~,4 ~,/ ~ r d9

/
Please return this comment form at the end of the event. If you prefer to return it later, please mail to Mike
Pullen at 2020 SW 4th Avenue, Suite 300/ Portland, OR 97201 before December 22, 2008.
Go to Page 1
63 John Lattig Sellwood Harbor 063_johnLattig.pdf

Condo Assoc
Go to Page 1
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comment
These comments will be recorded and included in the Final Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS).
Please print CLEARLY.
* Name: John Lattig
Sellwood Harbor Condo Assoc

* Address: 250 SE Spokane St., Portland OR 97202
Email: johnlattig~comcast.net
Phone: 503-233-8892
* Comments WITHOUT a name or address will NOT be included or responded to in the Final EIS. Please
print clearly so that we can accurately record your comment.
COMMENTS
-The Draft EIS is inadequate as a decision-making tool. Although it’s been said that a “hybrid” solution may
be the final recommendation, there is insufficient information in the EIS to allow for cost comparisons of
alignmentlcross section/bridge type combinations. For example, there needs to be a cost matrix that allows
one to identify the cost savings of pairing a narrower cross section with alignment F.
-The EIS lacks any documentation that would support the assumption only 4 residential units at Sellwood
Harbor will be destroyed by Alternative D. Three of those units would be stripped off the northern end of a 3-
story building with below grade parking, and one unit stripped of the end of a 3 unit townhouse structure. The
EIS should include certification by a structural engineer that what remains will be structurally sound.
- In Section 3, it’s acknowledged that the loss of one condo unit at River Park may result in fmancial harm to
the condo association as a whole because of diminished dues revenue. No such acknowledgement is made for
the potentially greater harm of destroying 4 of 38 units at Sellwood Harbor (Alternative D.). This is a serious
omission.
-More explicit detail regarding right-of-way costs should be included so that decision makers can verify the
adequacy of the cost projections.
- Some of the statements in Section 4, Key Differentiators, are misleading:
It’s implied as a negative factor that Alternative E will require the most right-of-way acquisition (11.7
- -
acres vs. 10.5 acres.). This is mitigated by information presented in other sections of the EIS: Alternative E
takes less parkiand space than other alternatives, and it reclaims land on the east side that can be used for
other constructive public use such as Sellwood Riverfront Park expansion and transit facilities.
It’s stated that Alternative E will adversely impact Oaks Pioneer Church, but the section 106 process
- -
concluded with a finding of “no adverse impact” and it’s also stated there will be no 4(f) impact to the church.
With respect to Alternative E noise impact on the church, the projected change is only 2db at 2035 traffic
--
levels and the overall db level is below the Oregon State criterion of 65db.
Go to Page 1
64 Thomas Walsh 064_ThomasWalsh.pdf
Go to Page 1
SELLWOOD BRIDGE CTF MEETING
NOVEMBER 17, 2008
I ask that the CTh review and discuss the adequacy of the Seliwood Bridge DEIS
before undertaking the process of selecting an alternative. If the DEIS has unnoticed
deficiencies, then the chances of making a proper choice become very small. The CTF
should take the lead in critiquing the document.
I offer an example of what I consider a serious fault in the DEIS. Section 3.19
treats noise. It gives~ levels for the existing condition and predicts them for the future
conditions for the differing alternatives. They are much too low. They are said to be in
units of dBA. Stated values range up to 72 cIBA. A casual walk along Tacoma St. will
show that this value is constantly exceeded. A low-priced sound meter indicated that the
emissions of most vehicles exceeded 72 cIBA and many approached 83 , 84 and even 85
CIBA. There is even a contradiction in the noise section. Large trucks will be traveling
Tacoma St. under the build alternatives. Table 3.19-1 gives the noise of a large truck at a
distance of 50 feet as 90 CIBA, not 72 dBA. On Tacoma Street, one cannot get 50 feet
from passing traffic. The problem with the data in the main volume of the DEIS perhaps
arises because the analysis and measurements to obtain levels, as described in the
supporting document, “Noise, Seliwood Bridge Final Technical Report”, gave its results
in Leq(h), not dBA. These were then erroneously incorporated into the DEIS as cIBA.
Leq(h) is the hourly energy average of sound levels in dBA. I consider these averages
very misleading. They make the noise appear to be much less severe than it really is.
They are very much favored by groups and organizations which do not want limits placed
on it, e.g., the aircraft owners, off-roaders, the FAA, the Forest Service, FHWA, etc.
Noise levels should be given in environmental documents as it would be measured by
rapid response meter settings as a function of time. If averages are given for some
reason, they certainly should not be mislabeled.
Even if the Oregon exterior Noise Abatement Criterion of 65 dBleq(h) for a

residence is met, noise there is still very intrusive and objectionable. Speech interference
occurs at 58 CIBA when people are more than 3 feet apart. [Daniel R. Raichel, The
Science and Applications ofAcoustics, Springer Science+Media, Inc., 20061.
The CTh may all ready be doing what I am requesting. I hope so. At the last
CTF meeting I mentioned two letters to officials of the Columbia River Crossing Project.
commenting on it. One is from the Multnomah County Health Department, dated June 9,
2008 and the second is from the National Marine Fisheries Service, dated August 6,
2008. The first one is very applicable to this project. The second one contains some
useful information. I suggest that at least some members of the CTh obtain copies and
read them.
Go to Page 1
72 Austin Pratt US Coast Guard 072_US_Coast_Guard.pdf
Go to Page 1
Go to Page 1
73 Robert E Wiegand Sellwood Harbor 073_Robert_and_Lucy_Wiegand.pdf

and Lucy
Go to Page 1
Go to Page 1
77 Bob and Howell 077_ Bob_and_Kristin_Howell.pdf

Kristin
Go to Page 1
Go to Page 1
96 Fred Nomura 096_Fred_Nomura.pdf
Go to Page 1
Go to Page 1
Go to Page 1
Go to Page 1
Go to Page 1
97 Dee Poth 097_Dee_Poth.pdf
Go to Page 1
Go to Page 1
Go to Page 1
98 Rolph B. Fuhrman 098_Rolph_Fuhrman.pdf
Go to Page 1
Go to Page 1
99 Cherie Nomura 099_Cherie_Nomura.pdf
Go to Page 1
Go to Page 1
Go to Page 1
Go to Page 1
100 David Noble River View 100_David_Noble.pdf

Cemetery
Association
Go to Page 1
Go to Page 1
Go to Page 1
Go to Page 1
101 Daniel Houf Harper Houf 101_Harper_Houf.pdf

Peterson Righellis
Inc.
Go to Page 1
Go to Page 1
Go to Page 1
102 Joan Beckley 102_Joan_Beckley.pdf
Go to Page 1
Go to Page 1
103 Greg Ripplinger The Silver Lining 103_Greg_Ripplinger.pdf

Clothing Co.
Go to Page 1
Go to Page 1
104 Magdalena Valdivigso 104_Magdalena_Valdivigso.pdf
Go to Page 1
Go to Page 1
105 Monika DeBrakeleer 105_Monika_DeBrakeleer.pdf
Go to Page 1
Go to Page 1
106 Hazel Gonsalves 106_Hazel_Gonsalves.pdf
Go to Page 1
Go to Page 1
107 William Danneman South Portland 107_William_Danneman.pdf

Neighborhood
Association
Go to Page 1
Go to Page 1
108 Mary Anderson 108_Mary_Anderson.pdf
Go to Page 1
Go to Page 1
109 Martha Richards 109_Martha_Richards.pdf
Go to Page 1
Go to Page 1
110 Del Scharffenberg 110_Del_Schurffenberg.pdf
Go to Page 1
Go to Page 1
111 Patti Shmilenko 111_Paiti_Shmilenko.pdf
Go to Page 1
Go to Page 1
112 Mark Romanaggi 112_Mark_Romanaggi.pdf
Go to Page 1
Go to Page 1
113 Peter Pellegrin 113_Peter_Pellegron.pdf
Go to Page 1
Go to Page 1
114 Laura Miller 114_Laura_Miller.pdf
Go to Page 1
Go to Page 1
115 Lorraine Fyre Oaks Pioneer 115_Document1.pdf

Church
Go to Page 1
Go to Page 1
116 Matthew Galaher 116_Matthew_Galaher.pdf
Go to Page 1
Go to Page 1
117 Lois and Coplea 117_LoisMartyCoplea.pdf

Marty
Go to Page 1
Go to Page 1
171 John Gillam Portland Bureau of 171_Memo_Sellwood_Bridge_PDOT_EI

Transportation S_Comments.doc
Go to Page 1
Date: 12/22/08
To: Ian B. Cannon, Multnomah County
From: Mauricio Leclerc, John Gillam, Transportation Planning, Portland Office of Transportation
Re: Sellwood Bridge EIS Comments
______________________________________________________________________
Below are comments focused primarily on the Transportation section of the EIS. Other City bureaus are
expecting to comment of different sections of the document. Comments are organized in different sections to
address travel patterns, traffic operations, a review of the alternatives from a bicycle and pedestrian
perspective, comments on the different cross sections, and other considerations.
Travel Patterns
Traffic
Reason for why bridge improvements would not lead to increased vehicular capacity in both corridors is not
satisfactorily explained.
Congestion points on the two corridors (Hwy 43 and Sellwood/Tacoma) during peak hours are located at
signalized intersections north at Taylors Ferry Rd/Macadam in the west and at Tacoma at SE 13th and SE 17th
in the east, as well as on the bridge itself. To increase vehicular capacity, these signalized intersections would
have to be widened in addition to widening the bridge. Doing this goes beyond the scope of this project. The
Bridge being two lanes also assists in metering traffic volume that otherwise would use local streets on the
east side to bypass congestion in the Tacoma corridor.
As a result, travel speed improvements are modest/insignificant (1or 2 mph in 2035) across the River, which
leads to unchanged travel patters.
improvements (up to 7-8 mph) in the immediate area (SW Nevada to SW Riverdale). However, there are still
significant congestion points north and south of the study area for people driving the Lake Oswego/Oregon
City to downtown Portland corridor. In addition, the geographic constraints of the corridor limit the ability to
attract more traffic onto the facility from other facilities. The end result is that the project does not lead to
noticeable shifts in auto traffic.
The traffic effects of tolling have not been incorporated into the EIS. This should have an effect on peak
travel demand if tolls are instated during the peak times.
Mode split
The EIS does not adequately explain the effect of the built alternatives on mode split. EIS is silent on mode
split policy at the City and region.
Compared to the No Build option, alternatives A through E provide significant improvements for bicyclists,
pedestrians and transit users. The EIS identifies significant latent demand and continued growth of bicyclists.
Go to Page 1
Transit service across the bridge would be resumed but it is not stated what future transit ridership across the
bridge would be. As such, the EIS is silent on mode split changes as a result of the built alternatives. The EIS
document would benefit from a combined table listing travel by different modes today and in 2035. The end
result would be to show that the Built alternatives promote multimodal traveling and are more sustainable
options than the No Build. In addition, the City is embarked on a Streetcar System plan that will inform new
streetcar alignments throughout the city, including this corridor. A potential outcome could be two streetcar
alignments: the line to Lake Oswego and one crossing the River via the bridge to connect to Tacoma Street on
the east.

Building on the points above, the EIS is silent on the effect of the alternatives on greenhouse gas emissions.
Analysis should indicate that, while vehicle travel on the corridor would remain unchanged, greater transit and
bicycle and pedestrian travel result in greater multimodal travel, leading to a reduction in greenhouse gas
emissions per bridge/study area user.
Freight
EIS should more clearly state the effect of the built alternatives on freight, which is to reinstate truck access
currently limited as a result of the bridge’s weight limitation. The effect would be to add about 1,500
trucks/large vehicles, or 4 percent of total daily traffic volume, back onto Tacoma and the bridge. The EIS
should also state that the percentage and total truck volume (as well as truck type) would remain largely
unchanged from the time prior to the 2004 weight restrictions).
Traffic Operations
Eastern Interchange
Traffic
The EIS analyzed the effects of three treatments: a No Change, a full traffic signal at SE 6th Ave. and a loop
road connecting north and south of Tacoma under the Bridge using SE Grand Avenue. The EIS states that in
terms of operations, the No change and the loop does not significantly affect traffic operations on Tacoma but
full signal leads to failing level of service (LOS) on Tacoma, spilling traffic onto the western interchange.
This is the case if generous green time is given to SE 6th Ave. The City finds that a) even under the No
Change, traffic during the PM peak backs up onto the west end of the bridge, and b) that a traffic signal with
significantly reduced green time on SE 6th Ave. leads to congestion levels on Tacoma and the bridge that are
not significantly different than the No Change.
A pedestrian activated signal should be evaluated at this location given need to access across Tacoma and to
community land uses, particularly to the north (Oaks Park, Sellwood Riverfront Park, Sellwood and Oak
City TSP LOS policy for Tacoma, a Main Street, is not stated. Instead, page 3-9 of technical report uses RTP
LOS policy, which is different (LOS E for two hours is considered “acceptable”). As regional and City policy
on LOS should be similar, we assume that a different classification was used to measure Tacoma. TSP Policy
allows for F for the first peak hour and E for the second for Tacoma Street classified as a Main Street.

The EIS indicates that the full signal would lead to the most cut through traffic using local streets, followed by
the loop. The full signal, as designed in the EIS, would likely lead to more cut through, though it can be
managed via a pedestrian activated signal or by reducing the amount of green time allowed for SE 6th Ave.
Go to Page 21
The loop has considerable impact for cut through traffic, acting as a free flowing off ramp from the bridge to
access the area north of the bridge. This loop would be hard to manage to diminish cut through traffic.
Access to land uses

Oaks Park, Sellwood Riverfront and Pioneer parks, and commercial and residential can benefit from improved
automobile circulation to serve local and non-local trips. The challenge is to have greater neighborhood auto
circulation not lead to greater non-local cut through traffic. Both the signal and the loop improve local
accessibility to these land uses over the No Change.
Special events
A signalized intersection would be able to be managed for special events. A loop helps primarily eastbound
traffic but gaps in traffic on Tacoma are still needed.
Western Interchange
Three alternatives were evaluated as part of the EIS: a roundabout option (with and without pedestrian/bicycle
facilities), a signalized option (single-point urban interchange) and a free flowing option (trumpet design).
Below are some comments:
Roundabout
helps traffic flow within the interchange during peak times so that it doesn’t shut down, but
how vehicles are supposed to allow for the safe crossing of peds and bicyclists is not clear
(motorists in roudabouts are generally looking at oncoming traffic from the left, which may lead
to less visibility for peds/bicyclists trying to cross using the marked crossings).
• Not clear whether design would accommodate streetcar operations over the bridge from Hwy
Trumpet
• Pedestrian access and bicycle access severely limited. Access to cemetery poses significant
• Transit access severely limited via out of direction travel and longer distances.
Signalized
• Works best for pedestrians and bicyclists accessing Hwy 43 and the cemetery
• Free flowing northbound movement onto Hwy 43 from the bridge, needs more analysis, if there
• Traffic operations seemed to have been modeled assuming a different intersection design:
• Interchange could be designed to have one southbound/through lane onto Hwy 43 south and to
General
• Project team should ask for exemptions from ODOT as to the required spacing for access to the
interchange in the Hwy 43 corridor. As designed, alternatives cut off access to existing land uses
or lead to access that is more costly and with more environmental and social impacts.
• Tolling is not properly analyzed in the EIS. Particularly, the traffic effects of tolling have not
been incorporated into the EIS. This should affect the design of the western interchange in
particular.

Alternative A
Go to Page 31
• It provides very good treatment of bicycle and pedestrian operations across the River because
of the nature of the separated facility.
• It avoids conflicts with the west side interchange.  It avoids conflicts with the crossing of
Tacoma and the need for cyclists and pedestrians to choose one side of the bridge over another.
It may lead to longer travel for bicyclists/pedestrians traveling south on Hwy 43 and to the
cemetery.
Alternative B
• Provides substandard facilities for cyclists and pedestrians. A minimum 5' bike lane on a high-
few generations who will use this bridge. Ten-foot shared use pathways (as we currently have
on the Hawthorne Bridge) are inconsistent with the expected volumes projected to use that
bridge. With the promise of a pathway on the west side of the river, and a streetcar stop on the
west side of the river, bicycle and pedestrian traffic on the bridge is expected to be high. Our
knowledge with shared use paths informs us that pedestrians and cyclists alike may have
generally negative experiences using such a narrow combined facility and that this type of
facility will deter from cycling, or at least not attract to cycling, the very people we wish to have
riding in an area as thick with off-street pathways as are found in South Portland.
• It creates uncomfortable crossings within a roundabout that will be more difficult for
pedestrians to navigate than other proposed options.
Alternative C
• An alternative that would avoid pedestrians and cyclists being underneath would greatly
improve this option.
Alternative D
• It provides very adequate facilities. Most importantly it provides opportunities for faster
cyclists to separate themselves from both slower-moving cyclists as well as from pedestrians by
creating 6.5' bike lanes. At the same time, this option provides adequate width for pedestrians
to share space with slower-moving cyclists (one-way) cyclists.
Alternative E

from having pedestrian access via a sidewalk in case of stalling or other emergency access
issues. They may be required as part of reconstruction.
Go to Page 41
terms of travel time/operations savings. Transit lanes do not seem to provide for sufficient
travel timesavings to merit the extra cost.
General
Other elements
significant.
• Bridge architecture, as with tolling and funding, is an important element that, even though it is
not prominently detailed in the EIS, it does have a bearing in the City’s decision on the Locally
Go to Page 51
171 Mauricio Leclerc Portland Bureau of 171_Memo_Sellwood_Bridge_PDOT_EI

Transportation S_Comments.doc
Go to Page 1
Date: 12/22/08
To: Ian B. Cannon, Multnomah County
From: Mauricio Leclerc, John Gillam, Transportation Planning, Portland Office of Transportation
Re: Sellwood Bridge EIS Comments
______________________________________________________________________
Below are comments focused primarily on the Transportation section of the EIS. Other City bureaus are
expecting to comment of different sections of the document. Comments are organized in different sections to
address travel patterns, traffic operations, a review of the alternatives from a bicycle and pedestrian
perspective, comments on the different cross sections, and other considerations.
Travel Patterns
Traffic
Reason for why bridge improvements would not lead to increased vehicular capacity in both corridors is not
satisfactorily explained.
Congestion points on the two corridors (Hwy 43 and Sellwood/Tacoma) during peak hours are located at
signalized intersections north at Taylors Ferry Rd/Macadam in the west and at Tacoma at SE 13th and SE 17th
in the east, as well as on the bridge itself. To increase vehicular capacity, these signalized intersections would
have to be widened in addition to widening the bridge. Doing this goes beyond the scope of this project. The
Bridge being two lanes also assists in metering traffic volume that otherwise would use local streets on the
east side to bypass congestion in the Tacoma corridor.
As a result, travel speed improvements are modest/insignificant (1or 2 mph in 2035) across the River, which
leads to unchanged travel patters.
improvements (up to 7-8 mph) in the immediate area (SW Nevada to SW Riverdale). However, there are still
significant congestion points north and south of the study area for people driving the Lake Oswego/Oregon
City to downtown Portland corridor. In addition, the geographic constraints of the corridor limit the ability to
attract more traffic onto the facility from other facilities. The end result is that the project does not lead to
noticeable shifts in auto traffic.
The traffic effects of tolling have not been incorporated into the EIS. This should have an effect on peak
travel demand if tolls are instated during the peak times.
Mode split
The EIS does not adequately explain the effect of the built alternatives on mode split. EIS is silent on mode
split policy at the City and region.
Compared to the No Build option, alternatives A through E provide significant improvements for bicyclists,
pedestrians and transit users. The EIS identifies significant latent demand and continued growth of bicyclists.
Go to Page 1
Transit service across the bridge would be resumed but it is not stated what future transit ridership across the
bridge would be. As such, the EIS is silent on mode split changes as a result of the built alternatives. The EIS
document would benefit from a combined table listing travel by different modes today and in 2035. The end
result would be to show that the Built alternatives promote multimodal traveling and are more sustainable
options than the No Build. In addition, the City is embarked on a Streetcar System plan that will inform new
streetcar alignments throughout the city, including this corridor. A potential outcome could be two streetcar
alignments: the line to Lake Oswego and one crossing the River via the bridge to connect to Tacoma Street on
the east.

Building on the points above, the EIS is silent on the effect of the alternatives on greenhouse gas emissions.
Analysis should indicate that, while vehicle travel on the corridor would remain unchanged, greater transit and
bicycle and pedestrian travel result in greater multimodal travel, leading to a reduction in greenhouse gas
emissions per bridge/study area user.
Freight
EIS should more clearly state the effect of the built alternatives on freight, which is to reinstate truck access
currently limited as a result of the bridge’s weight limitation. The effect would be to add about 1,500
trucks/large vehicles, or 4 percent of total daily traffic volume, back onto Tacoma and the bridge. The EIS
should also state that the percentage and total truck volume (as well as truck type) would remain largely
unchanged from the time prior to the 2004 weight restrictions).
Traffic Operations
Eastern Interchange
Traffic
The EIS analyzed the effects of three treatments: a No Change, a full traffic signal at SE 6th Ave. and a loop
road connecting north and south of Tacoma under the Bridge using SE Grand Avenue. The EIS states that in
terms of operations, the No change and the loop does not significantly affect traffic operations on Tacoma but
full signal leads to failing level of service (LOS) on Tacoma, spilling traffic onto the western interchange.
This is the case if generous green time is given to SE 6th Ave. The City finds that a) even under the No
Change, traffic during the PM peak backs up onto the west end of the bridge, and b) that a traffic signal with
significantly reduced green time on SE 6th Ave. leads to congestion levels on Tacoma and the bridge that are
not significantly different than the No Change.
A pedestrian activated signal should be evaluated at this location given need to access across Tacoma and to
community land uses, particularly to the north (Oaks Park, Sellwood Riverfront Park, Sellwood and Oak
City TSP LOS policy for Tacoma, a Main Street, is not stated. Instead, page 3-9 of technical report uses RTP
LOS policy, which is different (LOS E for two hours is considered “acceptable”). As regional and City policy
on LOS should be similar, we assume that a different classification was used to measure Tacoma. TSP Policy
allows for F for the first peak hour and E for the second for Tacoma Street classified as a Main Street.

The EIS indicates that the full signal would lead to the most cut through traffic using local streets, followed by
the loop. The full signal, as designed in the EIS, would likely lead to more cut through, though it can be
managed via a pedestrian activated signal or by reducing the amount of green time allowed for SE 6th Ave.
Go to Page 21
The loop has considerable impact for cut through traffic, acting as a free flowing off ramp from the bridge to
access the area north of the bridge. This loop would be hard to manage to diminish cut through traffic.
Access to land uses

Oaks Park, Sellwood Riverfront and Pioneer parks, and commercial and residential can benefit from improved
automobile circulation to serve local and non-local trips. The challenge is to have greater neighborhood auto
circulation not lead to greater non-local cut through traffic. Both the signal and the loop improve local
accessibility to these land uses over the No Change.
Special events
A signalized intersection would be able to be managed for special events. A loop helps primarily eastbound
traffic but gaps in traffic on Tacoma are still needed.
Western Interchange
Three alternatives were evaluated as part of the EIS: a roundabout option (with and without pedestrian/bicycle
facilities), a signalized option (single-point urban interchange) and a free flowing option (trumpet design).
Below are some comments:
Roundabout
helps traffic flow within the interchange during peak times so that it doesn’t shut down, but
how vehicles are supposed to allow for the safe crossing of peds and bicyclists is not clear
(motorists in roudabouts are generally looking at oncoming traffic from the left, which may lead
to less visibility for peds/bicyclists trying to cross using the marked crossings).
• Not clear whether design would accommodate streetcar operations over the bridge from Hwy
Trumpet
• Pedestrian access and bicycle access severely limited. Access to cemetery poses significant
• Transit access severely limited via out of direction travel and longer distances.
Signalized
• Works best for pedestrians and bicyclists accessing Hwy 43 and the cemetery
• Free flowing northbound movement onto Hwy 43 from the bridge, needs more analysis, if there
• Traffic operations seemed to have been modeled assuming a different intersection design:
• Interchange could be designed to have one southbound/through lane onto Hwy 43 south and to
General
• Project team should ask for exemptions from ODOT as to the required spacing for access to the
interchange in the Hwy 43 corridor. As designed, alternatives cut off access to existing land uses
or lead to access that is more costly and with more environmental and social impacts.
• Tolling is not properly analyzed in the EIS. Particularly, the traffic effects of tolling have not
been incorporated into the EIS. This should affect the design of the western interchange in
particular.

Alternative A
Go to Page 31
• It provides very good treatment of bicycle and pedestrian operations across the River because
of the nature of the separated facility.
• It avoids conflicts with the west side interchange.  It avoids conflicts with the crossing of
Tacoma and the need for cyclists and pedestrians to choose one side of the bridge over another.
It may lead to longer travel for bicyclists/pedestrians traveling south on Hwy 43 and to the
cemetery.
Alternative B
• Provides substandard facilities for cyclists and pedestrians. A minimum 5' bike lane on a high-
few generations who will use this bridge. Ten-foot shared use pathways (as we currently have
on the Hawthorne Bridge) are inconsistent with the expected volumes projected to use that
bridge. With the promise of a pathway on the west side of the river, and a streetcar stop on the
west side of the river, bicycle and pedestrian traffic on the bridge is expected to be high. Our
knowledge with shared use paths informs us that pedestrians and cyclists alike may have
generally negative experiences using such a narrow combined facility and that this type of
facility will deter from cycling, or at least not attract to cycling, the very people we wish to have
riding in an area as thick with off-street pathways as are found in South Portland.
• It creates uncomfortable crossings within a roundabout that will be more difficult for
pedestrians to navigate than other proposed options.
Alternative C
• An alternative that would avoid pedestrians and cyclists being underneath would greatly
improve this option.
Alternative D
• It provides very adequate facilities. Most importantly it provides opportunities for faster
cyclists to separate themselves from both slower-moving cyclists as well as from pedestrians by
creating 6.5' bike lanes. At the same time, this option provides adequate width for pedestrians
to share space with slower-moving cyclists (one-way) cyclists.
Alternative E

from having pedestrian access via a sidewalk in case of stalling or other emergency access
issues. They may be required as part of reconstruction.
Go to Page 41
terms of travel time/operations savings. Transit lanes do not seem to provide for sufficient
travel timesavings to merit the extra cost.
General
Other elements
significant.
• Bridge architecture, as with tolling and funding, is an important element that, even though it is
not prominently detailed in the EIS, it does have a bearing in the City’s decision on the Locally
Go to Page 51
172 Tom Armstrong Portland Bureau of 172_BOP_Sellwood_Bridge_DEIS_com

Planning ments_12-22-08.pdf
Go to Page 1
December 22, 2008

Mike Pullen
Multnomah County
Portland, OR 97201
RE: Sellwood Bridge Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Dear Mr. Pullen:
The City of Portland’s Bureau of Planning offers the following comments on the evaluation of the
potential impacts of the Sellwood Bridge Project in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS). The Bureau of Planning supports the rehabilitation or replacement of the Sellwood Bridge,
especially as a means to restore east-west transit service, enhance pedestrian and bicycle
connections, and provide for future expansion of the streetcar network across the Willamette River.
However, the Bureau of Planning thinks the DEIS does not adequately consider or address the
following issues:
Consider the long-term impacts of the width of the bridge deck. The Sellwood Bridge project
will restore and enhance a regional mobility corridor through the Sellwood neighborhood and
Tacoma Main Street. By adopting a narrow definition of the project and project area, the DEIS does
not adequately address the long-term impacts to livability in the Sellwood neighborhood in terms of
community cohesion, north-south access across Tacoma Street, or vehicle cut-through traffic in the
neighborhood. More importantly, the DEIS analysis of bridge deck cross-section alternatives does
not consider the implications of the physical curb-to-curb width and the potential for future
reconfiguration of the cross-section into a four-lane vehicle bridge.
Create a more rigorous analysis of the greenhouse gas emissions. The DEIS includes a
blanket statement that all alternatives have the same energy impact because the traffic volumes
would be the same under all build alternatives. However, this analysis fails to consider the impacts
of the travel time benefits on Highway 43 and the potential to induce additional vehicle traffic on
this route. Also, the DEIS does not analyze the potential impact of enhanced transit service from
dedicated transit lanes (Alternative E). This analysis is critical given the state, regional, county,
and city goals with respect to climate change and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Address the impacts of re-establishing a de-facto freight route. The DEIS mischaracterizes
the truck impacts as “enhancing local delivery service” when the project will re-establish a regional
east-west truck route across the river with a forecasted 1,600 trucks per day. The DEIS also does
not directly address the potential conflicts between 1,600 trucks and a forecasted 9,350
pedestrians and bicyclists. These potential conflicts need to be factored in the evaluation of the
size, type and location of bicycle and pedestrian facilities and would appear to favor a significant
separation or separate facility. The DEIS does not adequately assess the impacts of this large
volume of trucks on the character and quality of the Tacoma Main Street and its potential to
degrade the attractiveness of the area for transit-oriented, pedestrian-friendly development.
Go to Page 1
Re-evaluate Alternative C with respect to the pedestrian/bicycle facility as a separate facility
that utilizes the structural support of the bridge, but not necessarily running directly under
the bridge. As shown in the illustration below, a separate ped/bike facility that is attached to the
bridge structure but separated from the bridge deck would provide a buffer from the vehicle traffic
while achieving cost savings by utilizing the bridge structure and minimizing the number of in-water
structures. Also, a winding ped/bike path gives greater linear length to absorb needed changes in
elevation, which will provide a gentler slope to be more bike and pedestrian friendly. If properly
configured it is conceivable that the ped/bike path could be almost at the same level as the
roadway at the crest to minimize the height of the bridge for navigational clearance, thereby saving
cost. Separating the ped/bike alignment and elevations can also optimize their east and west
landings by providing direct connections to the trails on either side of the river and not requiring
sharp corkscrew ramps. Concerns about safety, illegal camping, and pigeons are moot due to the
exposure to the elements and the fact the alignment is for the most part not under the road deck.
12/22/2008 | Page 2 of 3
Go to Page 1
Evaluate the risk associated with optimizing the west interchange to provide access to
River View Cemetery. Maintaining bicycle access to and through River View Cemetery is an
important, but potentially risky objective. The final interchange design should be contingent on the
acquisition of a public easement to maintain public access through the cemetery. At the same
time, a cost-benefit analysis should consider other alternative routes or facility enhancements that
provide an equivalent bicycle access from the bridge to SW Terwilliger Boulevard.
Ensure the west interchange is designed to optimize the future capacity for streetcar
service across the Sellwood Bridge. Transit corridors are a fundamental component of
Portland’s growth management strategy and all infrastructure investments should be optimized for
higher capacity transit. Specifically, the DEIS evaluation of the three interchange alternatives does
not address the suitability of the interchange design for streetcars in terms of slopes, curve radii,
alignment, and ramp length to enable a streetcar connection across the bridge and onto the
Willamette Shoreline Trolley tracks.
Sincerely,
Tom Armstrong
Southeast District Liaison
cc: Joe Zehnder, Bureau of Planning

Arun Jain, Bureau of Planning
Paul Smith, Bureau of Transportation
Mauricio Leclerc, Bureau of Transportation
Ian Cannon, Multnomah County
Michael Eaton, Multnomah County
Donna Kilber-Kennedy, CH2M Hill
12/22/2008 | Page 3 of 3
Go to Page 1
173 Alan Mela 173_AlanMela.pdf
Go to Page 1
I'm Alan Mela. My wife Karen & I own the Office Building at 380 SE Spokane
- under the East end of the Sellwood bridge.
We very much appreciate the work the Citizen Task Force has done in discussing and evaluating
alternatives to replace the Sellwood Bridge.
Receiving community input, considering it in light of past regional / local transit plans, and
bearing in mind requirements for current transportation construction has been a difficult job.
We have taken the surveys, and written some letters expressing our opinions on the situation
as it has progressed.
We also appreciate the consideration the Policy Advisory Group has given to the process and
community concerns.
Our office building seems originally to have been a door manufacturing plant comprising part of
the East Side Mill complex in Sellwood's early years. Much evidence of that era remains in the
exposed rough-hewn ceiling rafters & joists and post & beam supports, and even a large walk-in
safe (built in Ohio) installed on the first floor that is used now for document storage. Not to
mention some footings for an old bridge that was incorporated into the structure in the late
1920s.
The office-clients range from Professionals, to Crafts-manufacturing offices, to Non-profits to

Specialty Press. An eclectic and enjoyable group, many have been there for a number of years.
This is not "your average office building". It is a very interesting place, and a special community
of businesses - that we have had a great time working with. It is also a very 'efficient' building -
expenses are low relative to comparables. And it exemplifies re-purposing and updated use of a
major part of Sellwood's history - reinforcing the character of the immediate neighborhood and
the community of Sellwood (which appeals to us from so many perspectives). It would be a
shame to lose it.
Karen & I are in the process of retiring to Portland (though looking to continue working), and to
that end have bought a home nearby (an updated 1930s cottage). Aside from our 'day jobs' and
raising a family, over the course of 30+ years we have owned seven small interesting
(residential) income properties. We have enjoyed improving them & left them better for our
tenure. This is our first office building, bought four years ago - intended to be the last, and a
major source of retirement income.
We are very seriously impacted by this. Most of the alternatives require condemning our office
building. So we are looking at having to go through the very arduous process of finding a
replacement within the narrow property-exchange-driven constraints of time, finances, and
type of property. Doing this while transitioning into 'retirement' will only be more complicated
and difficult.
Go to Page 1
As we understand it, Alternative E would only 'take' it for nearly a year - vacating the building to
remove the old bridge. There are multiple renters with varying lease expiration dates - as leases
expire and vacancies rise, we still have to pay the mortgage & other bills. This also presents
major challenges.
The article on our building's history in the October BEE commented that in
1924 automobile travel was deemed less important than lumber operations, so that the old
bridge had to be built to accommodate the Mill - a truly mind-boggling notion today. What
remains of the Mill may have to be removed to accommodate a new bridge and its automobile
traffic. But we have hoped that the 'Troll Building' might continue to be a part of the Sellwood
community, a tie to its past, and to support such a terrific group of clients for many years into
the future.
regards,
Alan Mela
Go to Page 1
174 Bob Akers 40-Mile Loop Land 174_Sellwood_Br_Final_EIS_letter.doc

Trust
Go to Page 1
P.O. Box 262
Portland, OR 97207-0262
TO: Sellwood Bridge Team
FROM: 40-Mile Loop Land Trust
DATE: December 19, 2008
SUBJECT: COMMENT ON DRAFT EIS FOR SELLWOOD BRIDGE PROJECT
The 40-Mile Loop has enjoyed great success and is now approximately three-fourths
complete. As you know the 40-Mile Loop is a linear open space and trail network
encircling much of the western part of Multnomah County and is nearly 140 miles in
length. Of the 16 remaining gaps in the Loop, the Sellwood Bridge is one of the most
important and strategic as the Loop makes its way back and forth from the west side of
the Willamette River to the Springwater Section of the trail via the Sellwood Bridge.
The 40-Mile Loop cannot be completed without it crossing the Sellwood Bridge. Equally
important is that the trail over the bridge be a multi-use trail (12’ wide), separated from
traffic, not just sidewalks and bike lanes.
The trail has become an important part of the region’s multi-modal transportation system.
This multi-use crossing is essential for serving the public in the years to come as
alternative transportation becomes more and more important.
Thanks for your consideration and assistance with “Closing the Loop”
40-Mile Loop Land Trust Board

c/o Bob Akers, President
503-665-5519
Go to Page 1
175 Zari Santner Portland Parks & 175_Sellwood_Bridge_001.pdf

Recreation
Go to Page 1
Go to Page 1
Go to Page 1
Go to Page 1
Go to Page 1
Go to Page 1
177 Greg Olson Multnomah County 177_12-19-

Bicycle and 08_BPCAC_Sellwood_DEIS_Letter.pdf
Pedestrian Advisory
Committee
Go to Page 1
Go to Page 1
Go to Page 1
178 Paul Henson U.S. Fish and 178_SellwoodbrDEIS.doc.pdf

Wildlife Service
Go to Page 1
Go to Page 1
Go to Page 1
188 Jim Brick Oregon Department 188_Sellwood_Bridge_DEIS.doc

of Fish and Wildlife
Go to Page 1
12/22/08
Mr. Mike Pullen

2020 SW 4th Ave., #300
Portland, OR 97210
Dear Mr. Pullen,
The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) has reviewed the DEIS for the
Sellwood Bridge Project and offers the following comments:
ODFW supports alternatives and design options that create the least amount of negative
impacts to fish and wildlife populations.
When the final alternative and design options are chosen, ODFW looks forward to
working with the Oregon Department of Transportation and Multnomah County to assist
in the final design or mitigation measures that provide the most benefit to fish, wildlife
and their habitats.
ODFW also provides the following specific information pertaining to the DEIS:
3-13 Water Quality-ODFW suggests mapping proposed locations of water quality

treatment facilities for inclusion into the FEIS.
3-14 Hydraulics-Balancing of cut/fill
Page 3.151: 3.14.3 Mitigation-

ODFW recommends round piers as a mitigation option. Inwater bents with square pier
designs create greater scour than round piers. Inwater bents with square piers also
increase the amount of large woody debris captured which can lead to gravel bar
development.
Excavating stream banks as a mitigation measure to offset potential “rise” in the FEMA
Special Flood Hazard Area is not advisable. This type of mitigation measure destroys
valuable riparian habitat, upsets habitat forming process and likely require additional
mitigation to offset impacts to stream and riparian function.
3-15 Aquatic Resources;
Page 3-156: Habitat in the Project Vicinity-

The sentence within the last paragraph of this section states, “The lower river was used
by salmon and steelhead trout as a migration corridor”. A clarifying sentence is needed.
Historically the lower Willamette River was a major rearing area for salmon and trout. In
Go to Page 1
the resent past, as a result of human influences on the river, the lower Willamette is
primarily considered a migration corridor. Recent ODFW investigations documented
evidence of salmon spawning in the lower Willamette River.
Page 3-157: Other Anadromous Fish Species-

ODFW suggests changing the title to: Other Native Anadromous Fish Species. American
Shad are an anadromous fish species but a non-native fish species.
Page 3-160: Piers in the River-

This is a good opportunity to discuss the type of instream habitat within the proposed
cross section of the river and how various pier types (square, round, ect.) effect or would
not be affected by scour associated with different pier shapes.
3-16 Vegetation
Page 3-166: Mitigation & Page 3-170 Mitigation (Stephens Creek)-

Removal of mature trees within the project area will occur as a result of the project.
ODFW suggests utilizing mature large woody debris in either the restoration project on
Stephens Creek, donating them to a local watershed council or other entity with planned
restoration projects within the lower Willamette River basin.
3-18 Wildlife
Page 3-174: Build Alternatives-Environmental Consequences-

This section states no effect on Peregrine Falcons. This section also states, “American
Peregrine Falcon uses the area, but has not nested on the Sellwood Bridge”. Recent
reports (October 30, 2008) by Audubon field workers indicate a falcon fledgling sighting
on the Sellwood Bridge in the spring of 2008. The Audubon Society plans to monitor the
site in the spring of 2009. ODFW suggests monitoring of the site with plans for
mitigation measures assuming nesting is occurring on the bridge. If the final bridge
design chosen does not contain elements that would lead to successful nest building then
a nest box should be considered for placement on the bridge.
Page 3-175: Alternative Specific Impacts and Mitigation:

Mitigation measures to minimize impacts to wildlife from blasting should be included in
the FEIS.
Appendix F-Summary of Permits and Clearances Needed:

Need to included ODFW-Fish Passage Plan approval (OAR 635-412)
Jim Brick
ODFW/ODOT Liaison
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Go to Page 1
189 Thomas J. Walsh 189_TomWalsh-SellwoodCommentL.pdf
Go to Page 1
THIS E-MAILED COPY IS A DUPLICATE OF ONE SENT BY USPS
ON 12/18. I BECAME CONCERNED THAT THE LATTER MIGHT
NOT BE DELIVERED BY THE DEADLINE
THOMAS J. WALSH
1525 SE Rex St.
Portland, OR 97202
(503) 235-2521
email: bt5walsh@msn.com
December 18, 2008
Attention: Mike Pullen

Portland, OR 97201
Subject: 1) Sellwood Bridge Draft Environmental Impact Statement. 2) My preferred

alternative for the project
Dear Mr. Pullen:
I have some comments on the DEIS. I have labeled them with the number and
title of the section of the DEIS to which they pertain. The DEIS contains a lot of useful
information. However, it does not comply in many areas with the National
Environmental Policy Act and its implementing regulations. The DEIS is supposed to
give the environmental consequences and impacts of the proposed actions [40 CFR
1502.16]. It is not at all complete in this respect and for one environmental effect
assessed, noise, it is erroneous, misleading and contradictory. My comments are not
exhaustive. Although, I discuss some technical issues and I am certain that what I say is
correct, I claim no technical expertise. Following the comments on the DEIS, is a brief
discussion of my preferred project alternative. It is a modified version of Alternative C.
Go to Page 1
DEIS COMMENTS
Section 1.6 Why is the project needed?
The Sellwood Bridge is described as a Truck Access Street. Some Sellwood

neighborhood streets are also truck access streets. In the DEIS there is little discussion of
the need for or the benefits of large trucks having ready access to the area and none
whatsoever of their adverse effects. Most local businesses cannot accommodate them.
There is little parking for them. The few that currently make deliveries often double park
on side streets leaving barely enough room for an automobile to pass. They make a lot of
noise (see Section 3.1.9 below). Their exhaust fumes, especially under certain
atmospheric conditions, are obnoxious and unhealthy. The bigger ones fail to stay in
designated lanes when making turns. When they turn at street corners they sometimes go
onto the sidewalk. Also, drivers waiting in left turn lanes may have to back up out of the
way of a truck so that it can complete its turn. Trucks block the line of sight at street
intersections when they ignore the law and park too close to the intersection, which they
often do.
Section 2.3 Construction Activities
Blasting will be used on the west side of the river for all build alternatives, most
likely at night and on weekends. No information on the size, frequency, noise and shock
generation, chance of damage to nearby structures from ground shaking or details on the
times of day – other than that they will be at night - of these blasts is provided. The
purpose of an EIS is to inform the public of environmental effects, especially adverse
ones, which in this case has not been done. This should be remedied in the FEIS.
Section 3.18 Wildlife
It is well known that sea lions are found in the Willamette River. The federal
Marine Mammal Protection Act makes it illegal to harm them. Possible impacts on them
of this project are ignored in the DEIS. Some people do not like them, but others enjoy
seeing them. Deer may venture into the project vicinity. I have seen them on East Island
while walking on the Springwater Trail. The bald eagle uses the project area. It is still
listed as threatened by the state. There is a federal Bald Eagle Protection Act.
Compliance with federal and state mandates for treatment of the species is not mentioned
in the DEIS. Further, the public is interested in any detriments to the eagles which might
occur despite compliance with the mandates. The United States Fish and Wildlife
Service has responded to a recent petition from the Center for Biological Diversity, et al.,
and agreed to consider the red tree vole for listing under the Endangered Species Act.
This creature lives in Douglas fir trees and, according to park personnel, inhabits Tryon
Creek State Park. The northern boundary of the park is about a mile from the west end of
the Sellwood Bridge. It is possible that the vole can be found in Douglas firs close to or
within the project and that it could be listed by the time construction is initiated. If there
2
Go to Page 1
is any possibility of this situation arising, then the effects of the project on the vole must
be treated in the EIS
Section 3.19 Noise.
There are a number of problems with the noise analysis in the main DEIS volume.
They appear to have come about from commission of errors and attempts to mislead. In
the DEIS (Fig. 3.19-10), traffic noise levels are given at selected locations affected by the
project for what is described as existing conditions. They are not for existing conditions.
They were computed assuming that the current vehicle weight limit of 10 tons was not in
effect. This limit was imposed in 2005. A limit of 32 tons had been set in 1985. The
composition of the traffic over the bridge used in the computations included all vehicles
licensed for highway use. No mention is made of this fact. One has to happen to come
across it in a document [Sellwood Bridge Project Noise Technical Report, CH2MHILL]
which is not issued with the DEIS but is only available upon request. The result of this
deception is to make the existing conditions appear noisier. The proposed alternatives, by
comparison with these fictitious existing conditions, will cause a lesser increase in noise
than they really do [Noise levels memorandum, Table 1, Noise Technical Report]. Also
given in the DEIS are the predicted levels for the future traffic conditions at these
locations for the different alternatives. The noise levels are said to be in units of dBA.
This is basically untrue. The implication is that they are fast response measurements
which is what the human ear would hear. They are not. They are Leq(h) which is the
hourly average of the noise in dBA [Noise Technical Report]. Misrepresenting them in
this way leads one to believe of course that the noise, though objectionable, is much less
worse than it really is. . I consider these averages very misleading. They are very much
favored by groups and organizations which do not want limits placed on it, e.g., aircraft
owners, off-roaders, the Federal Aviation Administration, the USDA Forest Service,
Federal Highway Administration, etc. Noise levels should be given in environmental
documents as it would be measured by rapid response meter settings (0.2 second) as a
function of time. Maximum values and those exceeded 0.1%, 1%, 5%,10%, etc. of the
time for each hour of the day should be given. If averages are given for some reason,
they certainly should not be mislabeled.
Maximum stated values for noise (Fig. 3.19-10) range up to 72 dBA. If they
really are in dBA, as the term is ordinarily used, they are much too low. A casual walk
along Tacoma St. will show that this value is now constantly exceeded. A low-priced
sound meter (may not meet ANSI specifications) indicated that the emissions of most
vehicles exceeded 72 dBA and many approached 83, 84 and even 85 dBA. There is even
a contradiction in the noise section. Large trucks will be traveling Tacoma St. under the
build alternatives. Table 3.19-1 gives the noise of a large truck at a distance of 50 feet as
90 dBA, not 72 dBA. On Tacoma Street, one cannot get 50 feet from passing traffic.
Under the Build Alternatives, the resulting increase in noise from traffic is, for the
most part, said to be negligible. There will be 9 times the heavy truck traffic on the
bridge with many trucks weighing about 4 times that of those currently allowed on the
bridge. The daily number of heavy trucks using the Sellwood Bridge in 2035 is predicted
3
Go to Page 1
to be 1600. That, on average, is more than one a minute. A good portion of the time
these large trucks will be accelerating from a stop. They will certainly be noisy (see
Table 3-19.1 of the DEIS) and the increase from present conditions, which are bad, will
greatly worsen on the bridge and Tacoma St. In addition to the increased truck traffic, on
weekdays there will be 10 bus trips across the bridge every hour.
The claim is made in the DEIS that humans cannot distinguish between noise
levels which differ by less than 3 dBA. This may be arguably so. (A chart in a reference
on the subject [ Cyril M. Harris, Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise
Control, Acoustical Society of America, 1998, Figure 17.13] would seem to indicate
otherwise.) However, humans can certainly distinguish between some Leq(h) which
differ by 0 dBA. A constant noise of 60 dBA for an hour is certainly different to the
human ear from one which is well above 60 dBA for a few seconds and then silent for the
remainder of the hour but which also has an Leq(h) of 60. The noise section seems very
confused about the information it is presenting.
Currently, traffic noise from OR 43 can be heard, as is admitted, in Sellwood

Riverfront Park. It can also be heard in Sellwood Park and is annoying in both places.
This situation will worsen with all the Build Alternatives since they will greatly increase
the number of trucks using the route. Noise should be inaudible to humans and wildlife
beyond the very local, immediate boundaries of its source. For roads, that would be the
right-of-way.
Even if the Oregon exterior Noise Abatement Criterion of 65 dBleq(h) for a

residence is met, the noise at that location is still very intrusive and objectionable.
Speech interference occurs at a noise level above 60 dBA when people are more than 6
feet apart and they are not speaking loudly ["Information on Levels of Environmental
Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of
Safety," EPA/ONAC 550/9-74-004, March, 1974 - other sources give lower levels for
speech interference]. Hard-of-hearing individuals have much more difficulty
understanding speech in noisy conditions than do those with normal hearing [Hearing
Loss, Harvard Health Publications, 2000]. The needs of those so handicapped should be
taken into account in any noise analysis. A letter from the Multnomah County Health
Department to the Columbia River Crossing Project commenting on its DEIS [dated June
9, 2008; signed Lillian Shirley and Gary Oxman] cites studies showing the harmful
effects of noise on health.
Noise impacts from construction equipment such as that from trucks, cranes and
other construction equipment is absurdly described as low. Yet, as pointed out above,
Table 3.19-1 of the DEIS gives the noise of a heavy truck as 90 dBA and that is at a
distance of 50 feet. Drilling of shafts and vibratory compaction are admitted to have high
noise levels, but no quantitative data for them are given. Vibration and vibration induced
noise are not treated. Mitigations are mentioned in the Noise Technical Report, but are
very lacking in detail. Acoustic barriers around stationary equipment is one, but no
description of their effectiveness or what the minimum levels would be which would
require their use is discussed. Blasting is mentioned briefly in Section 2.3. Noise and
4
Go to Page 1
shock waves from it and their effects on humans and other creatures are not analyzed. It
is common knowledge that many dogs are very disturbed and/or frightened by fireworks.
Mine is. The same would be true for blasting. It is reasonable to assume that much
wildlife would react similarly. Many nocturnal predators, such as raccoons and owls,
have hearing thresholds 10 dB below that of a human with good hearing (threshold 0 dB)
[Richard R. Fay, Hearing in Vertebrates, Hill-Fay Associates 1988]. There is a good
chance that many animals, both domestic and wild, would be panicked by blast noise.
If noise from trucks, which can emit 90 dBA, is stated to be low, what level is
considered high? The DEIS treatment of noise is not only deficient, it is illogical.
Section 3.21 Air Quality
In the determination of the effects of the project on air quality, it was assumed
that the traffic levels for all alternatives, including that for the No-build, would be the
same. This is perhaps reasonable. However, ignored was the fact that the composition of
the traffic differs considerably between the No-build and other alternatives. The number
of heavy trucks per day in the latter, projected to be 1600, exceeds the number per day in
the former by a factor of 9. The effects of air pollution can be very local. On stagnant air
days, when walking on Tacoma St., there is from time to time the smell of exhaust. This
exhaust is most likely, and will be for years to come, harmful to those residing on
Tacoma St. and immediately adjacent to the bridge. A long study of children living
within 500 yards of freeways showed that they suffered impaired lung function
[“Freeways’ tainted air harms children’s lungs, experts say”, Los Angeles Times, January
26, 2007]. Traffic levels on the Sellwood Bridge and Tacoma St. are nowhere equal to
that on a busy urban freeway. However, those living very close to the bridge and Tacoma
St., say within 15 to 25 yards, may very well be harmed by the exhaust gases. It is
asserted that stricter emissions controls on motor vehicles will reduce pollution over time.
Contrarily, the letter from the Multnomah County Health Department to the Columbia
River Crossing Project states that the increasing use of alternative fuels may worsen air
pollution. Ethanol will increase acetaldehyde concentrations. Compressed natural gas
will raise formaldehyde levels. Both of these chemicals are said to be probable
carcinogens [Sellwood Bridge Project Air Quality Technical Report, CH2MHILL,
October 2008]. A more complete analysis of air pollution is required.
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
My preferred alternative would be keeping the current bridge and limiting its use
to bicyclists and pedestrians. Of the build alternatives offered in the DEIS, I would like
to see a version of Alternative 3 built. No matter which alternative is selected, the current
weight limit on trucks of 10 tons should be kept. Large trucks are just too burdensome to
the Sellwood neighborhood. Buses could be exempted from this limit.
Walking and cycling across the bridge would be much more pleasant if the paths
for these modes were separated from motor vehicle traffic and its noise, exhaust fumes
5
Go to Page 1
and collision danger. This is achieved in Alternative C by putting the pedestrian/bicycle
paths on a separate level beneath the one for motorized traffic. One objection to having
the non-motorized traffic on this separated path is that its users are not visible to motor-
vehicle occupants and, therefore, in more danger and less likely to get timely help if
needed. There are portions of the Springwater Trail which are not visible from a roadway
over much greater distances than the length of the Sellwood Bridge. This does not seem
to be much of a problem for the trail or discourage its use. A second objection is that the
path suspended beneath the vehicle roadway would be covered overhead and attract the
homeless and pigeons. This is a problem. As stated in the DEIS, the problem of the
homeless and criminally intent can be mitigated by video cameras. Frequent patrolling by
law enforcement would also help. This costs some money. The project sponsors seem
ready to spend money on fancy, but not necessarily attractive, structures to make a
statement, e.g., the through-arch bridge. Yet, I think, because better law enforcement
costs money, it was not listed as a mitigation. Nowadays, most bridge users have cell
phones and can easily notify police should any homeless loitering or camping occur. The
pigeon roosting problem may be minimized by not having exposed ledges, girders, etc.,
suitable for their nests.
Alternative C should be modified by the elimination of the 2nd traffic lane in the
west bound direction in the middle of the bridge. Further, the simplest structure
compatible with the underneath bicycle-pedestrian path should be selected. The simpler
the structure, the less it will degrade the views of the surrounding cityscape and
landscape, both of which are attractive. The through-arch design selected for this
alternative is expensive, not pretty, and will interfere with other views.
A SE Grand Ave. extension is part of this alternative. The DEIS admits that the
extension would increase cut-through traffic in the neighborhood. It therefore should be
eliminated from the project.
CONCLUSION
I ask that you remedy the faults of the DEIS. I further request that one of my
choices for preferred alternative and its method of operation (no large trucks) be selected.
Livability is very important. It is very beneficial economically. Also, there are ethical
duties to the environment and domestic and wild creatures.
Truly yours,
6
Go to Page 1
191 Claudia Martinez 191_Martinez.pdf
Go to Page 1
Go to Page 1
192 Jerome Partch 192_Partch.pdf

and Judith
Go to Page 1
Go to Page 1
193 Wayne Skall 193_Skall.pdf
Go to Page 1
Go to Page 1
194 Dee Poth 194_Poth.pdf
Go to Page 1
Go to Page 1
195 Gerald Fox 195_Fox.pdf
Go to Page 1
Go to Page 1
196 Martha Irvine 196_Irvine.pdf
Go to Page 1
Go to Page 1
197 C. Clark Leone 197_Leone.pdf
Go to Page 1
Go to Page 1
198 G. Livingston 198_Livingston.pdf
Go to Page 1
Go to Page 1
199 Richard Atiyeh 199_Aityeh.pdf
Go to Page 1
Go to Page 1
200 Victor Christiansen 200_Christiansen.pdf
Go to Page 1
Go to Page 1
201 Lois and Coplea 201_Coplea.pdf

Marty
Go to Page 1
Go to Page 1
202 Robert Ehni 202_Ehni.pdf
Go to Page 1
Go to Page 1
203 Anne Darrow 203_Darrow.pdf
Go to Page 1
Go to Page 1
Go to Page 1
204 Mary King 204_King.pdf
Go to Page 1
Go to Page 1
Go to Page 1
Go to Page 1
205 Jerry Renfro 205_Renfro.pdf
Go to Page 1
Go to Page 1
Go to Page 1
206 Donaldina Yim 206_Yim.pdf
Go to Page 1
Go to Page 1
Go to Page 1
Go to Page 1
207 Margaret Foster 207_Foster.pdf
Go to Page 1
Go to Page 1
Go to Page 1
208 Steve and Adkins 208_4291_001.pdf

Megan
Go to Page 1
Go to Page 1
Go to Page 1
209 Marychris Mass 209_DEIS_Written_Public_Comments-

2.pdf
Go to Page 1
Go to Page 1
210 Mary Vaillancourt 210_DEIS_Written_Public_Comments-

2.pdf
Go to Page 1
Go to Page 1
211 Robert Hadlow Oregon Department 211_RobertHadlow.pdf

W. of Transportation,
Region 1
Go to Page 1
From: HADLOW Robert W [mailto:Robert.W.HADLOW@odot.state.or.us]
Sent: Tue 12/23/2008 1:17 PM
To: PULLEN Mike J
Subject: Sellwood Bridge Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f)
Evaluation comments
Here are my comments on the Sellwood Bridge Draft Environmental Impact Statement and
Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation
Generally, the document is put together very well. It is straightforward and user-friendly. I
only have a few comments. Most are minor. The most important is the last one.
Title page. In the title, "Oregon State Highway 43" should read "Oregon 43." (This road is
actually "Oswego Highway No. 3.") Route numbers and highway numbers are often not the
same in Oregon. Interestingly, this is handled correctly throughout the document--everywhere
but the title page.
Page 4(f)-38. Section 3.2 Avoidance Concept 2. How can one replace the bridge structure (the
historic Sellwood Bridge) and not have a Section 4(f) use of the Sellwood Bridge. Am I missing
something here?
Page 4(f)-42. Section 4(f) Determination. The language in paragraph 5 is stilted and confusing.
Substitute "mentioned previously" for "aforementioned." Also, what does "it is concluded
presently that" mean? Some writers use "presently" to mean "at present." "Presently"
means "after a short time." Does the writer simply mean "One could conclude that"?
Page 4(f)-44. Section 4(f) Determination. The language in paragraph 5 is stilted and confusing.
Substitute "mentioned previously" for "aforementioned." Also, what does "it is concluded
presently that" mean? Some writers use "presently" to mean "at present." "Presently"
means "after a short time." Does the writer simply mean "One could conclude that"?
Page 4(f)-61. Paragraph 2. The Sellwood Bridge was not the first bridge built in Portland
without a moveable span or designed without trolley tracks. The statement is too inclusive.
Does the writer mean to limit the statement to bridges in Portland that span the Willamette
River?
Pages 4(f)-60 and following. The Section 4(f) Evaluation states that there will be no Section 4(f)
use of the Superintendent's House site for several alternatives, even though they would have a
Section 106 adverse effect because of realigning or closing of the lower access road and
enlarging the west interchange footprint. The rationale for this line of thinking is that none of
the alternatives would incorporate property from the Superintendent's House site and that the
property's historic significance comes from the House's architectural style. However, the DEIS
Go to Page 1
on 3-125 states that realignment of the access road to the Superintendent's House and the
widening of OR 43 would have a Section 106 adverse effect due to a change in physical features
within the property's setting.
The big question concerns how the Superintendent's House's property's boundaries were
defined. Is the NR-eligible property only the House or is it a larger piece of cemetery land that
includes landscaping and other features that are associated with the eligible property? We
have a peculiar situation here because the House is within the boundaries of the Cemetery--it is
not on its own tax lot, which is the usual default for boundaries.
My worry is that someone could challenge the conclusion that there is no 4(f) use of property
associated with the Superintendent's House. The FHWA-Oregon Division environmental
specialists should weigh in here.
Thanks,
Bob
Robert W. Hadlow, Ph.D.

Senior Historian
Oregon Department of Transportation, Region 1
123 NW Flanders Street
Portland, OR 97209-4012
(503) 731-8239 phone, (503) 731-8259 fax robert.w.hadlow@odot.state.or.us
PS Sorry for the delay in sending this email. I planned to send it yesterday morning, but the
snow closure of our offices delayed it a day.
Go to Page 1
212 Miguel Estrada Oregon Department 212_Sellwood_DEIS.pdf

of Transportation,
Region 1
Go to Page 1
River
Go to Page 1
a drop of..?
Go to Page 1
Including hydroacustic impacts
Go to Page 1
(including noise-related impacts)
Go to Page 1
Implement appropriate BMPs to minimize or alleviate hydroacustic impacts.
Move to aquatic resources 3.15
Go to Page 1
Implement appropriate BMPs to minimize or alleviate noise impacts on wildlife.
Go to Page 1
214 James Larpenteur 214_JamesLarpenteur.pdf
Go to Page 1
Mr. Mike Pullen
2020 S.W. 4th Ave., Suite 300
Portland, OR 97201
Dear Mr. Pullen:
This isn't a fair fight.
In my opinion, the only Build Alternatives to the Sellwood Bridge redo

project that will be seriously considered by the decision makers are the
Alternative D and Alternative E alignments. I support a modified
Alternative E alignment because Alternative D would require condemnation
of our home in the Sellwood Harbor Condominium and deny to the public
the benefits that an Alternative E alignment with an Alternative D 64'
span width configuration would provide.
It's no secret to anyone closely following the Sellwood Bridge

replacement saga that the Multnomah County Project Team is promoting the
adoption of the Alternative D alignment. The concept of the Alternative
E alignment was created by Sellwood neighborhood residents and active
businesses on both sides of the Willamette River to alleviate
congestion, disruption and the condemnation of owner occupied homes as
well as solve the traffic needs of the local area. Survey recipients
should have been given the opportunity to vote for the Alternative E
alignment with the Alternative D 64' span width configuration. A strong
neighborhood survey vote for Alternative D is every bit a reflection of
the neighborhood's objection to a monstrous 75' width span four lane
bridge as it is to anything else. Only a fool would ignore the threat
of Alternative E as presently configured that at some point in time some
government agency will insist on converting Tacoma St. into a four-lane
thoroughfare and disembowel the Tacoma St plan Sellwood residents fought
so hard for and finally received.
So the survey is fatally flawed for its failure to permit a fair vote on
Alternative E with a 64' width span in competition with Alternative D.
It's no answer to say that the survey accommodates changes by the voter
to the proffered Alternative. The ability to mix and match various
elements of the configurations of each of the Alternatives within the
Alternatives was an essential ingredient to the approval by the CTF and
PAG of the current selection process. While the check-the-box feature
for changes to the county's preferred Alternative (but only check one
box) was an attempt to incorporate a mix and match element to the
survey, it fell far short of being adequate. To add insult to injury,
the County offers the survey participant to make written comments on the
Go to Page 1
form but then advises that they won't be considered. Most participants
don't have the background on these rather complex choices to make an
intelligent decision and, if they do, the survey choices are confusing
and unsatisfying. The closest an Alternative E proponent can come to a
reduced span width is a reduction to something like the "narrowest width
possible". Checking that box suggests just as well that we ignore bike
and ped concerns which are well served by Alternative D and opt for
something like an Alternative B configuration. Not fair!
The DEIS represents a major body of work and its detail is helpful.
Unfortunately, it doesn't go far enough. There is no cost information
to provide us with a basis for mix and match analysis which is an
essential part of this phase of the project. The public and the
decision makers are entitled to know what an Alternative E alignment
would cost with an Alternative D 64' span width configuration. That the
cost would be substantially less and the time to build reduced is
obvious.
Much time is devoted in the DEIS to "key differentiators", some of which

are made to look like Alternative E would destroy the quality of life in
the Sellwood neighborhood. It's amazing how one decibel of increased
noise can so tremendously negatively impact the revenues of SMILE.
Certainly, the County engineers and SMILE can work out an accommodation
for placement of bridge supports and Oaks Pioneer Church that reasonably
satisfies both interests. Put another way, is it reasonable to condemn
five owner-occupied homes, two of which belong to elderly widows, in
order to spare the inconvenience of a possible minor relocation of the
Church.
Although not given such appropriate status in the DEIS, there are
several positive key differentiators, in addition to substantial cost
savings, that should be considered when utilizing the Alternative E
alignment with an Alternative D configuration. Alternative E is the
only Build Alternative:
(1) that doesn't require condemnation of owner-occupied homes:
(2) that permits use of significant right-of-way land for beneficial
use such as additional parkland, a transit center, and additional
parking, a current serious deficiency, for Oaks Pioneer Church;
(3) that offers a smooth uninterrupted bridge crossing during the
entire course of construction; and
(4) allows for the west end of the bridge and its interchange to be
built on known stable ground, the cost of which can be calculated
reliably rather than the unstable ground supporting the existing west
end of the bridge, the remediation of which is a presently unknown
Go to Page 1
project.
It appears to me that the County has seriously underestimated the

right-of-way acquisition costs for the Sellwood Harbor Condominium
property it proposes to take for the project under Alternative D.
Assuming the County can limit the acquisition of living units to just
four, a conclusion we all question, it seems to be taking lightly the
acquisition of significant common area including over half of our much
needed overflow parking area, and the residual damages to the remaining
owners in the complex, particularly the remaining owners in Buildings A
and D, by reason of the taking.
Neither the DEIS nor anyone else has come up with a plan for financing
the project. The DEIS talks generally of building the bridge in phases.
What an obnoxious solution to lay on the Sellwood community and others
affected. Failure to have a financing plan in place or, at least, have
a realistic path to provide for one illustrates a lack of commitment by
the powers that be to this project.
That leads me to my last and most important point that I want to make
in this comment letter to you. The owners of Sellwood Harbor
Condominiums and River Park Condominiums are being held hostage by this
dark cloud of negative uncertainty. Nobody can sell his/her home and at
least four owners in Sellwood Harbor have health issues that require
them to be living in assisted living facilities. It's absolutely
essential that if the County can't raise the funds promptly to construct
the Build Alternative of its choosing that the County publicly abandon
the rehab/replacement project and proceed with a No Build alternative
that meets the current needs of users of the Sellwood Bridge.
Please be fair with us.
Jim Larpenteur (jlarpenteur@schwabe.com)

202 S.E. Spokane St.
Portland, OR 97202
Go to Page 1
215 Allen and Dobbins 215_Dobbins.pdf

Mary Lou
Go to Page 1
Go to Page 1
Go to Page 1
Go to Page 1
221 Patty Rueter Portland Office of 221_PattyRueter.pdf

Emergency
Management
Go to Page 1
Althen, Kath/BOI
From: Kilber-Kennedy, Donna/PDX
Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2008 8:50 PM
To: Steffen, Brandy/PDX
Subject: FW: Sellwood Bridge Emergency Response comments
To add to comments
-----Original Message-----
From: Leclerc, Mauricio [mailto:Mauricio.Leclerc@pdxtrans.org]
Sent: Monday, December 29, 2008 10:20 AM
To: Michael J. Eaton P.E. (michael.j.eaton@co.multnomah.or.us); ian.b.cannon@co.multnomah.or.us; Kilber-Kennedy,
Donna/PDX; Mike Pullen (mike.j.pullen@co.multnomah.or.us)
Subject: FW: Sellwood Bridge Emergency Response comments
FYI.
Mauricio
From: Rueter, Patty (POEM)
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2008 10:30 AM
To: Leclerc, Mauricio
Subject: RE: Sellwood Bridge Emergency Response comments
our comments would only be to support the emergency response preferences and to ask if the ne bridge is going to be
based on bedrock. The need for our bridges to be on bedrock is due to earthquake risk in the liquefaction zone that is
prevalent along the river.
I hope that you are feeling better. I am unsure what else our office can add.
From: Leclerc, Mauricio
To: Janssens, Erin C-104 (PF&R Email); Rueter, Patty (POEM); Elmore, Vince
Sent: 12/18/2008 2:42 PM
Subject: Sellwood Bridge Emergency Response comments
Importance: High
Hi Erin,
This is the summary of our phone conversation regarding the EIS and the different bridge alternatives. If you want, you
can use this as part of your bureau's response. Same for POEM and Police bureau, if it helps.
Issues
* Currently emergency response opportunities are reduced, causing
significant delay. The EIS understates that need to improve emergency response, particularly to be able to reciprocate in
SE and SW Portland.
* Presently, not all emergency vehicles can use the bridge
(ambulances can, and so can fire truck engines if slowed to 15mph).
Given the state of the bridge, this is still taking a chance. Water tenders and other trucks can't use the bridge given the
weight restriction.
1
Go to Page 1
* For Fire response, neighboring companies regularly are asked to
help out. In this area of the city, assistance should be coming from SW stations but they are dramatically restricted due
to the bridge.
Desired characteristics.
* Below are ideal/desired characteristics of an improved Sellwood
Bridge
* New bridge or rehabilitated bridge is preferred over No build
option (existing conditions)
* Limit closures as much as possible. From an emergency response
perspective, we should like the bridge to be kept open as some alternatives allow (Alt D and E). It is preferable to have
limited closures during construction in exchange for a fully operational bridge for the future.
* Ideal/desirable curb to curb cross section for emergency
vehicles would be 2 lanes in each direction, or 48 ft, plus a bike lanes on both sides (plus sidewalks for pedestrians). 36 ft
curb to curb would be approximately a minimum to maneuver an emergency vehicle in mixed traffic.
Thank you very much for your attention.
Mauricio
Mauricio Leclerc
Transportation Planner
City of Portland Office of Transportation 1120 SW 5th Avenue, Suite 800 Portland Oregon 97204
503.823.7808
Go to Page 1
222 Joel Grayson Maylie & Grayson 222_Maylie__Grayson_DEIS_letter_12-

18-08.pdf
Go to Page 1
Go to Page 1
Go to Page 1
223 Douglas R. Allen 223_DouglasAllen.pdf
Go to Page 1
Douglas R. Allen (sent to comment@sellwoodbridge.org)
734 SE 47th Ave.
Portland, OR 97215
December 20, 2008
Comments on the
Sellwood Bridge Draft Environmental Impact Statement
I have attended nearly all the Sellwood Bridge Citizens Task Force (CTF) and Policy
Advisory Group (PAG) meetings since September 2006, as a citizen observer.
As we approach the Dec. 22, 2008 deadline for submitting comments on the Sellwood
Bridge Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), citizens and policy makers should
be aware of the flawed process that has given us only unreasonable and unaffordable
options, and what might be a reasonable alternative.
In 2005, Multnomah County commissioned the “Sellwood Bridge Evaluation and Repair
Study” from consultants David Evans and Associates, Inc.
That analysis recommended a roughly $20 million (2006 dollars) project, that included
$13.1 million for bridge strengthening and $6 million for stabilizing the interchange with
Highway 43.
One important result of this recommended rehabilitation would have been that TriMet
transit service could resume.
Another important point is that traffic could be maintained on the bridge during the
construction period, with occasional short closures plus full night and weekend closures
during portions of the 90-day construction duration.
Although the consultants found that “The 10-15 year service life extension period is a
minimal, yet warranted approach for this bridge,” regional policy makers chose instead to
go for a longer-term solution, with an expectation of federal money paying for most of
the cost.
Since then, City, County, and Metro staff, consultants, the PAG, the CTF, and others
have been working to develop long-term solutions for the deteriorating condition of the
Sellwood Bridge.
The process has followed the federal government’s requirements for analyzing
transportation projects, which has a serious flaw. Although the process requires analysis
of a “no-build” option, it does not require analysis of the most cost-effective option
[Least Cost Planning]. Instead, all parties assumed that as much money as necessary
would be provided to meet a broad set of goals that have ended up causing the project to
cost between $280 million and $361 million.
Go to Page 1
These goals include: Ability to carry a future streetcar; ability to carry overweight trucks
up to 120,000 lbs; ability to accommodate freeway-length trucks; reduction of congestion
on Highway 43; extra lanes for transit or future expansion of capacity; expansive
sidewalks and bike paths; and full compliance with current seismic standards.
Early on, before the goals were finalized, the PAG and CTF were told that rehabilitating
the existing bridge would be more expensive than a new bridge. As a result, the PAG and
CTF “knew” that any rehabilitation options existed for only one purpose – to answer the
inevitable charge that the bridge should be fixed, not replaced. Rehab was not seriously
considered.
There is an obvious rehabilitation option that is somewhat more expensive than the
“David Evans” recommendation, but that is potentially much more cost-effective, less
disruptive, and easier to finance than the “build” alternatives studied in the DEIS. This
option was presented to the CTF, but they ignored it.
The option: Replace the existing concrete deck of the main truss with an “orthotropic
steel” deck, which would be lighter and stronger than the existing deck, thereby reducing
the load on the trusses, which would allow for construction of a lightweight
pedestrian/bike path below the deck, with a width of 18 feet (possibly narrowing to 16
feet for a short stretch at each pier). Replace the west approach structure, stabilizing the
ground, keeping the current “trumpet” interchange design but adding a traffic light for
cars headed east across the bridge, to better “meter” the flow and reduce congestion on
Highway 43. Provide a modest level of seismic upgrading. Repair the concrete east
approach spans as recommended in the David Evans report, or replace the east approach
deck with an “orthotropic steel” deck. Repaint the bridge. Minimize closures by building
a temporary detour structure around the west approach while it is replaced. Replacing the
west approach will allow improving the geometry of the northbound 43 to eastbound
turn.
I am not an engineer (although I have a degree in Structural Engineering), so there are

many specific details that would need to be examined for cost-effectiveness, but the
feasibility of this general approach (low cost rehab) has already been demonstrated by the
David Evans report, and the analysis already done for the DEIS can provide much of the
supporting information.
For example, further analysis might show that a west-end roundabout could be
incorporated without pushing the cost too high. It is very unfortunate that the only
double-deck alternative studied in the DEIS was not paired with the roundabout, but
instead with the (new) trumpet interchange at Highway 43. As a result, no analysis was
done of the possible benefit for pedestrians and cyclists of being at a lower level.
Eliminating the switchbacks involved with the pedestrian and bicycle connections at the
west end would be a significant improvement over other alternatives. For example, a
pedestrian/bicycle-actuated signal could allow crossing Highway 43 at the level of the
through-lanes (lower level) under the roundabout, avoiding conflicts with the turns.
Go to Page 1
And of course none of the “build” alternatives considered the possibility of retaining the
existing “trumpet” intersection at Highway 43, as described above, which could also
work well with having pedestrians/bicycles on a lower deck.
At the east end of the bridge, the lower pedestrian/bicycle path would also reduce the
grade separation between the bridge and the existing Springwater Trail.
Although there is plenty of room under the main truss for a pedestrian/bicycle path, under
the east approach it may be necessary to split the path, for example running a bicycle-
only path directly underneath the deck, while running mixed pedestrian/slow-bicycle
paths at the same lower level but outside the bridge piers (not directly underneath the
deck).
The “orthotropic steel” deck has other advantages besides being lighter. It is pre-
fabricated, and can be installed rapidly with no need for concrete curing, thus minimizing
any required bridge closure. This type of deck was chosen for the recent rehabilitation of
the Golden Gate Bridge, and while it may cost more than concrete for the deck portion of
the project, the recent rapid declines in steel costs may make this option much more cost-
effective than was thought at the time that it was rejected.
It is even possible that the reduced weight of an “orthotropic steel” deck would allow for
widened sidewalks on the motor-vehicle level of the bridge, without requiring truss
strengthening, if preferred. Even though there are long stretches of the Springwater Trail
that are isolated from highway access, there seems to be an irrational concern with having
bike/pedestrian facilities sheltered from spray, weather, and errant vehicles by placing
them below the main bridge deck. If this irrational concern is over-riding, then use of an
“orthotropic steel” deck may solve that problem without unduly raising costs.
At various points during the development of this project, I raised objections to what I saw
as flawed requirements. These are 1) ability to carry a future streetcar; 2) ability to carry
overweight trucks up to 120,000 lbs; 3) ability to accommodate freeway-length trucks; 4)
reduction of congestion on Highway 43 by expanding lane storage and intersection
redesign; 5) extra lanes for transit or future expansion of capacity; 6) expansive sidewalks
and bike paths; and 7) full compliance with current seismic standards.
I was told that each one of these assumptions, by itself, would not add a significant cost,
but at no time did the project analyze the cost-savings of removing all of these
assumptions. Obviously, if making the bridge strong enough for overweight trucks and a
streetcar line requires huge additions to the existing trusses, then full compliance with
current seismic standards might cost nothing additional. The reverse may also be true.
However, analyzing each assumption by using the remaining assumptions to justify why
that particular assumption adds little to the cost, is circular or “bootstrap” logic, and is not
a valid way to analyze a project.
The correct approach should be to remove all these assumptions, and then add them in
singly, to see what they really cost. None of these assumptions is necessary for the basic
Go to Page 1
purpose of the project, which is to permit one-lane of cars per direction, plus restored
transit service, use this bridge for the indefinite future. As Clackamas County
Commissioner Bill Kennemer said at a PAG meeting, “Why would anyone want to drive
a big truck over this bridge – there isn’t any need for it!” He said this after describing
how, when he was much younger, he once drove a beer delivery truck over the bridge,
and vowed to never do so again.
Multnomah County and Clackamas County Commission chairs Ted Wheeler and Lynn
Peterson arrived late on this project, and bear little fault for the flawed course that it has
followed, but they are probably in the best position to set the course straight, by calling
for analysis of cheaper, more cost-effective, and less disruptive options.
Go to Page 1
224 Pat Hainley 224_PatHainley.pdf.doc
Go to Page 1
Mike,
Here are my comments on the DEIS for the Sellwood Bridge.
Table 3.7-1 includes a statement that the Sellwood Riverfront Park has no major events. This
would be news to the thousands of people who gather each Monday in July for the Riverfront
Classics. This is of considerable importance should Alternative E be selected as the bridge
would tower over the event and provide less than suitable accompaniment to the performers on
stage as well as being a visual blight from both Spokane St. and the park itself.
The report fails to identify the Sellwood Community Center as an historic structure that lies
within a block of Tacoma Street.
Table 3.7-1 refers to the Mayer Boys & Girls Club. Fred would probably like it if his name were
properly spelled. Oops! That's right he's dead. OK. His
foundation would like it spelled right.
Although the DEIS does an admirable job of describing the current status of Tacoma Street,
the Tacoma Main Street plan and the current cut through situation, it fails to address the history
of the street and how poorly it functioned as a four lane thoroughfare for transit but how
successfully it operated to split this neighborhood. To my mind only the Berlin Wall functioned
as effeciently. Meanwhile it was the Main Street plan and the neighborhood's support of it that
actually allowed for a greater volume of traffic to negotiate this corridor in a two lane
configuration as opposed to a four lane.
This points out in my mind the most glaring failure of the process. By limiting the scope of the
project to 6th Street on the east end and 400 feet on either side of the westside terminus, the
citizens task force was forced to deliberate as if what each each end of the bridge attached to
was of little import. Thus on the east side you wind up with an access road adjacent to the
Springwater corridor or an unworkable signalized intersection in order to provide a means to
service Oaks Park. On the west end you get "solutions" that involve "parking" cars on a bridge.
For whatever reason it appears that the interchange on the west side has taken on a life and cost
of its own. Nevermind that it is not the problem for the morning commuter as they will find
themselves queued up soon enough at either Taylors Ferry Road or somewhere along Macadam
Avenue. And for the evening commuter there is not an interchange possible that will do
anything except speed them to a slow motion dance along Tacoma Street. Why spend $72
million dollars so that you can have two through lanes in each direction on Highway 43? For
less than 1% of that amount you could solve a chunk of the evening commute problem. Just
shut down the light at the mortuary at 4pm so that there are no signals between Taylors Ferry
and Dunthorpe. It is amazing to me the amount of time and effort that has gone into that
westside interchange just to find that nothing functions any better than what is already there.
As for the east end, had the CTF had the chance they may have come up with something very
elegant such as a bridge that flys over the existing alignment so that no residences or businesses
Go to Page 1
are trashed, allows for 6th Street to be the access road for Oaks Park and eliminates 6th, 7th and
8th Streets as cut through access points to Tacoma. Guess we'll never find out.
Pat Hainley
PS This does not have to be part of the DEIS commentary but I have to tell you how much the
sellwoodbridge.org website stinks when it came to trying to make comments on the DEIS. Why
should I have to register with another website (Vuzit) to be able to access the ability to make
comments and then why should I have to do anything besides just returning to the
sellwoodbridge.org website to then make my comments? I consider mysef fairly tech savvy but
I wasn't about to sit through a tutorial and learn another program just to basically send an
email. But what ticks me off even more is when, evidently, your server sends me some cryptic
note about being "read only" when I try to add your email address as a contact to the Yahoo
account that I use when I am at home. I had to have John Fyre forward me an email he received
from you in order to send this email by the deadline.
Go to Page 1
225 Joel Fields The UPS Store 225_upsstoresellwoodbridge.doc
Go to Page 1
The UPS Store
1327 SE Tacoma St.
Portland, OR 97202
Attention: Mike Pullen

Portland, OR 97201
RE: Sellwood Bridge EIS comments
Thank you for accepting our comments on the Sellwood Bridge Project. As the owner of The UPS Store
located just east of 13th Ave on Tacoma Street I have followed the planning process carefully, have a
vested interest in the outcome, and have consistently stressed two points throughout the planning
process:
1. The City of Portland Tacoma Main Street Plan and Metro’s South Willamette Crossing Study
both call for keeping Tacoma Street and the Sellwood Bridge at two traffic lanes. It makes no
sense to have a larger capacity bridge for vehicular traffic when both ends of the bridge can’t
handle more. Pedestrian, transit and bicycle uses, however, should be encouraged and
addressed.
2. The Sellwood Bridge is the only Willamette River crossing for many miles in either direction. As
a result, any closure of the bridge will have a devastating impact to the business communities
on both sides of the river over an extensive area.
After reviewing both the EIS Executive Summary, the complete EIS, and the Economic Technical Report I
do have several concerns on the alternatives and some of the assumptions used in the reports:
Bridge Closure:
Only Alternatives B (with detour bridge, D and E provide for keeping the bridge open during
construction. In my opinion this is a fatal flaw for the no-build and other alternatives.
Go to Page 1
Bridge Cross-Sections:
The cross-section used in Alternative E is not consistent with either the South Willamette Crossing Study
or the Tacoma Main Street Plan. Of further concern, while the EIS on page 4-23 provides reassurance
that the two extra lanes would be dedicated for transit only, it also states on page 4-24 that “wider basic
bridge cross-sections (Alternatives C, D & E) would maintain the bridge’s flexibility to address future
transportation needs because they would provide opportunities for future rechannelization or
reconfiguration of the bridge deck.” Clearly, this portion of the EIS is contradictory, and the Alternative
E cross-section should be dropped from consideration. All of the other cross-sections are substantially
consistent with both adopted plans and are acceptable.
Economic Impact of Bridge Closure:

In reviewing the complete EIS I noted that the East Side Study Area was a very small portion of the
greater Sellwood-Westmoreland community. The EIS defines the study area and then applies its
economic impacts only on the “study area”- Section 3.6.1 on page 3.71 and notes that further analysis is
available in the Economic Technical Report. I obtained that report and quickly discovered that indeed
the East and West side study areas were very narrowly defined. The reasoning for this seems to be that
since the new bridge will not add additional vehicular capacity there will be only narrow economic
changes once an alternative is selected and the bridge is complete. This small study area is illustrated in
Figure 4.1 of the Economic Technical Report and in the discussion on page 3-2. The problem is that this
line of reasoning is in error when discussing the impacts of the bridge closure because there are no
alternative routes across the river for 2.5 miles to the North and 8 miles to the south. This, by definition
is a very broad impact area, but in the Technical Economic Report this is ignored because the initial
study area is so narrowly defined.
There are two questions regarding the economic impacts of the closure: 1) How big will the impacts be
on the affected businesses, and 2) Over what area will the impacts occur? My opinion is that the
Technical Economic Report answers the first question correctly as discussed in Table 5-1. Ranges of 15%
to 35% declines in gross sales sound frightening, but probable. The second question is too narrowly
defined in the study and the results are accordingly understated. On page 4-5 of the Economic report it
states that there are 93 businesses in the economic study area employing 859 people. My question is
what would those numbers be if the economic study area including all of Sellwood – Westmoreland?; or
inner SE Portland from Holgate to upper Milwaukie?
Alternatives that result in a closure of the bridge will be an unmitigated disaster for the business
communities on both sides of the Willamette River far in excess of what the EIS and Technical Economic
Report project. In my opinion, based upon my known customer base and my involvement with many of
the community businesses, the bridge closure will cause economic disruptions that will extend for a mile
or more North and South of the Sellwood Bridge on both sides of the River.
I think the Technical Economic Report approach of establishing Tier 1 through Tier 3 businesses is
correct; however the area covered should be much, much larger. Stars Antiques, Tilde, Spielworks,
Go to Page 1
American at Heart, Caprial’s Bistro, Haggis McBaggis, Springwater Grill, St. Maine, Justin & Burks, Tres
Fabu, Hash, and many other specialty retailers and restaurants draw customers to Sellwood-
Westmoreland from the entire Portland metro area. Of the limited list named above, only two are
included in the reports established study area.
In my personal experience at my The UPS Store I have neighborhood customers, pass-through

customers, and customers who have discovered my services while visiting the Sellwood-Westmoreland
shopping area. As a result approximately 20% of my customers are from a zip code that is not 97202.
Finally, many of these businesses have already experienced one bridge closure when the Bybee overpass
was rebuilt and remember the severe impacts of that smaller project. For the Bybee crossing alternative
crossings of 99E and the railroad tracks were available on Holgate St. and Johnson Creek Rd. In the case
of the Sellwood Bridge the alternative crossings of the Willamette River are 2 ½ miles and 8 miles away.
This means, under a bridge closure that travel patterns will be widely disrupted over a very large area,
with corresponding economic disruptions.
My preferred alternative:
My preferred alternative is either Alternative D or a reconfigured Alternative E with a reduced cross-
section such as used in Alternatives B, C or D.
Very Truly Yours,

Joel H. Fields, Owner
Go to Page 1
226 Emily Roth Portland Parks & 226_SBDEI_Comments_122208_final.do

Recreation c
Go to Page 1
Sellwood Bridge Draft EIS Comments
December 22, 2008
The following are the comments from the City of Portland, Parks & Recreation Department on the November 2008 Draft EIS for the
Sellwood Bridge and draft Section 4(f) Evaluation. If you have questions about any of PP&R’s comments, please contact Ms. Gregg
Everhart at 505-823-6009 or by email: pkgregg@ci.portland.or.us.
Sellwood Bridge Draft EIS (November 2008) Proposed Mitigation

General Portland Parks & Recreation is the proper name for the bureau. Please
Comments make consistent throughout the document.
Remove “Undeveloped” from all descriptions of natural area lands.
Natural area land is managed for its natural resource functions and
values and PP&R does not consider these lands undeveloped.
PP&R is not a typical ROW land owner. PP&R lands are managed for
multiple functions and values including active and passive recreation,
habitat for wildlife and fish, views, and environmental education. The
Draft EIS states that PP&R will be paid cash for the project ROW within
parks based on fair market value of the land. PP&R does not consider
this appropriate payment. The functions and values of each park must be
evaluated and PP&R compensated based on the impacts to these values
in additional park land or enhancements that will replace the impacted
functions and values, plus the payment for the ROW.
Westside Riparian habitat along the Willamette River has been greatly
reduced within the City of Portland. First priority is to avoid impacts to
this habitat type. Any unavoidable impacts must be mitigated with in-
kind replacement.
Alternatives should avoid or minimize additional fragmentation to
wildlife corridors along the river and between the riparian and upland
forests.
If proposed crossing location into Willamette Moorage Park is not
changed, then include a fish friendly crossing such as a bridge over the
-1-
Go to Page 1
Stephens Creek.
Change “non-programmed” to “passive” recreation for all natural area
parks or the natural area of a hybrid park.
Global warming should be addressed in the EIS, not just in Cumulative
Effects. FHWA does not have any formal standards but the State of
California has done some interesting work for SEQA compliance that
could be used in the EIS evaluation.
Willamette All alternatives show impacts to Willamette Moorage Park with the
Moorage proposed relocated Willamette Moorage Park and Macadam Bay Club
Park/Stephens entrance. The draft EIS does not evaluate other alternatives to this
Creek entrance.
PP&R suggests that creating a roadway with a bridge crossing of
Stephens Creek in the proposed Trolley ROW, on the west side of the
rail track, that goes from the present entrance to SW Miles Street be
evaluated as a possible alternative. This would eliminate the impacts to
Willamette Moorage Park and the recently constructed Stephens Creek
Fish Enhancement Project and keep open the possibility of additional
creek restoration work upstream in the future.
If the proposed crossing location into Willamette Moorage Park is not
changed, then include a fish friendly crossing such as a bridge over
Stephens Creek.
Chapter 2.3.2 Land-Based Construction - Construction Storage and Fabrication Areas: 0.5
Construction to 1.0-ac. site will be needed near the proposed bridge construction and
Methods 5.0 to 8.0-acre site outside the project area. PP&R understands that the sites
Common to will be selected based on land availability during construction. Our
All Build preference is for sites not immediately adjacent to PP&R property.
Alternatives
Chapter 3. 2 Figures 3.2-2, 3.2-4, 3.2-6, 3.2-8, 3.2-10: West-side diagrams should show
Bicyclists and the bike/pedestrian facility to which the new construction will connect
Pedestrians (cemetery road); East-side diagram should show the existing Springwater
Corridor. This will clarify the length of on-street connection needed to reach
off-street trail; please confirm whether or not the stairway between SWC and
SE Spokane will be replaced.
Alternative C: Please note the reduced amount of vertical distance that Mitigate the lack of “eyes on the
pedestrians and cyclists have to travel in this option. A flatter route should be street,” noise, pigeon droppings by
-2-
Go to Page 1
more attractive to all human-powered users. Are profiles available for the hanging the bike/pedestrian shared
bike/pedestrian route of each alternative? path to side of bridge. It could
alternate as proposed by Arun Jain,
City of Portland, Planning
Department or remain on one side.
Table 3.2-6: the east intersection in this option would impact bicyclists and Do not build the east-side under-
pedestrians by adding more traffic to the bicycle boulevard on SE Spokane. crossing
It is a key access point for pedestrians and cyclists using Springwater
Corridor and Sellwood Riverfront Park
Table 3.2-7 and 3.208: “Signalized intersection improves bicyclist and Either do not signalize the east-side
pedestrian crossing of SE Tacoma Street” unless it is a vehicle signal. intersection or make it bicycle and
Adding vehicles would make cycling more dangerous on SE Spokane as pedestrian only (subject to PDOT
well. recommendation).
3.2.5 Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Bicyclist and Pedestrian
Impact – revise per comments above.
Add a table that documents the vertical climb from trail on both east and west
to high point of bridge (or note length of ramps) [see attached spreadsheet].
For instance, for Alternative B the spiral ramp would contain three loops to
get bikes/pedestrians up or down the 1000 feet length needed to ascend or
descend from the bridge. This will most likely be a commuting and
recreation barrier for most users.
Section 3.3 - 3-49 – Impacts and Mitigation Common to all Built Alternatives: Proposed Alternative for
Right of Way Access to Macadam Bay Club. The draft EIS only evaluates one Macadam Bay Moorage
and alternative for relocating the existing access road. Access:
Relocation Willamette Shoreline Trolley and Future Streetcar - The draft EIS does Creation of a roadway with a
not evaluate any alternatives other than moving of the trolley ROW into bridge crossing of Stephens Creek
Powers Marine and Willamette Moorage natural area parks. in the proposed Trolley ROW, on
the west side of the rail track, that
goes from the present entrance to
SW Miles Street to be evaluated
as a possible alternative.
Proposed Streetcar/Trail
Alternatives:
Reduce length of double track
-3-
Go to Page 1
through the park natural areas
(Powers Marine and Willamette
Moorage). Establish streetcar
ROW in center of Hwy 43.
Design multimodal Greenway
Trail within existing streetcar
ROW, not in the natural area.
3.9 Parks and General comment: The scale of maps with aerial photo base and no Mitigation needs to include land
Recreation existing edge of pavement makes it difficult to analyze impacts to natural purchase that replaces the
areas in Powers Marine Park and Willamette Moorage. Although overall functions and values lost, not
acreage is importance, width of the riparian buffer is also significant. just cash payment.
PP&R overlaid our west-side natural area parks over Alternatives A-E Mitigation Measure for Specific
West 1C drawings to evaluate impacts. Alternatives (Sellwood
Sellwood Riverfront Park (3-107) – include that the park is used for Riverfront Park) add
summer concerts and movies. “Contribute funds for
Powers Marine Park (3-108) – include that the City of Portland, Bureau completion of Springwater
of Environmental Services (BES) completed a capital improvement Sellwood Gap (Alternative A)
project in the park in 2007. Large woody debris was placed below the Mitigation Measure for Specific
ordinary high water line to increase the habitat value for fish. Also, Alternatives (Powers Marine
invasive plant species have been removed and native species planted. Park) add “Redevelop Staff
Ongoing revegetation work is currently funded by BES and PP&R Jennings as natural area”
through 2010. (Alternative C) OR
Willamette Moorage Park (3-108) please change “hiking” trail to Mitigation reduction (Powers
“shared-use” trail. Marine Park) reduce need for
Willamette Moorage Park, first column, last paragraph (3-108) – include: mitigation by changing west
the project also included riparian enhancement, removal of invasive and intersection from trumpet (or
planting native species. roundabout)
Springwater Corridor Trail (3-108) please add “downtown Portland to” Mitigation for impacts to
after “connecting” in second sentence of second paragraph Westside Riparian Habitat must
Willamette Greenway Trail (East Bank; 3-109) Add second sentence in be in-kind replacement.
second paragraph: …SE Umatilla Street. There is a two-block gap and ‘Daylight’ and restore the
trail continues between SE Tenino and SE Linn. existing perennial creeks that are
Table 3.9-1 (3-110) as noted elsewhere, remove “undeveloped” piped through Powers Marine
Table 3.9-1 (3-110): Area; Functions Impacted column does not address Park. Bridge all trail/ROW creek
-4-
Go to Page 1
the functions and values of the park that are impacted by each crossings.
alternative. The EIS needs to address the riverine and riparian functions Remove culverts beneath Hwy
impacted by the land conversion. 43. Replace with structures that
Table 3.9-2 (3-110): Area; Functions Impacted column does not allow passage for fish &
adequately address the impacts to the functions and values of the riverine wildlife.
and riparian habitats impacted by the build alternatives. All alternatives Remove culvert beneath railroad
convert approximately 20% or greater area of the park to transportation ROW and construct a bridge
uses. This will have a large impact on the functions and values of the crossing at Stephens Creek
natural area. adjacent to Willamette Moorage
3.9.3 Direct Impacts, Mitigation, Alternative Specific Mitigation (3-110) Park.
– revise per suggestions elsewhere for no reduction park/natural area Regrade, revegetate and restore
acreage. Evaluate potential of any land taken from business or Stephens Creek between
residential displacement to be re-used as park/natural area under bridge. Macadam Blvd. and recently
Mitigation Coordination at Local Parks call out box (3-111) – the projects completed Stephens Creek Fish
have been completed, update box. Enhancement Project.
3.9.3 Bullet for Powers Marine Park (3-111) – the proposed mitigation is Acquire bluff and riverbank
not appropriate as the invasive species have been removed from the park lands adjacent to existing
and the tree canopy is intact. A fish enhancement project has been Willamette Greenway Trail
completed at the park. Unsure what a river bank stabilization project (East Bank) ROW. Control
would look like at this location. invasives and revegetate with
3.9.3 Bullet for Oaks Pioneer Park (3-11) – include economic impacts to oak woodland species.
SMILE for temporary reductions in revenues from church rentals during Oaks Pioneer Park – revegetate
bridge construction. with native oak woodland
Sellwood Riverfront Park, Alternative A (3-112) – placement of the species.
bridge will increase noise in the park, adversely impacting summer Oaks Pioneer Park –
concert and movie programs. Compensate SMILE for any
Sellwood Riverfront Park, Alternative A and E (3-112) – The revenue reductions from church
pedestrian/bike alignment will result in removal of some of the existing rentals during construction.
black cottonwood riparian forest on the riverbank at the west edge of the Sellwood Riverfront Park,
park. Alternative A – noise mitigation
Willamette Moorage Park (3-112): update mitigation for the park as the should include a noise barrier on
Stephens Creek Fish Enhancement Project is complete, including the bridge.
riparian plantings. Sellwood Riverfront Park,
3.9.3 add last bullet before 3.9.4 Summary (3-114): (or where Alternative A – mitigation
appropriate) that indicates the Willamette Greenway Trail (SE Spokane should include planting
-5-
Go to Page 1
Street Section) would be impacted by east end interchanges on additional large native trees.
Alternative C, D, E) with appropriate mitigation being either existing Sellwood Riverfront Park,
east end intersection or bike/pedestrian only signal [this is park and Alternative A - Remove riprap,
recreational impact as greenway trail connection to Springwater, WG control invasives, layback
along river and Sellwood Riverfront park] slope and increase width of
Table 3.9-3 cont. Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Park and existing riparian woodlands on
Recreation Impact, Willamette Greenway Trail (SE Spokane Street west edge of park.
Section): replace “None” on C, D, E with “East-end interchange adds Sellwood Riverfront Park,
vehicles to SE Spokane” Alternative A - Remove 2 acres
of the invasive species black
locust (Robinia pseudoacacia)
in north and east sides of park
and revegetate with native oak
woodland species.
Section 3.11 – Table 3.11-1 Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Visual

Visual Resources Impact: Significant east-side visual change? A – change to
Resources “yes” as second bridge will make a visual impact.
Section 3.16 - General comment - BES and PP&R have already started revegetation
Vegetation work at Powers Marine and Willamette Moorage Parks and have
sufficient funding to continue invasive plant removal and native
revegetation through 2010. In addition, fish enhancement projects have
been completed at each park. Therefore, these stated mitigation measures
are not appropriate.
General Comment: the quality and quantity of riparian habitat along the
west side of the Willamette River at Powers Marine and Willamette
Moorage Parks may be underestimated in the site assessment
components of the DEIS. The parks’ riverine wetlands are dominated by
Pacific willow with black cottonwood and Columbia River willow
growing on the edges. These willow (Salix spp.) vegetation communities
have limited distribution within the City limits. The Oregon Natural
Heritage Program has identified Pacific willow shrub swamps as a
medium priority ecosystem types for conservation in the Willamette
Valley. Although both sites have reed canary grass in the understory,
they also still contain patches of native stinging nettle and scattered
-6-
Go to Page 1
native shrubs.
All alignment alternatives will convert natural area parks to transportation
uses. This will result in a loss of functional habitat, vegetation cover,
increase impervious surface, and fragmentation of the remaining riparian
corridor.
Plant Communities and Noxious Weeds (3-164 & 3-165): Please provide
plant surveys and wetland delineation information. Where is the location
of the proposed impact to the Westside riparian habitat? [see section
3.16.3]
3.16.3 Build Alternatives Section Direct Impacts (3-165-167): Update
this section to reflect current revegetation work at Powers Marine and
Willamette Moorage Parks by the City.
Section 3.17 - Update this section as the Stephens Creek Fish Enhancement Project has
Wetlands been completed. The creek banks have been laid back and restored. The
hydraulic connectivity between the floodplain of Stephens Creek and the
Willamette River has been restored. Also, invasive vegetation has been
removed and native species planted within the riparian zone.
Section 3.18 - Update this section to reflect current revegetation work at Powers Marine Wildlife passage culverts
Wildlife and Willamette Moorage Parks by the City. underneath HWY 43 to allow a
Include bald eagle, Cooper’s hawk, red-tail hawk and osprey as potentially connection between uplands and
affected avian species within the project areas on both the east bank and the river.
west bank of the river.
Amphibian surveys are currently underway at Powers Marine and
Willamette Moorage natural area parks.
Deer scat has been observed at Powers Marine Park.
Recent sightings of a roosting pair of peregrines on the under structure of
the Sellwood Bridge at the east bank.
Update the Wildlife Summary call out box.
3.19 Noise Noise Summary PP&R will need to give input on

final determination of
reasonableness and feasibility
during final design of the project.
3.23 No edits suggested but note that “Mitigation planned…” (near end of fifth
Relationship paragraph) will likely be completed as noted above and below. So PP&R is
-7-
Go to Page 1
of Short-Term more interested in the use of right-of-way used during construction being
Uses of the returned to park or recreational use, as noted in following sentence.
Environment
and Long-
Term
Productivity
3.25 3.25.1 Past and Present Actions – 1996 (3-200) Springwater Corridor Trail
Cumulative east of SE McLoughlin opened in 1996; the segment of Springwater on the
Impacts Willamette that passes under the Sellwood Bridge opened in 2003; add 2007
Willamette River Water Trail established, water trail guide published.
3.25.2 Foreseeable Actions – revise bullet 8: …SE Umatilla Street and SE
19th Avenue at SE Ochoco Street [avoids confusion with only going to SE
Ochoco and SE 13th Ave]; revise bullet 15 by adding Sellwood Riverfront
Park
3.25.4 Parks and Recreation
3-206: the portion of Springwater in the study area opened in 2003.
3-206, first paragraph. This paragraph does not make sense in light of the
proposed impacts to the parks from proposed project. How does this
address cumulative effects of the proposed project and other projects
such as the trolley on the investments/improvements the City of
Portland has already completed to improve the ecological health of these
parks?
First bullet (3-206) – the paragraphs describing the west side parks does
not adequately address cumulative impacts to the area. Both Powers
Marine and Willamette Moorage are natural area parks that are managed
primarily for their natural area values with limited passive recreation.
The potential 30 percent decrease in parkland and tree canopy and
increase in impervious surfaces would adversely impact the fish and
wildlife functions of the parks. Also increased visibility and use often
adversely impacts wildlife use so increasing the recreation use may not
be beneficial to the park. This section needs to address the adverse
effects from this project and the proposed trolley on the wildlife
functions. PP&R does not manage these parks as hybrid parks like
Sellwood Riverfront Park and it is not intending to change the
management for this or other projects. (Sellwood Riverfront Park is
-8-
Go to Page 1
managed as a hybrid park where the developed portion is managed for
active recreation such as the dog off leash area, picnicking, movies, etc.)
Third bullet: add Sellwood Riverfront Park in list for on-going
restoration.
Add missing bullet that notes that paddling and motorized boating is
increasing
3.25.4 Visual Resources – The retaining wall and rock cuts…could [instead
of “would”] soften since it not entirely certain that vegetation will succeed,
particularly with 30 – 80’ high cuts/walls.
3.25.4 Vegetation
1st bullet – Off site mitigation for removal of trees within the project
areas does not address degradation to the riparian forest within the
project area. This section is not addressing cumulative impacts to the
riparian system along this side of the river.
2nd bullet – disagree that magnitude of impact is small when already
narrow width of riparian habitat is further decreased. How was 150
acres of Westside Riparian vegetation calculated and where is the
vicinity this is mentioned?
3rd bullet - How does vegetation in the right of way improve wildlife
habitat? What species are targeted for this habitat type? Cite studies that
show similar right of way plantings that provide habitat and supports
native wildlife.
4th bullet – the project will impact vegetation restoration completed by
the City of Portland. This project will adversely impact these restoration
projects within the project area. Needs to be addressed in the cumulative
effects.
The accumulated impact of walls, wider travel lanes, and new driveways
makes a substantial impact on connectivity. This needs to be addressed.
-9-
Go to Page 1
3.25.4 Wetlands
Add Stephens Creek to list of locations
The City has not restored wetlands at Ross Island. The City has removed
invasive species on 44-acres that is City owned and managed.
3.25.4 Air Quality
2nd bullet on climate change – does not adequately address the congestion
that will be created by an undersized bridge or interchange and the impacts of
increased traffic on OR 43 on greenhouse gas emissions within the City of
Portland.
Chapter 4. Table 4.2-3 Bicyclist and Pedestrian Elements by Build Alternative
Comparison Safety Concerns (row six) for Alternative C could be mitigated by having
of separate deck below but to side of vehicles.
Alternatives Link to Springwater Corridor (row 8) for Alternatives D & E – must use
side streets with increased vehicle traffic
Add a row that documents the vertical climb from trail on both east and
west to high point of bridge (or note length of ramps) [see attached
spreadsheet].
Tables 4.2-8 and 9 PP&R vehicle access to Powers
For Powers Marine and Willamette Moorage parks include the percent of Marine Park will be from the
the park impacted by the project, not just the number of acres. improved Greenway Trail to
Include functions, values and activities impacted by the alternatives. avoid additional impacts to the
natural area park.
Table 4.2-9 Alternative-specific Impacts to Section 4(f) Properties – Add
Willamette Greenway (Spokane Street) – it has impacts for C, D, and E
unless east interchanges modified. [This is similar to inclusion of Sellwood
Bridge Recreational Trail.]
Figure 4.3-2 East-side connection - Add existing and proposed Springwater
Corridor to diagram so impacts of traffic on bicyclists is more apparent.
Table 4.4-2 Summary of Impacts by Alternative - PP&R understands that
relative significance of each property is considered but the EIS needs to
include summary of activities, functions and values are impacted by each
alternative. It is not as simplistic as number of sites and acreage.
- 10 -
Go to Page 1
Willamette Moorage Park (4-33) – delete significant. The amount of acreage Avoid impacts by taking the bike
that would be impacted is significant for all alternatives if percent is used loop out of the natural area.
instead of acres.
4-33, 2nd bullet – separate Oaks Pioneer Park from Willamette Moorage and
Powers Marine Parks. The natural area parks on the west side of the river are
significant natural area parks providing intact riparian vegetation, listed fish
habitat and wildlife functions.
Chapter 4 – Page 4-33 Willamette Moorage Park: All alternatives will significantly
Comparison of impact the natural area. Remove “significantly “ from the third line and
Alternatives just state that there are less impact from these alternatives.
Page 4-34 Factor 4 second bullet – Separate Oaks Pioneer Park from
Willamette Moorage Park and Powers Marine Park. The later two parks
are managed for their natural area functions. They provide significant
fish and wildlife functions and riparian habitat along the Willamette
River that is in short supply in this area. Fish enhancement projects have
been completed at each natural area.
Section 4(f) The DEIS and Section 4(f) documents do not discuss any roadway access
alternatives to adversely impacting Willamette Moorage Park. This
needs to be disclosed before a de minimis determination can be made.
See all previous comments on the DEIS sections and incorporate where
appropriate.
4(f)-69, Factor 3 and 4 box, third bullet – at both Willamette Moorage
and Powers Marine Parks the City of Portland has completed capital
investment projects that significantly increased the habitat value of the
parks and needs to be protected from adverse impacts to wildlife.
- 11 -
Go to Page 1
227 Erin Janssens Portland Fire & 227_ErinJanssens.pdf

Rescue
Go to Page 1
From: Janssens, Erin C-104 (PF&R Email) [mailto:ejanssens@fire.ci.portland.or.us]
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 6:14 PM
To: PULLEN Mike J; CANNON Ian B; EATON Michael J; 'Donna.Kilber-Kennedy@CH2M.com'
Cc: Leclerc, Mauricio
Subject: Portland Fire & Rescue Sellwood Bridge
To All,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Sellwood bridge EIS. Below are concerns
Portland Fire & Rescue has with the EIS and the bridge proposals. Unfortunately, the EIS
understates the impact of the current bridge on emergency response, as well as the options
identified. Below are issues of the current problems, with desired characteristics following.
Issues
Presently, use by Fire apparatus is greatly limited. While ambulances can utilize the bridge,
Fire Engines may use the bridge for emergency response only, with speed restricted to
15mph. Given the state of the bridge, this is still taking a chance, and only permitted during
emergency response. Other Fire apparatus, including Fire Trucks (necessary at all
residential and commercial type fires) as well as Heavy Squads and Water Tenders, are
unable to use the bridge at any time, due to weight restrictions. This limits not only
emergency operations, but also effective day to day operations requiring movement of
companies.
This means significantly longer response times for multiple unit responses, including
residential fires, commercial fires, major gas incidents, hazardous materials incidents, and
any type of specialty rescue in SE or SW.
Due to the above, emergency response times are greatly increased (longer response times
negatively affects citizens safety, firefighter safety, property loss, and impact to the
environment).
This also negatively impacts emergency response on single unit responses when companies
in neighboring areas need to cover for first-in Fire apparatus that are already assigned,
affecting the safety issues outlined above, as well as response reliability.
.
Ideal/desired characteristics of an improved Sellwood Bridge

New bridge or rehabilitated bridge is preferred over No build option (existing conditions)
Limit closures as much as possible. From an emergency response perspective, ideally, we
would like the bridge to be kept open, exercising alternatives (D and E). It is preferable that
closures during construction are limited, in exchange for a fully operational bridge in the
future.
Ideal/desirable curb to curb cross section for emergency vehicles would be 2 lanes in each
direction, or 48 ft, plus bike lanes on both sides with sidewalk(s) for pedestrians.
This configuration allows:
 traffic to provide right of way to emergency vehicles
 minimizes high risk accidents on the bridge by separating different types
of traffic (vehicular, bicycles, pedestrians)
Go to Page 1
 during an accident on the bridge, ensures higher likelihood of emergency
access from either direction
 increases maneuverability and reduces risk of accidents due to less
congestion
 accommodates for increasing density
36 ft curb to curb would be a minimum to maneuver an emergency vehicle in mixed traffic.
Due to limited access and water supply issues, request several FDC's to provide water
supply on the bridge for response to vehicle fires, hazardous materials or traffic accidents
involving pin-ins (high risk/potential of fire during extrication).
Please let me know if you have any further questions.
Thank you again,
Erin Janssens
Deputy Chief, Special Operations
Portland Fire & Rescue
503.823.3049
ejanssens@fire.ci.portland.or.us
Go to Page 1
228 Janet Bebb Metro 228_metro_parks.DEIScomments.docx
Go to Page 1
January 7, 2008
Mike Pullen
Portland, Oregon 97201
Re: Sustainability Center review comments on Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Dear Mr. Pullen:
The past year has seen a dramatic shift in the position of regional trails. Through the efforts of
Council President Bragdon and the Connecting Green Blue Ribbon Committee on Trails, this topic is
now part of an integrated mobility strategy. The regional trail system is viewed as key to the increase
in active transportation, bicycling and walking, in association with on-street and transit facilities. Due
to gas prices, the desire for healthy activities, and climate change it is anticipated that investment in
non-motorized transportation will increase and with it the associated increase in use. Springwater
Corridor and the Sellwood Bridge connection to the Willamette Greenway east and west are key to
the success of this initiative. We need to envision much higher use of the trails and bridges than are
currently documented.
4F Status
Metro is the property owner of the Springwater Corridor in this area. The trail is managed by
Portland Parks and Recreation so, as suggested in the draft EIS, we both have an interest in the 4F
status.
Temporary Closure of Springwater Corridor

Because Springwater Corridor is used as a transportation facility as indicated by user counts, as well
as a recreation facility, temporary closure is only acceptable with a convenient, alternative route
available 100% of the time.
Alternative C
Alternative is a desirable alternative from Metro's policy perspective of promoting non-motorized
modes of travel. It provides the most direct route to the greenway trails and also provides separation
between bicycle and pedestrian travel from vehicles. More design work is needed, however, to make
this a successful alternative. The bicycle/pedestrian layer needs to provide a positive travel
experience, with light, low noise levels, views out. This alternative will not be successful if it is dark,
with high noise levels.
Alternative A
Alternative A is potentially an important option in that it represents dedicated bicycle/pedestrian
facility. This is in keeping with the vision of world-class active transportation for Portland.
However, as currently designed the access is not direct enough (3 spirals on the west side) and
impacts Sellwood Riverfront Park. If siting and design modifications are possible, this would be a
supportable alternative.
Go to Page 1
Alternative D
Alternative D is an acceptable solution, assuming the “shared sidewalk/path” allows for bicyclists.
There must be a grade-separated alternative to keep cyclists from vehicles.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to options.
Sincerely,
Janet Bebb
Principal Regional Planner, Sustainability Center
Cc: Tim Collins, Mary Anne Cassin, Mel Huie
Go to Page 1
229 Melissa Whitaker U.S. Environmental 229_SummaryofRatingDefinitions.pdf

Protection Agency
Go to Page 1
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Rating System for
Draft Environmental Impact Statements
Definitions and Follow-Up Action*
Environmental Impact of the Action
LO – Lack of Objections
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) review has not identified any potential environmental impacts
requiring substantive changes to the proposal. The review may have disclosed opportunities for application of mitigation
measures that could be accomplished with no more than minor changes to the proposal.
EC – Environmental Concerns
EPA review has identified environmental impacts that should be avoided in order to fully protect the environment.
Corrective measures may require changes to the preferred alternative or application of mitigation measures that can reduce
these impacts.
EO – Environmental Objections
EPA review has identified significant environmental impacts that should be avoided in order to provide adequate
protection for the environment. Corrective measures may require substantial changes to the preferred alternative or
consideration of some other project alternative (including the no-action alternative or a new alternative). EPA intends to work
with the lead agency to reduce these impacts.
EU – Environmentally Unsatisfactory
EPA review has identified adverse environmental impacts that are of sufficient magnitude that they are unsatisfactory
from the standpoint of public health or welfare or environmental quality. EPA intends to work with the lead agency to reduce
these impacts. If the potential unsatisfactory impacts are not corrected at the final EIS stage, this proposal will be
recommended for referral to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ).
Adequacy of the Impact Statement
Category 1 – Adequate
EPA believes the draft EIS adequately sets forth the environmental impact(s) of the preferred alternative and those of the
alternatives reasonably available to the project or action. No further analysis of data collection is necessary, but the reviewer
may suggest the addition of clarifying language or information.
Category 2 – Insufficient Information

The draft EIS does not contain sufficient information for EPA to fully assess environmental impacts that should be
avoided in order to fully protect the environment, or the EPA reviewer has identified new reasonably available alternatives that
are within the spectrum of alternatives analyzed in the draft EIS, which could reduce the environmental impacts of the action.
The identified additional information, data, analyses or discussion should be included in the final EIS.
Category 3 – Inadequate
EPA does not believe that the draft EIS adequately assesses potentially significant environmental impacts of the action, or
the EPA reviewer has identified new, reasonably available alternatives that are outside of the spectrum of alternatives analyzed
in the draft EIS, which should be analyzed in order to reduce the potentially significant environmental impacts. EPA believes
that the identified additional information, data, analyses, or discussions are of such a magnitude that they should have full
public review at a draft stage. EPA does not believe that the draft EIS is adequate for the purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act and or Section 309 review, and thus should be formally revised and made available for public
comment in a supplemental or revised draft EIS. On the basis of the potential significant impacts involved, this proposal could
be a candidate for referral to the CEQ.
* From EPA Manual 1640 Policy and Procedures for the Review of Federal Actions Impacting the Environment. February,
1987.
Go to Page 1
246 Jennifer Goodridge Portland Bureau of 246_FW__Sellwood_Bridge_DEIS.msg

Environmental
Services
Go to Page 1
Althen, Kath/BOI
From: EATON Michael J [michael.j.eaton@co.multnomah.or.us]
Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2008 3:39 PM
To: Steffen, Brandy/PDX
Subject: FW: Sellwood Bridge DEIS
Attachments: Sellwood Bridge Preliminary DEIS_BES_JG_CS_12 08.doc
More comments.
--Michael
From: Goodridge, Jennifer [mailto:jennifer.goodridge@BES.CI.PORTLAND.OR.US]
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2008 3:23 PM
To: PULLEN Mike J; CANNON Ian B; EATON Michael J; 'donna.kilber-kennedy@CH2M.com'
Cc: Studebaker, Cindy; Ketcham, Paul; Leclerc, Mauricio; Acock, Kristen
Subject: Sellwood Bridge DEIS
Mike, Ian, Micheal, and Donna-
BES supports the need for replacing the Sellwood bridge and we understand that there are multiple
interests to be balanced in the selection of the preferred alternative. We have prepared specific
comments on the DEIS report (see attached file). In addition to those comments on the report text,
we also offer the following general comments as feedback on the selection of bridge alternatives:
1. Minimize in-water structures. We strongly support alternative bridge designs that

minimize the number of temporary as well as permanent in-water structures such as
piers. It is well documented that non-native fish use the areas surrounding in-water
structures to prey on small salmonids and other native fish. In-water structures also
result in encroachment in the floodway (ordinary high water level) and adversely impact
benthic habitat. We therefore recommend against a separate pedestrian/bike bridge or
a detour bridge (during construction).
2. Minimize impacts in the Stephens Creek confluence habitat area. The City of
Portland has just completed a $1 million habitat enhancement project in the confluence
area of Stephens Creek and all bridge alternatives include revised access to Macadam
Bay Club/Willamette Moorage. This revised access includes road construction and
Greenway trail modifications within the project area, resulting in 0.1 acre of wetland
impact. We support consideration of fish passage improvements at Stephens Creek
confluence area as part of mitigation for habitat loss resulting from bridge construction.
3. Minimize impacts to Parklands. In addition to the Stephens Creek Natural Area, we
support bridge alternatives that minimize impacts to Powers Marine Park.
4. Minimize forest and riparian habitat impacts. We prefer a bridge intersection on the
west end that minimizes overall loss of trees and specifically minimizes the loss of
riparian vegetation. To the extent that tree canopy must be removed to accommodate
bridge design, we support designs that place a priority on protection of riparian areas.
The integrity of the riparian corridor is a priority consideration for us.
5. Ensure adequate mitigation for habitat impacts. We realize that it is premature to
identify specific mitigation actions related to bridge impacts until a preferred alternative
is chosen and construction design is further advanced. We will strongly support
1
Go to Page 1
mitigation concepts and sites that improve fish passage and provide benefits to riparian
areas.
6. Reports should include graphics that demonstrate the impacts of the alternative
bridge designs. Impacts are typically depicted in a hatch pattern overlay on maps that
depict existing resources such as the ordinary high water, wetlands, forested areas, and
land ownership boundaries. During the selection of the final alternative, please
demonstrate how the bridge design avoids and minimizes environmental impacts.
When the impacts are clearly mapped and identified, this helps select appropriate
mitigation measures to ensure functional replacement for permanent, temporary,
indirect, and cumulative impacts.
<<Sellwood Bridge Preliminary DEIS_BES_JG_CS_12 08.doc>>
Jennifer Goodridge
Watershed Services Group
Bureau of Environmental Services
City of Portland
1120 SW 5th Avenue, Room 1000
Portland, Oregon 97204-1912
Phone: (503) 823-4899
Fax (503) 823-5344
Go to Page 1
SELLWOOD BRIDGE PROJECT
DOCUMENT COMMENT FORM
Document: To:
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Mike Pullen, Ian Cannon, and Michael Eaton,
November 2008 Multnomah County
Donna Kilber-Kennedy, CH2MHill
Reviewer Name: Jennifer Goodridge, Cindy Date Returned: December 22, 2008
Studebaker, Bureau of Environmental
Services
Subsection Page Paragraph Line Comment

Title No.
(specify
printed or
electronic)
3.18 and The report only addresses the temporary
3.19 noise impacts to wildlife, however, removal of
approx. 10 acres of forested vegetation
adjacent and contiguous with the Willamette
River will have permanent noise impacts to
wildlife that need to be stated and mitigated.
The discussion of the no build alternative
needs to state that it has reduced noise
impacts for wildlife since the existing riparian
area remains intact. (JG)
Section 3.16 3-164- Mitigation The text states that the build alternatives will
165 enhance vegetation by removing invasive
plants. BES and Parks are already
enhancing vegetation and removing invasive
vegetation at the Stephens Creek natural
area and at Powers Marine Park. (JG)
3.16, 3.18 3-166 Mitigation should include at least 1:1 acreage
and replacement of lost forested riparian areas.
Appendix G BMP’s such as stormwater treatment,
revegetation of temporary disturbed areas,
and enhancement of existing forested areas
will not be sufficient mitigation for loss of 10
acres of forest. Mitigation for forested
impacts should focus on public acquisition of
privately owned riparian forested areas in the
South waterfront (acreage and location TBD).
3.13 Water Presumed impact and (theoretical) mitigation
Quality and has been sized, but actual mitigation site, size
Appendix G and type of stormwater treatment facility has
not been identified. Please depict location of
stormwater treatment facilities because
location of above ground facilities may result
in additional natural resource impact that has
not yet been identified and feasible locations
BES Comments on Sellwood Bridge November 2008 DEIS

December 22, 2008
Page 1
Go to Page 1
may differ with the different alternatives.
Preliminary discussions with BES staff during
a 6-10-08 site visit indicated that stormwater
treatment facilities may be located in the
wetlands near the Stephens Creek
confluence. This would be considered
additional wetland impact that would need to
be mitigated and DEQ typically requires pre-
treatment prior to stormwater release to
wetland areas; therefore, this site would not
be an appropriate location. At 12-10-08
meeting, the project team indicated that
stormwater will be treated below ground.
Does below ground treatment remove enough
pollutants (prior to discharge to an ESA listed
waterway) to meet DEQ and NOAA fisheries
requirements? (CS and JG)
3.14.3 Build 3-164 Mitigation Entir The list of potential mitigation measures
Alternatives thru 3- Section e include 1) actions that would be considered in
Environmen 165 Sect project design (bullet 4-7), 2) actions that
tal ion would occur to acquire local, state and federal
Consequen permits for in-water-work activity in ESA-listed
ces waters (bullet 8-11) and 3) best management
practices or conservation measures to avoid
and minimize “take” or adverse impacts
during construction activities – Note, these
are typically prescribed non-discretionary
conservation measures that must be met
during agency consultation and construction
and therefore are not considered mitigation
for impacts. BES requests that additional
mitigation be identified to mitigate (or
compensate) for permanent adverse impacts
associated with increased impervious surface
area, removal of mature trees and understory
vegetation and impacts to ESA listed species
and the critical habitat in which they reside.
(CS). Recommend identification of
“replacement habitat” within or near the
project area that would adequately
compensate for permanent, indirect,
temporary and cumulative affects.
Appendix G G-8 thru All Entir See comment above for 3.14.3 Build
G-9 e Alternatives Environmental Consequences
Sect (CS)
ion
3.15.1 3-168 1st paragraph Bull Add Willamette Fish Study (ODFW 2005) to
Aquatic et resources used to identify aquatic resources
Resources - List in the project area. Complete report and
Affected summary documents can be found at
Environ- http://www.portlandonline.com/bes/fish/index.
ment cfm?&a=76759&c=34287
December 22, 2008
Page 2
Go to Page 1
Add Willamette Subbasin Plan (WRI 2004) to
resources used to identify aquatic resources
in the project area. Complete report and
summary documents can be found at
http://www.nwcouncil.org/fw/subbasinplanning
/willamette/plan/
(CS)
Willamette Fish Study is cited, but

misrepresents key findings; the study did not
conclude evidenced spawning, rather it
reported presence and growth of juvenile
salmonids in the lower Willamette River,
specifically along nearshore areas, during all
months of the year. Relevance of these
findings and impacts of alternative designs
should be accounted for and described in
section 3.15.1.
3.15.1 3-168 1st paragraph last Statement that “…habitat in the lower
Aquatic sent Willamette River is not assisting in the
Resources enc recovery of depleted salmonid stocks” is
Habitat in e incorrect. See Willamette Fish Study
Project Findings (ODFW 2005): “The study’s key
Vicinity finding is that the lower Willamette River is no
longer appropriately considered simply a
migration corridor. The presence of naturally
spawned Chinook from November through
July, as well as significant evidence of fish
growth, contradicts a longstanding
assumption that spring Chinook primarily
reared in their natal streams over the winter
and migrated out of the Willamette River
during the spring, and therefore, Chinook
were not thought to be present in the lower
river outside of the spring migration period”.
In addition to these findings, the lower

Willamette River has been designated as
critical habitat for steelhead and Chinook and
it has been included in LCR recovery planning
efforts by NOAA Fisheries and ODFW.
These facts confirm that habitat in the lower
Willamette River assists in the recovery of
listed coho, Chinook and steelhead. (CS)
Omission of these findings is a key data gap

that results in an undervaluation of the lower
Willamette River and its contribution to life
history expression and diversity, and recovery
of ESA listed salmon and steelhead.
3.15.1 3-168 1st paragraph Entir Description presented in this section does not
December 22, 2008
Page 3
Go to Page 1
Aquatic e accurately or completely characterize aquatic
Resources para habitat conditions in project action area.
Habitat in grap
Project h Request that this section include a description
Vicinity of east and west river bank and floodplain
conditions and riverine conditions to
effectively assess project impacts to the
aquatic environment and to aquatic species.
(CS)
Not Addressed. 1) Show state, federal and
local regulatory boundaries (OHW, FEMA
Floodway, delineated wetlands, etc,). 2)
Graphically show, and quantify (acres, cubic
yards of fill, the different habitat types
(riverine for in-water structures, wetlands,
riparian forest, upland, etc) affected by
each alternative. 3) Describe the
vertical footprint of these impacts (e.g,
retaining wall or open bridge piers) to better
assess wildlife connectivity,
gaps, landscape fragmentation, likelihood of
native plant communities surviving, etc.
3.15.1 3-169 Entire Section Entir This section summarizes categories of fish
Aquatic thru 3- e using the lower Willamette River; but does not
Resources 170 Sect characterize fish use (or likelihood of
Willamette ion occurring) within the project action area –
River Fish which is the stated purpose of this section.
Species Request that this section include a description
of anticipated fish use in the project area.
(CS)
Not Addressed. Request a description of

species (and life stages) likely to use aquatic
resources in the project area.
3.15.3 3-171 Mitigation Entir Mitigation suggests that BMPs will be
Aquatic 3-173 e implemented to minimize for temporary
Resources Sect impacts – It is expected that these BMPs
– Build ion would be incorporated into design and
Alternatives construction specifications to meet required
Environmen local, state and federal permits to avoid and
tal minimize take.
Consequen
ces Remaining mitigation measures do not
substantively or completely account for direct
impacts (temporary and permanent) or
indirect impacts to aquatic resources and
species. Example, permanent direct impacts
include (pg 3-170) direct removal of instream
habitat, loss of riparian vegetation, increase in
impermeable surface area and increase in the
December 22, 2008
Page 4
Go to Page 1
quantity of stormwater; however, proposed
mitigation only identifies site restoration
(which would be expected for any ground
disturbing activity) and does not include
additional actions to substantively address
identified permanent impacts.
Request that additional mitigation be

identified to mitigate (or compensate) for
permanent adverse impacts, including
impacts to ESA listed species and critical
habitat in which they reside. Without this
information, it is not possible to identify
cumulative impacts with any acceptable
degree of certainty (CS)
Not Addressed. Only “permit” related

measures have been identified – Note, these
are non-discretionary measures required
under existing city, state and federal law.
Request that more robust strategies and
actions be identified that consider how to
avoid resource impacts for each alternative
bridge design. After this analysis is complete,
identify appropriate measures that will be
pursued to minimize impacts, and finally what
could be done to mitigate (e.g, functional
replacement) for permanent, temporary,
indirect, and cumulative impacts.
Appendix G G-9 All secti See comment above for 3.15.3 (CS)
on
3.15.3 3-171 Alternative Entir Section summarizes the sensitivity analysis
Aquatic thru 3- Specific e documented in the Biological Resources
Resources 173 Environmental Sect Technical Report.
– Build Consequences ion Aquatic habitat conditions (and species
Alternatives and Mitigation use) have not been fully characterized for
Environmen the project action area (refer to comments
tal for 3.15.1) leaving it difficult to surmise
Consequen whether the sensitivity analysis accurately
ces accounts for alternative-specific
environmental impacts.
Sensitivity analysis only accounted for
permanent impacts of each respective
alternative. Would be informative to
assess temporary impacts between the
different alternatives.
Sensitivity analysis considered four
primary impacts 1) loss of shallow water
habitat, 2) instream habitat impact, 3) loss
of riparian vegetation and 4) increase in
impervious surface. Pg 3-171 notes that
increases in impervious surface and
December 22, 2008
Page 5
Go to Page 1
impacts to hydrology, stormwater quality
and quantity would have not been
measurable. This assumption is not
consistent with direct impacts of increased
in dissolved metals that is reported in the
Biological Resources Technical Report in
Section 3.13.3 of the Draft EIS specifically
“…dissolved copper and zinc annual loads
would increase approximately 44 to 60
percent” (pg 3-160). Request that this
impact be accounted for and the
inconsistency resolved.
Sensitivity analysis is not a
comprehensive assessment of relevant
impacts to aquatic resources and native
species. Example, omission of the number
of piers per alternative and direct impact
of creating predator-preferred habitat.
(CS)
Not Addressed. Absence of this information

makes it difficult to evaluate alternative bridge
designs.
3.16 3-164 Text states that the riparian corridor is
Vegetation fragmented into narrow remnants. This
description does not adequately characterize
the project area since PP&R owns 7000 linear
feet (35 acres) of riparian area along the west
bank of the river. PP&R also owns much of
the east bank of the River in S. waterfront
with Oaks Bottom Park. Therefore, within S.
waterfront, much of the riparian area is in
public ownership and consists of forested
riparian corridors. This project will impact
approximately 30% of forested riparian parks
on the west bank. (JG)
3.17 3-169 Text states that there is a small area of
Wetlands Pacific Willow shrub swamp habitat. The
wetland adjacent to Stephens Creek is over 4
acres making it one of the largest riparian
wetlands within City limits. (JG) (JG)
3.17 3-170 Mitigation Remove the descriptions of mitigation
Wetlands opportunities on the Stephens Creek site.
and These actions have been implemented and
Appendix G will not be a mitigation option for the Sellwood
bridge project. (JG)

December 22, 2008
Page 6
Go to Page 1
Biological 4-22 Riparian Please clarify the width used to define the
Resources vegetation riparian area in order calculate the impact
Tech Memo removal acreages provided in Table 4-6. All forested
areas contiguous with and adjacent to the
river might be considered riparian depending
upon the definition used to develop the width
of the riparian area. (JG)
Biological 3.1.3 There are several small streams (drainages)
Resources Investig that flow east into the Willamette River
Tech Memo ation through Powers Marine Park. The location
results should be mapped to determine if any of them
are located within the project corridor. If they
are within the project area, then impacts to
these features should be avoided, minimized,
and mitigated. (JG)

December 22, 2008
Page 7
Go to Page 1
247 Cherri Warnke Portland Water 247_DEIS_Review_Comments_16Dec08

Bureau .xls
Go to Page 1
Go to Page 1
Portland Water Bureau, DEIS Review Comments, December 2008
INTERAGENCY PROJECT REVIEW COMMENT FORM
Project: Sellwood Bridge

Project #: PWB #1161
Agency/Contact: Mike Pullen, Sellwood Bridge Project
Review Type: DEIS Review Comments
PWB Reviewer: Cherri Warnke
Comment Chapter
# Section Page # Comment
Relocation of the Willamette Shoreline Trolley further east could impact the
2-16 to 2- existing 30" Steel Southeast Supply Water Line, and vault for the 30" water
1 2.2.2 17 meter currently located at the west end of SW Sellwood Ferry Rd.
2 17 to 2
2-17 2- The following ten comments list potential West
West-side
side Interchange impacts of
2 2.2.2 21 Alternative A.
Depending upon the resulting grade cuts, excavation for the proposed
2-17 to 2- underpass access to Staff Jennings and Powers Marine Park could impact the
2a 2.2.2 21 existing 24" DI water main where it is crossed on the east side of OR 43.
Support structures for the northbound bridge on-ramp, and interchange
roundabout could impact
p the existing
g 24" DI water main located along g the east
2-17 to 2- side of OR 43, depending upon their placement overtop of or adjacent to the
2b 2.2.2 21 water main.
It appears the fire hydrant located just north of the existing bridge structure
2-17 to 2- and west of the south bound off-ramp lane, would end up located within the
2c 2.2.2 21 travel lane of the newly aligned northbound lane of OR 43.
Support structures for the southbound off-ramp could impact the existing water
2-17 to 2- service for 8421 SW Macadam Ave depending upon their placement overtop
2d 2.2.2 21 of or adjacent to that water service line.
The required fill and retaining walls for the access road to the proposed
underpass to Staff Jennings, could negatively impact the existing water service
2-17 to 2- for 8421 SW Macadam Ave. That service line will need to be sleeved
2e 2.2.2 21 underneath any retaining wall structures.
Support structures for the northbound bridge off-ramp could impact the
existing 30" Steel Southeast Supply Water Line and the vault for the existing
30" water meter located at the west end of SW Sellwood Ferry Rd Rd, and/or the
existing 36" Steel Southeast Supply Water Line extending north along the
access road for Staff Jennings. Any required fill and retaining wall to support
2-17 to 2- the northbound bridge off-ramp could also negatively impact the 36" Steel
2f 2.2.2 21 water main.
The fill, retaining wall and bridge structure required for the realignment of the
Willamette Shoreline Trolley tracks could negatively impact the existing 30 30"
Steel Southeast Supply Line, and/or the existing 30" meter located in SW
Sellwood Ferry Rd. The 30" Steel water line would need to be cased where it
2-17 to 2- crosses under the realigned trolley tracks. The new trolley track location may
2g 2.2.2 21 also require relocation of the existing 30" meter.
It appears the existing fire hydrant currently located on the east side of OR 43
2-17 to 2- north of the access road to Staff Jennings would end up located in the travel
2h 2.2.2 21 lane of the proposed northbound bridge off-ramp.
Page 1 of 8
Go to Page 1
The required fill and retaining wall for the north end of the northbound off-ramp
2-17 to 2- could negatively impact the existing 36" Steel Southeast Supply Line located
2i 2.2.2 21 along the east side of OR 43.
The required fill and retaining wall for the proposed relocated Willamette
Moorage Park and Macadam Bay Club entrance could negatively impact the
2-17 to 2- existing 2" domestic service for 7720 SW Macadam Ave. That service line will
2j 2.2.2 21 need to be sleeved underneath any retaining wall structures.
2 17 to 2
2-17 2- The following two comments list potential impacts of the separate
3 2.2.2 21 Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge in Alternative A.
The placement of bridge support structures for the separate Bicycle/Pedestrian

Bridge could negatively impact the existing 16" CI water main on the west side
2-17 to 2- of OR 43, and the existing 36" Steel Southeast Supply Water Line on the east
3a 2.2.2 21 side of OR 43 if they are installed overtop of or adjacent to those water mains.
The placement of bridge support structures for the separate Bicycle/Pedestrian
Bridge could negatively impact the existing 4" DI water main located west of
SE Oaks Park Way, and the domestic and irrigation services to Sellwood Park,
2-17 to 2- if they are installed overtop of or adjacent to this water main and those water
3b 2.2.2 21 services.
2-21 to 2- The following 11 comments list potential West-side Interchange impacts of
4 2.2.2 25 Alternative B.
4b 2.2.2 21 underneath any retaining wall structures.
Support structures for the southbound off off-ramp
ramp could impact the existing water
2-21 to 2- service for 8421 SW Macadam Ave depending upon their placement overtop
4c 2.2.2 25 of or adjacent to that water service line.
Support structures for the northbound bridge on-ramp, and interchange
roundabout could impact the existing 24" DI water main located along the east
2-21 to 2- side of OR 43, depending upon their placement overtop of or adjacent to the
4d 2.2.2 25 water main.
2-21 to 2- and west of the south bound off-ramp lane, will be end up within the travel lane
4e 2.2.2 25 of the newly aligned north bound lane of OR 43.
existing 30" Steel Southeast Supply Water Line, and the vault for the existing
30" water meter located at the west end of SW Sellwood Ferry Rd, and/or the
existing 36" Steel Southeast Supply Water Line extending north along the
access road for Staff Jennings.
g Anyy required
q fill and retaining
g wall to support
pp
2-21 to 2- the northbound bridge off-ramp could also negatively impact the 36" Steel
4f 2.2.2 25 water main.
Page 2 of 8
Go to Page 1
The fill, retaining wall and bridge structure required for the realignment of the
Willamette Shoreline Trolley tracks could negatively impact the existing 30"
Steel Southeast Supply Line, and/or the existing 30" meter located in SW
Sellwood Ferry Rd. The 30" Steel water line would need to be cased where it
2-17 to 2- crosses under the realigned trolley tracks. The new trolley track location may
4g 2.2.2 21 also require relocation of the existing 30" meter.
Th existing
The i ti fifire h
hydrant
d t currently
tl located
l t d on the
th eastt side
id off OR 43 north
th off
2-21 to 2- the access road to Staff Jennings may be located in the travel lane of the east
4h 2.2.2 25 side of the northbound bridge off-ramp.
The support structures for the bike/pedestrian spiral ramps to the Willamette
2-21 to 2- Greenway Trail will impact the existing 30" Steel Southeast Supply Water Line
4i 2.2.2 25 if they are installed overtop of or adjacent to that water main.
2-21
2 21 to 2
2- could negatively impact the existing 36" Steel Southeast Supply Water Line
4j 2.2.2 25 located along the east side of OR 43.
4k 2.2.2 25 need to be sleeved underneath any retaining wall structures.
The proposed temporary Detour Bridge appears to be located directly overtop
of the submerged 30"30 CI Southeast Supply Water LineLine. Although the river
crossing portion of the Southeast Supply Water Line is buried approximately
five feet under the river bottom, if the Detour Bridge is built in the proposed
location, the Portland Water Bureau (PWB) would be required to re-install this
main at a different location and abandon the existing line. Relocation of this
2-16, 2-22 pipeline would not only require a lengthy permit approval process, but would
5 2.2.2 to 2-25 also add significant cost to the Sellwood Bridge Project.
6 2.2.2 29 Alternative C.
Any grade cuts required to install the proposed Bike/Pedestrian underpass
south of the west side interchange which will cross the existing 24" DI water
2-25 to 2- main located along the east side of OR 43 may impact the water line and
6a 2.2.2 29 require it to be lowered.
Support structures for the elevated trumpet interchange could impact the
2-25 to 2- existing 24" DI water main located along the east side of OR 43, if they are
6b 2.2.2 29 placed on top of, or adjacent to the water line.
and west of the existing south bound off-ramp lane, could be impacted by
support structures for the proposed elevated trumpet interchange. It also
2-25 to 2- appears that the present location of the hydrant barrel may end up in either the
6c 2.2.2 29 south bound OR 43 on-ramp or off-ramp.
Support structures for the southbound bridge off-ramp along the north side of
the ttrumpett iinterchange
th t h could
ld impact
i t the
th existing
i ti 24" DI and d 16" CI water
t
mains, as well as the water service connections for 8240 and 8260 SW
2-25 to 2- Macadam Ave (Staff Jennings), if they are installed overtop of or adjacent to
6d 2.2.2 29 these water facilities.
Support structures for the east side of the southbound bridge off-ramp will
2-25 to 2- impact the existing 36" Steel Southeast Supply Water Line if they are installed
6e 2.2.2 29 overtop of or adjacent to that water line.
Page 3 of 8
Go to Page 1
It appears the existing fire hydrant currently located on the east side of OR 43
2-25 to 2- north of the access road to Staff Jennings would need to relocated so that it is
6f 2.2.2 29 accessible from the newly aligned OR 43.
Depending upon where the southbound lane feeding the eastbound on-ramp
to the bridge changes from an on grade travel lane to the elevated on-ramp
structure, the support structures for the elevated on-ramp could impact the
2-25 to 2- existing 16" CI water main if they are installed overtop of or adjacent to that
6 2.2.2
6g 222 29 water
t liline.
2-25 to 2- existing 30" Steel Southeast Supply Water Line in SW Sellwood Ferry Rd if
6h 2.2.2 29 they are installed overtop of or adjacent to that water line.
2-21 to 2- could negatively impact the existing 36" Steel Southeast Supply Water Line
6i 2.2.2 25 located along the east side of OR 43.
The required fill and retaining wall for the east side of OR 43 north of this
proposed Sellwood Bridge alignment could negatively impact the existing 30"
2-25 to 2- Steel Southeast Supply Water Line and/or the existing 30" meter in SW
6j 2.2.2 29 Sellwood Ferry Rd.
Support structures for the proposed Willamette Shoreline Trolley bridge could
negatively impact the existing 30" Steel Southeast Supply Water Line. Any at
2-17 to 2- grade crossing with the trolley by this 30" Steel water line would need to be
6k 2.2.2 21 cased where it crosses under the realignedg trolleyy tracks.
Support structures for the northbound Bike/Pedestrian bridge off-ramp could
2-25 to 2- impact the existing 30" Steel Southeast Supply Water Line in SW Sellwood
6l 2.2.2 29 Ferry Rd if they are installed overtop of or adjacent to that water line.
6m 2.2.2 25 need to be sleeved underneath any retaining wall structures.
2 25 to 2
2-25 2-
7 2.2.2 29 The following two comments list potential East-side impacts of Alternative C.
The proposed lowering of SE Grand Ave could expose the existing 6" CI main
which crosses the intersection of SE Tacoma St and SE Grand Ave. This
2-25 to 2- section of water line may need to be lowered to accommodate the required
7a 2.2.2 29 cuts in the finish grade of SE Grand Ave.
Support structures for the west side of the East-side connection
Bike/Pedestrian spiral ramp to the lower deck of the bridge may impact the
2-25 to 2- existing 6" DI main located in a 30' easement west of SE Oaks Park Way
7b 2.2.2 29 extended, if they are installed overtop of or adjacent to that water line.
8 2.2.2 33 Alternative D.
8a 2.2.2
222 33 existing 24" DI water main where it is crossed on the east side of OR 4343.
Page 4 of 8
Go to Page 1
Support structures for the northbound on-ramp to the bridge could impact the
2-29 to 2- existing 24" CI water main located along the east side of OR 43, if they are
8c 2.2.2 33 installed overtop of or adjacent to that water line.
and west of the existing south bound off-ramp lane, could be impacted by
support structures for the proposed upper level for the west-side interchange.
2-29 to 2- It also appears that the present location of the hydrant barrel may end up in
8d 2.2.2 33 the north bound lane of the realigned OR 43.
Any required fill, retaining wall, and support structures for the northbound
bridge off-ramp and far north merge lane could impact the existing 36" Steel
2-29 to 2- Southeast Supply Water Line located on the east side of OR 43 if they are
8e 2.2.2 33 installed overtop of or adjacent to that water line.
It appears the hydrant barrel of the existing fire hydrant currently located on
the east side of OR 43 north of the access road to Staff Jennings g will end upp in
2-29 to 2- the northbound off-ramp merging lane to OR 43, and would need to be
8f 2.2.2 33 relocated.
The existing 30" Steel Southeast Supply Water Line located at the west end of
SW Sellwood Ferry Rd could be impacted if cuts in the existing grade are
2-29 to 2- required to connect the proposed underpass access to Staff Jennings with SW
8g 2.2.2 33 Sellwood Ferry Rd.
The fill,, retaining
g wall and bridge
g structure for realignment
g of the Willamette
Shoreline Trolley tracks could negatively impact the existing 30" Steel
Southeast Supply Water Line, and/or the existing 30" water meter located in
SW Sellwood Ferry Rd. The 30" Steel water line wound need to be cased
where it crosses under any at grade crossing of the realigned trolley tracks.
2-29 to 2- The new trolley track location may also require relocation of the existing 30"
8h 2.2.2 33 meter.
Support structures for the bike/pedestrian spiral ramp to the Willamette
Greenway Trail on the north side of the Sellwood Bridge will impact the
2-29 to 2- existing 30" Steel Southeast Supply Water Line if they are installed overtop of
8i 2.2.2 33 or adjacent to that water main.
8j 2.2.2 33 need to be sleeved underneath any retaining wall structures.
2-29
2 29 tto 2
2-
9 2.2.2 33 The following four comments list potential East-side impacts of Alternative D.
Support structures for the SE Tacoma St bridge structure may impact the
2-29 to 2- existing 6" DI main installed in a 30' wide easement parallel to and south of the
9a 2.2.2 33 southline of SE Tacoma St and west of SE Oaks Park Way extended.
The existing two fire hydrants currently located on the south side of SE
Tacoma St west of SE Oaks Park Way extended may be impacted by support
structures
str ct res for the SE Tacoma St bridge structure,
str ct re or may
ma no longer be
2-29 to 2- accessible to fire emergency vehicles due to the widening of SE Tacoma St at
9b 2.2.2 33 that location, and may require relocation.
If the SE Tacoma St roadway will be widened at the east end of the bridge
structure, the existing fire hydrant on the north side of SE Tacoma St east of
2-29 to 2- SE Grand Ave, may need to be relocated to remain outside of the travel
9c 2.2.2 33 roadway.
Page 5 of 8
Go to Page 1
Support structures at the east end of the bridge structure may impact the
2-29 to 2- existing 6" CI water main in SE Tacoma St crossing SE Grand Ave if they are
9d 2.2.2 33 installed overtop of or adjacent to that water main.
2-33 to 2- The following nine comments list potential West-side Interchange impacts of
10 2.2.2 37 Alternative E.
Depending
p g upon
p the resulting g grade
g cuts, excavation for the proposed
p p
Support structures for the northbound bridge on-ramp could impact the
existing
i ti 24" DI watert maini currently
tl llocated
t d on th
the eastt side
id off OR 43
43, th
the fifire
hydrant located just north of the existing bridge structure and west of the
existing south bound off-ramp lane, and the existing water service connections
2-33 to 2- for 8240 and 8260 SW Macadam Ave (Staff Jennings), if they are installed
10c 2.2.2 37 overtop of or adjacent to these water facilities.
It appears that the present location of the hydrant barrel of the fire hydrant
located just north of the existing bridge structure and west of the existing south
bound off-ramp lane
lane, may end up in between the northbound travel lane of OR
2-33 to 2- 43, and the northbound bridge on-ramp, which may make it inaccessible to
10d 2.2.2 37 emergency vehicles.
Support structures for the northbound bridge off-ramp, including any fill and
retaining wall required at the north side of the upper interchange, could
negatively impact the existing 36" Steel Southeast Water Supply Line currently
2-33 to 2- located in the access road to Staff Jennings if they are installed overtop of or
10e 2.2.2 37 adjacent to that water line.
Support structures for the upper level of the westside interchange could impact
the existing 16" CI and 36" Steel Southeast Water Supply Line water mains,
currently located in the northbound lane of OR 43 and in the access road to
2-33 to 2- Staff Jennings respectively, if they are installed overtop of or adjacent to these
10f 2.2.2 37 water facilities.
Support structures for the upper level of the westside interchange could impact
the hydrant run for the existing fire hydrant currently located on the east side of
OR 43 north of the access road to Staff Jennings. It also appears that the
2-33 to 2- hydrant barrel will end up underneath the northbound bridge off-ramp, which
10g 2.2.2 37 may make it inaccessible to emergency vehicles.
Depending upon where the northbound off-ramp no longer requires support
structures as it parallels and merges with OR 43, any required support
structures, including any required fill and retaining walls, could impact the
existing 16" CI and 36" Steel Southeast Water Supply Line water mains,
2-33
2 33 tto 2
2- currently
tl llocated
t d iin th
the northbound
thb d llane off OR 43
43, if th
they are iinstalled
t ll d overtop
t
10h 2.2.2 37 of or adjacent to these water mains.
10i 2.2.2 37 need to be sleeved underneath any retaining wall structures.
Page 6 of 8
Go to Page 1
2-33 to 2-
11 2.2.2 37 The following four comments list potential East-side impacts of Alternative E.
Support structures for the East-side bridge could impact the existing 4" DI
2-33 to 2- water main located west of SE Oaks Park Way north of SE Spokane St, if they
11a 2.2.2 37 are installed overtop of or adjacent to this water main.
Support structures for the East-side bridge could impact the existing 6" CI
water main and 36" Southeast Supply pp y Water Line located in SE Spokane
p St
2-33 to 2- between SE Grand Ave and SE Oaks Park Way, if they are installed overtop of
11b 2.2.2 37 or adjacent to these water lines.
Support structures for the East-side bridge could impact the existing fire
hydrant currently located on the south side of SE Spokane St at 82' west of the
2-33 to 2- westline of SE Grand Ave, if they are installed overtop of or adjacent to this
11c 2.2.2 37 water facility.
Depending upon any required support structures, or depth of excavation
required to complete the East
East-side
side connection with SE Tacoma St St, the existing
6" CI water main in SE Tacoma St could be impacted if support structures are
2-33 to 2- installed overtop of or adjacent to this water lines, or if the water main has less
11d 2.2.2 37 than 2' of cover at any point during roadway reconstruction.
Both the use of bridge structures or standard fill could negatively impact
existing water facilities depending upon whether they are installed overtop of
or adjacent to an existing water main, water service line or fire hydrant, and
12 2.3.1
3 2-37 depending
depe d g upo
upon tthe
e dept
depth o
of tthe
epproposed
oposed sta
standard
da d fill.
A PWB crew would need to be on site during any blasting activity along the
west bank hillside to monitor the status and safety of the existing 24" DI and
13 2.3.1 2-37 16" CI water mains, and 36" Steel Southeast Supply Water Line.
A PWB crew would need to be on site during any drilling or pile driving activity
for the bridge foundation in the Willamette River in order to monitor the status
14 2.3.1 2-38 and safety of the submerged 30" CI Southeast Supply Water Line.
The PWB would like to be kept in the information loop regarding where
temporary roadway and retaining walls will be required during construction of
the new west-side interchange to determine what, if any, impact they will have
on the existing water facilities, and what mitigation work will be needed to
15 2.3.1 2-38 maintain the existing water system facilities.
The proposed location of the temporary detour bridge will be directly overtop of
the submerged 30" CI C Southeast
S S
Supply Water Line. Although the river
crossing portion of the Southeast Supply Water Line is buried approximately
five feet under the river bottom, if the Detour Bridge is built in the proposed
location, the PWB would be required to re-install this main at a different
location and abandon the existing line. Relocation of this pipeline would not
only require a lengthy permit approval process, but would also add significant
16 2.3.3 2-39 cost to the Sellwood Bridge Project.
Page 7 of 8
Go to Page 1
The PWB would like to be kept in the information loop regarding any required
temporary false-work and/or temporary widening of OR 43 in order to
determine what, if any, impacts these temporary installations will have on the
submerged 30" CI Southeast Supply Water Line, and the two existing fire
hydrant currently located just north of the existing bridge structure and west of
the existing south bound off-ramp
off ramp lane, and on the east side of OR 43 north of
17 2.3.4 2-40 the access road to Staff Jennings, respectively.
The PWB would like to be kept in the information loop regarding any required
temporary false-work in order to determine what, if any, impacts these
temporary installations will have on the submerged 30" CI Southeast Supply
18 2.3.5 2-40 Water Line.
Depending
p g upon
p where a street car station will be located at the west end
interchange area of the Sellwood Bridge, that structure could significantly
impact the existing water main located in the north bound lanes of OR 43,
and/or the existing 30" Steel Southeast Supply Water Line located at the west
19 3.1.1 3-6 end of SW Sellwood Ferry Rd and in the access road to Staff Jennings.
380 SE Tacoma St, the Sellwood Building, is identified as an East-side impact
displaced building in Figure 3.3-3, Figure 3.3-4, Figure 3.3-5, Figure 3.3-6, and
3-52 to 3- Figure 3.3-7, but there is no commentary offered regarding this displaced
20 3.3.3 59 building.
In the second sentence of the second bulleted item in the first column of this
page, the size of one of the existing water lines parallel to OR 43 is listed as
21 3.4.1 3-61 32 inches. The correct number is "36" inches.
In the "Mitigation" paragraph, it is stated that "Impacted Utilities would be
replaced, reconstructed, or realigned." It should also be stated that the
Sellwood Bridge Project will bear the cost for all required public water facility
22 3.4.3
343 3 61
3-61 relocation and mitigation
mitigation.
The PWB would be interested in seeing a breakdown of the estimated costs
listed by impacted utility. For example, what percentage of the $2.87 million
3-61 to 3- estimated for utility relocation in Alternative A is identified as being required for
23 3.4.3 62 water system mitigation?
The PWB is concerned about the potential for damage to the existing 24" DI
water main, 16"
16 CI water main and 36" 36 steel Southeast Supply Water Line as a
result of cut-and-fill slope activity, the installation of retaining walls and other
structures within the existing Sellwood Slide area. Destabilization of the soil
supporting these water facilities could result in pipe failure. The PWB would
like to be kept in the information loop as the exact cut requirements are
24 3.12.3 3-143 identified and slide mitigation is developed.
The PWB wants to participate in the review of proposed water system
pp
Appendix mitigation
g as the preferred
p alternative designg progresses
p g and as more detailed
25 G G-3 design information becomes available.
Page 8 of 8
Go to Page 1
Appendix K. Index
Appendix K. Index
access management, 3-6, 3-12, 4-17 parks and recreation, 3-126

actions required, S-8, 5-20 right-of-way and relocation, 3-62
agency coordination, 5-11, 5-17 social elements, 3-104
Collaborative Environmental and transportation, 3-19
Transportation Agreement for Streamlining utilities, 3-72
Process, 5-11 vegetation, 3-191
participating agencies, S-5, 5-12 visual resources, 3-153
project groups, S-2, 5-2 water quality, 3-171
air quality, 3-214 wetlands, 3-196
conformity determination, 3-215 wildlife, 3-202
local context, 3-216 Alternative C, 2-26
Alternative A, 2-18 aquatic resources, 3-185
aquatic resources, 3-184 archaeological and historic resources, 3-143
archaeological and historic resources, 3-141 bicyclists and pedestrians, 3-44
bicyclists and pedestrians, 3-39 construction activities, 2-41
construction activities, 2-40 economic, 3-88
economic, 3-86 environmental justice, 3-115
environmental justice, 3-114 geology, 3-164
geology, 3-164 hazardous materials, 3-224
hazardous materials, 3-224 hydraulics, 3-174
hydraulics, 3-174 land use, 3-80
land use, 3-79 noise, 3-210
noise, 3-209 parks and recreation, 3-126
parks and recreation, 3-125 right-of-way and relocation, 3-64
right-of-way and relocation, 3-60 social elements, 3-105
social elements, 3-103 transportation, 3-21
transportation, 3-17 utilities, 3-73
utilities, 3-72 vegetation, 3-191
vegetation, 3-191 visual resources, 3-153
visual resources, 3-151 water quality, 3-171
water quality, 3-171 wetlands, 3-196
wetlands, 3-195 wildlife, 3-202
wildlife, 3-202 Alternative D, 2-29
Alternative B, 2-22 aquatic resources, 3-185
aquatic resources, 3-185 archaeological and historic resources, 3-144
archaeological and historic resources, 3-143 bicyclists and pedestrians, 3-46
bicyclists and pedestrians, 3-40 construction activities, 2-41
construction activities, 2-40 economic, 3-89
economic, 3-87 environmental justice, 3-115
environmental justice, 3-114 geology, 3-165
geology, 3-164 hazardous materials, 3-225
hazardous materials, 3-224 hydraulics, 3-174
hydraulics, 3-174 land use, 3-80
land use, 3-79 noise, 3-210
noise, 3-209 parks and recreation, 3-127
Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement K-1

Appendix K: Index
right-of-way and relocation, 3-65 economic, 3-90

social elements, 3-105 environmental justice, 3-115
transportation, 3-22 geology, 3-165
utilities, 3-73 hazardous materials, 3-225
vegetation, 3-191 hydraulics, 3-174
visual resources, 3-155 land use, 3-80
water quality, 3-171 noise, 3-210
wetlands, 3-196 parks and recreation, 3-127
wildlife, 3-202 right-of-way and relocation, 3-67
Alternative D Refined, S-6, 2-42, 5-17, 5-20 social elements, 3-105
access to properties, 2-51 transportation, 3-26
access to River View Cemetery, Powers utilities, 3-73
Marine Park, and the Staff Jennings vegetation, 3-191
property, 2-53 visual resources, 3-155
access to Willamette Moorage Park and the water quality, 3-171
Macadam Bay Club, 2-51 wetlands, 3-196
aquatic resources, 3-186 wildlife, 3-202
archaeological and historic resources, 3-145 aquatic resources, 3-176
bicyclists and pedestrians, 3-50 fish species, 3-177
construction activities, 2-55 habitat, 3-176
cross-section, 2-49 archaeological and historic resources, 3-133
description, 2-43 archaeological resources, 3-133
east-side connection, 2-51 historic properties, 3-134
economic, 3-90 bicyclists and pedestrians, 1-7, 3-14, 3-34,
environmental justice, 3-115 3-118, 4-2, 4-9, 4-23, 4-25
geology, 3-165 demand, 3-36
hazardous materials, 3-225 east-side, 3-35
hydraulics, 3-174 Biological Opinion, 3-187
in-water construction, 2-58 bridge
land use, 3-80 bicycle/pedestrian, 2-21, 2-40
land-based construction, 2-57 cable-stayed, 3-152
mitigation, 2-55 closure, 4-4
noise, 3-211 closures, 3-14
parks and recreation, 3-127 cross-sections, 2-11, 2-17, 4-24, 4-26
replacement bridge, 2-50 deck-arch, 3-156
right-of-way and relocation, 3-68 historic property, 3-136
social elements, 3-107 rehabilitation, 4-29
transportation, 3-28 replacement, 4-29
utilities, 3-73 structural integrity, 1-6, 4-1
vegetation, 3-191 through-arch, 3-157
visual resources, 3-158 bridge design, 2-11
water quality, 3-171 box-girder, 2-42
west-side interchange, 2-50 cable-stayed, 2-22
wetlands, 3-196 deck-arch, 2-42, 2-57
wildlife, 3-203 delta-frame, 2-41, 2-57
Alternative E, 2-34 through-arch, 2-42
aquatic resources, 3-186 Brinsfield Boat Basin, 3-57
archaeological and historic resources, 3-145 Build alternatives, S-6, 2-1, 2-13, 4-1, 4-4, 4-20
bicyclists and pedestrians, 3-48 air quality, 3-216
construction activities, 2-42 aquatic resources, 3-182
K-2 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix K: Index
archaeological and historic resources, 3-139 piers, 2-39, 2-58

bicyclists and pedestrians, 3-39 rock excavation, 2-38, 2-57
economic, 3-85 storage and fabrication areas, 2-38, 2-57
energy, 3-212 west-side interchange reconstruction, 2-38,
environmental justice, 3-114, 3-117 2-57
geology, 3-162 construction cost, 4-5
hazardous materials, 3-221 Alternative A, 2-22
hydraulics, 3-173 Alternative B, 2-26
irreversible and irretrievable commitment of Alternative C, 2-29
resources, 3-228 Alternative D, 2-34
land use, 3-77 Alternative D Refined, 2-55
noise, 3-206 Alternative E, 2-38
parks and recreation, 3-122 cumulative impacts, S-38, 3-230
right-of-way and relocation, 3-58 air quality, 3-245
short-term uses of the environment and aquatic resources, 3-242
long-term productivity, 3-226 archaeological and historic resources, 3-240
social elements, 3-101 bicyclists and pedestrians, 3-236
transportation, 3-10 economic, 3-238
utilities, 3-72 energy, 3-245
vegetation, 3-189 environmental justice, 3-239
visual resources, 3-150 foreseeable actions, 3-233
water quality, 3-168 geology, 3-241
wetlands, 3-195 hazardous materials, 3-246
wildlife, 3-200 hydraulics, 3-242
Clean Air Act, 3-215 land use, 3-237
Collaborative Environmental and noise, 3-244
Transportation Agreement for Streamlining parks and recreation, 3-239
Process, 5-11 right-of-way and relocation, 3-237
construction activities, 2-38 social elements, 3-238
Alternative A, 2-40 utilities, 3-237
Alternative B, 2-40 vegetation, 3-243
Alternative C, 2-41 visual resources, 3-241
Alternative D, 2-41 water quality, 3-241
Alternative D Refined, 2-55 wetlands, 3-243
Alternative E, 2-42 wildlife, 3-244
bridge foundation, 2-58 decision points, S-3, 2-2, 5-4
cofferdam method, 2-59 1 Establish decision process and structure,
dredging, 2-39, 2-59 2-3, 5-4
duration, 2-39, 2-59 2 Define purpose and need, 2-3, 5-5
foundation, 2-39 3 Establish evaluation framework, 2-3, 5-5
in-water, 2-39 4 Develop alternatives, 2-4, 5-5
land-based, 2-38 5 Screen alternatives, 2-10, 5-6
perched method, 2-59 6 Identify preferred alternative, 2-12, 2-42,
phasing, 4-6 5-6, 5-15
phasing, 3-Alternative A, 2-22 decision structure, S-2, 5-1
phasing, 3-Alternative B, 2-26 direct impacts, S-7
phasing, 3-Alternative C, 2-29 air quality, 3-216
phasing, 3-Alternative D, 2-31 aquatic resources, 3-182
phasing, 3-Alternative D Refined, 2-39, 2-59 archaeological and historic resources, 3-140
phasing, 3-Alternative E, 2-38 bicyclists and pedestrians, 3-39

Appendix K: Index
economic, 3-85 land use, 3-78

energy, 3-212 noise, 3-207
environmental justice, 3-114 parks and recreation, 3-124
geology, 3-162 right-of-way and relocation, 3-59
hazardous materials, 3-221 social elements, 3-102
hydraulics, 3-173 transportation, 3-16
land use, 3-77 utilities, 3-72
noise, 3-207 vegetation, 3-190
parks and recreation, 3-122 visual resources, 3-151
right-of-way and relocation, 3-58 water quality, 3-169
social elements, 3-101 wildlife, 3-201
transportation, 3-10 Interchange Area Management Plan (IAMP), 3-6,
utilities, 3-72 5-18
vegetation, 3-189 interchange design, 2-6, 2-10
visual resources, 3-150 roundabout, 3-152, 4-21
water quality, 3-168 signalized, 3-157, 4-23
wildlife, 3-201 trumpet, 3-154, 4-21
displacements irreversible and irretrievable commitment of
business, 3-116, 4-11 resources, 3-228
residential, 3-115, 4-11, 4-25 land use, 3-74
economic, 3-82 plans, 3-policies, 3-and regulations, 3-74, 4-24
energy, 3-212 reviews, 3-78
environmental justice, 3-109 least harm analysis, 4-31
low-income populations, 3-112 Macadam Bay Club, 2-17, 3-57
minority populations, 3-111 maintenance activities, 2-12
regulations, 3-109 bridge closure, 4-4
evaluation framework, 5-5 mitigation
floodway. See hydraulics, 3-floodway air quality, 3-217
freight, 4-2 Alternative D Refined, 2-55
geology, 3-160 aquatic resources, 3-184
geologic hazards, 3-163 archaeological and historic resources, 3-140
Grand Place, 3-56, 3-57, 3-117 bicyclists and pedestrians, 3-39
greenhouse gases, 3-218 economic, 3-91
hazardous materials, 3-221 energy, 3-213
contaminants of environmental concern, geology, 3-163
3-221 hazardous materials, 3-223
hydraulics, 3-172 hydraulics, 3-173
floodplain finding, 3-174 land use, 3-79
floodway, 4-19 noise, 3-207
impervious surfaces, 3-170 parks and recreation, 3-124, 3-125, 3-127
indirect impacts, 3-162 right-of-way and relocation, 3-59
air quality, 3-217 social elements, 3-103
aquatic resources, 3-183 transportation, 3-10, 3-15
archaeological and historic resources, 3-140 utilities, 3-72
bicyclists and pedestrians, 3-39 vegetation, 3-190
economic, 3-85 visual resources, 3-151
energy, 3-213 water quality, 3-169
environmental justice, 3-114 wildlife, 3-201
hazardous materials, 3-222 National Ambient Air Quality Standards air
hydraulics, 3-173 pollutants, 3-215

Appendix K: Index
No Build Alternative, S-6, 2-12, 4-1, 4-29 public involvement, S-3, 5-1
air quality, 3-216 activities completed after distribution of the
aquatic resources, 3-182 DEIS, 5-15
archaeological and historic resources, 3-139 briefings, 3-hearing, 3-and open house, 5-14
bicyclists and pedestrians, 3-38 comments on the DEIS, S-7, 5-14
economic, 3-84 key issues and themes, S-7, 5-6
energy, 3-212 process, 5-1
geology, 3-160 railroad, 3-7, 3-14
hazardous materials, 3-221 Record of Decision, S-1, 5-21
hydraulics, 3-172 right-of-way and relocation, 3-56
irreversible and irretrievable commitment of river
resources, 3-228 navigation, 3-7, 3-15
land use, 3-77 River Park, 3-56
noise, 3-205 River Park Center, 3-57, 3-117
parks and recreation, 3-122 River View Cemetery, 3-57, 3-99, 3-137
right-of-way and relocation, 3-58 Superintendent's House, 3-138
short-term uses of the environment and Riverside Corral, 3-57, 3-117
long-term productivity, 3-226 roadways, 3-2
social elements, 3-101 alignments, 2-4, 2-10, 4-20
transportation, 3-8 east-side intersection, 3-13
utilities, 3-72 interchange types, 2-6
vegetation, 3-189 OR 43, 3-3, 4-2
visual resources, 3-150 other, 3-4
water quality, 3-168 performance, 3-4
wetlands, 3-195 SE Tacoma Street, 3-4
wildlife, 3-199 Sellwood Bridge, 3-2
noise, 3-204 substandard and unsafe, 1-7, 4-1, 4-24
dBA, 3-204 west-side interchange, 3-13, 4-21
Leq, 3-204 Section 303(d) list of impaired waters, 3-168
regulations, 3-206 Section 4(f) evaluation, S-36, 4-17, 5-21
Oaks Pioneer Church, 3-98, 3-134 least harm analysis, 4-31
Oaks Pioneer Park, 3-120 parks and recreational resources, 3-119
Oregon Pacific Railroad, 3-57 Section 6(f), S-36, 3-132, 5-21
parks and recreation, 3-119, 4-17 Sellwood Bridge, 3-136
Powers Marine Park, 3-120 Sellwood Bridge Recreational Trail, 3-122
project, 1-1 Sellwood Building, 3-57, 3-116
alternatives, 2-9, 2-12 Sellwood Harbor, 3-56
description, S-1 Sellwood Riverfront Park, 3-119
financing, 3-92 Sellwood Slide, 3-163
funding, S-7 Sellwood-Moreland neighborhood, 3-96
goals, 1-8 short-term uses of the environment and
history, 1-2 long-term productivity, 3-226
location, 1-1 social elements, 3-94
need, 1-5, 1-9 community cohesion, 3-95
other concepts, 2-9, 2-11 community features and events, 3-97
process, S-2, 2-2 demographics, 3-94
purpose, 1-5, 1-9 disabled individuals, 3-94
requirement, 1-9 emergency and medical services, 3-97, 4-25
setting, 1-2 medical facilities, 3-101
structural integrity, 1-6 neighborhoods, 3-95

Appendix K: Index
South Portland neighborhood, 3-97 mix, 3-13

Springwater Corridor Trail, 3-120 safety, 1-4, 3-6, 4-1
Staff Jennings property, 3-57, 3-117 transit, 3-5, 3-117, 4-2, 4-9, 4-26
Stephens Creek, 3-195 transportation, 3-1
streetcar, 2-13, 3-7, 3-14, 3-57 Troutdale formation, 3-164
temporary detour bridge, 2-13, 2-25, 4-4 utilities, 3-71
aquatic resources, 3-183 vegetation, 3-188, 3-197
archaeological and historic resources, 3-143 noxious weeds, 3-189
economic, 3-88 plant communities, 3-188
hazardous materials, 3-224 rare plants, 3-189
hydraulics, 3-174 riparian communities, 3-188, 3-197, 3-198
noise, 3-209 visual resources, 3-149, 4-4
parks and recreation, 3-126 water quality, 3-168
right-of-way and relocation, 3-64 wetlands, 3-193
social elements, 3-104 classification, 3-193
transportation, 3-21 wildlife, 3-197
utilities, 3-73 habitat, 3-197
vegetation, 3-191 species, 3-198
visual resources, 3-153 Willamette Greenway Trail
wildlife, 3-202 East Bank, 3-121
traffic, 4-21 SE Spokane Street section, 3-121
capacity, 1-8, 3-10 West Bank, 2-13, 3-122
cut-through traffic, 3-6, 4-26 Willamette Moorage Park, 2-17, 3-120
flow, 4-2 Willamette River Greenway Program, 3-149
level of service, 3-5, 3-12 Willamette Shoreline Trolley, S-37, 2-13, 3-7,
levels, 3-4 3-57, 3-138

FEISand 4 F

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

FEISand 4 F

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

AND FINAL SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION

Federal Highway Administration | Oregon Department of Transportation | Multnomah County

Project Title Two public briefings, an open house, and a public

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 3

• Alternative D would consist of a Mike Pullen

4 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

− Clean Water Act Section 401: Water − Harbor Master Permit

Local Record of Decision

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act,

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement 5

Summary .................................................................................................... S-1

Chapter 2. Concept Development, Project Alternatives,

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement i

Chapter 3. Existing Environment, Anticipated Impacts,

ii Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3.9 Parks and Recreation ................................................................................................................................. 3-119

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement iii

3.17.4 Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Wetlands Impact ......................................... 3-196

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

iv Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

4.2.2 Construction Cost .......................................................................................................................... 4-5

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

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement v

Final Section 4(f) Evaluation

Appendix C. List of Preparers

Appendix D. List of Supporting Technical Documentation

Appendix E. Distribution and Notice of Availability Lists

Appendix F. Summary of Permits and Clearances Needed

Appendix G. Summary of Mitigation and Environmental Commitments

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

Appendix I. Responses to DEIS Comments

Appendix J. Original Comments on the DEIS

vi Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

2.1-1 Decision Points in the Evaluation Process .............................................................................................. 2-1

3.1-1 Study Area Roadways .................................................................................................................................. 3-2

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement vii

viii Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3.12-2 Geologic Cross-Section ........................................................................................................................... 3-161

3.1-1 Travel Markets of Existing Sellwood Bridge Users .............................................................................. 3-4

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement ix

3.1-13 Summary of Alternatives by Differentiating Construction-related Traffic Impacts ..................... 3-33

x Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

3.14-1 Summary of Hydraulic Conditions by Alternative, Bridge Type, and Bridge

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement xi

5.2-1 Key Issues, Themes, and Associated Responses ................................................................................... 5-7

5.5-1 Agency Coordination Meetings ................................................................................................................. 5-19

xii Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement S-1

A key element of this project was a structured

S-2 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement S-3

S-4 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement S-5

 Alternative D would consist of a  Refined the OR 43 roadway footprint to

S-6 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement S-7

S-8 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement S-9

existing bridges other existing bridges c construction of the new

S - 10 Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Sellwood Bridge Project Final Environmental Impact Statement S - 11