Appendix D 

Revised DEIS Sections

April 2021

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Oregon Passenger Rail P r o j e c t Tier I Draft Environmental Impact Statement E S - 1 

Revisions – APRIL 2021 

Executive Summary

The U.S. Department of Transportation’s (USDOT) Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and the Oregon 

Department of Transportation (ODOT) prepared this Tier 1 environmental impact statement (EIS) to 

evaluate improved Amtrak Cascades intercity passenger rail service alternatives for the Oregon Passenger 

Rail Project (OPR Project). The OPR Project examines an approximately 125-mile segment of the Federally 

designated Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor (PNWRC) from the Eugene-Springfield urban area to Portland.

In addition to this EIS, ODOT is preparing a Service Development Plan (SDP) for the corridor to guide further 

development and capital investment in passenger rail improvements.

The PNWRC has been the subject of intercity passenger rail planning, development and operation for more 

than 30 years. The PNWRC is one of 11 Federally designated high-speed rail corridors in the United States. 

FRA designated this passenger rail corridor on October 20, 1992, as one of five original corridors called 

for in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. The 466-mile PNWRC serves the 

most densely populated regions of British Columbia, Washington, and Oregon. It links Vancouver, 

British Columbia, Seattle, Washington, and Portland and Eugene, Oregon, with growing intermediate 

communities (including the capital cities of Salem, Oregon, and Olympia, Washington).

Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway owns the existing PNWRC railroad infrastructure in 

Washington, in British Columbia, and in Oregon north of Portland’s Union Station. Union Pacific Railroad 

(UPRR) owns the existing PNWRC railroad infrastructure in Oregon south of Portland’s Union Station. A mix 

of freight and passenger trains (operated by BNSF Railway, UPRR, Oregon Pacific, Portland Terminal 

Railroad, Willamette Valley Railway, Portland & Western Railroad, and Amtrak) currently utilize or connect 

to BNSF Railway and UPRR trackage that serves as the PNWRC. Intercity passenger rail service consists of 

three round trips per day between Eugene and Portland (two Amtrak Cascades trains plus one Amtrak 

Coast Starlight—a “2+1” passenger train schedule), and six round trips per day between Portland, Oregon,

and Vancouver, Washington (four Amtrak Cascades trains plus the Amtrak Coast Starlight and the Amtrak 

Empire Builder—a “4+2” schedule). The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) has 

commitments to increase to a “6+2” intercity train schedule between Portland and Seattle, Washington (six 

Amtrak Cascades trains plus the Amtrak Coast Starlight and the Amtrak Empire Builder [Empire Builder runs 

only between Portland and Vancouver, Washington]).

This EIS evaluates a reasonable range of alternatives and identifies a preferred alternative within the OPR 

Project EIS study area, which is the aforementioned area between Eugene-Springfield, Oregon, and the 

Washington state line at the Columbia River. A No Action Alternative, two build alternatives, and one build 

alternative option are evaluated. The build alternatives include infrastructure improvements in existing rail 

corridors and sections of new rail corridor. This EIS evaluates the potential environmental impacts for each 

of the alternatives, in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

Following the release of the DEIS, ODOT will gather feedback from stakeholders and interested parties and 

the public will have an opportunity to review and provide comments. The Final EIS will respond to 

substantive comments received on this Draft EIS and identify and describe the final preferred alternative

which may or may not be the preferred alternative identified in this DEIS. FRA’s identification of a 

preferred alternative in an EIS is required by the CEQ regulations implementing NEPA but does not 

represent an approval or selection of the Project by FRA for any possible future funding opportunities that 

ODOT may pursue. 
CHAPTER 3 – ALTERNATIVES ADVANCED FOR FURTHER STUDY

3 - 5

3.1.4 Ridership

Because of increases in population and employment and the associated intercity travel market growth 

forecasted to occur within and beyond the study area, intercity passenger rail and bus ridership would be 

higher under the No Action Alternative than under existing conditions. Table 3-2a and Table 3-2b shows

station activity (riders on and off) for existing conditions (2015) and projected 2035 No Action Alternative 

conditions. The figures include both the Amtrak Cascades train service and Thruway bus service.

Table 3-2b presents updated estimates based on ridership data obtained after the evaluation completed for 

the DEIS. Ridership and ticket revenue forecasts for the proposed Amtrak Cascades service options were 

prepared for the Tier 1 DEIS using an incremental model that utilizes observed Amtrak ridership and ticket 

revenue data as well as socio-economic data and forecasts and Amtrak timetables. Those forecasts were 

originally prepared in 2015 and documented in the 2018 Tier 1 DEIS. 

The Service Development Plan (SDP) focuses exclusively on future year passenger ridership and revenue 

forecasts for the No Action Alternative and Preferred Alternative as designated in the Tier 1 FEIS. Following 

the original analysis time period (2015) and publication of the Tier 1 DEIS (2018), a number of factors have 

contributed to a decline in Oregon Amtrak Cascades rail ridership, including: declining fuel prices, changes 

in scheduled service, on-time performance problems in the Portland-Seattle portion of the PNWRC, and the 

growth in competing services for intercity passenger travel.

For the SDP, the Tier 1 DEIS passenger ridership and revenue forecasts for the future No Action Alternative 

and Build Alternative 1 have been updated and adjusted to account for the recent ridership trends in the 

PNWRC.

Table 3-2.a. Annual Amtrak Cascades Train and Thruway Bus Station Activity – 

Existing (2015) and 2035 Conditions for No Action Alternative (Tier 1 DEIS) 

Station

Station Activity (Number of riders both on and off)

Existing Conditions

(2015) 

No Action Alternative

(2035) 

Percent Growth: Existing 

Conditions to No Action 

Alternative

Eugene 85,800 172,500a 101% 

Albany 31,800 54,800a 72% 

Salem 65,300 97,100 49% 

Oregon City 15,100 17,000 13% 

Portlandb 458,800 961,100 109% 

Totalc 656,800 1,302,500 98% 

a There were no plans to extend the current Portland to Salem bus south to Eugene when the ridership forecasting was done. 

Therefore, numbers for Albany and Eugene do not include a seventh bus round trip.

b Activity at Portland’s Union Station encompasses all Amtrak Cascades train and Thruway bus passengers in Portland, 

including those from north of the Portland market.

c Numbers do not sum due to rounding.

Source: Amtrak Cascades Incremental Model Results (Williams, 2015).

Oregon Passenger Rail P r o j e c t Tier I Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Revisions – APRIL 2021 
CHAPTER 3 – ALTERNATIVES ADVANCED FOR FURTHER STUDY

3 - 6

Table 3-2.b. Annual Amtrak Cascades Train and Thruway Bus Station Activity – 

Existing (2015) and 2035 Conditions for No Action Alternative (Service Development Plan) 

Station

Station Activity (Number of riders both on and off)

Existing Conditions

(2015) 

No Action Alternative

(2035) 

Percent Growth: Existing 

Conditions to No Action 

Alternative

Eugene 85,800 155,200a 81% 

Albany 31,800 50,200a 58% 

Salem 65,300 90,700 39% 

Oregon City 15,100 16,600 10% 

Portlandb 458,800 860,600 88% 

Totalc 656,800 1,173,300 79% 

a There were no plans to extend the current Portland to Salem bus south to Eugene when the ridership forecasting was done. 

Therefore, numbers for Albany and Eugene do not include a seventh bus round trip.

b Activity at Portland’s Union Station encompasses all Amtrak Cascades train and Thruway bus passengers in Portland, 

including those from north of the Portland market.

c Numbers do not sum due to rounding.

Source: Amtrak Cascades Incremental Model Results (Williams, 2015); Draft Oregon Passenger Rail Service Development Plan, 

ODOT, October 2020).

Oregon Passenger Rail P r o j e c t Tier I Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Revisions – APRIL 2021 
CHAPTER 3 – ALTERNATIVES ADVANCED FOR FURTHER STUDY

3 - 8

3.2.4 Ridership

Alternative 1 is estimated to have the highest Amtrak Cascades ridership of the alternatives, with about 108

percent higher ridership than in the No Action Alternative. Alternative 2 would have slightly lower ridership 

than Alternative 1 even though the travel time between Springfield and Eugene would be 18 minutes less

for Alternative 2 than Alternative 1. Alternative 2 would move multiple existing station locations away from 

downtown city cores. As a result, fewer estimated riders would opt for passenger rail travel under 

Alternative 2 than under Alternative 1. Table 3-8a and Table 3-8b shows the existing (2015) and 2035 

forecast Amtrak Cascades (including Thruway Bus) ridership between Eugene and Portland. As noted in 

Section 3.1.4, ODOT updated ridership forecasts using data on ridership trends since publication of the 

DEIS; Tier 1 DEIS passenger ridership and revenue forecasts for the future Alternative 1 (Preferred 

Alternative) have been updated and adjusted to account for the recent ridership trends in the PNWRC and 

are shown in Table 3-8b.

Table 3-8.a. Amtrak Cascades Service Ridership: Eugene to Portland (2015 and Estimated 2035) (Tier 1 DEIS) 

Eugene to Portland Actual 2015 No Action (2035) Alt 1 (2035) Alt 2 (2035)

Train 105,000 197,000 646,000 631,000 

Bus 89,000 193,000 93,000 92,000 

Total 194,000 390,000 739,000 723,000 

Table 3-8.b. Amtrak Cascades Service Ridership: Eugene to Portland (2015 and Estimated 2035) (Service Development 

Plan) 

Eugene to Portland Actual 2015 No Action (2035) Alt 1 (2035) Alt 2 (2035)

Train 105,000 153,600 519,500 NA

Bus 89,000 106,000 20,300 NA

Total 194,000 259,600 539,800 NA

NA- Not Applicable – Future ridership forecast refinements in the Service Development Plan focused only on the Tier 1 FEIS 

Preferred Alternative (Alternative 1)

3.2.4.1 Alternative 1

In 2035, total ridership (both Amtrak Cascades train and Thruway bus) for Alternative 1 is projected to be 

739,000 annual passengers (including 646,000 rail passengers) compared to 390,000 annual passengers under 

the No Action Alternative. Similar to the No Action Alternative, under Alternative 1, the Portland’s Union 

Station and Eugene Station would have the two highest numbers of passenger boardings and alightings

(passengers getting on or off the train or bus) of all the stations, while Oregon City and Albany Stations would 

have the two lowest. Table 3-9a shows the existing station activity and the projected activity for the No Action 

Alternative and Alternative 1 in 2035. Table 3-9b shows updated numbers presented in the Service 

Development Plan developed for the Preferred Alternative.

Oregon Passenger Rail P r o j e c t Tier I Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Revisions – APRIL 2021 
CHAPTER 3 – ALTERNATIVES ADVANCED FOR FURTHER STUDY

3 - 9

Table 3-9.a. Annual Amtrak Cascades Train and Thruway Bus Station Activity – 

Existing and 2035 Conditions for No Action Alternative and Alternative 1 (Tier 1 DEIS) 

Station

Station Activity (Number of riders both on and off) Percent Growth

Existing 

Conditions

(2015) 

No Action 

Alternative

(2035) 

Alternative 1

(2035) 

Existing 

Conditions to

Alternative 1

No Action 

Alternative to

Alternative 1

Eugene 85,800 172,500a 362,300 322% 110% 

Albany 31,800 54,800a 119,300 275% 118% 

Salem 65,300 97,100 203,700 212% 110% 

Oregon City 15,100 17,000 40,500 168% 138% 

Portlandb 458,800 961,100 1,136,900 148% 18% 

Totalc 656,800 1,302,500 1,862,700 184% 43% 

a There were no plans to extend the current Portland to Salem bus south to Eugene when the ridership forecasting was done. 

Therefore, numbers for Albany and Eugene do not include a seventh bus round trip.

b Activity at Portland’s Union Station encompasses all Amtrak Cascades train and Thruway bus passengers in Portland, 

including those from north of the Portland market.

c Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Source: Amtrak Cascades Incremental Model Results (Williams, 2015).

Table 3-9.b. Annual Amtrak Cascades Train and Thruway Bus Station Activity – 

Existing and 2035 Conditions for No Action Alternative and Alternative 1 (Service Development Plan) 

Station

Station Activity (Number of riders both on and off) Percent Growth

Existing 

Conditions

(2015) 

No Action 

Alternative

(2035) 

Alternative 1

(2035) 

Existing 

Conditions to 

Alternative 1

No Action 

Alternative to 

Alternative 1

Eugene 85,800 155,200a 345,000 302% 122% 

Albany 31,800 50,200a 114,700 261% 128% 

Salem 65,300 90,700 197,300 202% 118% 

Oregon City 15,100 16,600 40,100 166% 142% 

Portlandb 458,800 860,600 1,036,400 126% 21% 

Totalc 656,800 1,173,300 1,733,800 164% 48% 

a There were no plans to extend the current Portland to Salem bus south to Eugene when the ridership forecasting was done. 

Therefore, numbers for Albany and Eugene do not include a seventh bus round trip.

b Activity at Portland’s Union Station encompasses all Amtrak Cascades train and Thruway bus passengers in Portland, 

including those from north of the Portland market.

c Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Source: Amtrak Cascades Incremental Model Results (Williams, 2015); Draft Oregon Passenger Rail Service Development Plan, 

ODOT, October 2020).

Oregon Passenger Rail P r o j e c t Tier I Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Revisions – APRIL 2021 
CHAPTER 3 – ALTERNATIVES ADVANCED FOR FURTHER STUDY

3 - 1 1

3.2.53.2.6 Costs 

This section presents preliminary construction and O&M costs for the build alternatives. The construction 

cost estimates include right-of-way, engineering and environmental costs, and a contingency factor. 

As previously noted in 3.1.6, the cost estimates presented in this chapter reflect a level of accuracy 

commensurate with the conceptual engineering work and analysis performed for the development of this 

Tier 1 evaluation. ODOT would refine these costs as the project progresses, and would evaluate specific 

project costs and implementation strategies for the design of the passenger rail system in any future Tier 2 

NEPA process. 

3.2.5.13.2.6.1Capital Costs 

Initial planning-level capital costs for each of the build alternatives are provided in Table 3-11. The capital 

cost estimates for each build alternative include the planned ODOT-owned train overhaul cost that applies 

to the No Action Alternative (see 3.1.6), the cost to construct infrastructure improvements along the route, 

including track and station improvements, ROW costs, the cost to buy new train equipment and a 

contingency factor of 30 percent.

Table 3-11. Estimated Capital Costs of Build Alternatives (dollars in millions, 2015 dollars) 

Section

Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Alternative 2

with Central Albany Option

Low High Low High Low High

Train Overhaul $5 $12 $5 $12 $5 $12 

Construction Cost $81,13570a, b $1,023985a, b $3,61822c $4,43842c $3,6537 $4,5337

New Train sets (2)d $4066 $4066 $4066 $4066 $4066 $4066

Totale $9151,201 $1,077464 $3,667684 $4,50494 $3,702719 $4,599 

a Total cost to construct improvements to accommodate both increased passenger service and estimated freight growth in 2035. 

ODOT estimates that the construction of improvements to accommodate increased passenger service would cost between 

$695 632 million and $801 758 million. 

b Construction cost for Alternative 1 includes estimated cost of the PE/NEPA projects identified in the operational modeling for the 

project. Willbridge: $8.1 million; Penn Junction $4.1 million; Eugene Stub Tracks $23.4 million. Funding for the North 

Portland/Peninsula Junction project ($13.217.3 million) has been identified via a Connect Oregon grants and matched dollars from 

UPRR.

c Construction cost for Alternative 2 includes estimated cost of the PE/NEPA projects identified in the operational modeling for the 

project. Willbridge: $8.1 million; Penn Junction $4.1 million. Funding for the North Portland/Peninsula Junction project ($13.217.3

million) has been identified via a Connect Oregon grants and matched dollars from UPRR. 

d Train set costs are based on WSDOT’s recent locomotive purchase (8 locomotives in 2017) and CRISI grant application for new 

passenger coaches (2019)ODOT’s recent purchase of two Talgo Series 8 train sets. DMU trainsets assumed to be of similar cost with 

contingency. If DMUs selected, they would be added to existing fleet as needed.

e Numbers may not sum because of rounding.

The construction cost for Alternative 2 is an estimate of the cost to build that alternative all at one time. 

If Alternative 2 were built in phases, the Amtrak Cascades trains would continue to use parts of the existing 

UPRR alignment. To add more daily round trips before full build-out, ODOT would have to construct 

improvements to the UPRR alignment to accommodate the increased passenger trips. The cost of those 

improvements would depend on which phase of Alternative 2 was built first and the number of new round 

trips that were added. With a phased construction of Alternative 2, all improvements to the UPRR south of 

Oregon City would be abandoned when Alternative 2 was fully built.

ODOT estimates that two additional passenger rail train sets would be needed to accommodate increased 

service between Eugene/Springfield and Portland. A train set is composed of locomotive, passenger cars 

and service cars (e.g., dining car, baggage car) that would serve the passenger line. The cost of procuring 

Oregon Passenger Rail P r o j e c t Tier I Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Revisions – APRIL 2021 
CHAPTER 3 – ALTERNATIVES ADVANCED FOR FURTHER STUDY

3 - 1 2

each new train set (locomotive and coaches) is assumed to be $20 33 million, which would account for a 

FRA-compliant DMU train set or a locomotive hauled train set. If DMU technology is used for future 

increased passenger rail service, this EIS assumes that the entire fleet would not be converted to that 

technology; instead, the new DMUs would be used alongside the existing locomotive fleet. This mixed-use 

approach would require different maintenance procedures and associated training than used for the 

existing diesel locomotive hauled technology. For the purposes of this EIS, maintenance costs were

assumed to be those associated with locomotive hauled units, and are based on current experience (see 

Section 3.2.6.2, Operations and Maintenance Costs).

3.2.5.23.2.6.2Operations and Maintenance Costs

Amtrak operates the Cascades passenger rail service for Oregon and Washington. WSDOT, ODOT, and 

Amtrak negotiate O&M cost every year. ODOT also pays separately for maintenance of the state-owned 

passenger trains. Currently ODOT pays about $17.75 million per year for O&M for the two daily Amtrak 

Cascades round trips between Eugene and Portland. Those costs include about $12.5 million paid to Amtrak 

to operate the service and about $5.25 million paid to Talgo and Amtrak for maintenance of the two stateowned trains. ODOT developed estimated O&M costs for Alternatives 1 and 2 primarily based on the 

current O&M costs. Actual O&M costs would be negotiated as additional round trips are added. 

Conservatively, full build-out of Alternative 1 or Alternative 2 would triple the number of Amtrak Cascades

daily round trips from two to six. In addition, ODOT would have to purchase two additional passenger trains 

to operate either alternative, thus doubling the current number of state-owned passenger trains from 

two to four. Currently, Amtrak maintains the existing fleet in Seattle, WA. Based on the increase in 

equipment and concerns about fleet rotation in the Cascades service corridor, ODOT is considering the 

need to build a maintenance facility in Oregon, potentially at the terminus of the Cascades route in Eugene. 

The Service Development Plan in development by ODOT considers the cost and phasing needs for such a 

facility, which would be warranted for either Build Alternative. 

Alternative 1 would continue to operate on the current UPRR route; therefore, estimated O&M costs for 

Alternative 1 are based on current costs. Again, ODOT conservatively estimates that payments to Amtrak 

would triple, because the number of daily round trips would triple. The cost to maintain the state-owned 

trains would double, because the number of state-owned passenger trains would double. ODOT estimates 

annual O&M costs for Alternative 1 to be about $48 38.5 million, including about $37.535.4 million for 

Amtrak and $10.3.15 million for maintenance of the state-owned passenger trains. 

O&M costs for Alternative 2 would be higher than those for Alternative 1, because about two-thirds of 

Alternative 2 would be state-owned and used only by passenger trains. When the Amtrak Cascades trains 

operate on shared track owned by a freight railroad, ODOT shares the maintenance cost with the host 

railroad. When the Amtrak Cascades trains operate on state-owned track used only for passenger rail, 

ODOT must pay the full maintenance cost. ODOT estimates that O&M costs for Alternative 2 would be 

about $51.544.1 million a year, including about $41.0 million paid to Amtrak and $10.53.1 million for 

maintenance of the state-owned passenger trains.

Oregon Passenger Rail P r o j e c t Tier I Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Revisions – APRIL 2021 
4.6.4 Affected Environment

4.6.4.1 Parks and Recreation Resources

Table 4.6-1 lists Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) parks/recreation resources located within the study area. 

Table 4.6-1. Section 4(f) and 6(f) Parks/Recreation Resources in the Study Area 

Resource

Name Amenities Alternative

Location/

Jurisdictional Owner

Section 4(f) 

Property?

Section 6(f) 

Property?

Washington/ 

Jefferson Park

Basketball court, horseshoe 

pits, performance 

stage/space, a 23,000-squarefoot skatepark, open grass 

areas, walking paths, and 

restrooms

Alternative 1 150 Jefferson Street, 

Eugene/ ODOT (City of 

Eugene leases)

Noa Yes

Eastgate 

Woodlands/ 

Alton Baker 

Park/ Whilamut 

Natural Area

Urban greenway connecting 

Eugene and Springfield. Paved 

bike/running paths, boat 

landing, picnic tables, 

playground, natural area, and 

parking.

Alternative 2 512 Aspen Street,

Springfield/ Willamalane 

Park and Recreation 

District

Yes Yes

Armitage 

County Park

Boat ramp on the McKenzie 

River, picnic sites, trails, 

volleyball courts, an off-leash 

dog area, and horseshoe pits

Alternative 2 90064 Coburg Road,

unincorporated Lane 

County/ Lane County 

Parks

Yes NoYes

Freeway Lakes 

County Park

Three lakes within the park 

(approximately 7 acres, 

9 acres and 21 acres). Public 

recreation boat landing, dock 

access, and restroom facilities

Alternative 2; 

Alternative 2 

with Central 

Albany Option

6000 Three Lakes Road 

SE, unincorporated Linn 

County/ Linn County

Yes No

Maple Lawn 

Park

Open grass fields and two 

playground areas

Alternative 2 

with Central 

Albany Option

1950 SE 4th Avenue,

Albany/ City of Albany

Yes No

Santiam River 

I-5 Boat Ramp

Public boat ramp Alternative 2 Unincorporated Marion 

County/

Oregon Department of 

Transportation

Yes Nob

Keizer Little 

League Park

12 youth-sized baseball 

diamonds, a picnic shelter, 

and a parking lot

Alternative 2 5245 Ridge Drive NE, 

Keizer/ City of Keizer

Yes No

St. Louis Ponds 

County Park

Fishing amenities and picnic 

sites

Alternative 2 Unincorporated Marion 

County/ Marion County

Yes Yes

Settlemier Park Three picnic shelters, 

playground, skatepark, 

baseball/softball field, and an 

aquatic center

Alternative 1 400 Settlemier Street,

Woodburn/

City of Woodburn

Yes Yes

North Front 

Street Park

Playground and open play 

field

Alternative 1 1080 N. Front Street, 

Woodburn/

City of Woodburn

Yes No

Oregon Passenger Rail P r o j e c t Tier I Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Revisions – APRIL 2021 
Resource

Name Amenities Alternative

Location/

Jurisdictional Owner

Section 4(f) 

Property?

Section 6(f) 

Property?

Boones Ferry 

Park

Basketball court, picnic areas, 

walking paths, playground,

gazebo, restrooms, and 

parking

Alternative 2 31240 SW Boones Ferry 

Road, Wilsonville/

City of Wilsonville

Yes Yes

Fish Eddy 

Landing

Undeveloped natural area, 

boat access, and open grass 

area

Alternative 1 Canby/ City of Canby Yes NoYes

West Bridge 

Park

River access, trails and 

forested areas

Alternative 2 5300 River Street, West 

Linn/

City of West Linn

Yes No

Sportcraft 

Landing

Public boat launch and dock, 

trails, and restroom facilities

Alternative 2 1701 Clackamette Drive,

Oregon City/

City of Oregon City

Yes Yes

North 

Clackamas 

District Park – 

Three Creeks 

Natural Area

Natural area with trails 

through wetlands and upland 

forest

Alternative 1; 

Alternative 2 

Unincorporated 

Clackamas County/

North Clackamas Parks & 

Recreation District

Yes No

Campbell 

Elementary 

School Athletic 

Fields

Athletic fields (baseball, 

softball, and soccer), open to 

the general public

Alternative 1; 

Alternative 2 

11326 SE 47th Avenue, 

Milwaukie/

City of Milwaukie

Yes No

Minthorn 

Springs Natural 

Area

Natural area with trails Alternative 1; 

Alternative 2 

Milwaukie/

Wetlands Conservancy 

and City of Milwaukie

Yes No

Minthorn North 

Natural Area

Natural area with trails Alternative 1; 

Alternative 2 

Milwaukie/

City of Milwaukie

Yes No

Roswell Pond 

Open Space

Natural area with trails Alternative 1; 

Alternative 2 

Milwaukie/

City of Milwaukie

Yes No

Springwater 

Corridor Trail

21 mile multi-use trail Alternative 1; 

Alternative 2 

Milwaukie (affected 

segment)/ Metro

Yes No

Eastmoreland 

Golf Course

Public golf course Alternative 1; 

Alternative 2 

2425 SE Bybee 

Boulevard, Portland/ City 

of Portland

Yes NoYes

Vera Katz 

Eastbank 

Esplanade

1.5 mile multi-use trail Alternative 1; 

Alternative 2 

Portland/ City of Portland Yes No

Steel Bridge 

Riverwalk

0.2-mile multi-use trail Alternative 1; 

Alternative 2 

Portland/ City of Portland Yes No

a Washington/Jefferson Park is located on leased property owned by ODOT. The land remains under ODOT jurisdiction, with 

ODOT’s right of use for transportation purposes reserved as the site’s primary use. Therefore, Washington/Jefferson Park does not

qualify as a Section 4(f) property.

b Construction of the Santiam River I-5 Boat Ramp was partially funded by a Federal Sport Fish Restoration Act grant and an 

Oregon State Marine Board boating facility grant; each of these grants has a conversion of use provision similar to Section 6(f) of

the LWCFA. Source: ODOT, 2016e. 

Oregon Passenger Rail P r o j e c t Tier I Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Revisions – APRIL 2021 
In addition to resources identified in Table 4.6-1, the following parks/recreation resources are also located 

in the study area. However, no OPR Project actions are proposed near these resources, and the only 

potential effects would be increased noise and visual effects from increased passenger train frequency. 

These resources are already near an active mainline freight track which pre-dates the existence of all these 

resources. No further analysis or documentation is required.

• Harrisburg City Skateboard Park (Harrisburg)

• 5th Street Park (Turner)

• Claggett Creek Natural Area (Salem)

• Coalca Landing Willamette River Greenway (Clackamas County)

• Canemah Bluff Natural Area (Oregon City)

• McLoughlin Promenade (Oregon City)

• Governor Tom McCall Waterfront Park (Portland)

• The Fields Neighborhood Park (Portland)

• Heron Lakes Golf Course (Portland)

4.6.4.2 Section 4(f) Cultural Resources

Within the collective study area for Alternatives 1 and 2, there are 121 historic (built) properties listed in or 

eligible for the NRHP, including 15 buildings and three historic districts listed in the NRHP and therefore 

protected by Section 4(f). Table 4.6-2 below identifies these NHRP-listed properties and their association 

with Alternative 1 and/or Alternative 2. Ten of these properties contribute to the three listed historic 

districts, while six are located within one of these historic districts but have been previously determined as 

ineligible/non-contributing resources. The remaining 93 properties are not currently listed in the NRHP but 

have been previously determined eligible for listing; these properties would require further research during 

Tier 2 environmental analyses to verify missing information (such as the property name, type, date of 

construction, and area of significance for each eligible property).

Table 4.6-2. NRHP-Listed Section 4(f) Historic (Built) Properties in the Study Area 

Property Name Year Built Location Alternative

Southern Pacific Passenger Depot 1908 433 Willamette Street, Eugene Alternative 1

McCracken Brothers Motor Freight 

Building c.a 1930 375 W 4th Avenue, Eugene Alternative 1

Hackleman Historic District

(1 contributing building in APEb) 

c. 1860–1915 Albany, Linn County

Alternative 1; 

Alternative 2 with 

Central Albany Option

Thomas Kay Woolen Mill 1886 1313 Mill Street SE, Salem Alternative 1

Salem Southern Pacific Railroad 

Station 1918 500 13th Street SE, Salem Alternative 1

Chemawa Indian School Site 1885 3700 Chemawa Road NE, 

Chemawa Alternative 1

Bank of Woodburn 1890 199 N Front Street, Woodburn Alternative 1

Aurora Colony Historic District

(2 contributing buildings in APE)

c. 1856–1881 Aurora, Marion County Alternative 1

Oregon Passenger Rail P r o j e c t Tier I Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Revisions – APRIL 2021 
Property Name Year Built Location Alternative

Canemah Historic District

(7 contributing buildings in APE)

c. 1850–1928 Oregon City, Clackamas County Alternative 1

Erwin Charles House (Gray-Hackett 

House) 1893 415 17th Street, Oregon City Alternative 1

Jones Cash Store 1921 111 SE Belmont Street, Portland Alternative 1

Spokane, Portland & Seattle Railway 

Steam Locomotive 1938 2250 SE Water Avenue, Portland Alternative 1; 

Alternative 2

International Harvester Warehouse 1912 79 SE Taylor Street, Portland Alternative 1

Oregon Portland Cement Building 1929 111 SE Madison Street, Portland Alternative 1

Pacific Hardware & Steel Company 

Warehouse

(Vinton Company Warehouse, 

Fuller, WP & Company)

1910 2181 NW Nicolai Street, Portland Alternative 1; 

Alternative 2

Olympic Cereal Mill 1920 107 SE Washington Street, 

Portland

Alternative 1; 

Alternative 2

Portland’s Union Station 1894 800 NW 6th Avenue, Portland Alternative 1; 

Alternative 2

John Deere Plow Company Building 1911 215 SE Morrison Street, Portland Alternative 2

a c. = circa.

b APE = Area of potential effect. 

Source: ODOT, 2016e. 

As listed in Table 4.11-2 (Section 4.11, Cultural Resources), eight known archaeological sites are within the

No Action Alternative/Alternative 1 study area, and ten known sites are within the Alternative 2 study area.

Three of these archaeological sites are common to both proposed build alternatives. Previously, five of 

these archaeological sites were determined eligible for listing in the NRHP. It is likely that Tier 2

archaeological surveys would identify additional archaeological sites in association with a more definitive

OPR Project design and study area. At that time, sites not previously evaluated for listing in the NRHP would

be evaluated.

4.6.5 Environmental Consequences

This subsection identifies the potential direct, indirect, and construction-related impacts associated with

Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) resources within the OPR Project study area. 

4.6.5.1 Direct and Indirect Impacts

No Action Alternative

The No Action Alternative would not affect Section 4(f) or Section 6(f) resources.

Alternative 1

Parks/Recreation Resources

Alternative 1 could result in potential impacts to 13 Section 4(f) parks/recreation resources. Section 6(f) of 

the LWCFA also protects sfourix of these resources. Based on the high-level assessment performed for this

Tier 1 EIS effort, as summarized below, ODOT and FRA anticipate that more refined project-level engineering

could result in avoidance of permanent incorporation of most Section 4(f) properties, and they do not 

Oregon Passenger Rail P r o j e c t Tier I Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Revisions – APRIL 2021 
expect potential impacts to adversely affect the features, attributes or activities qualifying any Section 4(f)

resource for protection. Based on the Tier 1 analysis, impacts to Section 4(f) parks/recreation resources

would likely be no more than de minimis in nature. Tier 2 environmental studies and coordination with

jurisdictional authorities would further quantify OPR Project impacts to Section 4(f) resources and

determine the 4(f) effects, which could in turn result in project design modifications intended to avoid

and/or minimize impacts to Section 4(f) resources. 

Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) parks/recreation resources in the Alternative 1 study area are described below,

along with potential impacts that could result from the OPR Project.

ODOT and FRA do not expect adverse effects from noise, vibration or visual intrusions. All of the 4(f) 

resources listed are presently next to an active freight mainline (UPPR), which existed prior to the resource

establishments. All of these resources are currently subject to noise, vibration and visual intrusion from

freight and passenger rail activity. Additional analysis of potential noise, vibration and visual impacts will be

conducted during Tier 2.

Washington/Jefferson Park

According to GIS analysis, 1.24 acres of the 21-acre Washington/Jefferson Park property is located within

the study area. The park is located in Eugene below the elevated I-105 freeway, on land leased from ODOT.

The land remains under ODOT jurisdiction, with ODOT’s right of use for transportation purposes reserved as

the site’s primary use. Therefore, Washington/Jefferson Park does not qualify as a Section 4(f) property. 

Because Washington/Jefferson Park received LWCF grant funds, the park is subject to the requirements of

Section 6(f). As such, if subsequent Tier 2 environmental analyses for individual projects determined that 

the acquisition of parkland is required, replacement parkland of equal value, location, and usefulness could

be required as mitigation. Although Alternative 1 could be designed during subsequent project-level 

analysis to avoid permanent incorporation of any of this park property, this alternative could impact a thin

strip of unimproved parkland located along the edge of the park, just north of the existing rail tracks, that 

contains a row of evergreen trees.

Settlemier Park

Approximately 0.21 acre of the 10-acre Settlemier Park property located in Woodburn is situated within the

Alternative 1 study area. Alternative 1 would avoid permanent incorporation of any of this park property,

and no other adverse effects to the features, attributes or activities qualifying the property for protection

under Section 4(f) are anticipated, because no recreation amenities are located in the study area.

The park is also subject to the requirements of Section 6(f) because of the use of LWCF grant funds; 

therefore, acquisition of replacement parkland could be required if parkland is converted to a nonrecreational use. 

North Front Street Park

Approximately 0.09 acre of the 1.14-acre North Front Street park property in Woodburn is located within

the study area. This part of the property contains a thin strip from the eastern edge of the open play field;

no recreation improvements are located in the study area. Alternative 1 would avoid any permanent

incorporation of any of this park property, and would not be likely to result in adverse effects to the

features, attributes or activities qualifying the property for protection under Section 4(f), because no

recreation amenities are located in the study area. 

Fish Eddy Landing

Approximately 0.65 acre of the 20-acre Fish Eddy Landing property is located within the study area.

However, Alternative 1 would avoid any permanent incorporation of any of this park property, and ODOT

and FRA do not anticipate adverse effects to the features, attributes or activities qualifying the property for 

protection under Section 4(f). Because Fish Eddy Landing received LWCF grant funds, the park is subject to 

Oregon Passenger Rail P r o j e c t Tier I Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Revisions – APRIL 2021 
the requirements of Section 6(f). As such, if subsequent Tier 2 environmental analyses for individual 

projects determined that the acquisition of parkland is required, replacement parkland of equal value, 

location, and usefulness could be required as mitigation.

North Clackamas District Park – Three Creeks Natural Area

Approximately 11.5 acres along the southern edge of Three Creeks Natural Area are located within the

study area. However, because Alternative 1 improvements would be located on the south side of the 

existing tracks, Alternative 1 could be developed to either avoid permanent incorporation of this park

property, or any impact would likely not exceed a narrow strip of land along the very southern edge of the 

natural area. Because no recreation amenities are located in the study area, ODOT and FRA do not

anticipate adverse effects to the features, attributes or activities qualifying the property for protection

under Section 4(f). 

Campbell Elementary School Athletic Fields

Approximately 0.2 acre of the Campbell Elementary School property is located within the study area.

Alternative 1 improvements would be located on the south side of the existing rail tracks, whereas the

athletic fields are located north of the existing rail tracks. Therefore, it is not anticipated that Alternative 1

improvements would impact the main baseball field, nor would they adversely affect the features,

attributes or activities qualifying the property for protection under Section 4(f).

Minthorn Springs Natural Area

According to GIS analysis, 0.6 acre along the northern edge of Minthorn Springs Natural Area is located

within the study area. This part of the property contains a strip of wetlands but no recreation

improvements. Design improvements and coordination with the Wetlands Conservancy and the City of

Milwaukie could minimize the amount of area acquired as well as the impact on wetlands. Alternative 1

would not be likely to result in adverse effects to the features, attributes or activities qualifying the

property for protection under Section 4(f), because no recreation amenities are located in the study area. 

Minthorn North Natural Area

Approximately 0.5 acre on the northern edge of the 1-acre Minthorn North Natural Area property is

located within the study area. This part of the property contains a strip of wetlands but no recreation

improvements. Design improvements and coordination with the Wetlands Conservancy and the City of

Milwaukie could potentially avoid or minimize the amount of area acquired as well as the impact on

wetlands. Because no recreation amenities are located in the study area, ODOT and FRA do not anticipate

adverse effects to the features, attributes or activities qualifying the property for protection under

Section 4(f).

Roswell Pond Open Space

Approximately 0.6 acre along the western edge of the 1.7-acre Roswell Pond property is located within the

study area. There are no recreation amenities located in this area and, as such, adverse effects to the

features, attributes or activities qualifying the property for protection under Section 4(f) are not

anticipated.

Springwater Corridor Trail

Approximately 0.53 acre of the 21-mile, multi-use trail Springwater Corridor Trail property is located within

the study area. The Springwater Corridor Trail is elevated on a bridge structure at this location. The area

under the existing bridge could accommodate construction of Alternative 1 improvements with no effect

on the structure or trail. Therefore, ODOT and FRA do not anticipate adverse effects to the features,

attributes or activities qualifying the property for protection under Section 4(f).

Eastmoreland Golf Course

Oregon Passenger Rail P r o j e c t Tier I Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Revisions – APRIL 2021 
Approximately 5.6 acres of the 68-acre Eastmoreland Golf Course property are located within the study 

area. However, based on the widths of the existing rail ROW and the proposed additional track, ODOT and 

FRA anticipate that Tier 2 engineering design efforts could facilitate avoidance and/or minimization of 

adverse effects to the Section 4(f)-qualifying features, attributes and activities of the golf course. Tier 2 

environmental studies would also need to ensure that construction activities would avoid and/or minimize 

any temporary use of the Section 4(f) property. Because Eastmoreland Golf Course received LWCF grant 

funds, the park is subject to the requirements of Section 6(f). As such, if subsequent Tier 2 environmental 

analyses for individual projects determined that the acquisition of parkland is required, replacement 

parkland of equal value, location, and usefulness could be required as mitigation.

Vera Katz Eastbank Esplanade

Approximately 1.2 acres of the City of Portland’s Vera Katz Eastbank Esplanade linear park property are

located within the study area. The segment of the Esplanade property in the study area is a stub

pedestrian/bicycle multi-use path on a bridge structure that crosses the existing UPRR line and connects to

NE Lloyd Boulevard. Because the stub pedestrian/bicycle facility is elevated on a bridge structure at this

location, there is ample room for improvements under the existing trail bridge. Therefore, ODOT and FRA

do not anticipate adverse effects to the features, attributes or activities qualifying the property for

protection under Section 4(f).

Steel Bridge Riverwalk

Approximately 0.3 acre of the Steel Bridge Riverwalk property is located within the study area. The segment 

of the trail in the study area is located directly adjacent to the existing railroad track on the lower deck of 

the Steel Bridge. No improvements are proposed to the Steel Bridge, and there would be no permanent 

incorporation of the Steel Bridge Riverwalk. As such, ODOT and FRA do not anticipate adverse effects to the

features, attributes or activities qualifying the property for protection under Section 4(f).

Cultural Resources

There are 102 NRHP-listed or NRHP-eligible historic (built) properties within the study area for Alternative 1.

Forty-eight of those are located adjacent to the proposed rail alignment and to existing station facilities. The

remaining properties are located adjacent to the existing mainline in areas where there would not be

infrastructure improvements. Section 4.11, Cultural Resources, discusses the potential impacts to these

properties in more detail.

Under Alternative 1, historic (built) properties adjacent to new track and other infrastructure improvements

could experience direct impacts from ROW acquisition, as well as minor visual and noise and vibration

proximity impacts from the increased number of passenger trains. Although most ROW acquisition from

historic properties would likely consist of linear strips of unimproved property, it could still constitute a

Section 4(f) use, and it is also possible that the removal of historic properties would be required. Tier 2

analyses for subsequent projects would further assess the potential for adverse effects resulting from ROW

acquisition. Because the historic properties are currently located adjacent to the railroad tracks, Alternative

1 improvements and additional passenger trains would not likely result in a significant increase in visual,

noise, or vibration impacts beyond those under the No Action Alternative. Similarly, historic or potentially

historic properties located adjacent to the existing mainline where no improvements are proposed would

not be expected to experience visual, noise, or vibration impacts beyond those under the No Action

Alternative.

Alternative 1 considers a potential new Woodburn station, and the station study area includes a c. 1930

property that has not been evaluated for NRHP eligibility. The potential for adverse effects associated with

the property would be dependent on the potential new station’s exact location and design, as well as the 

NRHP eligibility of the property. If the Woodburn station is selected for development, these considerations

would be assessed further in Tier 2 analyses. 

Oregon Passenger Rail P r o j e c t Tier I Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Revisions – APRIL 2021 
All five of the existing stations under Alternative 1 are historic; the Oregon City and Albany stations are

eligible for NRHP listing, and the remaining three are listed on the NRHP—those in Eugene, Salem, and

Portland. Separate projects are currently developing preliminary engineering and environmental analysis

for the Eugene Station and Portland Union Station. Although Alternative 1 assumes no physical changes to

the stations, any potential improvements within the station properties (i.e., improvements to the railroad

tracks) could result in changes to the historic settings. Railroad tracks are an integral part of the settings of 

existing historic railroad stations. Even so, regular maintenance and technology-related improvements

throughout history have altered the settings of the existing historic railroad stations to improve their

overall functionality. Such improvements, particularly those that have occurred within the period of

significance for the stations, do not diminish the integrity of the historic buildings. Changes to existing

stations that occur outside of the designated periods of significance could result in adverse effects. 

In addition to the potential impacts discussed above, Alternative 1 could result in improvements on a

historic railroad line—the former Southern Pacific line, which may be eligible for the Fast Act Section 11502

exemption. Construction of new adjacent track and/or additional sidings, cross-overs, and industry

connections are typical improvements that the railroads have made over the years, and it is not likely that

these improvements would significantly diminish the integrity of the overall resource or adversely affect

the railroad line’s character-defining qualities. Addition of a parallel mainline track and improvements to

the existing track would not diminish the railroad’s significant association with the early development of 

Oregon, its cities, and the Northwest region. For these reasons, it is unlikely that improvements under

Alternative 1 would result in adverse effects to the historic rail line.

Eight known historic (archaeological) sites are located within the Alternative 1 study area. One of these 

sites has been determined eligible for listing in the NRHP. Additional archaeological sites could be recorded

during SHPO consultation and subsequent fieldwork activities within the Tier 2 APE, and if so would require

NRHP eligibility evaluation prior to construction. Direct impacts to archaeological resources could be caused

by physical, ground-disturbing actions associated with infrastructure construction. Because field

investigations were not conducted for this Tier 1 EIS, the potential adverse impacts of the OPR Project to

archaeological sites would be determined during subsequent Tier 2 environmental studies. For

archaeological sites, any direct impact is permanent and potentially adverse. An inadvertent discovery plan

may also be put into effect in case previously undiscovered resources are exposed during construction.

Indirect impacts to historic properties from Alternative 1 could be prompted by increases in vehicular and

pedestrian traffic near Alternative 1 station areas due to growth in passenger rail ridership. As demand rises

for access to passenger rail stations, related local transportation improvements and commercial growth

could potentially result in physical impacts to historic properties as well as adverse effects on the settings of 

small towns, historic districts, and individual historic properties. Conversely, local transportation

improvements and increased commercial growth could result in rehabilitation of historic buildings and

revitalization of historic districts.

Archaeological data recovery is usually considered a mitigating action for adverse impacts. However, the

destruction of an archaeological site, even through data recovery, is permanent, and such resources are

finite. Significant archaeological sites that warrant preservation in place are protected under Section 4(f).

It should be noted that this discussion addresses only those sites within the Alternative 1 study area. 

Additional sites adjacent to Alternative 1 (outside the study area, where no project activities are planned)

are not addressed.

Indirect impacts to archaeological sites could be caused by construction activities that result in access to

sites not previously identified or previously inaccessible.

Alternative 2

Parks/Recreation Resources 

Oregon Passenger Rail P r o j e c t Tier I Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Revisions – APRIL 2021 
Alternative 2 would result in potential impacts to 18 Section 4(f) parks/recreation resources. Section 6(f) of 

the LWCFA also protects six of these resources. Based on the high-level assessment performed for this Tier 

1 EIS effort as summarized below, these potential impacts would not be expected to adversely affect the 

features, attributes, or activities qualifying any Section 4(f) resource for protection. Therefore, any direct 

impacts to Section 4(f) park/recreation resources are expected to be de minimis in nature. Tier 2 

environmental studies and coordination with jurisdictional authorities would further quantify OPR Project 

impacts to Section 4(f) resources, which could in turn result in project design modifications intended to 

avoid and/or minimize impacts to Section 4(f) resources.

Potential impacts to the following Section 4(f)-protected parks/recreation resources under Alternative 2 are 

the same as those described above for Alternative 1:

• North Clackamas District Park – Three Creeks Natural Area

• Campbell Elementary School Athletic Fields

• Minthorn Springs Natural Area

• Minthorn North Natural Area

• Roswell Pond Open Space

• Springwater Corridor Trail

• Eastmoreland Golf Course

• Vera Katz Eastbank Esplanade

• Steel Bridge Riverwalk

Potential impacts to Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) parks/recreation resources that would be unique to

Alternative 2 are described in the remainder of this section.

Eastgate Woodlands/Alton Baker Park/Whilamut Natural Area

Eastgate Woodlands is located along the Willamette River at the eastern-most end of the Whilamut Natural

Area of Alton Baker Park, an urban greenway connecting the communities of Eugene and Springfield.

Approximately 4.5 acres of Eastgate Woodlands are located within the study area. This part of the property

contains segments of two paved bike paths and a strip of forested land along the park’s western edge.

However, because the Alternative 2 alignment would be on elevated track as it crosses this resource, it is

not anticipated that there would be disruption to the continuity of the existing recreational trails. The only

direct impact would be from the installation of columns to support the elevated-rail guideway. During 

design, the support columns could be placed away from the existing trails or, if necessary, the trails could

be realigned to avoid the installed columns while preserving the continuity of the trails. Therefore, adverse

effects to the features, attributes or activities qualifying the property for protection under Section 4(f) are

not anticipated. Tier 2 environmental studies would need to ensure that construction activities would avoid

and/or minimize any temporary use of the Section 4(f) property.

Alton Baker Park has received LWCF grant funds and, therefore, is subject to the requirements of

Section 6(f). As such, if subsequent, Tier 2 environmental analyses for individual projects determines that

the acquisition of parkland is required, the OPR Project would need to obtain replacement parkland of 

equal value, location, and usefulness as that land being acquired from Eastgate Woodlands associated with

the installation of support columns. 

Armitage County Park

Approximately 1.46 acres of the 56.7-acre Armitage County Park property are located within the study area.

This part of the park contains recreation amenities such as a portion of a park circulation road, some open

grass and forested areas, a paved walking trail, and a portion of a beach area fronting the McKenzie River. 

Oregon Passenger Rail P r o j e c t Tier I Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Revisions – APRIL 2021 
However, because the Alternative 2 alignment would be on elevated track as it crosses this resource, it is 

not anticipated that there would be disruption to the continuity of the existing recreational trails or adverse 

effects to other recreation amenities. The only direct impact would be from the installation of columns to 

support the elevated-rail guideway. During design, the support columns could be placed away from the 

existing amenities. Therefore, adverse effects to the features, attributes, or activities qualifying the

property for protection under Section 4(f) are not anticipated. Tier 2 environmental studies would need to 

ensure that construction activities would avoid and/or minimize any temporary use of the Section 4(f) 

property. Because Armitage County Park received LWCF grant funds, the park is subject to the 

requirements of Section 6(f). As such, if subsequent Tier 2 environmental analyses for individual projects 

determined that the acquisition of parkland is required, replacement parkland of equal value, location, and 

usefulness could be required as mitigation.

Freeway Lakes County Park

Approximately 1.76 acres of the 27-acre Freeway Lakes County Park property are located within the study

area. There are three lakes within the park connected by Oak Creek, which flows under I-5. The part of the

property within the study area contains forested strips along each side of I-5. No recreation features are

located in the study area. The Alternative 2 alignment would be on elevated track as it crosses this

resource. Therefore, the only direct impact would be from the installation of columns to support the

elevated-rail guideway. These support columns could be designed so they would not impact the channel

connection between the lakes located on either side of the highway. Therefore, adverse effects to the 

features, attributes, or activities qualifying the property for protection under Section 4(f) are not

anticipated. Tier 2 environmental studies would need to ensure that construction activities would avoid

and/or minimize any temporary use of the Section 4(f) property.

Santiam River I-5 Boat Ramp 

The Santiam River I-5 Boat Ramp is located within the Alternative 2 study area. The I-5 Santiam River Rest

Area provides the only vehicular access to this public boat ramp. The Alternative 2 alignment would be on

elevated track as it crosses the interstate rest area, and the nearest direct impacts would be from the

installation of columns to support the elevated-rail guideway located east of and parallel to I-5. Based on

this Tier 1 assessment, the proposed Alternative 2 alignment would not directly impact the Santiam River 

I-5 Boat Ramp. Tier 2 environmental studies would need to ensure that construction activities would avoid

and/or minimize any temporary and constructive use of the Section 4(f) property.

Keizer Little League Park

Approximately 0.33 acres of the 16.7-acre Keizer Little League Park property is located within the study

area. This part of the property contains only an unimproved gravel area; no recreation improvements are

located in the study area. Alternative 2 could avoid permanent incorporation of any of this park property,

and no other adverse effects to the features, attributes or activities qualifying the property for protection

under Section 4(f) are not anticipated.

St. Louis Ponds County Park

Approximately 2 acres of the 21.87-acre St. Louis Ponds County Park property are located within the study

area. This part of the property contains unimproved land along the park’s western edge; no recreation

improvements are located in the study area. Therefore, adverse effects to the features, attributes, or

activities qualifying the property for protection under Section 4(f) are not anticipated.

St. Louis Ponds County Park has received LWCF grant funds and, therefore, is subject to the requirements of

Section 6(f). As such, if subsequent Tier 2 environmental analyses for individual projects determines that

conversion of parkland would occur, replacement parkland of equal value, location, and usefulness could

be required as mitigation. 

Oregon Passenger Rail P r o j e c t Tier I Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Revisions – APRIL 2021 
Boones Ferry Park

Approximately 0.95 acre of the 3.1-acre Boones Ferry Park property is located within the study area.

This part of the property contains a strip of open grass and forested area on the western edge of the park;

no recreation improvements are located in the study area. The Alternative 2 alignment would be on

elevated track as it crosses this resource, so the only direct impact would be from the installation of 

columns to support the elevated-rail guideway. Based on this Tier 1 assessment, it is not anticipated that 

improvements would have an adverse effect on Boones Ferry Park or its qualifying Section 4(f) elements. 

Tier 2 environmental studies would need to ensure that construction activities would avoid and/or

minimize any temporary use of the Section 4(f) property.

Boones Ferry Park has received LWCF grant funds and, therefore, is subject to the requirements of 

Section 6(f). As such, if subsequent Tier 2 environmental analyses for individual projects determined that

the conversion of parkland would occur, replacement parkland could be required as mitigation.

West Bridge Park

Approximately 1.17 acres of the 4.1-acre West Bridge Park property are located within the study area.

This part of the property contains a forested riverbank area and a portion of a trail. However, because the

Alternative 2 alignment would be on elevated track as it crosses this resource, it is not anticipated that

there would be disruption to the continuity of the existing recreational trails. The only direct impact would

be from the installation of columns to support the elevated-rail guideway. During design, the support

columns could be placed away from the existing trails or, if necessary, the trails could be realigned to avoid

the installed columns while preserving the continuity of the trails. In addition, the design of support column

locations could minimize impacts on existing trees, especially mature trees and/or significant groves.

Tier 2 environmental studies would need to ensure that construction activities would avoid and/or 

minimize any temporary use of the Section 4(f) property.

Sportcraft Landing

Approximately 0.98 acre of the 3.4-acre Sportcraft Landing property is located within the study area. This

part of the property contains a public boat dock and a parking area. However, because the Alternative 2

alignment would be on elevated track as it crosses this resource, impacts on the public boat dock are not

anticipated. Design of future projects could seek to avoid placing columns near the boat dock or in the 

parking lot. Based on this Tier 1 assessment, it is not anticipated that improvements would have an adverse

effect on Sportcraft Landing or its qualifying Section 4(f) elements. Tier 2 environmental studies would need

to ensure that construction activities would avoid and/or minimize any temporary use of the Section 4(f)

property.

Sportcraft Landing has received LWCF grant funds and, therefore, is subject to the requirements of 

Section 6(f). As such, if subsequent Tier 2 environmental analyses for individual projects determines that

the conversion of parkland would occur, replacement parkland of equal value, location, and usefulness

could be required as mitigation. 

Cultural Resources

Thirty-three NRHP-listed or NRHP-eligible historic (built) properties are within the study area of Alternative 2.

Section 4.11, Cultural Resources, discusses the potential impacts to these properties in more detail.

Alternative 2 would include the addition of a new track throughout the full alignment, with siding tracks

placed every 10 to 12 miles to facilitate passing operations. Therefore, ODOT and FRA anticipate that 

Alternative 2 would result in more impacts than Alternative 1 in relation to the acquisition of ROW and the 

potential impacts to historic (built) properties. Construction of the cut-and-cover tunnel that would run

below Southeast 2nd Avenue in southeast Portland would require ROW acquisition, including the potential

purchase of large parcels, two of which contain buildings constructed in 1946 and 1937, respectively. ODOT 

Oregon Passenger Rail P r o j e c t Tier I Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Revisions – APRIL 2021 
and FRA have not determined the NRHP eligibility of these buildings. Further evaluation would be required

during subsequent Tier 2 environmental studies to determine impacts associated with ROW acquisition.

In addition to the acquisition of ROW and potential demolition, impacts associated with the new mainline

track could include increased visual, noise, and vibration on surrounding historic (built) properties. For the

majority of the Alternative 2 alignment, potentially impacted historic properties are immediately adjacent

to an existing freeway. Therefore, identified historic properties are already subject to the noise, vibration,

and visual effects resulting from heavy road traffic, and it is unlikely that those indirect impacts from

Alternative 2 improvements would be a considerable change from the No Action Alternative.

Alternative 2 would include construction of new elevated viaducts and bridges. Although no known NRHPlisted or NRHP-eligible properties are adjacent to the proposed bridge or elevated structures, visual impacts

and adverse effects on the settings of surrounding historic properties could occur. Further evaluation would

be required during subsequent Tier 2 environmental studies to determine these impacts.

Construction of new stations along Alternative 2 could also result in adverse effects on historic properties.

Alternative 2 considers five potential new station locations. The Salem and Tualatin station locations would

be adjacent to, or in the vicinity of, buildings constructed in or before 1969 that have not been evaluated

for NRHP eligibility and could be historic. These new stations could require demolition of existing buildings

or structures, which could also result in adverse effects on potential historic properties on or adjacent to

those sites. The Tualatin station location is within the freeway median, which would limit the impact on any

surrounding historic properties. At this time, there are no known properties constructed in or before 1969

within the study area for the Springfield, Albany, Keizer, Woodburn, or Wilsonville station locations. There

are approximately 70 properties in the study area of the aforementioned station locations for which the

year of construction is still unknown. For this reason, the number of potentially impacted historic buildings

associated with these new stations could be higher. For each station selected for development, further

evaluation would be required during Tier 2 environmental studies to determine potential impacts.

Under Alternative 2, potential Section 4(f) impacts could occur along the segment of the historic Oregon

Electric Railway line between Keizer and Wilsonville, which is potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP and

may be eligible for the Fast Act Section 11502 exemption. As discussed above, improvements to the existing

track and an additional mainline track and sidings are unlikely to significantly diminish the integrity of the

overall resource, adversely affect the railroad line’s character-defining qualities, or diminish the railroad’s

significant association with the early development of Oregon, its cities, and the Northwest region.

Ten known archaeological sites are located within the Alternative 2 study area. Five of these sites have 

been determined eligible for listing in the NRHP. Because field investigations were not conducted as part of 

this Tier 1 analysis, potential adverse impacts to archaeological sites would be determined during 

subsequent Tier 2 environmental studies. 

Alternative 2 with Central Albany Option

Parks/Recreation Resources

Potential impacts to parks and recreational resources under the Alternative 2 Central Albany Option would

be the same as those described for Alternative 2, with the addition of potential impacts on one more

Section 4(f) property: Maple Lawn Park.

Maple Lawn Park

Approximately 0.46 acre of the 2-acre Maple Lawn Park property is located within the study area for the

Alternative 2 Central Albany Option. This part of the park contains the front lawn of Maple Park Preschool

and a portion of the school’s parking lot; no recreation amenities are located in the study area. This 

property is already adjacent to an active, double-tracked freight rail mainline and subject to noise, vibration

and visual impacts and the OPR Project is not anticipated to substantially increase those impacts. 

Oregon Passenger Rail P r o j e c t Tier I Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Revisions – APRIL 2021 
Therefore, ODOT and FRA do not anticipate adverse effects to the features, attributes, or activities

qualifying the property for protection under Section 4(f).

Cultural Resources 

In addition to the NRHP-listed or NRHP-eligible properties within the study area of Alternative 2, one

NRHP-listed historic district (the Hackleman Historic District, including a contributing building) and three

additional NRHP-eligible historic (built) properties are located within the Alternative 2 Central Albany

Option study area. Although no direct impacts on the Hackleman Historic District or the NRHP-eligible

properties are anticipated, minor visual, noise, and vibration impacts could result in adverse effects.

Further evaluation would be required during subsequent Tier 2 environmental studies to determine these 

impacts.

No additional known historic (archaeological) sites were identified for the Alternative 2 Central Albany

Option segment. Because field investigations were not conducted as part of this Tier 1 analysis, potential 

adverse impacts to archaeological sites would be determined during subsequent Tier 2 environmental

studies. 

4.6.5.2 Construction Impacts

Construction impacts under Alternative 1 would be less intensive, affect a smaller area, and would be

shorter in duration than under Alternative 2. Because an existing railroad line does not exist adjacent to

substantial portions of Alternative 2 and new passenger rail stations would be built, an increased level of

construction would be necessary, along with a greater reliance on surface roads for delivery of equipment

and materials compared to Alternative 1. Potential construction impacts of the build alternatives to

Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) resources could include noise, vibration, and dust impacts to adjacent

properties as well as minor delays to local traffic circulation. Construction impacts could also include

unanticipated discovery of previously unknown historic (archaeological) sites, which would need to be

evaluated for NRHP eligibility. Construction-related activities occurring close to any of the Section 4(f) and

Section 6(f) resources described above could result in temporary occupancy of those resources. Further

evaluation would be required during subsequent Tier 2 environmental studies to determine whether

temporary occupancy would occur.

4.6.6 Potential Mitigation

None of the build alternatives considered at this Tier 1 level of NEPA analysis, including the preliminary

alternatives that were considered and dismissed, would avoid all Section 4(f) resources in the OPR Project

study area. However, ODOT and FRA anticipate that: (1) the build alternatives studied in this EIS could avoid

most of the identified potential Section 4(f) impacts, and (2) those Section 4(f) resources that cannot be

completely avoided would likely meet the criteria for a Section 4(f) de minimis impact finding.

Subsequent project-level design efforts and Tier 2 environmental studies would more specifically identify

OPR Project impacts to Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) resources, and could result in modifications to Tier 1

conceptual infrastructure design in order to avoid and/or minimize impacts to these resources. Any

mitigation provided to compensate for Section 4(f) de minimis impacts would be determined in association

with Tier 2 environmental studies. If a specific Tier 2 passenger rail project could not avoid LWCF lands,

replacement property of at least equal fair market value and of reasonably equivalent location and

usefulness could be required as mitigation. 

Oregon Passenger Rail P r o j e c t Tier I Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Revisions – APRIL 2021 
4.12.6 Potential Mitigation

Tier 2 environmental studies would consider and implement project-specific mitigation strategies for 

biological resources, as appropriate. Mitigation measures for impacts to biological resources would follow a 

hierarchy of avoidance, minimization, and compensation for impacts. Future project-level mitigation 

measures could include, but would not be limited to, the following actions:

• Impacts to biological resources could be avoided or minimized during design by:

– Locating new tracks, sidings, and other facilities away from known occurrences of listed species and

critical habitats, and wetlands;

– Minimizing rail alignment impact areas with retaining walls instead of fill placement (these walls

would need to be designed to minimize barrier effects); and

– Minimizing construction staging areas by utilizing the rail bed itself for staging.

• The project could maintain the preconstruction hydrologic regime of the area, creating replacement

wildlife habitat and rehabilitating existing nearby habitat, and improving water quality.

• The project could mitigate for construction activities by revegetating disturbed areas.

• For wildlife crossings within wildlife linkage areas, careful design and placement of culverts and bridges

could be incorporated to include wildlife passage features. Furthermore, rail bed embankments

alongside other ROWs are potential ecological corridors that could be used for providing connectivity

between habitats (English Nature, 2002). Existing rail corridor infrastructure that could be retrofitted to

provide hydrological and ecological connectivity, i.e. using oversized bottomless culverts, underpasses,

overpasses, or specific smaller structures allowing for connectivity and species passage may be used. 

• Potential direct impacts on streams and aquatic habitat would be associated with work in the water for

stream crossings; this includes pile driving, culvert installation, and placement of bridge-abutment

footings. One potential strategy to avoid direct impacts to biological resources from this type of work

would be to build crossings as full-span bridges; the engineering feasibility of this approach could be

assessed in subsequent design efforts and Tier 2 environmental studies. Mitigation strategies for

unavoidable in-water construction activities would include best management practices for erosion and

sediment control, spill prevention and pollution control measures, and seasonal work restrictions.

• Best management practices for the protection of migratory birds are to avoid disturbance between

February 1 and July 31, when birds are nesting and rearing their young. If disturbance is anticipated

during those months, conduct activities to prevent nesting prior to February 1.

Most potential indirect impacts created by new rail stations would be associated with stormwater runoff 

from new pavement. These impacts could be mitigated by collecting and treating runoff for water quality 

using best management practices (such as bioswales and filters). 

Oregon Passenger Rail P r o j e c t Tier I Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Revisions – APRIL 2021 
4.15.6 Potential Mitigation

Tier 2 environmental studies would consider and implement project-specific mitigation strategies with 

respect to water quality, surface water, and stormwater, as appropriate.

Wetland mitigation estimates for each build alternative are presented in Table 4.15-5 below. The range of 

potential mitigation acreage for Alternative 1 is less than the potential needs for Alternative 2, including the 

Alternative 2 with Central Albany Option. Estimate assumptions are included in the notes following the 

table. As shown, there is roughly an order-of-magnitude difference between the low and high estimates for 

each build alternative. In part, this is because a large amount of hydric soil occurs within the study area, and 

there is a high degree of uncertainty as to whether these hydric soils areas contain wetlands. The range in 

estimates is also large because the type of mitigation is unknown. The State of Oregon has finalized a new 

approach to compensatory mitigation, called the Aquatic Resources Mitigation Framework. This new 

approach to compensating for wetland and stream losses will be collaboratively implemented by the 

Oregon DSL, US Army Corps of Engineers-Portland District and the US EPA. Future projects requiring 

permits from the Oregon DSL or the Corps will be expected to conform to the state's new mitigation 

standards. Typically, bBased on historic Oregon DSL ratios, mitigation in the form of restoration occurs at a 

1:1 mitigation ratio; mitigation in the form of enhancement occurs at a 3:1 ratio (that is, 3 acres of 

mitigation for each acre of impact).

Table 4.15-5. Estimated Wetland Mitigation Acreage Requirements 

Estimate 

Alternative 1

(acres)

Alternative 2

(acres)

Alternative 2 with

Central Albany Option

(acres)

Low 16 72 73 

Medium 118 329 346 

High 219 585 618 

Notes:

• Low estimate is based on a 1:1 mitigation ratio for 50 percent of potential direct impacts to areas mapped as wetland.

This estimate assumes that direct impacts have been overestimated, because the analysis uses a 200-foot-wide direct

impact study area (that is, the actual impact area would be considerably less).

• Medium estimate is an average of the low and high estimates.

• High estimate is based on a 3:1 mitigation ratio for 50 percent of potential direct impacts to areas mapped as wetland 

and 15 percent of areas in the direct impact area mapped as hydric soils but not wetland. Ratios could be higher depending on 

requirements under the Aquatic Resources Mitigation Framework established in 2019.

As described in more detail below, the mitigation strategy for direct impacts could be based on the 

following three strategies:

1. Using wetland mitigation banks

2. Establishing project-specific wetland mitigation sites

3. Combining Strategies 1 and 2

Wetland Mitigation Banks

Wetland mitigation banks within the Willamette Valley could potentially be used to offset impacts from the

OPR Project. Mitigation banks contain a set number of credits and cover a set service area. As of May 2017,

thirteen wetland mitigation banks were present along the project study area (DSL, 2017). The combined

service areas of these banks cover the entire geographic extent of the project build alternatives with the 

exception of the Portland area along the Willamette River north of the confluence with the Clackamas

River. Availability of existing banks would need to be assessed at the time of Tier 2 project-specific design,

environmental analysis and implementation to determine if the desired amount of credits to cover the

service areas are available. However, new mitigation banks might be available in the future. 

Oregon Passenger Rail P r o j e c t Tier I Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Revisions – APRIL 2021 
Project-Specific Mitigation

Project-specific mitigation could occur through strategic acquisition of property within the Willamette 

Valley where wetland restoration, creation, or enhancement could occur. Converting agricultural lands 

with installed drainage systems to native wetland habitats would likely be the most viable opportunity 

(for example, breaking up drain tiles, filling drainage ditches). It would be desirable for wetland mitigation 

to occur in coordination with other potential natural resource mitigation requirements for the project and 

in line with the OCS. Such mitigation could include listed species habitat enhancement within mitigation 

wetlands, restoration of native wet prairie habitats, and other measures.

Combining Wetland Mitigation Banks and Project-Specific Mitigation

It is likely that any build alternative would be implemented incrementally, and this should be factored 

into the overall mitigation strategy, whether using mitigation banks, project-specific mitigation, or a 

combination of the two. Ultimately, the preferred solution for mitigation could be a combination of using 

wetland mitigation banks and project-specific mitigation.

Oregon Passenger Rail P r o j e c t Tier I Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Revisions – APRIL 2021 
4.18 Cumulative Impacts

This section presents an evaluation of the potential cumulative impacts of implementing the OPR Project in

combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that could result in

environmental impacts.

4.18.1 Legal Requirements

The CEQ’s NEPA implementing regulations (40 CFR Parts 1508.7 and 1508.25(a)(2) and (c)) require

proposed major Federal actions to consider potential cumulative impacts associated with the range of 

alternatives. The CEQ NEPA regulations define cumulative impact as “the impact on the environment which

results from the incremental impact of the action when added to the past, present, and reasonably

foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes the 

action. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking

place over a period of time.”(40 CFR 1508.7). In addition, Section 14(n) of FRA’s environmental procedures

(64 FR 28545) advises that EIS analyses should consider potentially significant cumulative impacts resulting

from the proposed FRA action.

4.18.2 Methods

This qualitative evaluation was performed to assess the potential cumulative impacts that could be 

associated with the construction and operation of the OPR Project. To be commensurate with the service 

level of detail associated with this Tier 1 EIS, consideration of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable

future actions generally considers broader categories of actions and regional-level projects rather than

local, site-specific projects.

Information from multiple sources were reviewed to identify applicable past, present, and reasonably

foreseeable future actions that could contribute potential cumulative effects to the built and natural 

environment along with the OPR Project. These sources included technical documents prepared for the 

OPR Project and other referenced sources in this Tier 1 DEIS, state, regional, and local long-range land use

and transportation plans, and state transportation improvement plans. 

Tier 2 Analysis

Future Tier 2 environmental studies for individual rail improvement projects proposed subsequent to this

Tier 1 service level analysis could include additional analyses regarding potential cumulative impacts.

4.18.3 Study Area

For this evaluation, the cumulative impacts study area is broadly defined as the Willamette Valley between

the Eugene-Springfield and Portland metropolitan areas. The study area includes highly developed urban

areas, cities, areas outside of urban growth boundaries, low-density suburbs, rural areas, and land that is

primarily agricultural. 

Oregon Passenger Rail P r o j e c t Tier I Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Revisions – APRIL 2021 
4.18.4 Past, Present, andReasonably Foreseeable Future Actions

Development of transportation networks, along with population growth, land use changes, and urban

development have resulted in cumulative environmental impacts over time within the study area. The

following two sections summarize past actions, and present and reasonably foreseeable future actions that

serve as the primary context for the OPR Project cumulative impacts evaluation.

Past Actions

Numerous bands of indigenous Chinook and Kalapuyans occupied the western part of Oregon including the

study area from the late Pleistocene epoch, circa 11,000 years ago, up to the time of Euroamerican contact

in the early 1800s. While Native Americans occupied and traveled through the study area for thousands of

years, those activities had a relatively minor effect on current conditions.

Based on the historic record of European-American settlement that shaped the built environment in the 

study area, the past time frame begins in the early 1800’s with the settlement of populated communities

and establishment of major transportation routes that linked communities and developed into the primary

north-south “spine” that evolved from Native American paths along the Siskiyou Trail that connected Pacific

Northwest tribes to California’s Central Valley, and became more developed over the decades for 

movement of people and goods by wagon, stagecoach, ferry, automobile, bus, truck, and train through the

study area.

The Lewis and Clark Expedition, which lasted from 1804 to 1806, radically increased the nation’s sense of

accessible geography and initiated the rapid Euroamerican migration and settlement of the Pacific

Northwest by explorers, trappers, traders, hunters, prospectors, homesteaders, ranchers, businessmen,

and missionaries. Through the early portion of the nineteenth century, fur trappers, including those

operating out of the Hudson’s Bay Company in Fort Vancouver, adopted the Siskiyou Trail as a major trade

corridor between the Northern Oregon Territory and California, and established settlements that

developed into the communities and cities through the study area.

In 1843, the Willamette Valley settlers drafted a constitution that organized the land claim process in the 

territory. The Donation Land Claim Act of 1850 granted 320 acres (half a section) of land to single adult

white males and 640 acres (a section) of land to married couples at no cost to encourage settlement (City of

Albany, 2014). This free land opportunity gave many people from east of Oregon motivation to settle there.

From 1842 to 1852, approximately 18,000 emigrants, including many who started at Independence,

Missouri, traveled west over the Oregon Trail and other routes to Oregon (ODOT, 2017). 

In 1851, the Oregon house passed created the Territorial Road Act. The first Federal aid came in 1856. By

the coming of statehood, about 100 roads, each separately authorized, had been established in Territorial 

Oregon. In the Willamette Valley, then two-thirds of settled Oregon, Territorial Roads had been established

to the California border, Puget Sound, The Dalles, and the mouth of the Columbia River. Some of these

routes were only partly finished and some were only mapped. Territorial roads, state roads, and county

roads established by the Oregon Territorial Legislature or by County Commissioners were declared legal

roads by the State of Oregon when Oregon entered the Union on February 14, 1859. Immigration over 

these trails and roads continued through the Civil War, but declined after the (east-west) transcontinental

railroad was completed in 1869.

In the late 1800s, many short line stage coaches operated in Oregon. The first continuous line between

Portland and Sacramento, California began in 1860 when previously built roads, including one that

extended south of Portland through the Willamette Valley, were connected. This line made travel between

Portland and Sacramento using one stagecoach company. The trip covered 700 miles and took seven days - 

the second longest continuous stage route in the United States at the time. The California Stage Company

operated this line until 1865. Other shorter stagecoach lines continued to operate between Oregon and

California until 1887, when the railroad was completed. (ODOT, 2017). 

Oregon Passenger Rail P r o j e c t Tier I Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Revisions – APRIL 2021 
Railroads were key to developing the agricultural and natural resources of the Willamette Valley and 

Portland Basin. On July 25, 1866, Congress agreed to award 20 640-acre sectionsegments of public land for 

each completed mile of construction for a railroad project that would connect northern California and 

Portland, Oregon (Walker, 2011). The law provided for the California and Oregon land grants to be 

conveyed to the California & Oregon Railroad Company of California and to a company to be designated by 

the Oregon Legislature to build the railroad line. The California & Oregon Railroad Company incorporated 

June 30, 1865, to build north from California. Two competing companies incorporated in Oregon, one in 

1866 and the other in 1867, both called the Oregon Central Railroad. The older company proposed building 

a line west of the Willamette River while the newer company planned to build east of the river. Both 

railroads broke ground in April 1868, the eastsiders one day after their westside competitors. By Christmas 

day 1869 the eastsiders had completed 20 miles of line, a requirement to secure their land grant, but they 

were in financial difficulty. A new corporation, the Oregon and California Railroad Company, was created in 

March 1870 to acquire the eastside Oregon Central and continue building south, reaching Eugene in 

October of 1871. Meanwhile, the westside Oregon Central built a line from Portland to St. Joseph between 

1868 and 1872. In January 1879 the line was leased to the Western Oregon Railroad Company which 

promptly extended the line from St. Joseph to Corvallis before both companies were acquired by the 

Oregon and California on October 9. 1880. One was on the east side of the Willamette River and the other 

was on the west side. The Oregon Central Railroad – East Side Company broke ground in East Portland on 

April 16, 1868. In 1870, the Oregon Central Railroad – West Side Company sold out to the East Side 

Company, which then reorganized as the Oregon and California Railroad (O&C; Heath, 1944).

The O&C was continued to pursue forging the first to establish a rail link between Portland and California

and trains from the north began running to Ashland in May 1884. But by then the company had depleted 

its financial resources and was placed into the hands of a receiver. Operations continued under the 

receiver until July 1887 when the O&C was leased to Southern Pacific. In California, northward construction

had reached Redding in 1872 where it paused for 11 years. SP’s takeover of the O&C sparked new interest 

in completing the line and with the backing of the Central Pacific Railway construction of the California 

segment moved ahead rapidly, crossing the state line into Oregon in June of 1887 and reaching Siskiyou, 

the summit of the Siskiyou Mountains, in October. Heavy rains during November and December caused 

slides and hampered track construction, causing a planned final spike-driving celebration to be postponed 

twice. Late in the day of December 15, 1887, a final spike ceremony was held at the south end of Ashland 

rail yard and a through railroad between California and the Pacific Northwest became a reality. In 1927 the 

O&C was acquired by SP and the O&C identity dissolved. from north to south throughout the Willamette 

Valley replacing steamboats. Construction began in Portland in 1868, and by 1872, the O&C line had been 

extended to Roseburg in the southern Willamette Valley. The O&C reached the California border in late 

1887. Passenger rail service began in 1887 as the Oregon Express (northbound) and the California Express 

(southbound). In that same year, the Southern Pacific Railroad (SP) gained control of the O&C and, in 1927, 

purchased it outright (Ganoe, 1924; Ellis, 1948). In 1912, the Oregon Electric Railway operatedmanaged 122 

miles of electrified track that connected Portland and Eugene and ran nearly parallel to the O&C mainline 

(Beckham, 2014). A rail bridge over the Columbia River, completed in 190910, replaced allowed a train ferry 

that began operating in 1884, facilitating increased freight and passenger transport and 

enhancingincreased the viability of the Ports of Portland and Vancouver for interstate trade. Industrialized 

farming, irrigation and water impoundment, and grain shipping increased.

Highway construction starting in the 1920s, including Highway 99E that runs from Eugene to Portland, and 

the rapid rise of the automobile during the early 20th century led to the decline of the region’s reliance on 

the O&C mainline and interurban electric railway passenger services. The Federal-Aid Highway Act provided 

the funds to construct I-5, which runs north-south through the Willamette Valley and was completed in 

1966. Later, other highways were built to provide connections to the interstate, including I-205 which runs 

north-south from Tualatin, OR, to Vancouver, WA (constructed between 1968 and 1983).

Oregon Passenger Rail P r o j e c t Tier I Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Revisions – APRIL 2021 
In 1969, the Oregon Legislature enabled the creation of transit districts and authorized them to raise 

revenue through a payroll tax. This legislation led to development and growth of regional transit districts 

and bus service providers of various scales in and between cities throughout the study area.

A joint partnership by the Northern Pacific, Great Northern, and Union Pacific railroads operated the 

predecessor of the Cascades passenger train route until the mid-1960’s. Amtrak took over intercity 

passenger rail operations from private railroads on May 1, 1971. Initial service consisted of three SeattlePortland round trips. In 1975, the Oregon Legislature approved the first Willamette Valley Passenger Rail 

Study, and in 1980, Oregon conducted an 18-month-long Willamette Valley Passenger Rail demonstration 

project. In 1992, the FRA designated Eugene, Oregon to Vancouver, British Columbia, as one of 10ten

nationwide “High-Speed Rail” corridors. In that same year, Oregon completed the Oregon Rail Passenger 

Policy and Plan, as the legislature required.

Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions

Current conditions for land use and urbanization were largely established beginning in the 1970s with

enactment and implementation of Oregon’s State Land Use Law, including the comprehensive State Goals

that protect farm, forest and other resource lands, and establish rules guiding the planning and

development of urban and urbanizing land within designated Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) areas. The

UGB separates urban land uses from rural land uses with the intent of protecting farm and forest lands,

while making sure that there is adequate space to meet the needs of growing urban areas. Every city in

Oregon must have a UGB that must contain enough land for housing, employment, parks and schools for

the next 20 years of population growth. 

Population growth within the study area and the associated demand for housing, employment, and services

has led to UGB expansions in the study area in the past 20-30 years. The UGB expansions have narrowed

the distances between urban and urbanizing communities in the study area, thus increasing the likelihood

of more continuous urban development along the existing rail and road alignments once build-out occurs.

Within the study area, the cities of Eugene and Springfield have shared a UGB since 1982, and Eugene is

scheduled to adopt a city-specific UGB in 2017 that includes some expansion areas for employment, parks

and schools at the northern edges of the city.

Present transportation conditions in the study area were largely established through completion of the 

national Interstate System, including I-5, I-105, I-205, and I-405 in the 1980s, and establishment of Amtrak

intercity passenger rail service, particularly the Oregon portion of the Amtrak Cascades route that started

service in 1994 to Eugene-Albany-Salem-Oregon City-Portland, with a second round trip train added in 

2000.

In addition to Amtrak passenger rail service, multiple intercity bus lines provide connections to urban areas

across the state. Some of the bus lines are contracted and subsidized by the state, while others are 

privately operated.

Since 1994, ODOT has invested in intercity bus services, and Amtrak manages the Thruway intercity bus

service that operates on highways parallel to the Amtrak Cascades passenger rail route, with six daily round

trips between Eugene and Portland and intermediate stops in Albany, Salem, and Woodburn, and Oregon

City. 

Greyhound intercity buses are scheduled for four daily round trips between Eugene and Portland, with

intermediate stops in Corvallis, Salem, and Woodburn.

BoltBus, a Greyhound subsidiary, operates two to three round trips a day between Eugene and Portland

four days a week (travel days between Thursday and Monday), with one intermediate stop in Albany.

Since 2011, the North by Northwest CONNECTOR system has provided coordinated transit service across

five counties in northwestern Oregon: Lincoln, Columbia, Tillamook, Benton and Clatsop, and provides

intercity transit connections between communities in neighboring counties. 

Oregon Passenger Rail P r o j e c t Tier I Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Revisions – APRIL 2021 
The Linn-Benton Loop Bus links the Cities of Albany and Corvallis.

Urban transit systems that operate within the study area include:

• The Lane Transit District (LTD), in Eugene-Springfield,

• the City of Albany’s Albany Transit System,

• the Salem-Keizer Transit “Cherriots”,

• the City of Wilsonville’s South Metro Area Regional Transit (SMART),

• the Portland metropolitan area’s Tri-County Metropolitan District of Oregon (Tri-Met), and

• the Clark County Public Transit Benefit Area Authority (C-Tran) that serves the greater Vancouver,

Washington area and also connects into Portland.

Each of these urban transit providers listed above operate traditional bus service. In addition, as described 

below, LTD operates a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service and Tri-Met operates Light Rail Transit (LRT) and 

commuter rail services.

LTD began service in 1970, and it has expanded to serve the growing Eugene-Springfield area with a bus 

transit system centered on an east-west BRT line branded as the Emerald Express (EmX) service that started 

in 2007.

TriMet, in operation since 1969, serves a tri-county district that includes major portions of Multnomah, 

Washington, and Clackamas counties with an extensive bus system, plus multiple “MAX” LRT routes, and 

contracts with PNWR to operate the Westside Express Service (WES) commuter rail line that serves 

Beaverton-Tigard-Tualatin-Wilsonville. Beginning in 1986 with the opening of the “Banfield” Blue Line 

between Portland and Gresham, TriMet's light rail and commuter rail lines have evolved over the past 

30 years. The Tri-Met MAX LRT consists of the following routes:

• Blue Line: Hillsboro – Beaverton – City Center – Gresham

• Green Line: Portland State University – City Center – Clackamas

• Orange Line: Union Station – City Center – Milwaukie

• Red Line: Beaverton – City Center – Portland International Airport

• Yellow Line: Expo Center – City Center – Portland State University

The foreseeable future for this cumulative impacts evaluation extends from the present time to 2035,

which was the year that ODOT and FRA identified as the 20-year planning horizon for the OPR EIS. 2035 is

also the planning horizon year used in most relevant and adopted county and metropolitan planning 

organization (MPO) planning documents when preparation of this Tier 1 EIS commenced. The context for

the cumulative analyses is primarily based upon the population growth, and land use and transportation

infrastructure development that has occurred within the OPR Project study area through the present time,

and which is forecast to occur based on regional and local adopted comprehensive plans.

The No Action Alternative includes a list of committed and funded transportation projects (Section 3.1.5)

that are including in the State of Oregon’s adopted 2015-2018 Statewide Transportation Improvement 

Program (STIP). Reasonable and foreseeable future actions include these projects, and may also include

other projects that are listed in adopted metropolitan areas’ comprehensive plans and transportation

system plans. 

While not funded at this time, four planned freeway capacity and safety enhancement projects are likely to

be to completed by 2035. These include projects to add a vehicle lane in each direction and reconstruct

interchanges along sections of I-5 in the Albany-Millersburg and Salem-Keizer areas, and on a section of 

Oregon Passenger Rail P r o j e c t Tier I Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Revisions – APRIL 2021 
I-205 south of Oregon City. Also included is a project to reconstruct the I-5 interchange in the DonaldAurora area north of Woodburn.

LTD plans to expand their EmX BRT or enhanced bus service with five potential extensions currently in the 

planning process. These extensions would radiate outward from downtown Eugene to the north, south, 

northeast, and southeast.

Metro and Tri-Met are planning to expand the MAX LRT system with a new Southwest Corridor route from 

downtown Portland through Tigard to Tualatin. This project is included in the fiscally-constrained RTP and a 

FEIS and ROD are anticipated in 2021. 

The Port of Portland plans to upgrade the UPRR (east-west) Kenton Rail Line to add a second mainline track 

from Peninsula Junction to I-205 and increase track speeds between North Portland, Peninsula Junction, 

and Reynolds on this mainline track. The Port of Portland also plans the following port terminal projects: 

• At Terminal 5, construct fourth rail loop, improvements on south side of roadway, and rail crossing

improvements

• Grade separate Rivergate Lead at Rivergate Boulevard

• Construct a rail overcrossing on Marine Drive

As noted in Section 3.2.1.4, “Additional Projects,” three projects in Oregon are being developed under 

separate NEPA analyses. These projects are illustrated on Figure 3-1 and summarized below:

• Willbridge Crossovers: The project will replace the two main line crossovers with larger turnouts to

reduce freight train congestion and allow passenger trains to cross over at a higher speed. Trains using

the Willbridge Crossovers will be able to travel at speeds up to 40 miles per hour (mph), faster than the

existing 10 mph for passenger trains.

• North Portland/Peninsula Junction: The project involves realignment of track predominantly within

existing rail right-of-way (ROW) and on an active rail line. The Project proposes to upgrade the existing

restrictive turnouts with larger turnouts and broaden the curves to allow trains to travel at increased

speeds in this section of the railway (25 mph instead of the existing 10 mph).

• Eugene Stub Tracks: Provides additional storage track with provisions for standby electric power service

at Eugene Station to allow the overnighting of Amtrak trains.

Each of these projects has independent utility and separate NEPA clearance documentation. Generally, the 

projects have minimal environmental impacts, because they are all minor improvements to existing rail 

infrastructure. Brief summaries of the associated environmental impacts follow.

• Willbridge Crossovers: All construction will occur within existing railroad ROW. There are no buildings,

structures, parks, wetlands, or known cultural resources in the project area. The potential for

encountering contaminated soils is low, because minimal excavations are planned for the project (no

extensive and deep excavations that extend into native soils and/or below the groundwater table), and

because there are no known hazardous materials sites within the project area. Appropriate local, state

and Federal permits will be obtained prior to construction.

• North Portland/Peninsula Junction: The project would require the acquisition of approximately 0.10

acre of public ROW and would result in a wetland impact of approximately 0.27 acre due to placement

of fill and construction of a retaining wall. The potential for encountering contaminated soils is low,

because minimal excavations are planned for the project (no extensive and deep excavations that

extend into native soils and/or below the groundwater table), and because there are no known

hazardous materials sites within the project area. Appropriate local, state and Federal permits will be

obtained prior to construction. The wetland impact will need to be mitigated, either on-site or via

Oregon Passenger Rail P r o j e c t Tier I Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Revisions – APRIL 2021 
payment in lieu of replacement mitigation. ODOT has not yet determined the approach to mitigation, 

but will finalize an approach prior to construction.

• Eugene Stub Tracks: The project would close Lincoln Street in Eugene to facilitate crossover track,

require acquisition of approximately 0.68 acres of private ROW, and result in some noise increase to

receptors in the station area (due to start-up activities occurring at station instead of in rail yard). No

impacts to buried archaeological resources are anticipated. A Phase II environmental site assessment is

recommended during final design due to the potential for encountering hazardous materials during

construction. Appropriate local, state and Federal permits will be obtained prior to construction.

4.18.5 Environmental Consequences

While the context of the OPR Project cumulative effects analysis is transportation-oriented, the past and

anticipated future actions have a cumulative effect on most aspects of the natural, built, and

socioeconomic environments. This cumulative effects analysis evaluates those resources that would

experience potential effects from the build alternatives, and are presented in the same order in this

analysis as they are previously in Chapter 4. In general, cumulative effects are linked to population growth,

planned land development, and transportation system development including roadway and rail projects.

For multiple resources, cumulative effects are most likely to occur in areas where these conditions intersect 

with a build alternative with a new alignment outside of existing transportation corridors.

4.18.5.1 Impacts of No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the OPR Project would not be built, and therefore cumulative impacts are 

not anticipated beyond those that could occur because of other public and private projects. The No Action

Alternative would not provide the same level of intercity passenger rail service as the build alternatives,

and would not result in transportation-related benefits in the study area between Eugene-Springfield and

Portland that the build alternatives would provide. Without the increased capacity that the additional 

passenger rail service would provide under the build alternatives, a substantial portion of people who could

use passenger rail would instead travel by using personal vehicles, private buses, airplanes, and Amtrak

Thruway buses under the No Action Alternative. Each of these modes contribute to higher amounts of air

pollution, GHG emissions, and energy use per capita when compared to intercity passenger rail travel

within and through the OPR Project study area.

4.18.5.2 Impacts of Alternative 1 and Alternative 2

Due to the scale of analysis conducted for this Tier 1 EIS, unless otherwise noted, the potential cumulative

impacts would be common to both Alternative 1 and Alternative 2, including the Alternative 2 with Central 

Albany Option.

Alternative 1 would be expected to contribute less to cumulative effects than Alternative 2, because the 

entire Alternative 1 route would remain within or immediately adjacent to an existing railroad alignment,

predominantly using existing railroad tracks and portions of existing infrastructure. Alternative 2, with

higher speed rail service on sections of new “greenfield” ROW and track would contribute more to

cumulative effects because it would include construction of new facilities including stations, grade

separations, and roadway modifications, and would be constructed in new alignments outside of existing

transportation corridors.

The majority of impacts for both OPR Project build alternatives would be within or adjacent to existing

transportation ROWs and in previously disturbed areas. Alternative 1 would utilize existing track, and

improvements would be made within or adjacent to the existing Amtrak route on the UPRR alignment.

Alternative 2, including Alternative 2 with Central Albany Option, would have a greater potential for 

cumulative impacts because of its new rail route. However, because much of the Alternative 2 alignment

would be adjacent to existing transportation infrastructure, the potential for cumulative impacts would,

in effect, be minimized. The Alternative 2 alignment would be constructed adjacent to the existing I-5 and 

Oregon Passenger Rail P r o j e c t Tier I Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Revisions – APRIL 2021 
I-205 freeways and adjacent to the existing PNWR line between Keizer and Wilsonville. North of Oregon

City, improvements would be made to the existing UPRR alignment. Both build alternatives would also

increase Amtrak Cascades passenger rail service from two to six daily round trips between Eugene and

Portland.

Specific cumulative impacts, and therefore mitigation strategies to address the cumulative impacts, are not

discernable at the level of analysis conducted for this Tier 1 EIS. Specific mitigation strategies would be

considered during Tier 2 environmental studies.

The following subsections summarize the OPR Project’s potential cumulative impacts to each of the

discipline and resource elements addressed in this Tier 1 EIS.

Transportation

Both OPR Project build alternatives would increase passenger rail services and reliability, and therefore

some intercity trips would be expected to shift from other transportation modes to passenger rail. While

this mode shift could slightly reduce congestion on study area roads and highways, such reductions would

not be sufficient to accommodate all the estimated future intercity travel demands in the study area.

Table 3-3 in Chapter 3, Section 3.1.5 of this DEIS, as well as the Reasonably Foreseeable Actions narrative

above, identify other transportation-related actions proposed for implementation within the study area

over the next 20 years. These proposed projects and programs, when combined with the OPR Project, are

likely to have a greater influence on the intercity movement of people and goods than the OPR Project

could achieve on its own. Collectively, these transportation projects and programs are anticipated to result

in cumulatively beneficial effects to intercity travel as a result of increased transportation options and

capacity, strengthened transportation network resiliency, and improvements to transit services within the

study area.

Near existing and proposed new stations, both build alternatives could result in increased vehicular and

pedestrian traffic, which could contribute to local cumulative traffic impacts.

Land Use/Farmland

Past private and public actions have shaped where development has occurred in the study area and

resulted in the conversion of undeveloped areas to urban uses. Since 1973, Oregon State Land Use Goal 3

has protected agricultural lands outside of UGBs by limiting what types of uses (non-farm uses) can occur 

on agricultural lands. However, the construction of reasonable build design alternatives for railroad

mainline and branch lines on EFU-zoned land is an allowable transportation improvement consistent 

with Goal 3.

Where Alternatives 1 and 2 would be constructed within or adjacent to existing transportation ROWs,

minimal adverse cumulative land use impacts are anticipated. OPR Project improvements constructed

outside of existing transportation ROWs could result in cumulative impacts due to the bisection and/or

isolation of farmlands. Proposed improvements outside existing ROW include most of Alternative 2

between Springfield and Salem.

Social/Environmental Justice

This Tier 1 EIS analysis does not include any quantitative analysis to determine whether any of the

alternatives result in adverse impacts that are potentially disproportionately high and adverse to EJ

populations. Alternative 1 improvements would be built within or adjacent to existing transportation ROWs

and would use existing stations; therefore, no adverse cumulative impacts to social resources or EJ

populations is anticipated. Because Alternative 2 would involve the construction of up to four new stations

and some new railroad track outside of existing transportation ROWs, it has a relatively greater potential 

than Alternative 1 to adversely impact local social resources and EJ populations. However, on the whole,

the majority of potential cumulative impacts to social resources and EJ populations would be considered to 

be beneficial rather than adverse for both build alternatives

Oregon Passenger Rail P r o j e c t Tier I Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Revisions – APRIL 2021 
Economics

Historic population growth, along with the development of cities and economic activity areas, have

established Class 1 railroads, interstates, and other major roads and transit systems as critical components

of the Pacific Northwest region and the state of Oregon’s economy. Potential cumulative effects on

economic conditions would be expected to correspond to reasonably foreseeable land use development

associated with the OPR Project. If a build alternative is not constructed, economic development planned

for the study area could occur more slowly as development and activity near existing stations and proposed

new stations would follow current trends associated with existing intercity passenger rail service between

Eugene and Portland, along with planned development and transportation projects in the communities

where station are located. Construction of either OPR Project build alternative, in combination with other

future actions, is anticipated to result in economic growth through construction jobs and increased

economic activities associated with improved passenger rail service.

Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources

Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act of 1966 helps to minimize the adverse effects of transportation projects on

resource lands and amenities, including impacts such as disruptions to access, and quality of the resources

and their users’ experiences from transportation projects. This protection reduces the potential for 

cumulative effects on public parks, recreation areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites.

Similarly, Section 6(f) protects parks and recreational areas acquired or developed with Land and Water 

Conservation Fund grants from conversion to non-recreational uses.

Because most new railroad track for both build alternatives would be built within or adjacent to existing

transportation ROWs, construction of new railroad track is not expected to adversely impact the features,

attributes, or activities that qualify the resources for Section 4(f) projection. However, it is possible that

Alternative 2 could contribute to cumulative Section 4(f) impacts through demolition of existing historic

structures on or adjacent to sites of potential new stations. Because Section 6(f) requires replacement lands

to be provided as mitigation for conversion of protected parks and recreational areas, neither build

alternative would contribute to cumulative Section 6(f) impacts.

Visual Resources

Intrusions from existing and planned transportation infrastructure can gradually erode the views of distant

mountain ranges, local topography, surface water, native prairies, and other notable features across the

landscape. The OPR Project would be within or adjacent to developed transportation ROWs and in areas

with occasional elevated structures and bridges. Alternative 1 is not anticipated to result in adverse

cumulative impacts to visual resources because most of the proposed new track would be at-grade and the

existing passenger rail stations would continue to be used.

Alternative 2, however, has the potential to result in adverse cumulative visual impacts. This alternative

would require extensive new rail and supporting infrastructure parallel to large portions of I-5 and I-205,

including new elevated bridge and viaduct structures, retaining walls, and reconstructed interchanges that

would affect the visual setting beyond the extent of reasonably foreseeable actions in the study area.

New stations associated with Alternative 2 and associated development that would potentially occur

around them could dramatically alter the visual character of the affected areas.

Noise and Vibration

Because the OPR Project would be operated within or adjacent to existing transportation ROWs and

mitigation would be required for noise and vibration impacts that exceed Federal standards, no adverse

cumulative noise impacts are anticipated.

Hazardous Materials

Any hazardous material contamination sites that could be affected by infrastructure construction, including

currently unknown sites discovered during construction, would be addressed and potentially remediated 

Oregon Passenger Rail P r o j e c t Tier I Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Revisions – APRIL 2021 
during Tier 2 of the OPR Project. Such remediation would have a beneficial cumulative effect by reducing

local hazardous material contamination.

Cultural Resources

Land-disturbing actions have the potential to adversely affect archaeological sites and historic (built)

properties, which could contribute to a cumulative loss of cultural resources. In particular, private

developments on lands where cultural resources are relatively unprotected pose the greatest threat to

these resources. Federally funded actions such as the OPR Project are subject to Section 106 of the NHPA

and Section 4(f) of the 1966 DOT Act, and thus potentially affected cultural resources would be subject to

avoidance, minimization of harm, data collection or other mitigation strategies. It is therefore unlikely that

Alternative 1 would contribute to adverse cumulative impacts to cultural resources. However, Alternative 2

could contribute to adverse cumulative impacts to the existing NRHP-listed and NRHP-eligible historic

(built) stations by removing these stations for passenger rail use.

Geology and Soils

Past and existing development has altered geologic and soil conditions within the OPR Project study area,

especially in the urbanized areas. Alternative 1 would be constructed primarily within an existing railroad

ROW and along relatively flat terrain; therefore, minimal cumulative impacts related to geology and soils

are anticipated. Alternative 2 would be subject to greater geologic risks to new infrastructure because this

it would include the construction of new bridges, elevated viaducts, cuts and fills through the hills south of

Salem, and a cut-and-cover tunnel in Portland. However, this type of transportation project must be

constructed to meet Federal, state, and local requirements regarding geologic and soil hazards. Therefore,

adverse cumulative impacts concerning geology and soils are not anticipated.

Biological Resources

The cumulative effects of past human activities including deforestation, agriculture, over-fishing,

urbanization and associated infrastructure, and hydroelectric, irrigation and flood control projects have

contributed to substantial loss of biological habitat and a dramatic reduction in fish and wildlife throughout

the Pacific Northwest, including the OPR study area. Land development, plus construction of roads,

railroads, and highways have resulted in significant habitat destruction, changes in natural hydrologic flow

patterns, and degradation of water, soil, vegetation, and air quality. Since the introduction of natural 

resources protection legislation in the 1960’s, Federal, state, and local agencies have implemented

conservation and protection measures to reduce further loss of critical habitat through requirements to

avoid and minimize impacts, and to mitigate for unavoidable impacts to habitats and the species that

depend upon them to survive.

Current Federal and state permit requirements are protective of biological resources through enforcement

of standards for stormwater treatment and site development. While reasonably foreseeable future actions

could result in unavoidable adverse impacts to biological habitats and species, they could also provide some

beneficial effects through required mitigation. Alternative 2 would have the potential for greater

cumulative biological resources impacts than Alternative 1, because its alignment would include at least

six new river crossings, and it would convert more undeveloped land to new railroad infrastructure.

Alternative 2 would also result in development of up to four new station areas (Alternative 2 with Central 

Albany Option would require three new station areas), with additional development in the vicinity of the

new stations that could result in even greater potential impacts to biological resources.

Floodplains/Waterways

Past construction of transportation facilities within the central Willamette Valley has adversely affected

floodplains and waterways within the OPR Project study area. These previous cumulative effects include,

but are not limited to, floodplain encroachment, flood control systems, and realignment of waterways.

Both build alternatives could result in further cumulative impacts to floodplains and waterways where new 

Oregon Passenger Rail P r o j e c t Tier I Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Revisions – APRIL 2021 
OPR Project infrastructure and other proposed developments are constructed. However, EO 11988 requires 

Federal actions to avoid and minimize floodplain impacts unless there is a practicable alternative. 

Alternative 2 would have the potential for greater cumulative floodplain and waterway impacts than 

Alternative 1, because its alignment would include at least six new river crossings.

Water Quality/Stormwater

Construction of the OPR Project, in conjunction with other proposed transportation projects, would not 

likely contribute to additional long-term cumulative impacts on water quality, because construction best 

management practices (required by the Clean Water Act) would be followed, and additional stormwater 

facilities would be constructed, as appropriate. Operation of the OPR Project is not anticipated to result in 

adverse cumulative impacts to water quality, and could actually result in beneficial improvements within 

the study area due to enhanced stormwater runoff control and current water quality treatment standards.

Wetlands

Past actions and developments have resulted in cumulative impacts to wetlands in the central Willamette

Valley, including draining and conversion to farmland as well as other land uses. Early settlers drained the 

Willamette River floodplain wetlands for agriculture, and flood control modifications (including those to 

protect urban areas) have fundamentally altered the natural hydrologic dynamics of the river system and 

floodplain wetlands. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act requires that potential harm to wetlands be 

avoided and/or minimized, which reduces the potential for cumulative impacts to wetlands. Alternative 1 

would be constructed within or adjacent to existing railroad ROW and thus would result in minimal 

cumulative impacts to wetlands. Due to its scope and the location of proposed new infrastructure, 

Alternative 2 poses a greater potential for further adverse cumulative impacts to wetlands than 

Alternative 1.

Air Quality

Construction of the OPR Project would have negligible air quality impacts due to best management 

practices that would be employed to minimize adverse impacts (e.g., emissions from heavy equipment and 

fugitive dust). In general, pollution emissions from road vehicles are trending downward as a result of more 

stringent air quality regulations and increasing use of electric, hybrid-fuel/electric, and other lower 

emissions vehicles at a national scale. Compared to gasoline and diesel road vehicles, passenger trains 

emit less air pollution per capita. Based on the combination of adding passenger rail service and current 

ridership projections that would shift some trips from road vehicles to rail, it is expected that 

implementation and operation of the OPR Project would result in slightly lower regional air emissions than 

the No Action Alternative, though the cumulative effect on air quality would not likely be discernable.

Energy/Climate Change

Construction of the OPR Project would cumulatively contribute to the consumption of non-renewable 

energy and the release of GHG emissions during construction. Because operation of the OPR Project would 

result increased passenger rail ridership (versus other travel modes with greater fuel consumption per 

passenger), the OPR Project would in effect create a long-term net energy benefit and reduced GHG 

emissions compared to the No Action Alternative. However, the combined energy consumption and GHG 

emission contributions of other future transportation projects would likely offset the beneficial cumulative 

effects attributable to the OPR Project.

The OPR Project could be vulnerable to future effects related to climate change based on projections of 

increased storm intensity and duration, increased flood risks, and increased risk of landslides. FRA and 

ODOT acknowledge that the future climate change effects could alter the function, sizing, and operations of 

proposed OPR Project infrastructure. For the proposed facilities to function as intended for their planned 

lifespans, ODOT would design the proposed facilities to perform under the variable conditions expected as 

a result of climate change. For example, drainage culverts might need to be sized larger than warranted by 

Oregon Passenger Rail P r o j e c t Tier I Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Revisions – APRIL 2021 
existing conditions to accommodate more intense rainfall events and increased seasonal flows of surface 

water. Subsequent Tier 2 environmental studies would consider and implement climate change adaptation 

strategies, as appropriate.

Oregon Passenger Rail P r o j e c t Tier I Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Revisions – APRIL 2021