Appendix A

Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement

April 2021

Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement

Prepared by

October 2018
 

This page intentionally left blank.

This page intentionally left blank.
Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement E S - 1 

OCTOBER 2018

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 Rail, Portland & Western Railroad, and Amtrak) currently utilize 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. 

Project Overview

Because of the complexity of intermediate and long-range planning associated with passenger rail service 

development, extensive pre-construction preparation is required as part of the ODOT cooperative 

agreement with FRA for the OPR Project. The first phase of the process is the development of a Corridor 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

E S - 2 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

Investment Plan (CIP). The process of completing a CIP consists of conducting an environmental review in 

accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as documented in this EIS, and developing a 

SDP, which is a detailed definition of the service improvements, transportation network, and the 

operational and financial aspects for the alternative for passenger rail service that is selected through the 

NEPA process. The intent of the OPR Project CIP is to provide sufficient information to support future 

decision-making regarding investments in the Oregon segment of the PNWRC. 

For this project, ODOT and FRA are using a tiered environmental process, which is a phased environmental 

review used in the development of complex projects. FRA typically uses a “tiered” NEPA approach 

(as provided in 40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1508.28) for complex projects of the size and scope

of the OPR Project. The tiered NEPA decision-making process allows a broad-level programmatic decision 

with a first-tier EIS, followed by more specific decisions through one or more second-tier NEPA evaluations. 

For FRA, this tiered NEPA approach allows for incremental decision-making for large corridor projects that 

are unsuited for analysis in a traditional project-level EIS.

FRA and ODOT formally initiated a Tier 1 EIS for the OPR Project on August 17, 2012, through publication of 

a Notice of Intent (NOI) in the Federal Register. This Tier 1 Draft EIS has been prepared in accordance with 

NEPA, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA implementing regulations, and FRA’s Procedures 

for Considering Environmental Impacts (64 Fed. Reg. 28545 as updated in 78 Fed. Reg. 2713, January 14, 

2013). The OPR Project Tier 1 EIS and the SDP address corridor-level improvements to Amtrak Cascades 

passenger rail service in the OPR Project study area, including the following: 

• Rail corridor – Reasonable and feasible rail alignment improvement alternatives from EugeneSpringfield, Oregon, to Vancouver, Washington

• Service characteristics – Passenger rail operational elements, train speeds, travel time, train frequency 

and train technology

• Potential stations – The general location of potential passenger rail stations

If FRA selects a build alternative at the conclusion of this Tier 1 NEPA analysis, it is expected that ODOT 

would implement the OPR Project in phases. One or more of the components or operable segments of the 

selected alternative for the OPR Project could be developed as individual projects to advance into final 

design and construction. If ODOT advances the OPR Project into final design and construction, additional 

NEPA analysis may be required depending upon the source of funding. 

Purpose and Need

In the next 20 years, the population of Oregon's Willamette Valley is projected to grow by approximately 

27 percent to 3.6 million residents (Oregon DAS, 2015). As population and the economy grow, so does the 

demand for travel. With more people and more jobs each year, Oregon’s transportation infrastructure is 

facing significant pressures. In several areas of the state today, transportation infrastructure has 

inadequate capacity, and the system lacks the multimodal transportation options that Oregonians need.

Also during the next 20 years, freight volume in the state is expected to grow by approximately 60 percent 

(ODOT, 2011). These increases in population and freight volume would result in transportation demand 

that exceeds the available freight and passenger rail capacity in the Willamette Valley, because both utilize 

the same facilities within the PNWRC.

Purpose of Proposed Action

The purpose of the OPR Project is to improve the frequency, convenience, speed and reliability of passenger 

rail service along the Oregon segment of the Federally designated PNWRC in a manner that will:

• Provide riders with an efficient, safe, equitable and affordable alternative to highway, bus and 

air travel; 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement E S - 3 

OCTOBER 2018

• Be a cost-effective investment; 

• Protect freight-rail carrying capability; 

• Support the ongoing implementation of regional high-speed intercity passenger rail in the PNWRC 

between the Eugene-Springfield, Oregon metropolitan area and Vancouver, British Columbia; 

• Be compatible with the Washington state portion of the PNWRC; 

• Promote economic development; 

• Avoid or minimize community and environmental impacts; and

• Integrate with existing and planned multimodal transportation networks. 

Need for Proposed Action

The need for the OPR Project arises from multiple transportation, land use, socio-economic and 

environmental considerations, including the following:

• Increasing intercity and regional travel demands;

• Existing limited rail-system capacity and competing service needs;

• Constrained state and local roadway funding;

• Increasing economic vitality of the corridor;

• Declining transportation system safety and security; and

• Changing transportation demand resulting from demographic changes.

Study Area

ODOT and FRA established a preliminary OPR Project study area during the NEPA scoping1 period in fall

2012 (Figure ES-1). The preliminary OPR Project study area was generally bounded by the EugeneSpringfield, Oregon, area to the south and the Washington state line (Columbia River) to the north. 

The Cascade foothills bounded the study area to the east and the Coast Range bounded it to the west. 

This study area was broad enough to encompass a variety of potential rail alignments and potential station 

locations suggested by stakeholders and the public during the scoping period. As corridor concepts and

potential station locations were considered and eliminated, FRA and ODOT narrowed the study area

boundaries to assess a more localized range of potential impacts associated with each of the corridor

concepts. ODOT and FRA also developed discipline- and resource-specific study areas for each 

environmental impact analysis topic studied in this Tier 1 Draft EIS.

 

1 Scoping is an early and open process that occurs following the publication of an NOI to identify significant issues related to a proposed action. 

As part of the scoping process, agencies and the public are invited to participate and provide comment.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

E S - 4 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

Figure ES-1. Preliminary OPR Project Study Area 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement E S - 5 

OCTOBER 2018

Alternatives Screening and Evaluation Processes

Based on input received during the scoping period and information from previous regional and local 

planning studies, a wide range of corridor concepts were established. Corridor concepts were broadly 

defined as potential passenger rail alignments and associated station locations between Eugene/ 

Springfield, Oregon, and the Oregon/Washington state line. During the early stages of scoping, minimal 

design work was done; the corridor concepts were characterized as approximate railway connections 

between potential station areas. Most corridor concepts suggested during the scoping period took 

advantage of existing rail or highway corridors where additional tracks or sidings would be adjacent to 

existing transportation facilities and therefore where minimal additional right-of-way would be needed. 

Tunnels were considered when topographic conditions did not allow for at-grade or elevated structure 

alignments, and/or when environmental conditions could make adding capacity at-grade too impactful. 

The scoping process assumed that each corridor concept would operate six daily passenger rail round trips 

between Eugene/Springfield and Portland, Oregon, which would make the Oregon service consistent with 

Washington’s service between Portland and Seattle. Electric and diesel fuel motive power options were 

considered and screened. The main corridor concepts identified were:

• The Blue corridor concept would generally follow the existing Amtrak Cascades route within or near 

the UPRR right-of-way between Eugene/Springfield and Portland. Passenger trains would share track

with freight trains and have a maximum speed of 79 miles per hour (mph). Existing and potential new 

station locations included Springfield, Eugene, Harrisburg, Tangent, Albany, Salem, Brooks, Woodburn, 

Canby, Oregon City and Portland, Oregon, and Vancouver, Washington.

• The Red corridor concept would parallel Interstate 5 (I-5), either within or near the current highway 

right-of-way, starting at a new station in Springfield and heading north to Vancouver, Washington. 

The alignment would consist of largely new track devoted to intercity passenger rail service and have a 

maximum design speed of 110 mph. Potential new and existing station locations included Springfield, 

Eugene, Albany, Salem, Keizer, Woodburn, Wilsonville, Tualatin and Portland, Oregon, and Vancouver, 

Washington.

• The Purple corridor concept would generally follow the existing freight rail line historically known as 

the Oregon Electric Railway (OER) and would involve the intermingling of passenger and freight rail with 

limited sections that had passenger-only traffic, and a maximum design speed of 110 mph. Existing and 

potential new station locations included Springfield, Eugene, Harrisburg, Albany, Salem, Keizer, Donald, 

Wilsonville and Tualatin.

• The Yellow corridor concept would originate in Springfield, follow the Purple corridor to Junction City

and proceed to Monroe on a new rail alignment. Near Monroe, the alignment would connect with a

currently abandoned rail grade and then proceed north through Corvallis, McMinnville and

Lake Oswego before connecting to the Purple corridor at Tualatin. The Yellow corridor would also 

include options to connect to the Purple or Blue corridors in Albany or east of Independence. The 

Yellow concept would involve the intermingling of passenger and freight rail, and a maximum design 

speed of 79 mph. Existing and potential new station locations included Springfield, Eugene, Corvallis, 

Independence, McMinnville, Newberg and Tualatin.

• The Cascadia High-Speed Rail (HSR) corridor concept would consist of a fully electric high-speed rail 

alignment from Eugene to Vancouver, Washington, that would be separate from existing rail right-ofway and have a maximum design speed of 180 mph. Stakeholders introduced this concept during the 

scoping process, and it was defined to include electric power locomotives. This rail alignment would be

similar to the Red corridor concept, following the I-5 median at-grade where possible from Eugene to 

Tualatin. North of Tualatin, it would travel along a new dedicated right-of-way on a combination of 

tunnel and elevated track along the Willamette River to the Rose Quarter in Portland, and then north

across the Columbia River on a new bridge. Existing and potential station locations associated with the 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

E S - 6 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

Cascadia HSR corridor concept included Eugene, Albany, Salem, Keizer, Woodburn, Wilsonville, Tualatin

and Portland, Oregon, and Vancouver, Washington. 

In addition to the corridor concepts above, a number of partial corridor concepts and options were 

considered that connected to the main corridor concepts and had design speeds up to 79 mph.

The corridor concepts, partial concepts and options went through a two-step screening and evaluation 

process:

• Step 1, Screening: The first step, conducted in winter 2012 through spring 2013, assessed the range of 

corridor concepts identified during the scoping period against elements of the OPR Project’s Purpose 

and Need statement. Corridor concepts were assessed using nine screening questions and readily 

available data. Concepts were eliminated if they did not pass screening using one or more of these 

questions. Corridor concepts, including alignments and potential station locations, that passed the 

screening were subsequently developed into preliminary alternatives; corridor concepts that failed the 

screening process were eliminated from further consideration. Based on this screening process, all of 

the partial corridor concepts and the Cascadia HSR corridor concept were eliminated. In addition, the 

Yellow corridor concept was shortened to only run between Eugene and Albany via Corvallis.

• Step 2, Evaluation: Preliminary alternatives based on the corridor concepts that remained after the 

screening in Step 1 were defined in terms of the general location of the mainline track, the location of 

sidings and stations, whether crossings would be at-grade or grade-separated, and whether structures 

would need to be replaced. Conceptual cost estimates were developed for each preliminary alternative. 

The preliminary alternatives were then evaluated according to how effectively they met the OPR 

Project evaluation criteria, which are based on the Purpose and Need statement, as well as the Goals 

and Objectives for the OPR Project derived from stakeholder input. The Goals and Objectives for the 

OPR Project are listed in Chapter 1, Section 1.3.2 The Step 2 evaluation resulted in the elimination of 

the Purple Alternative and the Yellow Alternative, and eliminated several potential station areas: 

Harrisburg, Tangent, Corvallis, Brooks, Canby and Portland’s Rose Quarter.

Figure ES-2 shows the corridor concepts and resulting preliminary alternatives. The screening and

evaluation processes resulted in and developed a reasonable and feasible range of build alternatives to 

study in more detail in this Tier 1 Draft EIS. 

 

2 For additional information on the screening and evaluation processes, see the Alternatives Selection Report (ODOT, 2014c).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement E S - 7 

OCTOBER 2018
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

E S - 8 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

Project Description

The preliminary alternatives screening process identified two build alternatives. In addition to the build 

alternatives, this EIS considers the impacts associated with a No Action Alternative. This allows a 

comparison of future conditions with and without a developed project. Rail operations simulation analyses 

using Rail Traffic Controller (RTC) and associated preliminary conceptual engineering identified the 

proposed service and infrastructure for the alternatives. Figure ES-3 shows the two build alternatives, and 

the locations of existing and potential new stations.

No Action Alternative

The No Action Alternative for the OPR Project consists of the continuation of the existing Amtrak Cascades 

passenger train route and service, including existing stations between Eugene, Oregon, and Vancouver, 

Washington. It includes all committed improvements to the existing intercity passenger rail system, the 

intercity highway system, and other modes of transportation available to the public (particularly aviation 

and intercity bus services) in the OPR Project study area. None of the actions required to implement 

enhanced levels of intercity passenger rail service between Eugene and Portland would take place under 

the No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative does not meet the OPR Project Purpose and Need, but 

is carried forward as a baseline alternative against which the build alternatives are compared. The current 

intercity passenger rail service in the study area 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” schedule between 

Portland and Seattle, Washington; the No Action Alternative would provide the same frequency in 2035.

Alternative 1

Alternative 1 would consist of the existing route traveled by Amtrak between Eugene, Oregon, and 

Vancouver, Washington, with capital improvements implemented adjacent to the existing Amtrak 

alignment in specific locations. Track modifications or additions would consist of mainline track, sidings, 

crossovers, and industry connections constructed or reconfigured as needed to optimize freight and

passenger rail operations throughout the full route. Under Alternative 1, passenger trains would continue 

to share track with freight trains, and the route would serve seven passenger rail round trips per day—

six on the Amtrak Cascades and one on the Coast Starlight (a “6+1” schedule). Between Eugene and 

Portland, this reflects an increase in the number of trips from the No Action Alternative, which would 

continue to follow the existing schedule (three round trips per day, or a 2+1 schedule). North of Portland 

Union Station, Alternative 1 would be the same as under the No Action Alternative (eight round trips per 

day, or a 6+2 schedule). Alternative 1 would have the same existing stations (Eugene, Albany, Salem, 

Oregon City and Portland) as the No Action Alternative.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement E S - 9 

OCTOBER 2018
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

E S - 1 0 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

Alternative 2

Between Springfield and Oregon City, Alternative 2 would consist of a predominantly new rail route 

following I-5, an existing freight rail route, and Interstate 205 (I-205). Alternative 2 would follow the current 

passenger rail route north of Oregon City to Vancouver, Washington. For the majority of the Alternative 2 

alignment, capital improvements would occur either adjacent to the existing I-5 and I-205 freeway corridors 

or adjacent to the existing Portland and Western Railroad (PNWR) line between Keizer and Wilsonville, 

and adjacent to the existing UPRR alignment in Springfield and between Oregon City and Portland Union 

Station. Except for a proposed tunnel below SE 2nd Avenue in Portland, Alternative 2 would be identical to 

Alternative 1 between Oregon City and Vancouver, Washington. This alternative would add new passenger 

railroad track throughout virtually the full route to provide a single-track mainline for the full alignment.

New track would not be added at the Willamette River crossings south of Wilsonville and at the Steel Bridge 

in downtown Portland. Passenger trains would share track with freight trains where Alternative 2 is 

adjacent to existing UPRR and PNWR freight rail lines. In other areas, primarily parallel to I-5 and I-205, the 

new track would be for the exclusive use of passenger rail. Alternative 2 would have seven round trips per 

day between Springfield and Portland Union Station —six Amtrak Cascades and one Coast Starlight (a “6+1” 

schedule). Alternative 2 would serve the existing Portland station but would have new stations in 

Springfield, Albany, Salem or Keizer, and Wilsonville or Tualatin.

Alternative 2 with Central Albany Option

The Alternative 2 with Central Albany Option varies from Alternative 2 in the vicinity of Albany, Oregon.

This option would allow service to the existing passenger rail station in Albany and would not require a new 

station in Albany near I-5. The Alternative 2 with Central Albany Option would diverge from Alternative 2 

for 10.7 miles from the existing I-5 corridor at the south edge of Albany to the Alternative 2 alignment on 

the east side of I-5, north of Millersburg.

Preferred Alternative

Historically, ODOT has deferred the identification of a Preferred Alternative for Federally-assisted 

transportation projects until after public review of a Draft EIS. However, recent efforts by the Federal 

government to streamline the environmental review process, such as 49 U.S.C. § 304(a) (requiring, to the 

maximum extent practicable, the development of a combined Final EIS and Record of Decision), led ODOT 

and FRA to identify the Preferred Alternative in this Draft EIS to further inform the public’s review. 

ODOT used the evaluation criteria previously developed and based on the Goals and Objectives to compare 

the two build alternatives and subsequently identified Alternative 1 as the Preferred Alternative. During 

OPR Project scoping, ODOT conducted an open, interactive process to develop the project Purpose and 

Need statement and high-level goals and objectives. ODOT used the OPR Project goals and objectives to 

develop an evaluation framework, which served as the basis for the analysis and screening of corridor 

concepts and preliminary alternatives. In association with the technical analyses conducted for this Draft 

EIS, ODOT used the evaluation framework to compare the Alternatives. Table ES-1 shows Project goals and 

summarizes objectives-based performance attributes that differentiate one or more of the DEIS 

Alternatives. Based on the comparison of performance attributes, ODOT and FRA proposed that Alternative 

1 be identified in this Draft EIS as the Preferred Alternative. More information on the Preferred Alternative 

can be found in Chapter 4, Section 4.22. 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement E S - 1 1

OCTOBER 2018

Table ES-1. DEIS Alternatives Evaluation Findings 

Performance Attribute No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Goal 1: Improve passenger rail mobility and accessibility to communities in the Willamette Valley

Passenger rail trip time: 

Eugene to/from Portland

2:35 2:20 2:02 

Ability to accommodate 

higher speeds in the future

Maintains current 

maximum speed (79 mph)

Maintains current 

maximum speed (79 mph)

Maximum speeds of 120 mph 

on portions of new alignment

Goal 2: Protect freight-rail capacity and investments in the corridor, and maintain safety

Future freight-rail capacity No improvement Build alternatives designed to protect capacity 

At-grade (street level) 

crossings

Two passive crossings 

closed; no additional safety 

modifications to existing 

at-grade crossings

Widening of 64 existing 

crossings to accommodate 

additional track; safety 

improvements as needed

Widening of 52 existing 

crossings; safety improvements 

as needed, 1 new crossing 

(65 for Central Albany Option)

Goal 3: Plan, design, implement, maintain, and operate a cost-effective project

Ability to phase 

improvements over time

Not applicable Could be constructed 

incrementally in smaller 

phased projects

Would require building in large 

sections; if phased, could 

require improvements to 

existing alignment

Capital costs through 2035 

(2015 dollars)

Not applicable $870 - $1,025 million $3.62-4.44 billion

Ridership (2035) 390,000 739,000 723,000 

Goal 4: Provide an affordable and equitable travel alternative

Cost and access No change Improved train service for both build alternatives

Goal 5: Be compatible with passenger rail investments planned in Washington State

Compatibility No change Build alternatives were designed to meet this goal

Goal 6: Promote community health and quality of life for communities along the corridor

Produces benefits and 

minimizes negative impacts

No change Higher frequency and 

ridership, improves service 

to central cities

Higher frequency and ridership, 

but service focused outside 

central cities

Goal 7: Protect and preserve the natural and built environment

Support preservation of land, 

avoid and minimize negative 

impacts

No change Lower footprint and 

construction impacts than 

Alternative 2

New alignment, thus higher 

right-of-way and environmental 

impacts than Alternative 1

Impacts Summary

This section summarizes the potential effects of implementation of the build alternatives and the No Action 

Alternative based on the analysis of the social, economic and environmental resources documented in 

Chapter 4. The potential effects of, and the differences in effects among, the alternatives are described in 

each resource section in Chapter 4 and are summarized in Table ES-2. General considerations regarding the

effects of constructing stations are discussed when applicable.

The potential for effects and the comparison of effects among alternatives are based on the presence of 

resources within various resource-specific study areas. The resource-specific study areas vary in size since 

impacts to some resources, like hazardous materials, generally occur within the construction footprint 

while others, like noise and visual, often occur away from the construction footprint. The identification of 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

E S - 1 2 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

resources within the resource-specific study areas allows for a comparison of effects among alternatives 

and provides information about key resources that may need to be considered during the project-level 

design that would be reviewed during a Tier 2 NEPA process.

Table ES-2 provides a summary of resource effects. The table does not represent the actual impacts that 

would occur from implementation of a future project, but rather represents a generalization about the 

potential for impacts based on the location of improvements and the corresponding location of known 

resources.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement E S - 1 3

OCTOBER 2018

Table ES-2. Summary of Environmental Consequences Related to the Resources Addressed in DEIS 

Resource No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Alternative 2 

w/Central Albany

Transportation Passenger Rail Ridership (Annual – 

2035): 197,000.

Thruway Bus Ridership (Annual – 

2035): 193,000. 

2035 Station Activity (annual number 

of riders, both on and off for rail and 

bus): 1,302,500.

Passenger Train Travel Time: 02:35.

At-grade crossings – decrease by 2, 

but safety and mobility concerns exist 

due to remaining 147 at-grade 

crossings and freight traffic increases.

Connectivity and accessibility to 

stations to remain similar to existing, 

except for Transportation System Plan 

(TSP) project improvements by local 

jurisdictions.

With the expected increase in freight 

demand, delays would continue and

could increase, resulting in increased 

travel times and decreased reliability 

for passenger trains.

Passenger Rail Ridership (Annual – 

2035): 646,000.

Thruway Bus Ridership (Annual – 

2035): 93,000.

2035 Station Activity (annual number 

of riders, both on and off for rail and 

bus): 1,862,700.

Passenger Train Travel Time: 02:20.

Alternative 1 would have the same 

number of at-grade crossings (147) as 

the No Action Alternative but would 

include improvements at existing atgrade crossings, which would increase 

safety for pedestrians, bicyclists and 

vehicles. Safety upgrades may create 

added wait times at grade crossings 

for surface vehicles.

Connectivity and accessibility to 

stations to remain similar to existing 

except for TSP project improvements 

by local jurisdictions.

Improvements made under 

Alternative 1 would be used by both 

passenger and freight trains. This 

could result in an improvement in 

freight operations and capacity.

Passenger Rail Ridership (Annual – 

2035): 631,000.

Thruway Bus Ridership (Annual – 

2035): 92,000.

2035 Station Activity (annual number 

of riders, both on and off for rail and 

bus): 1,841,700.

Passenger Train Travel Time: 02:02.

Alternative 2 improvements include a 

number of elevated structures, which 

would reduce the number of at-grade

crossings used by passenger trains to 

47, thereby increasing safety for 

multimodal surface users.

Connectivity and accessibility would 

experience potential impacts for 

stations built closer to I-5, where few, 

if any, multimodal connections exist 

from nearby neighborhoods.

Street and highway network impacts 

could occur, because Alternative 2 

would be close to the existing I-5 and 

I-205 freeways and their interchanges, 

and the construction of elevated 

structures could require realignment 

of existing roads in several locations.

Alternative 2 would remove passenger 

trains from much of the UPRR 

between Springfield and Oregon City, 

freeing up capacity for freight traffic. 

New track constructed adjacent to 

existing rail lines would be available 

for use by freight traffic which would 

increase freight capacity.

Passenger Rail and Thruway Bus 

Ridership and Station Activity (2035) – 

Similar to Alternative 2.

Passenger Train Travel Time: slightly 

longer than for Alternative 2. 

Alternative 2 Central Albany Option 

would increase the number of existing 

at-grade crossings used by passenger 

trains to 59, thereby potentially 

impacting safety for multimodal 

surface users.

Connectivity and accessibility would 

be similar to Alternative 2 except for 

in Albany, where existing multimodal 

infrastructure exists.

Street and highway network impacts 

similar to those for Alternative 2, 

except for more impact in Albany, 

where there will be a substantial 

increase in at-grade crossings used by 

passenger trains.

Freight capacity and operations would 

be similar to Alternative 2, except for 

more potential freight-related delays 

in the downtown Albany area.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

E S - 1 4 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

Resource No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Alternative 2 

w/Central Albany

Land Use/ 

Agricultural 

Lands

No impacts. Impacts from conversion of existing 

land uses and agricultural lands to a 

transportation-related use along the 

rail alignment would be minimal. No 

impacts to existing station areas are 

anticipated, and no new stations are 

proposed under Alternative 1. In 

general, Alternative 1 is anticipated to 

have fewer land use and agricultural 

lands impacts than Alternative 2.

The new alignment associated with 

Alternative 2 is anticipated to result in 

a greater degree of impacts than 

Alternative 1 related to the conversion 

of existing land uses, including 

agricultural lands, to a transportationrelated use and impacts to existing 

structures. An exception to Goal 5 

(Natural Resources, Scenic and 

Historic Areas, and Open Spaces) 

could be required for potential 

impacts to up to two aggregate mining 

resources. Goal 15 (Willamette River 

Greenway) would be required where 

new crossings of the Willamette River 

occur (Springfield and Oregon City). 

Alternative 2 would involve the 

construction of up to four new 

stations; the study area includes six 

potential locations for the new 

stations.3 The potential direct land 

use impacts related to siting new 

stations consist of conversion of 

existing uses to a transportationrelated use, displacement of existing 

uses, and impacts to agricultural lands.

Impacts similar to Alternative 2, 

except there will not be a new station 

area that converts industrial land to a 

station area in Albany. 

 

3 See Chapter 3 for details. Potential new stations include: (1) Springfield, (2) Albany, (3) Salem or Keizer, and (4) Wilsonville or Tualatin.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement E S - 1 5

OCTOBER 2018

Resource No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Alternative 2 

w/Central Albany

Environmental 

Justice, and 

Title VI of the 

Civil Rights Act

Under the No Action Alternative, 

Amtrak Cascades passenger rail 

service would continue serving 

existing stations in Eugene, Albany, 

Salem, Oregon City and Portland, and 

changes to current track 

configurations or operations would 

not occur. The No Action Alternative 

would not meet the OPR Project 

purpose and need, and would result in 

associated impacts in communities 

including EJ populations near existing 

stations. The No Action Alternative 

would not result in beneficial effects 

on EJ populations associated with 

improvements to enhance intercity 

passenger rail service.

Because Alternative 1 is primarily 

within or adjacent to an existing 

transportation right-of-way (ROW), it 

would result in few displacements and 

impacts to Environmental Justice (EJ) 

and limited English proficiency (LEP) 

populations.

Alternative 2 would include the 

addition of new track throughout the 

full alignment and the potential for up 

to four new stations. Therefore, it is 

anticipated that Alternative 2 would 

result in a greater degree of 

displacements and impacts to EJ and

LEP populations.

The potential impacts would be the 

similar to those for Alternative 2.

Social Resources The No Action Alternative would not 

result in the separation or isolation of 

land uses, redistribution of 

population, or the bisecting of 

communities, nor would it require 

ROW acquisition or the displacement 

of community resources.

Because Alternative 1 would either 

share or parallel the existing UPRR 

ROW, impacts related to community 

cohesion as a result of the bisection of 

communities or barriers to interaction 

would be minimal. Alternative 1 would 

benefit communities within the study 

area by providing faster and more 

frequent passenger rail service.

Alternative 2 would be constructed 

within or adjacent to the existing I-5, 

I-205, PNWR, and UPRR ROW, which 

already bisect communities; therefore, 

potential impacts related to the 

bisection of communities would be 

minor. Alternative 2 would result in 

more ROW acquisition and a greater 

potential for displacement of buildings 

and structures than Alternative 1. 

Similar to Alternative 1, Alternative 2 

would benefit communities within the 

study area by providing faster and 

more frequent passenger rail service.

Outside of the Albany area, the 

Alternative 2 with Central Albany 

Option would have the same impacts 

to social resources as those described 

for Alternative 2. Where the Central 

Albany Option would provide an 

additional mainline track connecting 

to the existing Albany Station there 

would be impacts to community 

resources and features such as parks.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

E S - 1 6 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

Resource No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Alternative 2 

w/Central Albany

Economics The No Action Alternative would have 

few and negligible economic impacts, 

because the proposed action would 

not be constructed, and the service 

levels and stations served by 

passenger trains and buses would 

remain the same as in the existing 

condition.

Alternative 1 has more employment 

density and establishments near the 

existing station locations.

Short-term economic impacts 

associated with construction would be 

larger under Alternative 2 than 

Alternative 1, because Alternative 2 

would have a higher construction cost.

Similar to Alternative 2.

Section 4(f) and 

Section 6(f) 

Resources

The No Action Alternative would have 

no effects on any Section 4(f) or 

Section 6(f) resources.

Alternative 1 could impact up to 

13 Section 4(f) parks/recreation 

resources. Section 6(f) of the Land and 

Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Act 

also protects six of these resources.

Alternative 2 could impact up to 

18 Section 4(f) parks/recreation 

resources. Section 6(f) of the LWCF 

Act also protects four of these 

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.

Visual and 

Aesthetic 

Quality

The No Action Alternative would not 

result in visual/aesthetic impacts, 

except that the increase in freight 

demand could increase freight traffic 

and, in cases where the railroad is 

visible but is not a prominent feature 

until a train passes by, increase 

foreground views of passing freight 

trains.

Alternative 1 would result in minor 

visual impacts, because it involves 

limited physical changes, with 

structures that would be constructed 

immediately adjacent to the existing 

railroad alignment, and it would use 

existing stations.

Alternative 1 would result in eight 

more passenger trains per day (four 

round trips per day) traveling on the 

alignment. When considered along 

with the anticipated increase in freight 

traffic, Alternative 1 could create a 

noticeable visual change (i.e., more 

frequent views of trains) for viewers 

from adjacent properties.

Alternative 2 would introduce more 

than 20 miles of elevated structures 

(viaducts and bridges) and four new 

stations, which have the potential to 

result in visual changes, specifically 

where these structures could be seen 

by sensitive receptors from designated 

scenic resources, from open space 

areas or from residential areas. The 

extent of new and elevated structures 

under Alternative 2 has the potential 

to result in adverse visual effects, 

including to the Willamette Scenic 

Bikeway.

Alternative 2 with Central Albany 

Option would provide more feet of 

new main track and would introduce 

two additional elevated crossings of 

I-5, but one fewer new station than 

Alternative 2. The elevated crossings 

would be visible from some distance 

away and would introduce a 

significant new visual element into the 

present landscape.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement E S - 1 7

OCTOBER 2018

Resource No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Alternative 2 

w/Central Albany

Noise and 

Vibration

The No Action Alternative would not 

introduce new passenger train service 

or related noise and vibration impacts. 

Noise and vibration in the existing 

service corridor could increase with 

anticipated increases in freight train 

traffic.

Noise-sensitive uses within the study 

area:

Residential acres: 1,615

Institutional uses: 71

Vibration Impacts: 317 acres of 

residential land; 7 institutional uses.

Noise Impacts: At the 140 public atgrade crossings, the sounding of 

warning horns by additional passenger 

rail trains outside designated Quiet 

Zones (currently in central Salem, 

Milwaukie and northwest Portland) 

would result in an incremental 

increase in noise levels, along with 

potential new noise sources at 

upgraded crossings.

Noise-sensitive areas within the study 

area:

Residential acres: 2,185

Institutional uses: 50

Vibration Impacts: New vibration 

source in areas where there is new rail 

construction (including along existing 

railroad alignments, e.g., PNWR and 

UPRR); 275 acres of residential land; 

8 institutional uses.

Noise Impacts: At the 46 existing 

public at-grade crossings, the 

sounding of warning horns by 

additional passenger trains outside 

designated Quiet Zones (currently in 

Milwaukie and northwest Portland) 

would result in an incremental 

increase in noise levels, along with 

potential new noise sources at 

upgraded and new crossings.

The Alternative 2 with Central Albany 

Option would have impacts similar to 

Alternative 2, with the majority of the 

potential noise impacts in urban areas. 

However, the Central Albany Option 

would include more potential for 

noise impacts near at-grade crossings 

(59) than would Alternative 2 (46).

Hazardous 

Materials

Because no construction activities 

would be associated with the No 

Action Alternative, no known or 

suspected subsurface hazardous 

materials would be encountered.

All build alternatives could require 

removal of buildings or structures 

containing hazardous materials, such 

as asbestos or lead-based paint. 

However, Alternative 1 would 

primarily involve the continued use of 

existing UPRR mainline track and 

stations, thereby limiting the area of 

disturbance and reducing the 

likelihood of encountering hazardous 

materials.

Alternative 2 would include new track 

along the full alignment and four new 

stations, which could result in the 

demolition and/or modification of 

existing buildings and other structures 

to a greater degree than Alternative 1, 

thereby increasing the likelihood of 

encountering hazardous materials.

Similar to Alternative 2 with more 

potential to encounter buildings that 

need to be removed near downtown 

Albany. This option would use the 

existing Albany station and would 

have one less new station than 

Alternative 2.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

E S - 1 8 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

Resource No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Alternative 2 

w/Central Albany

Cultural and 

Historic 

Resources

No track or station improvements 

would be made as a result of the No 

Action Alternative. Therefore, the No 

Action Alternative would have no 

direct impacts to historic properties 

listed on or eligible for the National 

Register of Historic Places (NRHP).

Historic properties adjacent to the 

existing, active UPRR alignment are 

not expected to receive any adverse 

effects, because the changes to the 

existing conditions of these historic 

properties, which are already adjacent 

to an active rail line, would likely be 

negligible.

Direct impacts on the historic railroad 

lines would likely occur, but are not 

anticipated to be adverse effects.

None of the 8 known archaeological 

sites within the area of potential 

effect (APE) for Alternative 1 have 

been determined eligible for listing in 

the NRHP. However, because field 

investigations have not been 

conducted, potential adverse impacts 

to archaeological sites are unknown.

Historic properties adjacent to existing 

active rail alignments would have 

similar effects as Alternative 1. 

However, ROW and station area 

acquisition could potentially result in 

acquisition and demolition of historic 

properties, which could result in 

adverse effects.

Four of the ten known archaeological 

sites within the Alternative 2 APE have 

been determined eligible for listing in 

the NRHP. However, because field 

investigations have not been 

conducted, potential adverse impacts 

to archaeological sites are unknown.

Historic properties, including the 

existing station, are already adjacent 

to an existing railroad line and 

improvements to the line would likely 

not have a significant direct impact or 

adverse effect to the historic 

properties.

Because field investigations have not 

been conducted, potential adverse 

impacts to archaeological sites are 

unknown.

Geology and 

Soils

No impacts to or from geology and 

soils would result from the No Action 

Alternative.

Alternative 1 would be constructed 

within and parallel to an existing rail 

alignment; therefore, limited 

earthwork is anticipated. No large fills 

would be required, so settlement 

because of compressible soil is 

expected to be minimal. Therefore, 

limited impacts to or from geology 

and soils would result from 

Alternative 1. 

Alternative 2 would require 

considerably more earthwork than 

Alternative 1 for bridges and elevated 

viaduct structures with retained 

approach fills and from rock cuts. 

Cuts and fills placed in areas with 

potentially hazardous soil or slope 

conditions (e.g., compressible soil, 

historic landfills, or unconsolidated 

debris flow fans) would need 

mitigation.

Similar to Alternative 2, but the 

existing Albany Station is located in an 

area mapped with a liquefaction

susceptibility of “very high.”
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement E S - 1 9

OCTOBER 2018

Resource No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Alternative 2 

w/Central Albany

Biological 

Resources

The No Action Alternative would have 

no new direct impacts on biological 

resources.

The Alternative 1 study area has 

13 known locations of special-status 

species, and 1 known location of a 

Federally listed species within the area 

of potential impact.

Alternative 1 has 95 acres of general 

wildlife habitats and 7.4 acres of 

Oregon Conservation Strategy (OCS) 

habitats.

Alternative 1 could directly impact up 

to 14 wildlife linkages.

Alternative 1 has approximately 

1.8 acres of conservation easements 

(wetlands) in its potential impact area.

Alternative 1 could impact up to 

10 streams with protected fish.

The Alternative 2 study area has 

7 known locations of special-status 

species.

Alternative 2 has more potential than 

Alternative 1 to directly impact natural 

wildlife habitats (284 acres) and 

Oregon Conservation Strategy (OCS) 

habitats (20.6 acres).

Alternative 2 could directly impact up 

to 64 wildlife linkages.

Alternative 2 has approximately 

2.8 acres of conservation easements 

(wetlands) in its potential impact area.

Alternative 2 could impact up to 

22 streams with protected fish.

Similar to Alternative 2 except has no 

conservation easements in its 

potential impact area.

Floodplain There are no direct or indirect impacts 

to floodplains associated with the No 

Action Alternative.

Alternative 1 would potentially impact 

approximately 100,087 lineal feet and 

287 acres of high-risk floodplain.

Alternative 2 would potentially impact 

approximately 113,440 lineal feet and 

1,110 acres of high-risk floodplain.

The Alternative 2 with Central Albany 

Option would potentially impact 

113,450 lineal feet and 1,114 acres of 

high-risk floodplain.

Water Quality/ 

Surface Water/

Stormwater

The No Action Alternative would have 

no new water quality, surface water or 

stormwater impacts.

Alternative 1 would cross 43 Section 

303(d)-listed impaired water bodies.

Impacts would come from operations 

and maintenance activities associated 

with the passenger rail lines.

Alternative 2 would cross 40 Section 

303(d)-listed impaired water bodies.

Impacts would come from operations 

and maintenance activities associated 

with the new passenger rail lines, as 

well as from installation of four new 

passenger rail stations.

The Alternative 2 with Central Albany 

Option would require two additional 

crossings of Section 303(d)-listed 

impaired water bodies. The passenger 

rail stations are identical, with the 

exception of the Albany Station. 

Therefore, impacts would be slightly 

reduced compared to those of 

Alternative 2, because this option 

would construct one fewer new 

station.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

E S - 2 0 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

Resource No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Alternative 2 

w/Central Albany

Wetlands and 

Waterways

There would be no project-related 

construction and, therefore, no new 

project-related wetland and waterway 

impacts.

Alternative 1 would have up to 

32 acres of wetland impacts and 

7 acres of high-value wetland impacts. 

There are 378 acres of hydric soils 

within the Alternative 1 study area 

(excluding areas mapped as wetland).

Alternative 2 would have up to 

144 acres of wetland impacts and 

49 acres of high-value wetland 

impacts. There are 818 acres of hydric 

soils within the Alternative 2 study 

area (excluding areas mapped as 

wetland) There are a total of 1.8 acres 

of wetland, including 0.6 acre of highvalue wetland, in the 20 acre areas 

identified for the seven potential new 

station locations.

The Alternative 2 with Central Albany 

Option would add 1 acre of potential 

direct wetland impacts and add 

70 acres of potential hydric soil 

impacts to the Alternative 2 impacts. 

However, there would be no 

additional acreage of high-value 

wetlands impacts, and there would be 

no wetland impacts related to the 

existing Albany Station.

Air Quality The No Action Alternative would have 

increased bus emissions due to the 

planned additional round trip between 

Eugene and Salem. Washington has 

purchased eight next generation 

locomotives with lower emissions that 

are in service throughout the PNWRC.

Alternative 1 has higher locomotive 

emissions than the No Action 

Alternative because of increased rail 

service, but lower Thruway bus 

emissions because of a decrease in 

bus service.

Alternative 2 has lower emissions than 

Alternative 1, because the passenger 

rail alignment is about 5 miles shorter 

for this alternative. However, impacts 

from Thruway bus service are the 

same as for Alternative 1.

The Alternative 2 with Central Albany 

Option would have the same 

approximate emissions as Alternative 

1 because of the additional miles 

required to reach the Central Albany 

station.

Energy The No Action Alternative would result 

in a 9.5 percent decrease in fuel use 

(and greenhouse gas [GHG] emissions) 

compared to existing conditions. 

The decrease is based on expected 

improvement in fuel efficiency from 

new locomotives.

Alternative 1 would benefit from the

same fuel efficiency gains as the 

No Action Alternative. Alternative 1 

would increase fuel use (and GHG 

emissions) by approximately 

80 percent compared to the No Action 

Alternative because of the increase in 

rail service frequencies.

Alternative 2 would benefit from the 

same fuel efficiency gains as the 

No Action Alternative.

Alternative 2 would increase fuel use 

(and GHG emissions) by approximately 

75 percent compared to the No Action 

Alternative because of the increase 

from three to seven daily passenger

rail round trips. However, compared 

to Alternative 1, fuel use related to 

Alternative 2 would be about 

4 percent lower, because it would 

have fewer track miles.

The Alternative 2 with Central Albany 

Option would benefit from the same 

fuel efficiency gains as the No Action 

Alternative. However, fuel use for this 

option would be slightly higher than 

that for Alternative 2, because it 

would have more track miles.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement E S - 2 1

OCTOBER 2018

Mitigation Strategies

In a Tier 1 EIS, potential impacts are identified using high level data and analysis. For the OPR Project, ODOT 

used existing information on known resources and estimated impacts with a lower level of engineering 

than is used at a project level analysis. Because of that, the available information is not detailed enough to 

formulate specific mitigation measures. Therefore, each resource evaluation includes a list of mitigation 

strategies that would be considered and further developed in the future as part of the Tier 2 environmental 

analysis (see Chapter 4). Mitigation strategies listed in Chapter 4 include conceptual avoidance and 

minimization measures for the next phase of design, suggestions for programmatic agreements, Best 

Management Practices (BMPs), regulatory coordination and further technical study requirements. 

Public and Agency Coordination

The public involvement process for the OPR Project was designed to solicit early and frequent coordination 

with interested parties, stakeholders, government agencies and Tribes to facilitate their input on the 

purpose and scope, key issues and concerns, and the development and narrowing of alternatives. Input 

received during the public involvement process helped to shape the OPR Project Purpose and Need, Goals 

and Objectives, methods of analysis and decision-making process. The OPR Project public involvement 

process includes the following goals: 

• Communicate complete, accurate, understandable and timely information to the public throughout the 

development of the EIS and the SDP

• Actively seek public input throughout the OPR Project

• Provide meaningful public involvement opportunities and demonstrate how input has influenced the 

OPR Project EIS and SDP

• Seek participation of all potentially affected and/or interested individuals, communities and 

organizations

• Ensure that the public involvement process is sensitive to local policies, plans and perspectives

ODOT implemented a number of communication tools and materials to make OPR Project information 

widely available, and to attain high levels of public participation and input during the development of the 

Draft Tier 1 EIS. The OPR Project public involvement process has included the following activities and tools: 

• Stakeholder Database. The stakeholder database includes potentially impacted parties, interested 

parties and past meeting attendees. The database is regularly updated and serves as the main contact 

list for all OPR Project mailings and outreach materials.

• Regulatory Agency Coordination. ODOT coordinated with and solicited input from Federal and state 

regulatory agencies during the development of this OPR Project Draft Tier 1 EIS, including the natural 

resource, cultural resource and land use planning agencies identified in Section 5.3.1. ODOT has logged 

and analyzed all of the public and agency comments received to date, and has provided responses to 

comments as appropriate.

• Community and Jurisdictional Briefings. ODOT met with local jurisdictions and community groups to 

discuss the OPR Project and collect input. These briefings provided an opportunity to meet with 

stakeholders and discuss issues specific to a region or community. These included 20 face to face 

briefings and 3 online briefings.

• Individual Communications. ODOT held briefings with stakeholders and officials upon request to share 

information and collect input. Examples of these individual communications included briefings with 

state representatives, communication with staff from local jurisdictions and contact with individual 

stakeholders.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

E S - 2 2 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmenta l Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

• Fact Sheets/Newsletters. ODOT prepared fact sheets to support open houses, committee meetings and 

community briefings. ODOT also produced and distributed a newsletter before each round of open 

houses to share information and invite participation. To date, ODOT has developed and distributed four 

newsletters.

• News Media. ODOT sent out news releases before open houses and committee meetings, and at other 

key milestones. ODOT purchased print and radio advertisements with English and Spanish language 

media outlets to promote open houses. ODOT also participated in interviews with radio, television and 

print media.

• Open Houses/Online Open Houses. ODOT used open houses to share information with stakeholders 

and interested parties, as well as to gather their feedback and opinions. ODOT posted materials and 

displays from the open houses on the OPR Project website. Additionally, during each public open 

house, ODOT conducted an online open house to engage individuals who might not attend in-person

open houses. The online open houses included OPR Project information and videos, and provided the 

same opportunities for comment as the in-person open houses. Nineteen open houses and four online 

open houses have been held to date.

• Community Events. ODOT hosted information booths at 37 community events (such as farmers’ 

markets, universities, athletic events and seasonal festivals) to provide opportunities to talk about the 

OPR Project one-on-one and to get feedback from the public.

• Website/Social Media. The OPR Project website, www.OregonPassengerRail.org, has been the primary 

portal for public information. The site includes a description of the OPR Project purpose and context, 

EIS-related materials and documents, and contact information for OPR Project staff. ODOT announces 

upcoming meetings on the OPR Project website and posts materials in advance of each meeting. The 

OPR Project website contains an online comment form that the public can use to share thoughts and 

ideas at any time. ODOT also employs its Facebook page and Twitter feed to convey information about 

OPR Project events and milestones. Furthermore, ODOT works with local jurisdictions and community 

organizations within the OPR Project study area to post information about the OPR Project on their 

own social media pages at key outreach points.

• Informational Videos. ODOT produced an overview video in the early stages of the OPR Project to help

raise awareness regarding the purpose and context of the OPR Project. This video was featured on the 

OPR Project website and was integrated into online open houses. Subsequent informational videos 

were posted on the website in association with public outreach conducted during the development and 

narrowing of OPR Project alternatives. In addition, some key OPR Project committee meetings have 

been video-recorded and posted on the website. 

• Outreach to Disadvantaged Populations. ODOT targeted outreach efforts to minority, low-income and 

limited English proficiency (LEP) populations by providing key project information in Spanish, reaching 

out to community-based organizations, using ethnic news media sources and having interpreters at 

meetings.

• Tribal Outreach and Coordination. In August 2012, ODOT and FRA identified Tribes with potential 

interest in the OPR Project because of historic presence and/or treaty interest in the OPR Project EIS 

study area. At the beginning of the scoping process, FRA and ODOT sent letters to those Tribes to 

initiate government-to-government consultation and to invite Tribal participation in the development 

of the OPR Project EIS. The correspondence requested input on the Purpose and Need as well as 

identification of Tribal issues and concerns related to the OPR Project. In addition, two meetings 

were held. ODOT and FRA will continue to coordinate with the Tribes through the remainder of the 

decision-making process for the OPR Project.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement E S - 2 3

OCTOBER 2018

• Leadership Council. Governor John Kitzhaber established the Oregon Passenger Rail Leadership 

Council, which is a core advisory group composed mostly of elected officials from the Willamette 

Valley. The Leadership Council provides guidance to ODOT and works with ODOT to finalize OPR Project 

recommendations submitted to FRA for FRA’s consideration. Eleven Leadership Council meetings have 

been held to date.

• Railroad Coordination. ODOT met with railroad stakeholders in the OPR Project study area during the 

scoping period to inform them of the process, key elements, schedule and data input needed for the 

OPR Project. These meetings also provided an opportunity for the railroad stakeholders to comment on 

the OPR Project to assist in the development of the scope of the OPR Project. To date, 16 meetings 

have been held with railroad stakeholders.

Following the release of this OPR Project Draft EIS, ODOT will host multiple public hearings and an online 

open house in order to gather feedback on the Draft EIS from stakeholders and interested parties. Public 

involvement will continue through the preparation and release of the Final EIS and Record of Decision.

Next Steps

The public review and comment period on the Tier 1 DEIS will provide interested parties, stakeholders, 

government agencies, Tribes and members of the public the opportunity to review the document, attend 

public hearings and provide comments to inform decision-making. ODOT and FRA will prepare a Final EIS

(FEIS) that will summarize the Draft EIS, identify changes to the Draft EIS that occurred as a result of agency, 

stakeholder and public input, respond to substantive comments received on the Draft EIS, and identify and 

describe the final selected alternative. Concurrent with the alternative selection, ODOT and FRA will 

prepare a Service Development Plan to document planning activities, how the OPR Project could be 

implemented, and to support Federal and state decisions regarding potential future project 

implementation and funding.

As described in Chapter 4, the Draft EIS identifies the Preferred Alternative and provides a summary 

explanation regarding the basis for the selection. Depending on the nature of the comments received on 

the DEIS, FRA may issue a combined Tier 1 FEIS and Record of Decision that document the Federal decision 

for the selected alternative and the process for accommodating mitigation measures that would need to be 

implemented. Most mitigation measures in this Draft Tier 1 EIS represent commitments to further design 

avoidance and minimization measures and coordination with the public, resource and regulatory agencies, 

and Tribes during Tier 2 studies as project-level design is developed.

ODOT anticipates seeking a combination of Federal and state funding to advance the OPR Project into final 

design and construction, and anticipates that this would be done in phases; however, currently no funding 

has been identified to advance the project. If ODOT advances the OPR Project into final design and 

construction and Federal funding permits, or other Federal approval is involved, a Tier 2 NEPA analysis, led 

by the appropriate Federal agency, would be required. The scope of such review would be based on the 

nature of the Federal action. 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

E S - 2 4 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmenta l Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

This page intentionally left blank.
TR0831151005PDX Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement iii

OCTOBER 2018

Contents

Section Page

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................... 1

Acronyms and Abbreviations.............................................................................................................xi

1 Introduction and Purpose and Need.................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Background and Context................................................................................................. 1-1 

1.1.1 Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor.......................................................................... 1-1 

1.1.2 Oregon Passenger Rail........................................................................................ 1-3 

1.1.3 High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program.................................................... 1-5 

1.1.4 Corridor Investment Planning ............................................................................ 1-5 

1.1.5 Tiered Approach to the National Environmental Policy Act .............................. 1-5 

1.1.6 OPR Project Study Area ...................................................................................... 1-7 

1.2 Statement of Purpose and Need..................................................................................... 1-9 

1.2.1 Purpose of Proposed Action............................................................................... 1-9 

1.2.2 Need for Proposed Action.................................................................................. 1-9 

1.3 Project Goals and Objectives......................................................................................... 1-15

2 Alternative Development and Screening Process................................................................. 2-1

2.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................... 2-1 

2.2 Development of Corridor Concepts................................................................................. 2-2 

2.2.1 Corridor Concepts – Rail Alignments.................................................................. 2-2 

2.2.2 Corridor Concepts – Stations.............................................................................. 2-7 

2.2.3 Transportation Modes and Train Technologies ................................................. 2-8 

2.3 Screening of Corridor Concepts..................................................................................... 2-10

2.3.1 Step 1, Screening – Corridor Concept Alignments........................................... 2-10

2.3.2 Step 1, Screening – Corridor Concept Stations ................................................ 2-13

2.3.3 Transportation Modes and Train Technologies ............................................... 2-16

2.4 Evaluation of Preliminary Alternatives.......................................................................... 2-16

2.4.1 Step 2, Evaluation – Preliminary Alternative Alignments ................................ 2-17

2.4.2 Step 2, Evaluation – Preliminary Alternative Stations...................................... 2-25

2.4.3 Evaluation of Transportation Modes and Train Technologies......................... 2-27

2.4.4 Step 2, Evaluation – Conclusions...................................................................... 2-27

3 Alternatives Advanced for Further Study............................................................................. 3-1

3.1 No Action Alternative ...................................................................................................... 3-3 

3.1.1 Route and Infrastructure.................................................................................... 3-3 

3.1.2 Stations............................................................................................................... 3-4 

3.1.3 Operational and Service Assumptions ............................................................... 3-4 

3.1.4 Ridership............................................................................................................. 3-5 

3.1.5 Other Transportation Projects ........................................................................... 3-5 

3.2 Build Alternatives ............................................................................................................ 3-8 

3.2.1 Route and Rail Improvements............................................................................ 3-9 

3.2.2 Station Opportunities....................................................................................... 3-22

3.2.3 Operational and Service Assumptions ............................................................. 3-23

3.2.4 Ridership........................................................................................................... 3-24

3.2.5 Passenger Train Engine Technology ................................................................. 3-26

3.2.6 Costs................................................................................................................. 3-26
CONTENTS

Section Page

i v Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

3.2.7 Phasing Opportunities...................................................................................... 3-28

4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences.................................................... 4-1

4.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................... 4-1 

4.1.1 Overview of Chapter........................................................................................... 4-1 

4.1.2 Tiered NEPA Analysis.......................................................................................... 4-2 

4.2 Transportation................................................................................................................. 4-2 

4.2.1 Legal Requirements............................................................................................ 4-2 

4.2.2 Methods ............................................................................................................. 4-2 

4.2.3 Study Area .......................................................................................................... 4-3 

4.2.4 Affected Environment ........................................................................................ 4-3 

4.2.5 Environmental Consequences.......................................................................... 4-10

4.2.6 Potential Mitigation Strategies......................................................................... 4-20

4.3 Land Use/Farmland ....................................................................................................... 4-21

4.3.1 Legal Requirements.......................................................................................... 4-21

4.3.2 Methods ........................................................................................................... 4-22

4.3.3 Study Area ........................................................................................................ 4-23

4.3.4 Affected Environment ...................................................................................... 4-23

4.3.5 Environmental Consequences.......................................................................... 4-25

4.3.6 Potential Mitigation.......................................................................................... 4-29

4.4 Environmental Justice ................................................................................................... 4-30

4.4.1 Legal Requirements.......................................................................................... 4-30

4.4.2 Methods ........................................................................................................... 4-31

4.4.3 Study Area ........................................................................................................ 4-32

4.4.4 Affected Environment ...................................................................................... 4-32

4.4.5 Environmental Consequences.......................................................................... 4-34

4.4.6 Potential Mitigation.......................................................................................... 4-38

4.5 Socioeconomics............................................................................................................. 4-39

4.5.1 Legal Requirements.......................................................................................... 4-39

4.5.2 Methods ........................................................................................................... 4-39

4.5.3 Study Area ........................................................................................................ 4-41

4.5.4 Affected Environment ...................................................................................... 4-41

4.5.5 Environmental Consequences.......................................................................... 4-50

4.5.6 Potential Mitigation.......................................................................................... 4-57

4.6 Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources......................................................................... 4-58

4.6.1 Legal Requirements.......................................................................................... 4-58

4.6.2 Methods ........................................................................................................... 4-59

4.6.3 Study Area ........................................................................................................ 4-60

4.6.4 Affected Environment ...................................................................................... 4-61

4.6.5 Environmental Consequences.......................................................................... 4-64

4.6.6 Potential Mitigation.......................................................................................... 4-73

4.7 Visual Resources............................................................................................................ 4-73

4.7.1 Legal Requirements.......................................................................................... 4-73

4.7.2 Methods ........................................................................................................... 4-74

4.7.3 Study Area ........................................................................................................ 4-74 

4.7.4 Affected Environment ...................................................................................... 4-75

4.7.5 Environmental Consequences.......................................................................... 4-75

4.7.6 Potential Mitigation.......................................................................................... 4-80

4.8 Noise and Vibration....................................................................................................... 4-80

4.8.1 Legal Requirements.......................................................................................... 4-80
CONTENTS

Section Page

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement v

OCTOBER 2018

4.8.2 Methods ........................................................................................................... 4-81

4.8.3 Study Area ........................................................................................................ 4-82

4.8.4 Affected Environment ...................................................................................... 4-82

4.8.5 Environmental Consequences.......................................................................... 4-84

4.8.6 Potential Mitigation.......................................................................................... 4-85

4.9 Hazardous Materials...................................................................................................... 4-86

4.9.1 Legal Requirements.......................................................................................... 4-86

4.9.2 Methods ........................................................................................................... 4-87

4.9.3 Study Area ........................................................................................................ 4-89

4.9.4 Affected Environment ...................................................................................... 4-89

4.9.5 Environmental Consequences.......................................................................... 4-89

4.9.6 Potential Mitigation.......................................................................................... 4-94

4.10 Cultural Resources......................................................................................................... 4-95

4.10.1 Legal Requirements.......................................................................................... 4-95

4.10.2 Methods ........................................................................................................... 4-96

4.10.3 Study Area ........................................................................................................ 4-98

4.10.4 Affected Environment ...................................................................................... 4-98

4.10.5 Environmental Consequences........................................................................ 4-100

4.10.6 Potential Mitigation........................................................................................ 4-104

4.11 Geology and Soils ........................................................................................................ 4-105

4.11.1 Legal Requirements........................................................................................ 4-105

4.11.2 Methods ......................................................................................................... 4-105

4.11.3 Study Area ...................................................................................................... 4-106

4.11.4 Affected Environment .................................................................................... 4-107

4.11.5 Environmental Consequences........................................................................ 4-108

4.11.6 Potential Mitigation........................................................................................ 4-111

4.12 Biological Resources.................................................................................................... 4-112

4.12.1 Legal Requirements........................................................................................ 4-112

4.12.2 Methods ......................................................................................................... 4-113

4.12.3 Study Area ...................................................................................................... 4-115

4.12.4 Affected Environment .................................................................................... 4-115

4.12.5 Environmental Consequences........................................................................ 4-120

4.12.6 Potential Mitigation........................................................................................ 4-124

4.13 Floodplains .................................................................................................................. 4-125

4.13.1 Legal Requirements........................................................................................ 4-125

4.13.2 Methods ......................................................................................................... 4-126

4.13.3 Study Area ...................................................................................................... 4-127

4.13.4 Affected Environment .................................................................................... 4-127

4.13.5 Environmental Consequences........................................................................ 4-127

4.13.6 Potential Mitigation........................................................................................ 4-129

4.14 Water Quality/Surface Water/Stormwater................................................................. 4-129

4.14.1 Legal Requirements........................................................................................ 4-129

4.14.2 Methods ......................................................................................................... 4-130

4.14.3 Study Area ...................................................................................................... 4-130

4.14.4 Affected Environment .................................................................................... 4-131

4.14.5 Environmental Consequences........................................................................ 4-133

4.14.6 Potential Mitigation........................................................................................ 4-136

4.15 Wetlands and Waterways ........................................................................................... 4-137

4.15.1 Legal Requirements........................................................................................ 4-137
CONTENTS

Section Page

v i Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

4.15.2 Methods ......................................................................................................... 4-138

4.15.3 Study Area ...................................................................................................... 4-139

4.15.4 Affected Environment .................................................................................... 4-139

4.15.5 Environmental Consequences........................................................................ 4-141

4.15.6 Potential Mitigation........................................................................................ 4-143

4.16 Air Quality.................................................................................................................... 4-144

4.16.1 Legal Requirements........................................................................................ 4-144

4.16.2 Methods ......................................................................................................... 4-146

4.16.3 Study Area ...................................................................................................... 4-148

4.16.4 Affected Environment .................................................................................... 4-148

4.16.5 Environmental Consequences........................................................................ 4-149

4.16.6 Potential Mitigation........................................................................................ 4-151

4.17 Energy/Climate Change............................................................................................... 4-152

4.17.1 Legal Requirements........................................................................................ 4-152

4.17.2 Methods ......................................................................................................... 4-152

4.17.3 Study Area ...................................................................................................... 4-153

4.17.4 Affected Environment .................................................................................... 4-154

4.17.5 Environmental Consequences........................................................................ 4-154

4.17.6 Potential Mitigation........................................................................................ 4-157

4.18 Cumulative Impacts..................................................................................................... 4-157

4.18.1 Legal Requirements........................................................................................ 4-157

4.18.2 Methods ......................................................................................................... 4-157

4.18.3 Study Area ...................................................................................................... 4-158

4.18.4 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions.......................... 4-158

4.18.5 Environmental Consequences........................................................................ 4-162

4.19 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources......................................... 4-167

4.19.1 Methods ......................................................................................................... 4-167

4.19.2 Affected Environment .................................................................................... 4-168

4.19.3 Impacts of No Action Alternative ................................................................... 4-168

4.19.4 Impacts of Build Alternatives ......................................................................... 4-168

4.20 Short-Term Use vs. Long-Term Productivity of the Environment............................... 4-169

4.20.1 Methods ......................................................................................................... 4-169

4.20.2 Affected Environment .................................................................................... 4-169

4.20.3 Impacts of No Action Alternative ................................................................... 4-169

4.20.4 Impacts of Build Alternatives ......................................................................... 4-169

4.21 Permits and Approvals ................................................................................................ 4-170

4.22 Preferred Alternative................................................................................................... 4-171

5 Public Involvement, Outreach, and Coordination ................................................................ 5-1

5.1 Public Outreach Overview............................................................................................... 5-1 

5.2 Outreach Activities and Tools.......................................................................................... 5-1 

5.3 Stakeholder Coordination Overview ............................................................................... 5-3 

5.3.1 Cooperating Agencies......................................................................................... 5-3 

5.3.2 Regulatory Agencies........................................................................................... 5-3 

5.3.3 Committees........................................................................................................ 5-4 

5.3.4 Title VI and Environmental Justice ..................................................................... 5-5 

5.3.5 Section 106 Coordination................................................................................... 5-5 

5.4 Agency and Public Scoping Process................................................................................. 5-6 

5.4.1 Agency Scoping Meetings................................................................................... 5-6 

5.4.2 Other Stakeholder Scoping Meetings................................................................. 5-6
CONTENTS

Section Page

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement vii

OCTOBER 2018

5.4.3 Public Scoping Meetings, Outreach, and Coordination ..................................... 5-8 

5.4.4 Scoping Comment Summary .............................................................................. 5-9 

5.5 Alternatives Analysis Outreach and Coordination .......................................................... 5-9 

5.6 Draft Environmental Impact Statement........................................................................ 5-10

5.7 Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision .................................. 5-10

5.8 Coordination and Outreach Meetings........................................................................... 5-11

6 Next Steps.......................................................................................................................... 6-1

6.1 Identification of a Preferred Alternative ......................................................................... 6-1 

6.2 Tier 1 Final EIS and ROD .................................................................................................. 6-1 

6.3 Tier 2 NEPA Process......................................................................................................... 6-1 

6.3.1 Additional Studies............................................................................................... 6-2 

6.4 Phased Implementation .................................................................................................. 6-2 

7 List of Preparers................................................................................................................. 7-1

8 Distribution List.................................................................................................................. 8-1

8.1 Federal Agencies.............................................................................................................. 8-1 

8.2 Native American Tribes................................................................................................... 8-1 

8.3 Oregon State Agencies.................................................................................................... 8-2 

8.4 Regional and Local Agencies............................................................................................ 8-2 

8.5 Railroad Owners/Operators............................................................................................ 8-3 

8.6 Project Committees......................................................................................................... 8-3 

8.7 School Districts................................................................................................................ 8-4 

8.8 Environmental Justice and Title VI Outreach .................................................................. 8-4 

8.9 Business Associations...................................................................................................... 8-5 

8.10 Other Interested Parties and Organizations.................................................................... 8-6

9 References......................................................................................................................... 9-1

10 Glossary of Terms............................................................................................................. 10-1
CONTENTS

viii Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBERR 2018

Appendixes

A Engineering and Operations Memorandum

B Capital and Operations Costs Memorandum

C At-Grade Railroad Crossing Locations

D Map Book

Tables

ES-1 DEIS Alternatives Evaluation Findings............................................................................................11

ES-2 Summary of Environmental Consequences Related to the Resources Addressed in DEIS ............13

2-1 Screening Questions................................................................................................................... 2-10

2-2 Corridor Concepts – Step 1, Screening Resultsa ......................................................................... 2-11

2-3 Rationale for Elimination of Corridor Concepts......................................................................... 2-12

2-4 Locomotive Technologies and Transportation Modes – Screening Results............................... 2-16

2-5 Naming Convention Crosswalk between Corridor Concepts and Preliminary Alternatives ...... 2-18

2-6 Evaluation Criteria and Measures of Effectiveness.................................................................... 2-20

2-7 Preliminary Alternatives Evaluation Results............................................................................... 2-22

2-8 Rationale for Elimination of Preliminary Alternatives................................................................ 2-24

2-9 Existing and Potential New Station Areas.................................................................................. 2-27

3-1 Existing Amtrak Cascades Passenger Train Schedule Time (Fall 2016) ........................................ 3-5

3-2 Annual Amtrak Cascades Train and Thruway Bus Station Activity – Existing (2015) and 

2035 Conditions for No Action Alternative .................................................................................. 3-5

3-3 Study Area STIP Projects............................................................................................................... 3-6

3-4 Alternative 1 Passenger Rail Stations......................................................................................... 3-22

3-5 Alternative 2 Passenger Rail Stations......................................................................................... 3-23

3-6 Number of Amtrak Cascades Trains and Thruway Buses – 2017 Existing Conditions and 

2035 Conditions for No Action Alternative and Build Alternatives............................................ 3-23

3-7 Passenger Train Travel Times for DEIS Alternatives (2035)........................................................ 3-24

3-8 Amtrak Cascades Service Ridership: Eugene to Portland (2015 and Estimated 2035).............. 3-24

3-9 Annual Amtrak Cascades Train and Thruway Bus Station Activity – Existing and 

2035 Conditions for No Action Alternative and Alternative 1 ................................................... 3-25

3-10 Annual Amtrak Cascades Train and Thruway Bus Station Activity – Existing and 

2035 Conditions for No Action Alternative and Alternative 2 Central Albany Option............... 3-25

3-11 Estimated Capital Costs of Build Alternatives (dollars in millions, 2015 dollars)....................... 3-27

4.2-1 Counties in the Travel Market...................................................................................................... 4-4

4.2-2 Summary of At-grade Rail Crossings by Alternative..................................................................... 4-6

4.2-3 Summary of Multiple-Incident Rail Crossing Locations (Existing Alignment – Eugene 

to Portland)................................................................................................................................... 4-8

4.2-4 Summary of Existing Amtrak Stations in the Study Area.............................................................. 4-8

4.2-5 Amtrak Cascades (Rail and Bus) Station Access/Egress – Percentage of Passengers by Mode... 4-9

4.2-6 Amtrak Cascades Ridership – Eugene to Portland – No Action Alternative*............................. 4-10

4.2-7 Annual Amtrak Cascades Train and Thruway Bus Station Activity – Existing (2015) and 

2035 Conditions for No Action Alternative ................................................................................ 4-12

4.2-8 Amtrak Cascades Ridership – Eugene to Portland – Alternative 1............................................. 4-13

4.2-9 Annual Amtrak Cascades Train and Thruway Bus Station Activity – Existing and 

2035 Conditions for No Action Alternative and Alternative 1 ................................................... 4-14

4.2-10 Amtrak Cascades Ridership – Eugene to Portland – Alternative 2............................................. 4-16

4.2-11 Amtrak Cascades Station Activity – Existing and 2035 Conditions for No Action Alternative 

and Alternative 2 ........................................................................................................................ 4-18

4.3-1 Summary of Jurisdictions in the Land Use Study Area ............................................................... 4-24
CONTENTS

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement i x

OCTOBER 2018

4.3-2 Summary of Designated Land Uses within the Study Area (by acreage) ................................... 4-24

4.4-1 Summary of EJ and LEP Demographic Data for Study Area Counties ........................................ 4-32

4.4-2 Summary of Key EJ and LEP Demographic Data for Proposed Rail Alignments 

(Within 100 Feet)........................................................................................................................ 4-33

4.4-3 Summary of Key EJ and LEP Demographic Data for Rail Stations (Within 1-Mile Radius) ......... 4-33

4.5-1 Summary of Demographic Data for State of Oregon and Counties in the Study Area .............. 4-41

4.5-2 Summary of Demographic Data for State of Oregon and Cities in the Study Area.................... 4-42

4.5-3 Community Resources within the Alternative 1 Study Areaa

..................................................... 4-43

4.5-4 Community Resources within the Alternative 2 Study Areaa

..................................................... 4-45

4.5-5 Summary of Qualitative Assessment of Economic Development Impact Potential of 

the Oregon Passenger Rail Project............................................................................................. 4-55

4.6-1 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Parks/Recreation Resources in the Study Area ......................................... 4-61

4.6-2 NRHP-Listed Section 4(f) Historic (Built) Properties in the Study Area...................................... 4-63

4.8-1 Summary of Potentially Noise- and Vibration-Sensitive Land Uses in the Study Area .............. 4-83

4.9-1 Number of Hazardous Materials Sites Identified within the Study Area ................................... 4-89

4.9-2 Potential Hazardous Materials Impacts – Alternative 1............................................................. 4-91

4.9-3 Potential Hazardous Materials Impacts – Alternative 2............................................................. 4-93

4.10-1 NRHP-Listed Built Properties in the Study Area ......................................................................... 4-99

4.10-2 Known Archaeological Sites and Isolates in the Study Area..................................................... 4-100

4.11-1 Summary of Geology and Soils Characteristics for Each Alternative Alignment...................... 4-107

4.11-2 Summary of Geology and Soils Characteristics for Each Existing and Proposed Station ......... 4-108

4.12-1 Habitat Use by Special Status Species with the Potential to Occur within the 

OPR Project Terrestrial Study Area........................................................................................... 4-116

4.12-2 Wildlife Linkages within the Terrestrial Study Area ................................................................. 4-118

4.12-3 Conservation Opportunity Areas within the Terrestrial Study Area ........................................ 4-119

4.12-4 Conservation Easements Acreage within the Terrestrial Study Area ...................................... 4-119

4.12-5 Special Status Fish Species Present in the Aquatic Study Area ................................................ 4-120

4.12-6 Summary of Potential Direct Impacts to Biological Resources ................................................ 4-121

4.13-1 100-year Floodplain Area within the Study Area by Alternative.............................................. 4-127

4.13-2 Summary of Affected Environment and Potential Direct Impacts on the 

100-year Floodplain.................................................................................................................. 4-128

4.14-1 Impaired Waterbodies within Alternative 1 Study Area .......................................................... 4-131

4.14-2 Impaired Waterbodies within Alternative 2 Study Area .......................................................... 4-132

4.14-3 Summary of Potential Water Quality, Surface Water, and Stormwater Impacts.................... 4-135

4.15-1 Acreage of Wetlands and Waterways in the Affected Environment Study Area..................... 4-139

4.15-2 Key Wetland and Waterway Areas of Interest within the Affected 

Environment Study Area........................................................................................................... 4-140

4.15-3 Summary of Potential Direct Impacts to Wetlands and Waterways from 

Proposed Rail Alignments......................................................................................................... 4-142

4.15-4 Potential Direct Impacts to Wetlands and Waterways near Station Areas ............................. 4-142

4.15-5 Estimated Wetland Mitigation Acreage Requirements............................................................ 4-143

4.16-1 Criteria Pollutant Standards..................................................................................................... 4-145

4.16-2 Air Quality Maintenance Areas in the Study Area.................................................................... 4-149

4.16-3 Summary of Estimated Direct Impacts from Locomotive and Thruway Bus Emissions 

to Air Quality (2035)................................................................................................................. 4-151

4.17-1 Existing Conditions: Passenger Train and Thruway Bus Energy Use Affected 

Environment (2014).................................................................................................................. 4-154

4.17-2 Summary of Direct Impacts from Energy Expenditure and GHG Emissions (2035)................. 4-156

4.21-1 Permits Potentially Required for Construction of the Oregon Passenger Rail Project ............ 4-170

5-1 Agency Scoping Meetings............................................................................................................. 5-6
CONTENTS

x Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

5-2 Public Scoping Meetings............................................................................................................... 5-8

5-3 Public, Agency, and Stakeholder Outreach Meetings Held to Date........................................... 5-11

Figures

ES-1 Preliminary OPR Project Study Area............................................................................................ES-4 

ES-2 Corridor Concepts........................................................................................................................ES-7 

ES-3 Build Alternatives ........................................................................................................................ES-9 

1-1 Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor .................................................................................................... 1-2 

1-2 Amtrak Cascades Ridership – Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor -between 2000 and 2014 ........... 1-3 

1-3 Amtrak Cascades Ridership - Oregon Section - between 1995 and 2014.................................... 1-4 

1-4 Preliminary OPR Project Study Area............................................................................................. 1-8 

2-1 Tier 1 NEPA Process...................................................................................................................... 2-1 

2-2a Corridor Concepts......................................................................................................................... 2-3 

2-2b Corridor Concepts – Portland Vincity ........................................................................................... 2-4 

2-3a Corridor Concepts – Eliminated.................................................................................................. 2-15

2-3b Corridor Concepts – Eliminated – Portland Vincity.................................................................... 2-16

2-4 Preliminary Alternatives............................................................................................................. 2-20

2-5 Preliminary Alternatives – Eliminated........................................................................................ 2-24

2-6 Build Alternatives ....................................................................................................................... 2-29

3-1 Build Alternatives ......................................................................................................................... 3-2 

3-2 Build Alternatives Routes and Improvements............................................................................ 3-15
Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement x i

OCTOBER 2018

Acronyms and Abbreviations

AERC Albany & Eastern Railroad Company

APE Area of Potential Effects

BC British Columbia

BFE Base Floodplain Elevation

BNSF BNSF Railway

BRT Bus Rapid Transit

CBD Central Business District

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

CETAS Collaborative Environmental and Transportation Agreement for Streamlining

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CIP Corridor Investment Plan

CWA Clean Water Act

DEQ Department of Environmental Quality

DMU diesel multiple unit

DSL Department of State Lands

EFU Exclusive Farm Use

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EJ Environmental Justice

EmX Emerald Express

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ESA Endangered Species Act

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FPPA Farmland Protection Policy Act

FRA Federal Railroad Administration

FTA Federal Transit Administration

g/gal grams per gallon

g/veh-mile grams per vehicle-mile

GHG greenhouse gas

GIS Geographic Information Systems

HSIPR High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail

HSR High-Speed Rail
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

xii Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

I-205 Interstate 205

I-5 Interstate 5

LEP limited English proficiency

Lf lineal feet

LQ location quotient

LTD Lane Transit District

LWCFA Land and Water Conservation Fund Act

mph miles per hour

MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System

MSATs Mobile Source Air Toxics

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

O&M operations and maintenance

OAR Oregon Administrative Rule

OCS Oregon Conservation Strategy

ODFW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

ODOT Oregon Department of Transportation

OPR Project Oregon Passenger Rail Project

OPR Oregon Passenger Rail

OR 228 Oregon Highway 228

OR Oregon

ORBIC Oregon Biodiversity Information Center

ORS Oregon Revised Statute

PNWR Portland and Western Railroad

PNWRC Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor

Project Oregon Passenger Rail Project

PTC Positive Train Control

ROD Record of Decision

ROW right-of-way

RTP Regional Transportation Plan

SAAQS state ambient air quality standards
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement xiii

OCTOBER 2018

SDP Service Development Plan

SE Southeast

Section 106 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966

SHPO Oregon Parks and Recreation Department’s State Historic Preservation Office

SIP State Implementation Plan

STIP 2015-2018 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program

SVOC semi-volatile organic compound

Title VI Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

TSP Transportation System Plan

U.S. Census U.S. Census Bureau

UGB Urban Growth Boundary

UPRR Union Pacific Railroad

USC United States Code

USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

VOC volatile organic compound

WA Washington

WES Westside Express Service

WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

xiv Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

This page intentionally left blank.
CHAPTER 1 

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1 - 1

OCTOBER 2018

Introduction and Purpose and Need

This chapter describes the purpose and need for improving intercity passenger rail service along the 

Oregon segment of the Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor (PNWRC). The Oregon segment of the PNWRC is 

approximately 125 miles long, from the Eugene-Springfield urban area to Portland. The US Department of 

Transportation’s (USDOT), Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is the Federal lead agency and the Oregon 

Department of Transportation (ODOT) is working with the FRA to complete the Oregon Passenger Rail 

(OPR) Project. The FRA, ODOT and ODOT’s consultants comprise the “OPR Project team.” The OPR Project 

entails development of a Corridor Investment Plan (CIP), which has the following two components: 

development of Service Development Plan (SDP) and associated Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS). The OPR Project, and the background leading to its development, are described in more detail in the 

following sections of this chapter.

The entire Oregon portion of the PNWRC that comprises the OPR Project study area is within the 

Willamette Valley. In the next 20 years, the population of Oregon’s Willamette Valley is projected to grow 

by approximately 27 percent to reach 3.6 million residents (Oregon DAS, 2015). During the same period, 

freight volume in the state is expected to grow by approximately 60 percent (ODOT, 2011). These increases 

will result in transportation demand that exceeds the available freight and passenger rail capacity in the 

Willamette Valley, as both utilize the same facilities within the corridor. The goal of the OPR Project is to 

identify the rail infrastructure necessary to support additional passenger and freight-rail capacity, and to 

identify service improvements that will achieve more reliable passenger rail service with greater frequency 

and shorter travel times (the principal service objectives) between Portland and the Eugene-Springfield 

urban area.

1.1 Background and Context

The following sections provide background and contextual information regarding the impetus for, and 

development of, the OPR Project.

1.1.1 Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor

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 

(U.S.). The 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 (WA), 

and Oregon (OR) (see Figure 1-1). It links Vancouver, BC, Seattle, WA, and Portland and Eugene, OR with 

growing intermediate communities (including the capital cities of Salem, OR, and Olympia, WA). 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 Rail, 

Portland & Western Railroad, and Amtrak) currently utilize BNSF Railway and UPRR trackage that also 

serves as the PNWRC.
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED

1 - 2 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

Figure 1-1. Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor 

Source: Amtrak Cascades, 2017
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1 - 3

OCTOBER 2018

As shown in Figure 1-2, rail ridership for full PNWCR has grown from about 287,000 riders in 1995 to 

nearly 780,000 in 2014, having reached about 850,000 riders in 2011 (Washington State Department of 

Transportation [WSDOT] Rail Division, 2015). Since 1995, rail ridership along the PNWRC has grown at an 

average annual growth rate of 5.6 percent.

Figure 1-2. Amtrak Cascades Ridership – Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor -between 2000 and 2014 

Source: Amtrak Cascades-Pacific Northwest Corridor, 2014 Performance Data Report (WSDOT Rail Division, 2015)

Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia have a long history of collaboration, contributing to the success 

of passenger rail service on the PNWRC. Oregon and Washington have planned, studied, and operated a 

coordinated, state-sponsored passenger rail service since 1994. These states’ shared vision is to continue 

cooperation and to transition from operating as separate segments to operating the service as a fully

integrated passenger rail system. Oregon and Washington will continue to work together towards achieving 

the common goals of increasing ridership and developing intercity passenger rail service as a competitive 

transportation choice.

ODOT and WSDOT signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on March 7, 2012 that committed the 

two agencies to joint operation of the service as a single corridor. While WSDOT and ODOT agreed to joint 

operations of the service in a single corridor, each state is responsible for making infrastructure funding 

decisions within each respective state independently. The MOU called for completion of the Cascades Rail 

Corridor Management Workplan by January 2013. ODOT and WSDOT endorsed the workplan on January 

31, 2013. The Corridor Management Workplan provides a framework for the initial steps and milestones 

ODOT and WSDOT will follow in furthering the coordination, efficiency, and effectiveness of passenger rail 

service and operations. This workplan identifies the OPR Corridor Investment Plan among the currently 

funded activities within the PNWRC.

1.1.2 Oregon Passenger Rail

ODOT initiated daily Amtrak passenger rail round trips between Eugene and Portland in 1994. Since that 

time, Oregon has invested more than $77 million in capital improvements for passenger rail service, 

including railroad infrastructure, stations, and rolling stock. A second State-sponsored daily round trip was 
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED

1 - 4 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

added in 2000, resulting in Oregon ridership growth of over 64,700 rail passengers between 2000 and 2014 

(Figure 1-3) (Oregon Department of Transportation [ODOT], 2015). In 2010, ODOT purchased two new 

trainsets using Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) funds, re-purposed by the Oregon Transportation 

Commission and approved by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The trains are now in service on the 

Amtrak Cascades corridor.

Current intercity passenger rail service in Oregon includes two Amtrak Cascades train round trips per day. 

In Oregon, the Amtrak Cascades station stops include Eugene, Albany, Salem, Oregon City, and Portland, 

and the Amtrak Cascades route continues north to Vancouver, British Columbia (BC). In addition to the 

Amtrak Cascades service, Amtrak sponsors one daily round trip of the Coast Starlight between Los Angeles 

and Seattle and one daily round trip of the Empire Builder between Portland and Chicago. In Oregon, the 

Coast Starlight stops in Klamath Falls, Chemult, Eugene, Albany, Salem, and Portland. Portland is the only 

stop for the Empire Builder in Oregon.

ODOT also contracts with a private operator servicing eight dedicated Amtrak “Thruway” bus routes in 

Oregon to supplement passenger rail service. Since 1995, the combined bus and rail ridership in Oregon has 

grown by over 150,300 passengers, at an average annual growth rate of 7.3 percent, an important 

contribution to the overall PNWRC.

Figure 1.3. Amtrak Cascades Ridership - Oregon Section - between 1995 and 2014 

Source: ODOT Rail Division: 2000-2014 Ridership Data (ODOT, 2015a)

ODOT is required to comply with their Oregon Transportation Plan (OTP), including the multiple modal 

elements that comprise it. ODOT’s continued investment in Amtrak Cascades intercity rail and bus service 

directly implements the policy intent of the Oregon Transportation Options Plan (ODOT, 2015), which is an 

element of the OTP by: providing greater travel options to Oregon residents, businesses and visitors, 

through investment to expand the use of existing transportation infrastructure. The Transportation Options 

Plan goal is to reduce reliance on the single-occupancy vehicle by facilitating greater use of transit, biking, 

walking and rideshare.
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1 - 5

OCTOBER 2018

1.1.3 High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program

FRA developed the High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Program to help address the nation’s 

transportation challenges by making strategic investments in an efficient network of passenger rail 

corridors. The objectives of the HSIPR Program are to:

• Build new high-speed rail corridors that expand and fundamentally improve passenger transportation 

in the geographic regions they serve

• Upgrade existing intercity passenger rail corridors to improve the reliability, speed, and frequency of 

existing services

• Lay the groundwork for future high-speed rail services through corridor and state planning efforts 

The HSIPR Program is funded through several appropriations, including the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009. On April 1, 2010, FRA issued the “High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program 

(HSIPR) Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA): FY 2020 Planning Projects” in the Federal Register. In 

response, ODOT submitted an application, which the USDOT selected to receive funding through a 

cooperative agreement to develop a Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan for the Oregon segment of 

the PNWRC. In September 2011, ODOT received $4.2 million in Federal grants from the HSIPR program to 

continue planning efforts aimed at improving passenger rail service on the Oregon segment of the PNWRC. 

This funding, along with $5.8 million from ODOT, was used to prepare this Oregon Passenger Rail Tier 1 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). 

1.1.4 Corridor Investment Planning

Due to the complexity of intermediate and long-range planning associated with passenger rail service 

development, extensive pre-construction preparation is required, including operations planning, 

environmental analysis/review, and conceptual engineering efforts. The first phase of this FRA process is 

the development of a Corridor Investment Plan (CIP). The process of completing a CIP consists of:

• Conducting an environmental review in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

in which the purpose and need of the improvements are defined and alternatives are developed, then

analyzed and compared based on their environmental, socioeconomic, and transportation impacts; and 

• Developing a Service Development Plan (SDP), which is a detailed definition of the service 

improvements, transportation network, operational, and financial aspects for the passenger rail service 

alternative selected through the NEPA process. 

Together, the Tier 1 EIS and SDP complete the CIP. This CIP is the foundation for future project 

development, including engineering design, project-level environmental reviews, environmental permitting, 

and construction. The intent of the OPR CIP is to provide sufficient information to support future FRA, 

State of Oregon, local government and private sector decisions to fund investments in the Oregon segment 

of the PNWRC.

1.1.5 Tiered Approach to the National Environmental Policy Act

FRA is the lead Federal agency responsible for conducting the NEPA environmental review process for the 

Project. In addition, FRA manages financial assistance programs for rail capital investments and may also 

have discretionary decisions related to its role as the regulator of railroad safety (e.g., promulgation of a 

rule of particular applicability). NEPA is a Federal environmental law that facilitates public disclosures 

and establishes policies for Federal agencies to study a reasonable range of alternatives and assess 

environmental impacts of projects. NEPA requires that Federal agencies prepare an EIS for any major 

Federal action significantly affecting or with the potential to significantly affect the quality of the natural 

and built environment.
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED

1 - 6 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

FRA typically uses a "tiered" NEPA approach (as provided in 40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1508.28) 

for complex projects of this size and scope. The tiered NEPA decision-making process allows a broad-level 

programmatic decision with a first-tier EIS, followed by more specific decisions by means of one or more 

second-tier NEPA documents. The NEPA tiering approach allows for incremental decision-making regarding

large projects that would otherwise be too extensive and cumbersome to analyze in a traditional project 

EIS.

NEPA and the Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) NEPA implementing regulations define the general 

framework for preparing an EIS. FRA also has its own, more specific, guidelines for implementing NEPA. 

The NEPA EIS process typically includes these steps:

• Notice of Intent (NOI) – a notice, published in the Federal Register, notifying the public of the Federal

agency’s intent to prepare an EIS, defining the proposed action, describing the scoping process 

including informing the public how to comment on the proposed action, and providing the name and 

address of a person within the agency who can answer questions about the proposed action and the 

EIS.

• Scoping – an early and open process for identifying significant issues related to a proposed action. As

part of the scoping process, agencies and the public are invited to participate and provide comment.

• Draft EIS (DEIS) – the purpose of the DEIS is to disclose all environmental impacts associated with the 

project alternatives, whether they are adverse or beneficial; consider mitigation measures; and allow 

the public to review and comment on the document.

• Final EIS (FEIS) – the purpose of the FEIS is to disclose all environmental impacts associated with the 

project alternatives, whether they are adverse or beneficial; consider mitigation measures; and identify 

the preferred alternative. The FEIS also includes all comments received on the DEIS, and responds to 

those comments. 

• Record of Decision (ROD) – the purpose of a ROD is for the agency to provide at the time of its decision 

a concise public record of that decision that identifies FRA’s selected alternative, describes the 

alternatives considered, lists proposed Best Management Practices (BMPs) and mitigation options, and 

states how FRA’s decision was made. The ROD issuance completes the NEPA process.

FRA and ODOT formally initiated a Tier 1 EIS for the OPR Project on August 17, 2012 through publication of 

an NOI in the Federal Register. This Tier 1 Draft EIS has been prepared in accordance with NEPA, CEQ’s

NEPA implementing regulations, and FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (64 Fed. Reg. 

28545 as updated in 78 Fed. Reg. 2713, January 14, 2013). The OPR Project Tier 1 EIS addresses corridorlevel improvements to passenger rail service, including the following:

• Rail corridor – Reasonable and feasible rail alignment improvement alternatives from EugeneSpringfield, OR, to Vancouver, WA

• Service characteristics – Passenger rail operational elements, train speeds, travel time, train frequency, 

and train technology

• Communities with potential stations – The general location at the community level of passenger rail 

stations

This Tier 1 Draft EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative and two build alternatives (Alternative 1 and 

Alternative 2), as described in Chapter 3. In late 2015, the FRA and ODOT identified Alternative 1 as the 

Preferred Alternative, because it provides more frequent and reliable rail service in a more cost-effective 

way that would result in less potential adverse impacts to the built and natural environment than 

Alternative 2. Further description of this preferred alternative can be found in Chapter 4, Section 4.23, of 

this document.
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1 - 7

OCTOBER 2018

The OPR Project Tier 1 EIS is the first of two potential environmental review tiers.

If FRA selects a build alternative at the conclusion of this Tier 1 NEPA analysis, it is expected that ODOT 

would implement the OPR Project in phases. Phases will be added as demand increases and as funding 

becomes available. One or more of the components or operable segments of the selected alternative for 

the OPR Project could also be developed as individual projects to advance into final design and 

construction. ODOT anticipates seeking a combination of Federal and state funding to advance the OPR 

Project into final design and construction, however, currently no funding has been identified to advance the 

project. If ODOT advances the OPR Project into final design and construction and Federal funding permits, 

or other Federal approval is involved, a Tier 2 NEPA analysis, led by the appropriate Federal agency, would 

be required. The scope of such review would be based on the nature of the Federal action. 

1.1.6 OPR Project Study Area

ODOT and FRA established a preliminary OPR Project study area during the NEPA scoping period in fall 2012 

(Figure 1-4). The preliminary OPR Project study area was generally bounded by the Eugene-Springfield, OR, 

area to the south and the Washington state line (Columbia River) to the north. The Cascade foothills 

bounded the study area to the east and the Coast Range bounded it to the west. This study area was

broad enough to encompass a variety of corridor alignments and potential station locations suggested by 

stakeholders and the public during the scoping period. As corridor concepts and potential station locations 

were considered and eliminated, ODOT and FRA narrowed the study area boundaries to assess a more 

localized range of potential impacts associated with each of the corridor concepts. (See Chapter 2 for the 

concepts that the OPR team considered and eliminated, and the reasons for eliminating these concepts.)

ODOT and FRA also developed discipline- and resource-specific study areas for each environmental impact 

analysis topic studied in this Tier 1 Draft EIS. These study areas are identified in Chapters 4 and 5.
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED

1 - 8 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

Figure 1-4. Preliminary OPR Project Study Area 
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1 - 9

OCTOBER 2018

1.2 Statement of Purpose and Need

As described in more detail in Chapter 5 of this document, stakeholder, interested party, and jurisdictional 

agency comments received during the EIS scoping period (August 17 to October 31, 2012) helped shape 

the following Purpose and Need statement.

1.2.1 Purpose of Proposed Action

The purpose of the OPR Project is to improve the frequency, convenience, speed, and reliability of 

passenger rail service along the Oregon segment of the Federally designated PNWRC in a manner that will:

• Provide riders with an efficient, safe, equitable and affordable alternative to highway, bus, and 

air travel; 

• Be a cost-effective investment; 

• Protect freight-rail carrying capability;4

• Support the ongoing implementation of regional high-speed intercity passenger rail in the PNWRC 

between the Eugene-Springfield, OR, metropolitan area and Vancouver, British Columbia;

• Be compatible with the Washington state portion of the PNWRC; 

• Promote economic development; 

• Avoid or minimize community and environmental impacts; and

• Integrate with existing and planned multi-modal transportation networks. 

1.2.2 Need for Proposed Action

The need for the OPR Project arises from multiple transportation, land use, socio-economic, and 

environmental considerations, including the following:

• Increasing intercity and regional travel demands; 

• Existing limited rail-system capacity and competing service needs; 

• Constrained state and local roadway funding; 

• Increasing economic vitality of the corridor; 

• Promoting transportation system safety and security; and

• Changing transportation demand resulting from demographic changes. 

1.2.2.1 Increasing Intercity and Regional Travel Demands

As population and the economy grow, so does the demand for travel. With more people and more jobs, 

Oregon’s transportation infrastructure is facing significant pressures. In several areas of the state, 

transportation infrastructure has inadequate capacity and the system lacks the multimodal transportation 

options that Oregonians need today. In the next 20 years, the population of Oregon's Willamette Valley is 

projected to grow by approximately 27 percent to 3.6 million residents (Oregon DAS, 2015). Consequently, 

the demands on the transportation system will increase. 

The FRA-designated PNWRC travels through Oregon’s Willamette Valley, which is bookended on the south 

by the cities of Eugene and Springfield (approximate regional population of 350,000) and on the north by 

the Portland metropolitan region (population 2.3 million). Stretching more than 100 miles north to south 

in western Oregon, the Willamette Valley is home to 70 percent of the state’s 4.0 million residents.

 

4 Cargo load that can be transported by freight rail.
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED

1 - 1 0 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

Oregon’s population growth through 2035 will be concentrated in the Willamette Valley. Four counties 

within the Greater Portland area (Multnomah, Washington, Yamhill, and Clackamas) will account for over 

two-thirds (68%) of Oregon’s population growth through 2035 (Oregon DAS, 2015).

Eight of the 10 largest cities in Oregon are situated along the PNWRC, including the state’s three largest 

metropolitan areas of Portland, Salem-Keizer, and Eugene-Springfield. The Portland, Salem-Keizer, and 

Eugene-Springfield metro areas serve as the state’s economic, cultural, and political centers and provide a 

hub for trade, commerce, and travel. In addition, the Willamette Valley has some of the most fertile soils on 

earth (Portland State University, 2015). The Eugene-Springfield area is shaped by the presence of the 

University of Oregon.

The primary modes of intercity passenger transportation along the PNWRC consist of private motor 

vehicles, intercity bus and rail services, and commercial air travel. The vast majority of north-south trips 

within the Willamette Valley are accomplished using private automobiles, with air travel playing a much 

smaller role. With competitive costs, travel times, comfort, and convenience, conventional passenger rail 

can compete with air travel for short-haul intercity travel. 

The major north–south highway running through the Willamette Valley is Interstate 5 (I-5). The freeway 

carries both local and long-distance trips, linking the city of Portland with suburban communities to the 

south as well as the larger cities of Keizer, Salem, Albany, Eugene, and Springfield. It connects the most 

populous Willamette Valley metropolitan areas, and serves as the major north–south freight route on the 

West Coast. Traffic congestion can make travel slow and unreliable along I-5, especially during peak travel 

times in the section between Portland and Albany. While regional and statewide transportation plans may 

include some additional transportation capacity in the Willamette Valley by 2030, there are no plans to 

build capacity into the highway and rail systems commensurate with the magnitude of growth in people, 

jobs, and freight (ODOT, 2014a).

The combination of increases in congestion on I-5, in population, and in freight, and the general lack of 

funding to expand the state’s highway system, has led to increased demand for alternative travel modes, 

including passenger rail, for business, personal, and tourist travel. For example, in response to the large 

population of students in the Eugene and Corvallis-Albany areas, BoltBus (a subsidiary to Greyhound) began 

intercity bus service on I-5 between Eugene and Portland in 2013.

Passenger rail ridership on the existing State-sponsored Amtrak Cascades service between Portland and 

Eugene (that also serves stations in Oregon City, Salem, and Albany) is expected to increase with 

Willamette Valley population growth. By 2035, the population of the Willamette Valley is forecast to reach 

approximately 3.6 million. During this same period, freight volume (carried by both trains and trucks) in 

Oregon is expected to grow by approximately 60 percent (ODOT, 2014f). The increase in both freight and 

demand for alternative modes of travel creates a need for capital investment in rail infrastructure.

The Oregon Transportation Plan (ODOT, 2006) forecasts that public transportation ridership would increase 

by an annual rate of 3.2 percent between 2005 and 2030, and that passenger rail ridership would grow by 

3.6 percent annually during the same period. In comparison, the plan forecast that highway vehicle miles 

traveled would grow by a lower annual rate of 1.4 percent between 2004 and 2030. Between 1995 and 

2014, annual rail ridership along the Oregon segment of the PNWRC grew 163 percent, from 44,490 to 

117,160 passengers. Therefore, actual intercity passenger rail ridership along the Oregon segment of the 

PNWRC exceeded expectations by increasing at a compound average annual rate of 6.8 percent between 

1995 and 2014. In addition, annual Amtrak Cascades ridership growth exceeded average annual statewide 

population growth (1.0 percent) between 2005 and 2012, which suggests that intercity passenger rail’s 

market share is likely increasing relative to other modes.

Factors that have contributed to the increases Oregon passenger rail ridership has experienced in recent 

years include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Population growth
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1 - 1 1

OCTOBER 2018

• Rising costs of highway travel and diminished performance through congestion

• Aging populations that cannot or choose not to drive and need alternate travel options, as well as 

younger populations that desire the same

• Growing environmental awareness and concerns about climate change

• Improved information and communication technology and intelligent transportation systems that ease 

rail system use and enhance the travel experience

• Public and private investments that improve rail service

Overall, these trends indicate a steadily growing demand for intercity passenger rail services.

1.2.2.2 Limited Rail System Capacity and Competing Service Needs

Predictable, safe and reliable performance is needed to ensure that rail remains a viable part of Oregon’s 

balanced multimodal transportation system. Freight and passenger rail between Eugene and Portland have 

competing service needs in a corridor with limited rail system capacity. Forecasted economic and 

population growth places an added burden on the existing rail network to move both people and freight. 

Currently, passenger trains between Portland and Eugene operate on UPRR-owned tracks. BNSF Railway 

owns the railroad tracks in the congested corridor between Union Station in Portland, OR, and Washington 

State.

ODOT has a vested interest in proactively planning for the rail system’s future so that Oregon’s residents 

and businesses can capitalize on the benefits freight and passenger rail services provide. ODOT has funded 

a variety of rail improvements on the existing UPRR mainline to mitigate for the effect of increased 

passenger service on freight operations. Improvements have included installation of Centralized Traffic 

Control (CTC), at-grade crossing signal upgrades, and track upgrades.

As currently configured, passenger train speeds over the route between Portland and Eugene only average 

42 miles per hour (mph). However, recent improvements have increased the miles of track where 

passenger trains can operate at speeds of up to 79 mph from 7 miles to almost 34 miles between Eugene 

and Albany, which may result in an increase in average speeds. Reasons for the current slow average speed 

include, but are not limited to, track condition and geometry, speed restrictions through heavily populated 

areas, the amount of single track segments and accommodation for freight traffic. At present, the line has 

little reserve capacity and is configured to handle only the modest traffic volumes that now utilize it 

(ODOT, 2014b).

Amtrak Cascades is one of the nation’s best-patronized passenger rail services. Over the five-year period 

2012 through 2016, more than a million people used the Amtrak Cascades trains and supplemental buses 

between Eugene and Portland, averaging more than 200,000 riders annually. Ridership steadily increased 

year over year after inception of the service in 1994, topping 215,000 passengers in 2013. Since then, 

several factors have contributed to some decline in ridership, but two additional Portland-Seattle train 

round trips, along with a revised timetable, are expected to increase Amtrak Cascades ridership (Melbo, R., 

pers. comm., 2017).

After a July 2013 court decision invalidated the part of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act 

related to development of standard performance metrics for passenger train timeliness, Amtrak on-time 

performance began to deteriorate in Oregon and throughout the U.S. (ODOT, 2015a). Over the same 

period, the ongoing economic recovery has increased freight train traffic, adding to the circumstances that 

cause conflicts between passenger and freight trains operating over the same line interference.

In Oregon, freight train interference continues to be the principal source of Amtrak passenger train delays 

attributable to the primary host railroad (UPRR). In January 2014, ODOT implemented a schedule change on 

the Amtrak Cascades between Portland and Eugene to allow passengers to depart in the morning from 

both Portland and Eugene and make a round trip the same day on the train—an option not previously 
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED

1 - 1 2 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

available. The 2014 schedule established an early-morning southbound train departing Portland at 

6:00 a.m. weekdays and, initially, at 8:30 a.m. on weekends and selected holidays. The weekend/holiday 

departure was adjusted later in the year to 9:35 a.m., which improved ridership on those days. However, 

ridership on the 6:00 a.m. weekday train remained consistently low, averaging approximately a quarter of 

the ridership of the other trains. While ODOT anticipated an initial drop in 2014 ridership because of the 

schedule change, it expected ridership to rebound over the course of several months. Instead, ridership 

languished through 2014 and ended 2015 at 9.9 percent below the peak of 2013. Ridership during 2016 

was relatively flat, posting a year-over-year increase of less than 1 percent (Melbo, R., pers. comm., 2017). 

Several factors depressing ridership growth affected the service simultaneously. The schedule change that 

created the 6:00 a.m. southbound weekday train also established conditions that required passenger trains 

running in opposite directions to pass one another three times daily between Portland and Eugene. ODOT 

designed the new schedule with consideration of locations where these encounters were anticipated to 

occur. However, trains needed to be punctual for the service to function well, and each day the host 

railroad’s dispatchers determine the actual location where trains will meet or pass dependent upon 

timeliness, freight train traffic and maintenance work. When movement of a passenger train conflicts with 

another, any resulting delay is recorded as passenger train interference. After ODOT implemented the 2014 

schedules, the amount of passenger train interference incurred was substantially greater than anticipated, 

adding to other host railroad delays and detrimentally affecting on-time performance. People who have 

time commitments will not travel on a train with poor on-time reliability (Melbo, R., pers. comm., 2017).

Another factor influencing the Amtrak Cascades ridership drop in Oregon has been a decline in gasoline 

prices, resulting in more people opting to drive personal vehicles. Relatively inexpensive fuel has 

contributed to reduced ridership in 2017, and ODOT expects this trend to continue through 2018. The late 

2013 entry of Greyhound’s BoltBus—a low-fare intercity bus service that expanded into the Willamette 

Valley after establishing service between Portland and Seattle. BoltBus ticket sales are via the internet only, 

stations are simple curbside bus stops, and fares are considerably lower than those of the Amtrak Cascades. 

BoltBus adjusts service in accordance with demand. Some days it offers no service, while three to six round 

trips between Portland and Eugene are available on other days (Melbo, R., pers. comm., 2017).

ODOT expects the Amtrak Cascades service additions and schedule changes that took effect on 

December 18, 2017, to increase ridership in Oregon during 2018 and beyond. Two new daily round trips 

added between Portland and Seattle provide more options for travel between Oregon, Washington and 

British Columbia. The departure time of the weekday morning southbound train from Portland changed 

from 6:00 a.m. to 9:45 a.m., and the weekend/holiday schedule changed from 9:35 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. Both 

of these schedules allow connections for trains arriving in Portland from Seattle, facilitating continuous, 

single-seat through travel south of Portland from points in Washington state that were not previously 

available. Oregon’s only other train schedule change is the afternoon northbound Eugene-Seattle train that 

departs Eugene at 4:30 p.m., 30 minutes later than under the previous schedule (Melbo, R., pers. comm., 

2017).

Future capital infrastructure investments in intercity passenger rail that reduce freight conflicts and 

increase overall train speed, coupled with service and operational adjustments, can improve overall 

passenger train travel times and reliability.

1.2.2.3 Constrained State and Local Roadway Funding

Constrained state and local roadway funding will limit the ability to fund roadway capacity projects to 

improve north–south mobility in the Willamette Valley. Oregon’s funding outlook for financing roadway 

improvements is severely constrained because of lower gas-tax revenue, decreased Federal funding for 

highways, and Oregon’s repayment of transportation-infrastructure-improvement bonds. The direct result 

is limited funding available for future highway projects. 
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1 - 1 3

OCTOBER 2018

Lower Gas Tax Revenues

While fuel tax revenues for the Oregon State Highway Fund have steadily increased since 2014, ODOT 

forecasts that they will decline over the foreseeable future. One of the primary reasons for this projected 

decline is because more people are driving more fuel-efficient vehicles. Federal fuel-efficiency targets have 

decreased fuel consumption in light vehicles and will likely continue this trend. Based on analysis conducted 

by the State of Oregon, fuel tax revenues for the Oregon State Highway Fund have steadily increased since 

2014 and are anticipated to increase until 2021. After 2021, ODOT predicts that revenues will level off and 

then decrease, partially due to increased use of more fuel-efficient vehicles (ODOT 2018). 

Decreased Federal Funding for Highways

Federal funding comes from the Highway Trust Fund, which has been running at a deficit for years, 

resulting in decreased Federal highway funding. Reduced Federal funding for highways could lead to fewer 

highway infrastructure investments, or the postponement of investments to a later date. This increases 

highway congestion and would encourage travelers to look for alternatives to intercity driving, such as 

passenger rail.

Repayment of Transportation-Infrastructure-Improvement Bonds

Oregon State Highway Funds are being used to repay bonds from recent critical transportationinfrastructure improvements. The Oregon Transportation Investment Act authorized ODOT to use bonding 

for the first time in 2001. In 2009, the Oregon Jobs and Transportation Act used the bonding authority to 

fund infrastructure projects across the state. Bonding allowed ODOT to build projects much faster than the 

previous “pay-as-you-go” funding approach, but also meant significant debt service over an extended time 

that has reduced the funding available for new projects. For the next 25 to 30 years, ODOT will be paying 

more than $200 million in annual debt service from the Oregon State Highway Fund – about 35 percent of 

ODOT’s share of that fund.

Oregon State Highway Fund resources are essentially fully committed to debt service, highway 

maintenance activities, and service costs. This means that potential Federal funding will be the 

predominant source for future transportation projects. As previously mentioned, Federal funding for 

highways has decreased. Therefore, ODOT and other jurisdictions are looking beyond roadway projects 

towards other types of transportation projects to leverage available funding sources for non-roadway 

projects to improve mobility and to provide an interconnected multimodal system that serves both regional 

and local networks.

Findings from the 2013 Oregon Values and Beliefs Project (DHM Research and Policy Interactive, 2013)5

indicate that a majority of Oregonians support investment in public transportation and consider such 

investment more important than investing in additional roads for cars. When asked about a list of publicservice priorities, however, Oregonians ranked road and highway maintenance above public transportation 

(such as buses and trains) and new roads. It appears that Oregonians want to take care of the roads they 

have while recognizing that public transportation investments could be a better choice than additional 

roads for the future.

1.2.2.4 Increasing Economic Vitality of the Corridor

The Willamette Valley contains the state’s three largest urban areas (Portland, Salem, and Eugene). 

With 8 of the 10 largest cities in Oregon, the Willamette Valley is the most urban (densely-populated) 

region in Oregon. It also is the fastest-growing region, with a 2050 population projected at approximately 

four million, an increase of 70 percent from 2014. The region also provides almost half of the state’s 

 

5 The 2013 project was led by Portland-based DHM Research and Policy Interactive and sponsored by Oregon Health & Science University, 

The Oregon Community Foundation, Oregon Public Broadcasting, and Oregon State University. Researchers interviewed more than 

9,000 Oregonians from a range of geographies, ages, incomes, and ethnicities.
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED

1 - 1 4 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

agricultural sales by value and includes 6 of the top 10 agricultural-producing counties. In addition, 16 of 

the top 17 private-sector employers (manufacturing, high technology, forest products, agriculture, and 

services) are located in the Willamette Valley. 

With I-5 and the UPRR mainline running its north–south length, the Willamette Valley’s economy is shaped 

by the transportation system and the flow of goods. The freight and passenger rail transportation system in 

Oregon can help accommodate the needs of an increasing number of residents and workers, and do so 

reliably, safely, and efficiently.

Increasingly, congested highways and rail corridors have negative effects on the economy of communities 

in the Willamette Valley. Failure to adequately invest in the transportation system will likely result in 

significant losses to Oregon’s economy, job base, and quality of life. More than 346,400 jobs in Oregon are 

transportation-related, or transportation-dependent. According to Economic Impacts of Congestion on the 

Portland-Metro and Oregon Economy (Economic Development Research Group, Inc., 2014), in 2010, 

5 percent of all travel time in Portland-Metro took place in congested conditions. By 2040, if only the 

currently programmed improvements are made, this travel time is expected to triple to 69 hours of 

congestion annually for the average Portland-Metro household. Transportation is critical to business 

competitiveness and sustained business growth in Oregon. With increased congestion, businesses will have 

to alter operations to keep a competitive edge.

In an increasingly competitive global economy, the success of cities will depend on efficient connections. 

For the passenger and freight rail system, economic benefits include job creation, support of freightdependent industries, and tourism. Historically, connecting cities has encouraged them to prosper. In the 

Willamette Valley, future economic growth will increasingly depend on the ability to move people and 

goods easily from city to city. Improved passenger rail service from Portland to Salem to Eugene would, in 

effect, bring those cities “closer together.” Shorter travel times and the ability to avoid traffic congestion on 

I-5 would strengthen connections among employment centers and major educational institutions, reducing 

barriers and encouraging new technology clusters.

By connecting urban centers and local transit systems, improved passenger rail service can increase the 

accessibility of cities with a lower cost of living for those working in major employment areas. It can support 

Oregon’s land use goals by encouraging development and redevelopment around passenger rail stations in 

existing urban areas, while protecting air quality through lower-emission travel.

Serving both business and leisure travel markets, passenger rail service offers safe, “hands free” travel that 

gives riders the option to work or use communications devices while in transit. By giving travelers an 

alternative that is competitive with driving (especially between Portland and Salem), improved passenger 

rail service has the potential to help reduce future traffic congestion on I-5 and protect roadway capacity 

for freight movement and interstate travel.

Transportation investments are needed to reduce travel delay, which will improve economic market access 

and competitiveness. With declining state and local roadway funding, rail infrastructure investments can 

help reduce congestion’s effect on the economic vitality of the Willamette Valley highway network by 

providing an alternative to driving for some trips. In those areas where track would be shared between 

passenger and freight service, rail infrastructure investments that focus on improved passenger rail 

operations would also support improved freight operations. This will consequently help expand market 

access for individuals and goods, and help increase the economic competitiveness of the communities 

within the Willamette Valley and Oregon as a whole.

1.2.2.5 Promoting Transportation System Safety and Security

Improving alternatives to highway travel in the Willamette Valley will bolster the stability and security of 

the surface transportation system. If a major accident or prolonged disruption to travel on I-5 occurs, 

travelers will need options to move through the Willamette Valley. Improved passenger rail service, 

coupled with intelligent information systems, would increase the resiliency of the transportation system.
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1 - 1 5

OCTOBER 2018

Increased passenger capacity via expanded service could also make the transportation system safer as a 

whole. Passenger rail has historically had lower fatality rates per passenger mile compared to highway and 

air travel (Federal Highway Administration [FHWA], 2013). Investing in upgraded tracks, improved at-grade 

or grade-separated crossings, and safety-related railroad communications and signalization would also 

improve rail safety for riders and operators.

1.2.2.6 Changing Transportation Demand Resulting from Demographic Changes

Over the past decade, travel choices within Oregon have shifted away from automobiles and towards 

transit and regional passenger rail. This is consistent with a national trend toward reduced driving within 

and between urban areas. Oregon’s population has become older, with fewer households having access to 

an automobile. In 1980, the 65 and older age group comprised 11 percent of the population. The 2010 

Decennial Census reported that the 65 and older age group now comprises 16 percent of the population in 

Oregon, and by 2040, people aged 65 and older are expected to comprise 21 percent of the population. 

This change in age distribution of drivers can be expected to reduce the number of miles driven per capita 

when averaged across the entire population. Because of the growing population of older Americans, the 

absolute amount of travel and share of travel by people 65+ has grown. However, on a per capita basis, 

Americans of all ages are traveling less today than at the beginning of the century, taking fewer trips and 

traveling fewer miles (FHWA, 2009).

Several recent reports have documented a shift from driving to other travel modes among the “millennial 

generation,” those born between 1982 and 2003 (American Public Transportation Association [APTA], 

2013). According to this APTA study, millennials use the transportation system differently than other 

Americans, relying less on cars and more on transit and bicycling. Frequently, they use multiple modes of 

travel as opposed to relying on a single mode. In urbanized areas, a growing number of people of legal 

driving age are also choosing to not purchase an automobile. From 2001 to 2009, the average annual 

number of vehicle miles traveled by people 16- to 34-years old decreased from 10,300 to 7,900 miles per 

capita—a drop of 23 percent. They took fewer car trips, shorter car trips, and more trips via non-driving 

modes. This transportation behavior appears to be shifting for a variety of reasons, including higher gas 

prices, new licensing laws, improvements in technology that influence greater use of non-automobile 

modes, and changes in values and preferences. It is likely that these factors will have an impact for years to 

come (Davis, Dutzik, and Baxandall, 2012). These travel behaviors are relevant for the Amtrak Cascades

route, because 22 percent of the population in the study area are age 17 and under. If this cohort adopts 

millennial travel trends, this population cohort will also show similar travel preferences. 

These changing demographic trends contribute to an increasing demand for non-automobile intercity travel 

and could result in unprecedented ridership increases, setting the stage for more investment in passenger 

rail service.

1.3 Project Goals and Objectives

The OPR Project’s goals and objectives described below identify the primary issues the Project intends to 

address. These goals and objectives served as the basis of the alternatives evaluation conducted by ODOT in 

2014 that led to the identification of the build alternatives evaluated in this Draft EIS. The initial set of goals 

came out of the public and agency scoping process in 2012. The OPR Project team revised based on 

comments from the public, resource agencies, the Corridor Forum, and the Leadership Council. (For more 

information on the Corridor Forum and the Leadership Council, see Chapter 6.)

Goal 1: Improve passenger rail mobility and accessibility to communities in the Willamette Valley

Objectives:

1A – Provide a viable alternative to auto, air, and bus travel between Eugene and Vancouver, WA

1B – Provide reliable and frequent passenger rail service
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED

1 - 1 6 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

1C – Support multimodal integration at each passenger rail station

1D – Allow for future passenger rail improvements, including higher speeds

Goal 2: Protect freight-rail capacity and investments in the corridor, and maintain safety

Objectives:

2A – Do not increase conflicts between passenger rail or freight rail and vehicles

2B – Protect freight-rail carrying capability

Goal 3: Plan, design, implement, maintain, and operate a cost-effective project

Objectives:

3A – Develop a strategy that can be reasonably funded and leveraged with a range of investment tools 

for construction and operation

3B – Serve the maximum number of people with every dollar invested

Goal 4: Provide an affordable and equitable travel alternative

Objectives:

4A – Provide a viable and affordable alternative for travelers

4B – Provide equitable investments and service, with consideration to race/ethnicity and income

Goal 5: Be compatible with passenger rail investments planned in Washington state

Objective:

5A – Provide passenger rail service to meet the existing and future passenger rail demand for an 

interconnected system in the Pacific Northwest High-Speed Rail corridor

Goal 6: Promote community health and quality of life for communities along the corridor

Objectives:

6A – Benefit communities within the corridor

6B – Minimize negative impacts to communities along the corridor

Goal 7: Protect and preserve the natural and built environments

Objectives:

7A – Support Oregon’s commitment to the preservation of resource lands and to local land use and 

transportation planning

7B – Reduce greenhouse gas emissions in support of national and state policies to slow climate change

7C – Avoid and minimize impacts to the natural environment and cultural resources
CHAPTER 2 

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2 - 1

OCTOBER 2018

AlternativeDevelopment and Screening 

Process

2.1 Introduction

Chapter 2 addresses the foundation, assessment, and narrowing of options for improving intercity

passenger rail service on the Oregon segment of the Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor (PNWRC). The primary 

topics of this chapter include:

• Corridor alignment concepts, existing and potential new stations, train technologies, and travel modes 

considered;

• Framework used for the screening and evaluation processes;

• Outcomes from the screening of corridor alignments, stations, technologies, and travel modes; and

• Outcomes from the preliminary alternatives evaluation process.

Figure 2-1, below, illustrates the Tier 1 EIS process for the Oregon Passenger Rail (OPR) Project. 

Figure 2-1. Tier 1 NEPA Process 
CHAPTER 2 – ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING PROCESS

2 - 2 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

2.2 Development of Corridor Concepts

In the fall of 2012, ODOT and FRA conducted public and agency scoping to solicit input on the initial

“corridor concepts” for improved intercity passenger rail service on the Oregon segment of the PNWRC, 

which is a 466-mile-long passenger rail corridor between Eugene, Oregon, and Vancouver, British Columbia. 

Based on input received during the scoping period and information from previous regional and local 

planning studies, ODOT and FRA established a wide range of corridor concepts for initial study.6 Corridor 

concepts were broadly defined as potential passenger rail alignments and approximate station locations 

between Eugene/Springfield, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington. Most corridor concepts suggested during

the scoping period took advantage of existing rail or highway alignments where additional tracks orsidings

would be adjacent to existing transportation facilities and therefore minimal additional right-of-way would be 

needed. ODOT considered construction of new tunnels where topographic conditions did not allow for atgrade or elevated structure alignments, and/or when existing environmental conditions could make it too

impactful to add track capacity at-grade. The scoping process assumed that each corridor concept would 

operate, at maximum, six daily intercity passenger rail round trips between Eugene/Springfield and 

Portland, OR. This proposed service would match the existing service between Portland and Seattle. The 

corridor concepts identified from the scoping process are shown on Figures 2-2a and 2-2b, and described

below. 

2.2.1 Corridor Concepts – Rail Alignments

The OPR Project study area extends approximately 120 miles between Eugene/Springfield, Oregon and 

Vancouver, Washington. ODOT divided the study area into three geographic sections in order to help 

facilitate the assessment of corridor concepts within the context of the Step 1 screening process. The study 

area sections allowed for the potential hybridization of corridor concepts and provided flexibility in 

developing corridor concepts into preliminary alternatives for analysis in the Step 2 evaluation process. 

Delineation of the geographic section boundaries was influenced by locations where multiple concept 

alignments converged and by logical points directly north or south of communities with an existing or 

potential new passenger rail station.

The three corridor concept study area sections included:

• Section A – Eugene/Springfield to South of Albany (includes the metropolitan areas of Eugene and 

Corvallis; several options for conceptual alignments to join or switch before coming into Albany);

• Section B – South of Albany to Woodburn (includes the metropolitan areas of Albany and Salem; most 

conceptual alignments are in close proximity in the vicinity of Salem and Woodburn); and

• Section C – Woodburn to Vancouver, WA (includes the Portland metropolitan area; conceptual 

alignments follow existing transportation facilities and/or new tunnels).

For the concepts considered during screening, operating speeds on the alignments would vary. Maximum 

speeds would be based on requirements of the host railroad if shared with freight (e.g., currently 60 or 

79 mph), or would be up to 110 mph on sections that would be constructed for passenger-only use. Specific 

speeds for each section of track were not defined at this stage for any of the corridor concepts; more 

detailed analyses were developed for the evaluation of preliminary alternatives. 

 

6 Relevant planning studies included the Oregon Rail Plan (2001), the Oregon Transportation Plan (2006), and the ODOT Intercity Passenger Rail 

Study (2009); these and other applicable studies and reports are included in the reference list, Chapter 8 of this DEIS.
CHAPTER 2 – ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING PROCESS

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2 - 3

OCTOBER 2018
CHAPTER 2 – ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING PROCESS

2 - 4 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018
CHAPTER 2 – ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING PROCESS

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2 - 5

OCTOBER 2018

Existing and potential new stations along the Oregon segment of the PNWRC are identified below for each 

corridor concept. Multiple stations are listed for each corridor concept; however, the Step 1 screening 

process assumed that any corridor concept extending the full distance between Eugene/Springfield and 

Portland would have the same number of intermediate station stops (three) as the current Amtrak 

Cascades service. Further descriptions of the analysis for existing and potential stations are presented in 

Section 2.2.2.

The Blue corridor concept would generally consist of new mainline track parallel to the existing Amtrak 

Cascades route within or near the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) right-of-way through Eugene/Springfield, 

Junction City, Albany, Salem, Keizer, Woodburn, Canby, Oregon City, Milwaukie, and Portland. The route 

would cross the Willamette River in Portland before continuing northward either on or near the existing 

BNSF Railway right-of-way to Vancouver, WA. Passenger rail trains would share track with freight trains

along much of the Blue rail alignment and speeds would be dictated by the host railroad. Existing stations 

associated with the Blue corridor concept included Eugene, Albany, Salem, Oregon City, and Portland. 

Potential new station locations associated with the Blue corridor concept included Springfield, Harrisburg, 

Tangent, Brooks, Woodburn, and Canby.

The Red corridor concept would parallel I-5, either within or near the current highway right-of-way, starting 

at a new station in Springfield and heading north through Albany, Salem, Keizer, Wilsonville, Tualatin and 

Portland to Vancouver, WA. An option would begin in Springfield, travel north along an abandoned 

Southern Pacific rail alignment through Coburg, and then connect with the Red (or Blue) rail alignment 

south of Halsey. The Red rail alignment also assumed construction of new tunnels: one through the hills 

south of Salem, and a second and potentially third in the Portland metropolitan area. Near I-205, the Red 

rail alignment would separate from I-5 and continue north through a new long tunnel on the west side of 

the Willamette River. North of downtown Portland, the Red rail alignment would either continue north 

through NE Portland via a new tunnel, or connect with the Blue rail alignment to continue northward either 

on or near the existing BNSF Railway right-of-way to Vancouver, WA. The Red rail alignment would consist 

of largely new track devoted to intercity passenger rail service and have a maximum design speed of 

110 mph. This maximum speed would only occur on sections of new greenfield track unconstrained by 

topography, track curvature, and other limiting factors. The only existing station location associated with 

the Red corridor concept was Portland’s Union Station. Potential new stations included Springfield, Eugene, 

Albany, Salem, Keizer, Woodburn, Wilsonville, Tualatin, and Portland. 

The Purple corridor concept would generally consist of new mainline track parallel to the existing freight 

rail line historically known as the Oregon Electric Railway (OER), which is currently operated by Portland 

and Western Railroad (PNWR). The Purple rail alignment would start in the Eugene/Springfield area and 

travel westward through Eugene, transitioning from the UPRR alignment to the PNWR alignment before 

turning north near the Eugene Airport. It would continue parallel the PNWR mainline through Junction City 

and Harrisburg. South of Highway 34 and west of Tangent, it would split into two options. One option 

would travel to the northeast, crossing the Calapooia River, Highway 34 and Highway 99E, connecting with 

the Blue rail alignment in south Albany. The other option would travel north across Highway 34 and into 

north Albany before connecting with the Blue rail alignment. North of Albany, the Purple rail alignment 

would return to parallel the PNWR mainline and continue through the Ankeny National Wildlife Refuge 

located south of Salem where it again would split into two options: one option would travel directly north 

through a new tunnel in the hills south of Salem while the other option would continue to follow the PNWR 

alignment skirting the south hills. The Purple rail alignment would continue through Salem paralleling the 

existing PNWR line. North of Donald, the Purple corridor concept would have multiple options: (1) turn east 

to Barlow and connect with the Blue rail alignment west of Canby; (2) continue to parallel the PNWR line to 

Wilsonville and Tualatin, transitioning to parallel the Tillamook Branch line to Rivergrove via a new tunnel

along the north shore of Lake Oswego to Milwaukie and connecting to the Blue rail alignment; (3) travel to 

Tualatin and then into a new tunnel which would surface in Milwaukie before connecting to the Blue rail 

alignment; or (4) connect to the Red rail alignment north of Wilsonville. The Purple corridor concept would 
CHAPTER 2 – ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING PROCESS

2 - 6 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

involve the intermingling of passenger and freight rail and would have limited sections with passenger-only 

traffic; the sections shared with freight would be limited in speed based on the host railroad, and the 

passenger-only sections would be designed to support a maximum speed of 110 mph. Existing station 

locations associated with the Purple corridor concept included Eugene, Albany, and Salem. Potential new 

stations were Springfield, Harrisburg, Keizer, Donald, Wilsonville, and Tualatin.

The Yellow corridor concept would originate in the Eugene/Springfield area and would be identical to the

Purple corridor concept northward to the Eugene Airport, where it would either (1) continue north to 

Junction City and then west on a greenfield alignment to Monroe, or (2) travel approximately 8 miles west 

of Junction City on a greenfield alignment and then turn north to Monroe. Near Monroe, the Yellow rail 

alignment would be sited on an abandoned rail grade northward before intersecting the existing PNWR line

through Corvallis, Independence, McMinnville, and Newberg to connect with the Purple rail alignment in

Tualatin. The Yellow rail alignment would also include options to connect to the Purple or Blue alignment in 

Albany or east of Independence. The Yellow corridor concept would involve the intermingling of passenger 

and freight rail; the maximum design speed would be dictated by the host railroad. Existing stations 

considered with this concept included Eugene and Portland. Potential new station locations associated with 

the Yellow corridor concept were Springfield, Corvallis (2 locations), Independence, McMinnville, Newberg, 

and Tualatin.

The Cascadia High-Speed Rail (HSR) corridor concept was introduced by stakeholders during the EIS 

scoping process. This corridor concept would consist of a fully electric high-speed rail alignment from 

Eugene to Vancouver, WA. The alignment would be separate from existing rail right-of-way and have a 

maximum design speed of 180 mph or greater. The Cascadia HSR rail alignment would occupy the I-5 

median at-grade where possible from Eugene to Tualatin. North of Tualatin, it would travel along a new 

dedicated right-of-way on a combination of new tunnels and elevated track along the Willamette River to

the Rose Quarter and then north across the Columbia River on a new bridge. Proposed new stations 

associated with the Cascadia HSR corridor concept would be located in Eugene, Albany, Salem, Tualatin, 

and Portland. Based on additional suggestions from stakeholders during the EIS scoping process, ODOT and 

FRA considered the following partial corridor concepts and options: 

2.2.1.1 Section A

The Pink corridor concept would travel west from the existing Eugene passenger rail station to Veneta on 

the Coos Bay Branch line, and then north on a greenfield rail alignment to connect to the Yellow alignment

southwest of Junction City. A new station in Veneta could be associated with this option.

The Yellow Option - Corvallis to Albany would include new track parallel to the existing PNWR alignment 

between Corvallis and North Albany, connecting with the Blue alignment north of the existing Albany 

Station. Two potential new passenger rail stations in Corvallis were associated with this option.

The Red Option - Central Albany would connect the Red alignment north of Tangent to the existing Albany 

Station by improving the existing Albany & Eastern and UPRR rail alignments from south Albany into central 

Albany before reconnecting to the Red alignment north of Albany. This option would allow the use of the 

existing Albany station. No potential new passenger rail stations were associated with this option.
CHAPTER 2 – ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING PROCESS

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2 - 7

OCTOBER 2018

2.2.1.2 Section B

The Tan corridor concept would be a short greenfield connection between the Purple and Red alignments

north of Millersburg. No potential new passenger rail stations were associated with this alignment.

2.2.1.3 Section C

The Brown corridor concept would start at the Red or Purple alignments north of Wilsonville and travel 

north within or adjacent to the I-5 right-of-way, then within or adjacent to the I-205 right-of-way through 

southeast Portland, past I-84 at the Gateway area along I-205 and east of Portland International Airport, 

then west on or adjacent to the existing UPRR Kenton line (aligned east-west near Portland International 

Airport) to tie into the Red alignment in north Portland. Potential station locations associated with the 

Brown corridor concept included a potential new station in Tualatin. For this concept, ODOT also 

considered a new station along the route in either north or northeast Portland.

The Brown Option – I-5/I-205 to Central Portland is the same as the Brown corridor concept except it 

would turn west at the I-84 Gateway area on or adjacent to the existing UPRR Graham line into the 

Rose Quarter area in central Portland. For the Brown option ODOT considered a potential new station in 

multiple areas of downtown Portland: the Gateway Area, the Rose Quarter, or Union Station.

The Purple Option – Wilsonville to Central Portland (via Beaverton) would operate on or adjacent to the 

existing PNWR line (TriMet’s Westside Express Service [WES] commuter rail also shares this track) from 

Wilsonville to Beaverton, then turn west through the West Hills into downtown Portland via a new tunnel. 

A potential new passenger rail station in Wilsonville was associated with this alignment, and ODOT also 

considered a potential new station in Beaverton.

The Red Option – 7.5-mile Tunnels from Tigard to Portland Union Station included two options, both 

approximately 7.5 mile-long new tunnels that would extend from Tigard to downtown Portland. The 

western alignment option would have an at-grade section from the I-5/I-205 interchange area to the tunnel 

portal in southwest Portland; it would remain at-grade for the section into Union Station. The other option 

would start at Boones Ferry Road east of Durham, traverse south Portland, cross the Willamette River in 

the vicinity of the Sellwood Bridge, then hug the east shoreline before emerging north of the I-5/I-84 

junction at the Steel Bridge. No new passenger rail stations were associated with these tunnels, as the 

concept would lead to Portland’s Union Station.

The Red Option – 10-mile Tunnel would be a new deep-bore passenger rail tunnel through the Tualatin 

Mountains (also known as the West Hills) from Tualatin to the Northwest Industrial area of Portland, 

turning southeast to serve the existing Union Station by way of the BNSF mainline.

2.2.2 Corridor Concepts – Stations

Based upon input received from stakeholders and interested parties during the EIS scoping process, ODOT 

identified the communities listed below as potential locations for intercity passenger rail stations. The list 

below identifies all communities with existing or potential new stations, and which concept those stations 

could serve. Existing stations along the Oregon segment of the PNWRC are located in Eugene, Albany, 

Salem, Oregon City, and Portland. 
CHAPTER 2 – ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING PROCESS

2 - 8 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

Section Community 

Existing or New Station

(or Both) Concept(s) Served

A Eugene Both existing and new Blue, purple, yellow (existing)

Cascadia HSR

Springfield New Blue, purple, yellow, red

Veneta New Pink (option)

Harrisburg New Blue, purple

Corvallis New Yellow (two potential locations)

Tangent New Red

B Albany Both existing and new Blue, Purple, Yellow (existing)

Red (two potential locations; Red would use a new station 

along I-5 

Independence New Yellow

Salem Both existing and new Two potential locations; Red would use a new station along 

I-5, Blue and Purple would use existing Amtrak station

Keizer New Purple or Red

Brooks New Blue

Woodburn New Three different potential locations; Blue, Red, or Purple 

would use different locations

C McMinnville New Yellow

Newburg New Yellow

Canby New Blue and Purple (option)

Wilsonville New Red and Purple

Tualatin New Yellow, Purple, Red

Beaverton New Purple (option)

Oregon City Existing Red, Blue

Portland Both existing and new Blue, Red, Purple (existing or new), Cascadia HSR (new)

Existing and potential new stations associated with specific corridor concepts are shown previously on 

Figures 2-2a and 2-2b. Some potential new station locations, such as Monmouth, Milwaukie, and Lake 

Oswego, were identified but did not become associated with corridor concepts. For additional information 

regarding the consideration of existing and potential new passenger rail stations, see the Alternatives 

Selection Report (ODOT, 2014c) and the Station Area Assessments (ODOT, 2014e).

2.2.3 Transportation Modes and Train Technologies

Multiple transportation modes and train propulsion technologies were suggested through the public and 

agency scoping process. Descriptions of the suggested modes and technologies are found below.

Transportation Modes:

• Intercity passenger rail

• Commuter rail

• Enhanced bus service

• Highway capacity improvements
CHAPTER 2 – ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING PROCESS

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2 - 9

OCTOBER 2018

Locomotive Technologies:

• Locomotive hauled (existing technology)

• Diesel multiple units

• Dual mode/power

• Electric

• Magnetic levitation (Maglev)

2.2.3.1 Modes

• Intercity Passenger Rail – Passenger rail service between cities (e.g., the existing Amtrak Cascades 

service). In its June 2009 HSIPR NOFA, FRA defined Intercity passenger rail service as, “a group of one or 

more scheduled trains (round trips) that provide Intercity Passenger Rail transportation between bona 

fide travel markets (not constrained by State or jurisdictional boundaries), generally with similar quality 

and level-of-service specifications, within a common (but not necessarily exclusive or identical) set of 

identifiable geographic markets.” 74 Fed. Reg. 29900, 29906 (June 23, 2009).

• Commuter Rail – Passenger rail service with multiple stops within cities; generally focused on travel 

within metropolitan areas, or between major centers with intermediate stops (e.g., Westside Express 

Service (WES) serving the west side of the Portland metro area, and the Sounder in the Seattle area). 

Commuter rail is defined in 49 U.S.C. § 24102 as, “short-haul rail passenger transportation in 

metropolitan and suburban areas usually having reduced fare, multiple ride, and commuter tickets and 

morning and evening peak period operations.” 

• Enhanced Bus Service – Improvements to existing intercity bus service (e.g., existing Thruway 

Motorcoaches). For this project, enhanced bus service relates to intercity passenger bus service.

• Highway Capacity Improvements – Infrastructure investments to expand motorized vehicle capacity on 

the highway system in the project area (e.g., adding travel lanes to Interstate 5).

2.2.3.2 Technologies

• Diesel Locomotive Hauled – FRA defines this category of train technology diesel-powered, paired with 

passenger coaches that are capable of operating at speeds up to 125 mph. ODOT and WSDOT currently 

operate diesel-powered, multi-car train sets manufactured by Talgo and have made recent investments 

in new train sets and locomotives for shared service within both states.

• Diesel Multiple Units – A diesel multiple unit or DMU is a multiple-unit train powered by on-board 

diesel engines. A DMU requires no separate locomotive, as the engines are incorporated into one or 

more of the carriages. This technology is commonly used in Europe where heavier DMUs share tracks at 

the same time with freight. DMUs are also in limited use by commuter rail systems in the United States. 

Lighter DMUs require temporal separation with freight traffic.

• Dual Mode / Dual Power – These locomotives are able to operate under both diesel-electric and allelectric power. New Jersey Transit uses the latest dual mode technology, the ALP-45DP manufactured 

by Bombardier. If electrification is provided on any portion of passenger rail right-of-way, dual power 

locomotives could be utilized. Dual Mode/Dual Power passenger coaches are capable of operating at 

speeds up to 125 mph under electric power and 100 mph under diesel power.

• Magnetic Levitation (Maglev) – Magnetic levitation (Maglev) is an advanced transportation technology 

in which magnetic forces lift, propel, and guide a vehicle over a specially designed guideway.

Maglev does not require wheels or other mechanical parts at higher speeds for support or propulsion. 

Without wheels or other components to cause resistance, cruising speeds up to 310 mph are said to be 
CHAPTER 2 – ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING PROCESS

2 - 1 0 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

technically attainable. There is no public or commercial application of this technology in the 

United States.

2.3 Screening of Corridor Concepts

In early 2013, ODOT and FRA developed a screening and evaluation framework and initiated a two-step 

screening and evaluation process. ODOT used the screening and evaluation to develop a reasonable and 

feasible range of build alternatives to study in more detail in this Tier 1 Draft EIS. The overall screening and 

evaluation process consisted of the following two steps:

Step 1, Screening. ODOT conducted the first step of the framework in winter 2012 through spring 2013. 

For this initial screening step, ODOT assessed the range of corridor concepts identified during the scoping 

period against elements of the OPR Project’s Purpose statement. ODOT further developed and refined 

corridor concepts, including alignments and station locations, that passed the screening into preliminary 

alternatives. ODOT and FRA eliminated from further consideration those corridor concepts that failed the 

screening process. This is described in Sections 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 below. Section 2.3.3 describes the screening 

of suggested modes and technologies.

Step 2, Evaluation. ODOT defined preliminary alternatives in terms of the general location of the mainline 

track, location of sidings and stations, whether crossings would be at-grade or grade-separated, and 

whether structures (e.g., bridges, culverts) would need to be replaced. Conceptual cost estimates were 

developed for each preliminary alternative. The preliminary alternatives were then evaluated according to

how effectively they met the OPR Project evaluation criteria, which are based on the Purpose and Need 

statement as well as Goals and Objectives derived from stakeholder input. The Goals and Objectives for the 

OPR Project are listed in Chapter 1, Section 1.3. The evaluation of preliminary alternatives is described in 

Section 2.4 below.

For additional information on the screening and evaluation processes, see the Alternatives Selection Report 

(ODOT, 2014c).

2.3.1 Step 1, Screening – Corridor Concept Alignments

ODOT assessed the corridor concepts against a series of screening questions using readily available 

environmental resource and land use GIS data provided by cities, counties, and regulatory agencies; 

engineering inventory information provided by state and local jurisdictions; and spatial data available via 

the Internet (such as U.S. Census Bureau data). Table 2-1 lists the screening questions and notes their 

association with the OPR Project’s Purpose statement (see Chapter 1).

Table 2-1. Screening Questions 

Project Purpose

(from Purpose and Need Statement)

Screening Questions

(Yes or No)

Improve the frequency, convenience, speed, and 

reliability of passenger rail service to provide riders 

with an efficient, safe, equitable, and affordable 

alternative to highway, bus, and air travel.

1. Would the concept improve travel time for rail passengers 

between Eugene/Springfield, OR, and Vancouver, WA?

2. Would the concept serve communities with the highest 

populations within or near the corridor?

Be a cost-effective investment. 3. Could the concept provide cost-effective intercity passenger rail?a

Protect freight-rail carrying capability. 4. Could the concept preserve or expand existing freight-rail carrying 

capability?

Support the implementation of regional high-speed 

rail in the PNWRC between the Eugene-Springfield, 

OR, metropolitan area and Vancouver, BC.

5. Would the concept support service consistent with the FRA 

regional high-speed rail designation for the PNWRC?

Be compatible with the Washington State portion of 

the PNWRC.

6. Would the concept be compatible with the Washington State 

portion of the PNWRC?
CHAPTER 2 – ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING PROCESS

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2 - 1 1

OCTOBER 2018

Project Purpose

(from Purpose and Need Statement)

Screening Questions

(Yes or No)

Promote economic development. 7. Could the concept enhance the potential for increased economic 

development?

Avoid or minimize community and environmental 

impacts.

8. Could the concept be constructed in a manner that would avoid 

substantial regulatory hurdles and/or avoid or minimize 

substantial impacts to the community or the natural 

environment?

Integrate with existing and planned multimodal 

transportation networks

9. Would the concept support multimodal connections (such as 

commuter rail, other rail transit, bus, bicycle, and pedestrian 

services)?

a Sufficient data on cost-effectiveness were not available during screening, so this screening question was not used to screen 

corridor concepts.

Corridor concepts (which included rail alignments as well as existing and potential new stations) were 

required to pass all screening questions in order to move on to Step 2, Evaluation. Table 2-2 lists the main 

and partial corridor concepts (described in Section 2.2.1) and identifies the results of the screening process.

Table 2-2. Corridor Concepts – Step 1, Screening Resultsa 

Corridor Concept Section A Section B Section C

Blue Advanced to Step 2, 

Evaluation

Advanced to Step 2, 

Evaluation

Advanced to Step 2, Evaluation

Red Advanced to Step 2, 

Evaluation

Advanced to Step 2, 

Evaluation

Eliminated except for section on I-5 linking to 

Brown concept

Purple Advanced to Step 2, 

Evaluation

Eliminated Albany to 

Salem

Portion from Keizer to 

Donald and connection 

to Canby advanced to 

Step 2, Evaluation

Advanced to Step 2, Evaluation between 

Woodburn and Wilsonville and Donald to 

Oregon City

Eliminated north of Wilsonville and Oregon City 

(connected to Brown and Blue Alternatives, 

respectively)

Yellow Advanced to Step 2, 

Evaluation

Eliminated Eliminated

Pink Eliminated N/A N/A

Tan N/A Eliminated N/A

Brown N/A N/A Eliminated except I-5/I-205 to Oregon City 

portion advanced to Step 2, Evaluationb

Cascadia High-Speed Rail Eliminated Eliminated Eliminated

Yellow Option – Corvallis 

to Albany (OR 34)

Advanced to Step 2, 

Evaluation

N/A N/A

Red Option – Central 

Albany

Advanced to Step 2, 

Evaluation

N/A N/A

Purple (Wilsonville to

Milwaukie via Tualatin

and Lake Oswego)

N/A N/A Eliminated

Purple Option – 

Wilsonville to Central 

Portland (via Beaverton)

N/A N/A Eliminated
CHAPTER 2 – ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING PROCESS

2 - 1 2 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

Corridor Concept Section A Section B Section C

Red Option – 7.5-mile 

Tunnel Options

N/A N/A Eliminated

Red Option – 10-mile 

Tunnel Option

N/A N/A Eliminated

Brown Option – I-5/I-205 

to Central Portland

N/A N/A Advanced to Step 2, Evaluation; became Redb

a All potential new stations associated with alignments that were eliminated were also eliminated.

b The Brown line from I-5/I-205 to Oregon City and Central Portland became part of the Red C-2 line in Step 2, Evaluation.

The rationale for the elimination of main and partial corridor concepts as a result of the Step 1 screening 

process is summarized below in Table 2-3. The concepts that were screened out are shown in Figure 2-3.

Table 2-3. Rationale for Elimination of Corridor Concepts 

Corridor Concept Rationale for Elimination

All Sections All Sections

Cascadia High-Speed Rail This concept failed Screening Question #6 in Sections A, B, and 

C and Screening Question #8 in Section C. It is not compatible 

with the Washington State portion of the PNWRC (Question 

#6) and it would not avoid or minimize community and 

environmental impacts in Section C (Question #8).

Section A Eugene/ Springfield to South of Albany

Pink This concept failed Screening Question #1. It would not 

improve travel time because the alignment travels out of 

direction to serve a community of 4,500 people.

Purple (north of Calapooia River) This concept failed Screening Questions #8 and #9. The 

alignment would not be constructible in a manner that avoids 

or minimizes substantial community impacts (Question #8). 

It would not connect to the central node of the transit system 

in Albany (Question #9).

Section B South of Albany to Woodburn

Yellow Option - Corvallis to Albany Elimination of the Purple concept north of Albany eliminates 

the viability of this concept.

Yellow (Corvallis to Tualatin) This concept failed Screening Questions #1 and #2. It would 

not improve travel time because the alignment travels out of 

direction between Eugene/Springfield and Vancouver, WA 

(Question #1). The section north of Independence would 

bypass the Salem-Keizer urban area - the second highest 

population concentration within the study corridor 

(Question #2).

Purple (Albany to Salem) This concept failed Screening Question #8 (community and 

environmental impacts) because it would traverse the Ankeny 

National Wildlife Refuge, travel through a major mapped 

landslide area, and travel through some of Salem's 

neighborhoods with highest concentration of low-income and 

minority populations (environmental justice populations), and 

would cause substantial disruption to commercial and 

industrial area in Salem.
CHAPTER 2 – ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING PROCESS

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2 - 1 3

OCTOBER 2018

Corridor Concept Rationale for Elimination

Tan Elimination of the Purple concept north of Albany eliminates 

the viability of this concept.

Section C Woodburn to Portland

Yellow See Section B, Yellow (Corvallis to Tualatin).

Purple (Wilsonville to Milwaukie via Tualatin and Lake Oswego) This concept failed Screening Question #8. The alignment 

through Tualatin and Lake Oswego would not be constructible 

in a manner that avoids or minimizes substantial community 

impacts.

Purple (Wilsonville to Milwaukie via a Tunnel) This concept failed Screening Question #9. It would not 

support multimodal connections due to conflicts between 

intercity passenger trains and WES commuter trains.

Purple Option – Wilsonville to Central Portland (via Beaverton) This concept failed Screening Questions #4, #8, and #9. 

It could not preserve or expand existing freight-rail carrying 

capability (Question #4). It would not avoid or minimize 

community and environmental impacts (Question #8) and it 

would not integrate with existing and planned multimodal 

transportation networks (Question #9).

Brown (north of Oregon City) This concept failed Screening Questions #1, #8, and #9. The 

alignment would follow I-205 out of direction to cross the 

Columbia River and align with the route into Washington state 

(Question #1). It would result in unavoidable community 

disruption to EJ populations (Question #8). It would not 

connect to the central node of the transit system in the 

downtown core area of Portland (Question #9).

Red Option – 10-mile Tunnel Option This portion of the Red corridor concept from Tualatin to the 

northwest industrial area of Portland, via a short surface route 

and an approximately 10-mile long new tunnel, did not pass 

screening question #8 (community and environmental 

impacts). The portion of the Red corridor concept between 

Wilsonville and I-205 was retained to allow a connection to 

the Brown concept.

Red Option – 7.5-mile Tunnel Options This option would involve a new tunnel between Tigard and 

the Portland waterfront area near Union Station. Two 

alignment variations were considered, and both failed 

Screening Question #8. These 7.5-mile tunnel options would 

not avoid or minimize community and environmental impacts 

(Question #8).

2.3.2 Step 1, Screening – Corridor Concept Stations

Passenger rail stations eliminated at this stage were limited to those stations that would not be served by 

the remaining corridor concept alignments. Consequently, the stations eliminated from consideration 

during Step 1 included Veneta (associated with the eliminated Pink alignment); Monmouth, McMinnville, 

Independence, and Newberg (associated with the Yellow alignment eliminated north of Corvallis); and 

Lake Oswego (associated with the Purple alignment eliminated north of Wilsonville). All other communities 

with stations that were suggested during the scoping period advanced to Step 2 of the evaluation 

framework. 
CHAPTER 2 – ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING PROCESS

2 - 1 4 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018
CHAPTER 2 – ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING PROCESS

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2 - 1 5

OCTOBER 2018
CHAPTER 2 – ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING PROCESS

2 - 1 6 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

2.3.3 Transportation Modes and Train Technologies

ODOT compared each of the transportation modes and train technologies against the screening questions 

(Table 2-1). Three of the modal concepts and two of the technology concepts did not pass all of the 

screening questions, as indicated in Table 2-4 below.

Table 2-4. Locomotive Technologies and Transportation Modes – Screening Results 

Modes Passed All Screening Questions?

Intercity passenger rail Yes

Commuter rail No – Did not pass screening question #1 or screening question #5. Commuter rail 

is not consistent with the project’s Purpose, to support ongoing implementation 

of regional high-speed intercity passenger rail in the PNWRC. Travel times would 

only increase with commuter rail technology when compared to travel times on 

today’s Amtrak Cascades service due to increased number of station stops.

Enhanced bus service No – Did not pass screening question #5 or screening question # 6. Enhanced bus 

service could not provide service consistent with the FRA regional high-speed rail 

designation for the PNWRC. Enhanced bus service would not be compatible with 

the intercity passenger rail service provided or planned in Washington State.

Highway capacity improvements No – Did not pass screening question #5 or screening question #6. Highway 

capacity improvements would be inconsistent with the FRA regional intercity 

passenger rail designation of the Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor because these 

two modes are substantially different. For the same reason, highway capacity 

improvements also would not be compatible with Washington State’s plans for 

passenger rail development.

Technologies Passed All Screening Questions?

Locomotive hauled (existing technology) Yes

Diesel multiple units Yes

Dual mode/power Yes

Electric No – Did not pass screening question #6. Electric propulsion technology would 

not be compatible with service provided or planned in Washington State.

Magnetic levitation (Maglev) No – Did not pass screening question #6. Maglev technology would not be 

compatible with service provided or planned in Washington State.

2.4 Evaluation of Preliminary Alternatives

After completing screening, ODOT and FRA developed preliminary alternatives from those concepts that 

passed the screening step. ODOT defined preliminary alternatives in terms of the general location of the 

mainline track, location of sidings and stations, whether crossings would be at-grade or grade-separated, 

potential speeds for different sections of the alignment, and whether structures (e.g., bridges, culverts) 

would need to be replaced. ODOT developed conceptual cost estimates for each preliminary alternative. 

ODOT then evaluated the preliminary alternatives according to how effectively they met the OPR Project 

evaluation criteria, which are based on the Purpose and Need statement as well as Goals and Objectives 

derived from stakeholder input. The Goals and Objectives for the OPR Project are listed in Chapter 1, 

Section 1.3. The evaluation process and results are presented below.
CHAPTER 2 – ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING PROCESS

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2 - 1 7

OCTOBER 2018

2.4.1 Step 2, Evaluation – Preliminary Alternative Alignments

Following the screening of corridor concepts, ODOT refined and developed concepts not eliminated in 

Step 1 into preliminary alternatives for subsequent analysis in the Step 2 evaluation process. ODOT refined 

the corridor concepts considering the project Purpose and Need, Goals and Objectives, and known 

community and environmental constraints. Engineering detail was developed to the level needed to allow 

ODOT to evaluate each preliminary alternative based on the measures of effectiveness. The preliminary 

alternative alignments are summarized below. The geographic section boundaries from the Step 1 

screening process were slightly adjusted help facilitate the Step 2 evaluation process as well as the 

potential hybridization of preliminary alternative sections. The primary section boundary adjustments were 

grouping Albany with Eugene in the southern-most section, and moving the boundary between the central 

and northern section north to the southern part of the Portland metropolitan area.

The section boundaries for the Step 2 evaluation process were:

• Section A – Eugene/Springfield to North of Albany (the remaining routes converge just north of Albany, 

so this break point was moved north)

• Section B– North of Albany to North of Wilsonville (keeping the Salem, Keizer, and Woodburn cities 

together in a section, with analysis designed to accommodate potential mixing and matching of the 

preliminary alternatives in the vicinity of Keizer) 

• Section C – North of Wilsonville to Vancouver, WA (includes the greater Portland metropolitan area; 

due to the highly developed nature of Portland metropolitan area and the challenging topography of 

the west side, remaining options in the area were limited)

Detailed descriptions of the preliminary alternatives can be found in the Alternatives Selection Report, 

Appendix E (ODOT, 2014c). Unlike the corridor concepts in Step 1, ODOT evaluated and “scored” both the 

preliminary alternatives and potential station locations on a comparative basis using measures of 

effectiveness that varied by criterion. Thus, ODOT developed scores for both the preliminary alternatives 

and the potential stations. Travel time analysis for the preliminary alternatives assumed three stops along 

the route between Eugene-Springfield and Portland (Albany-Corvallis, Salem-Keizer, and one in the south 

portion of the Portland metropolitan area). The evaluation of potential station locations is presented in 

Section 2.4.2.

In addition to the main corridor concepts that passed the Step 1 screening process (shown in Figure 2-3 

above), ODOT developed a limited set of potentially feasible alignment options that could: (1) optimize cost 

or operations, or (2) minimize environmental impacts. These options were developed based on professional 

judgment and additional input from stakeholders. ODOT and FRA also considered the following refined 

options in their evaluation of preliminary alternatives: 

• Section A, Yellow Alternative, Highway 34 Option. This new rail alignment from Corvallis to west of 

Tangent adjacent to Highway 34 would serve a potential new station in Corvallis and connect with the 

existing Amtrak Cascades route (on the UPRR line) in south Albany.

• Section B (1), Blue Alternative, Parish Gap Option. This option was developed to avoid several lowspeed curves and to reduce potential adverse impacts to the Jefferson and Marion communities.

• Section B (2), Purple Alternative, Aurora Option. This option would bypass downtown Aurora, thereby 

minimizing adverse impacts within the city.

• Section C, Blue and Red Alternatives, Eastside Options 1 and 2. These options would provide routes 

through northeast and north Portland en route to Vancouver, WA. Eastside Option 1 would include a 

new tunnel through the bluff near the University of Portland and then follow the existing route over the 

Columbia River to Vancouver, WA. Eastside Option 2 was developed to minimize new tunnel costs and 

adverse impacts through north Portland compared to Eastside Option 1; it would join the BNSF Railway 
CHAPTER 2 – ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING PROCESS

2 - 1 8 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

alignment north of Swan Island. These options were developed to allow for a direct route from a 

potential new station in Portland’s Rose Quarter area (eastside) north to Vancouver, bypassing 

Portland’s Union Station. Either option could be paired with the Blue or Red Alternative.

Figure 2-4 illustrates the preliminary alternative alignments and potential station locations considered in 

the evaluation. To aid the reader, Table 2-5 identifies the naming convention associations between the 

previous corridor concepts and the preliminary alternatives studied in the Step 2 evaluation process. While 

the corridor concept colors were retained, each preliminary alternative section was also assigned a section

identity, such as A-1 or B-2.

Table 2-5. Naming Convention Crosswalk between Corridor Concepts and Preliminary Alternatives 

Corridor Concepts

Section A

(Eugene-Springfield to 

north of Albany)

Preliminary Alternatives

Section B

(North of Albany to 

south of Wilsonville)

Section C

(South of Wilsonville to 

Vancouver, WA)

Blue Blue A-1 Blue B-1 

Blue Parish Gap Option

Blue C-1 

Blue Eastside Option 1

Blue Eastside Option 2

Red Red A-2 

Red Central Albany Option

Red B-2 Red C-2a

Red Eastside Option 1

Red Eastside Option 2

Purple Purple A-3 Purple B-3 

Purple Wilsonville Option

Purple Aurora Option

N/A

Yellow Yellow A-4 

Yellow Highway 34 Option

N/A N/A

a The C-2 (Red) alignment follows the former Brown alignment from I-5/I-205 to Oregon City, north on I-205, and west on I-84 to 

the Steel Bridge, connecting with the C-1 (Blue) alignment to Portland’s Union Station and then northward either on or near the 

existing BNSF Railway right-of-way to Vancouver, WA.
CHAPTER 2 – ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING PROCESS

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2 - 1 9

OCTOBER 2018
CHAPTER 2 – ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING PROCESS

2 - 2 0 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

ODOT developed the OPR Project evaluation framework prior to conducting the Step 1 screening process 

and Step 2 evaluation process. ODOT and FRA derived all screening questions and evaluation criteria 

directly from the OPR Project Goals and Objectives. For the Step 2 Evaluation, measures of effectiveness 

were developed for each evaluation criterion in order to facilitate criteria assessment and the relative 

comparison of preliminary alternatives. Table 2-6 lists the evaluation criteria and corresponding measures 

of effectiveness. For additional information on the Step 2 Evaluation, including more information on 

the evaluation criteria and how the analysis was conducted, see the Alternatives Selection Report 

(ODOT, 2014c).

Table 2-6. Evaluation Criteria and Measures of Effectiveness 

Evaluation Criteria Measures of Effectiveness

1A – Provide a viable alternative to auto, air, 

and bus travel between Eugene, OR and 

Vancouver, WA

Average passenger rail trip time between Eugene and Portland

1B – Provide reliable and frequent passenger 

rail service

Capacity to serve 6 round trip trains between Eugene and Portland per day 

and qualitative assessment of delay

1C – Support multimodal integration at each 

potential passenger rail station

Qualitative assessment of the availability of existing and new transit service, 

and citywide bicycle and pedestrian facilities (including recreation and tourism 

opportunities) in potential station communities

1D – Allow for future passenger rail 

improvements, including higher speeds

Qualitative assessment of the ability to accommodate higher speeds and/or 

greater frequencies for passenger trains in the future

2A – Does not increase conflicts between 

passenger rail and/or freight rail and vehicles

Quantitative assessment of number of grade crossings along preliminary 

alternative alignments

2B – Protect freight rail carrying capacity Qualitative assessment of potential impact on existing or future freight rail 

capacity or impact on existing or potential freight rail shippers

3A.1 – Phasing of improvements Qualitative assessment of the ability to phase improvements over time

3A.2 – Construction cost Constructed scale representing order of magnitude construction cost

3B – Serve the maximum number of people 

with every dollar invested

Relative size of attractors based on travel market assessment; existing and 

projected population and number of jobs in communities with potential 

stations

4A – Provide a viable and affordable 

alternative for all travelers

Insufficient information to evaluate this criterion

4B.1 – Equitable investments and service Percentage of low-income, Hispanic, and minority populations within 1-mile 

of potential stations compared to percentage of these populations within 

10 miles of potential stations

4B.2 – Environmental Justice impacts Number of Census Block Groups with low-income and minority populations 

(within 500 feet of proposed track) higher than the section’s average

5A – Provide passenger rail service to meet 

the existing and future passenger rail 

demand for an interconnected system in the 

Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor

All preliminary alternatives would be compatible with rail infrastructure in WA 

state, thus this criterion was not used to assess tradeoffs between preliminary 

alternatives

6A – Benefit communities within the corridor Qualitative assessment of the potential to improve communities through 

enhancement of an existing station or insertion of a new station/station area; 

Qualitative assessment of the multimodal connectivity of an existing or 

potential station’s location in relation to regional attractions
CHAPTER 2 – ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING PROCESS

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2 - 2 1

OCTOBER 2018

Evaluation Criteria Measures of Effectiveness

6B.1 – Community cohesion impacts Assessment of the number of community resources (parks, museums, 

recreational areas, religious institutions, libraries, hospitals and schools) and 

commercial and residential parcels within 100 feet of proposed infrastructure 

and whether there would be a substantial increase in rail traffic

6B.2 – Impacts to sensitive noise receptors 

along the corridor

Number of sensitive noise receptors within a 500 feet distance of each side of 

the proposed infrastructure

7A.1 – Farmland impacts Exclusive Farm Use-zoned lands potentially impacted

7A.2 – Land use and transportation plan 

consistency

Assessment of consistency with adopted regional and local comprehensive 

plans

7B – Reduce greenhouse gas emissions in 

support of national and state policies to slow 

climate change

Qualitative assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from preliminary 

alternatives, based on anticipated VMT reduction due to mode shift and 

temporary construction-related emissions

7C.1 – Threatened and Endangered species 

impacts

Qualitative assessment of potential impacts to habitat, populations or 

individuals of threatened or endangered species and their critical habitat and 

impacts to non-listed fish and wildlife species

7C.2 – Wetland impacts Percent of study area that contains high value wetlands plus percent all 

wetlands potentially impacted

7C.3 – Geology impacts Miles of proposed track through areas with known unstable slopes

7C.4 – Section 4(f) impacts Number of known Section 4(f) resources within 100 feet of proposed 

infrastructure where statute-protected features could be directly impacted

7C.4 – Cultural resources impacts Known cultural resources (historic properties and archaeological resources) 

within 100 feet of proposed infrastructure

ODOT shared the results of the Step 2 Evaluation with the public in fall 2013. During the month of 

November, ODOT held a series of five open houses, conducted multiple stakeholder meetings, and 

conducted an on-line open house. Three-hundred-ninety-four people attended the open houses, and 

802 people visited the online open house. (See Chapter 6 for more detail on the public involvement 

process.) The preliminary alternative alignments that advanced or were eliminated by the evaluation 

process are listed below in Table 2-7 and shown on Figure 2-5. Table 2-8 summarizes the rationale for 

eliminating specific sections of the preliminary alternative alignments.
CHAPTER 2 – ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING PROCESS

2 - 2 2 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

Table 2-7. Preliminary Alternatives Evaluation Results 

Preliminary 

Alternative Section A Section B Section C

Blue A-1 Advanced to Tier 1 Draft EIS B-1 Advanced to Tier 1 Draft EIS

Parish Gap Option Eliminated

C-1 Advanced to Tier 1 Draft EIS

Eastside Option 1 Eliminated

Eastside Option 2 Eliminated

Red A-2 Advanced to Tier 1 Draft EIS

Central Albany Option Advanced 

to Tier 1 Draft EIS

B-2 (south of Keizer) Advanced to 

Tier 1 Draft EIS

B-2 (north of Keizer) Eliminated

C-2 (Wilsonville to Oregon City) 

Advanced to Tier 1 Draft EIS

C-2 (Oregon City to Vancouver, 

WA) Eliminated

Eastside Option 1 Eliminated

Eastside Option 2 Eliminated

Purple A-3 Eliminated B-3 (Donald to Canby and Oregon 

City) Eliminated

B-3 (Keizer to Wilsonville) 

Advanced to Tier 1 Draft EIS

Aurora Option Eliminated

N/A

Yellow A-4 Eliminated

Highway 34 Option Eliminated

N/A N/A
CHAPTER 2 – ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING PROCESS

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2 - 2 3

OCTOBER 2018
CHAPTER 2 – ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING PROCESS

2 - 2 4 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

Table 2-8. Rationale for Elimination of Preliminary Alternatives 

Preliminary

Alternative Rationale for Elimination

Section A Eugene/Springfield to North of Albany

Purple A-3 This alignment has the highest number of rail infrastructure ownership and operations switches. This 

causes concern about reliability.

This alignment has a limited ability to phase improvements over time. The Purple alternative also assumes 

a complete rebuild of the railway bed portions of the PNWR mainline, which would contribute to an 

approximately 40 percent higher construction cost than the lowest-cost alternative.

There would be greater impacts to farmland and wetlands compared to the other preliminary 

alternatives.

Yellow A-4 This alignment would have the highest travel time in Section A, 54 minutes, for both the main Yellow A-4 

preliminary alternative and the Yellow Highway 34 Option.

It would have the highest number of at-grade crossings relative to the other preliminary alternatives in 

Section A.

There would be less opportunity to phase improvements over time because relatively long segments 

would need to be constructed to provide a serviceable link. Construction costs would be more than 

60 percent higher than the lowest-cost preliminary alternative.

The main Yellow A-4 preliminary alternative would impact substantially more residential parcels than the 

other preliminary alternatives in Section A.

Yellow Highway 34 

Option

This alignment would have the highest travel time in Section A (54 minutes, the same as the main Yellow 

A-4 preliminary alternative).

It would have the highest number of at-grade crossings of all preliminary alternatives in Section A except 

for the main Yellow A-4 preliminary alternative.

There would be less opportunity to phase improvements over time because relatively long segments 

would need to be constructed to provide a serviceable link. Construction costs would be more than 

60 percent higher than the lowest-cost preliminary alternative.

There is greater potential to impact listed, proposed, and non-listed fish and wildlife species than other 

preliminary alternatives because a new alignment would be required through a natural area between 

Corvallis and Albany.

Section B (1) North of Albany to South of Keizer

Blue Parish Gap 

Option

The Parish Gap option would not improve overall travel time or otherwise improve reliability compared to 

the main Blue preliminary alternative or other preliminary alternatives.

The Parish Gap option would cost approximately 20 percent more than the main Blue preliminary 

alternative, and its construction could not be phased over time. Thus the option would cost more than the 

main Blue preliminary alternative and would not improve travel time or reliability.

The Parish Gap option would impact more high-value farmland than the other preliminary alternatives 

and more total potential farmland than the Blue preliminary alternative.

Red (between 

Albany and Keizer)

Travel-time savings and improved mobility within this section would occur primarily south of Keizer, 

compared to the other options. Travel-time savings were minor north of Keizer, especially compared to 

the Purple preliminary alternative.

It would have the highest cost of any of the preliminary alternatives, including approximately 50 percent 

more than the Blue preliminary alternative, and it would have a limited ability to be phased.

Greater potential farmland impacts than other preliminary alternatives in Section B.
CHAPTER 2 – ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING PROCESS

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2 - 2 5

OCTOBER 2018

Preliminary

Alternative Rationale for Elimination

Section B (2) South of Keizer to Wilsonville

Red (between 

Keizer and 

Wilsonville)

Travel-time savings and improved mobility would occur primarily south of Keizer. Travel-time savings 

were minor north of Keizer, especially compared to the Purple preliminary alternative.

It would have the highest cost of any of the preliminary alternatives, including approximately 50 percent 

more than the Blue and Purple preliminary alternatives, and it would have a limited ability to be phased.

It would have greater potential farmland impacts than other preliminary alternatives in Section B.

Purple (Donald to 

Oregon City, 

including Aurora 

Option)

Travel times would be higher than the Purple Wilsonville option and same as Blue preliminary alternative.

Costs would be moderately higher than the Blue preliminary alternative and Purple Wilsonville option.

There are a higher number of sensitive noise locations (residential and commercial parcels specifically) 

that could be impacted by noise than the Purple Wilsonville option.

There would be higher track mileage through unstable slope locations than Purple Wilsonville option 

(1.6 miles vs. 0.04 miles, respectively).

Section C Wilsonville to Vancouver, WA

Blue East Side 

Options

The Eastside options would not have the ability to be phased, and construction costs were estimated to 

be between 80 percent and 90 percent higher than for the main Blue preliminary alternative (following 

the existing PNWRC route).

The Eastside options would not provide service to the historic Union Station, Portland’s designated 

passenger-rail transportation hub.

Red C-2 (Oregon 

City to Portland via 

I-205/I-84)

Travel time would be the highest of the preliminary alternatives and options in Section C, including 

substantially higher than for the Blue preliminary alternative and Blue east side options because of slow 

speeds along the Graham Line.

Costs would be less than the Red east side options, but approximately 240 percent higher than those for 

the main Blue preliminary alternative, with less opportunity to phase improvements over time.

It could impact a substantially higher numbers of residential and commercial parcels by noise compared 

to the Blue preliminary alternative and Blue east side options. It could displace higher numbers of 

community resources, and residential and commercial parcels compared to the other preliminary 

alternative.

Red Eastside 

Options between 

Oregon City and 

Vancouver, WA

The travel time would be substantially higher than for the Blue preliminary alternative and Blue east side 

options in Section C because of slow speeds along the Graham Line.

Costs would be the highest of the preliminary alternatives, including between 260 percent and 

270 percent higher than those for the Blue preliminary alternative, with less opportunity to phase 

improvements over time.

Compared to the other preliminary alternatives, it could impact the highest numbers of residential and 

commercial parcels by noise. It could displace the highest numbers of community resources, and 

residential and commercial parcels compared to the other preliminary alternatives.

2.4.2 Step 2, Evaluation – Preliminary Alternative Stations

Communities currently hosting an existing passenger rail station or potentially hosting a new station

(shown in Figure 2-5) were evaluated based on most applicable evaluation criteria (see Table 2-6 above), 

which included: 

• 1C – Support multimodal integration at each potential passenger rail station

• 3B – Serve the maximum number of people with every dollar invested

• 4B.1 – Provide equitable investments and service

• 6A – Benefit communities within the corridor
CHAPTER 2 – ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING PROCESS

2 - 2 6 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

In support of the evaluation of passenger rail stations, ODOT also prepared a station area assessment that 

outlined data and analysis for each potential station community. The purpose of the station area 

assessment was to provide direction related to the proposed alternatives in communities to result in 

maximum economic development, multimodal access, and train operations. The assessment also took into 

account public input during scoping and outreach to stakeholder and agency groups (ODOT, 2014e).

The Step 2 Evaluation resulted in the elimination of several potential new station areas. These potential 

station areas, as well as the rationale for their elimination, include:

• Harrisburg (associated with the Blue and Purple preliminary alternatives): This potential new station 

had very low performance in relation to existing and potential future multimodal connections at the 

station area, including local and regional transit service and pedestrian and bicycle network. The 

relative size of attractors (residential and employment areas as well as schools, medical facilities, and 

other services) is very small.

• Tangent (associated with the Blue preliminary alternative): This potential new station had very low 

performance in relation to existing and potential future multimodal connections at the station area, 

including local and regional transit service and pedestrian and bicycle network. The relative size of 

attractors (residential and employment areas as well as schools, medical facilities, and other services) is 

very small.

• Corvallis: Both potential new stations were eliminated with the Yellow alignment (including the 

Highway 34 option).

• Brooks (associated with the Blue preliminary alternative): This potential new station had very low 

performance in relation to existing and potential future multimodal connections at the station area, 

including local and regional transit service and pedestrian and bicycle network. The relative size of 

attractors (residential and employment areas as well as schools, medical facilities, and other services) is 

very small.

• Canby (associated with the Blue preliminary alternative and the Purple Aurora option): This potential 

new station had low performance in relation to existing and potential future multimodal connections at 

the station area, including local and regional transit service and pedestrian and bicycle network. The 

relative size of attractors (residential and employment areas as well as schools, medical facilities, and 

other services) is small.

• Portland (Rose Quarter): This potential new station was eliminated with the Red and Blue alignment 

eastside options.
CHAPTER 2 – ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING PROCESS

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2 - 2 7

OCTOBER 2018

Following the Step 2 evaluation process, the existing and potential new station areas that remain under 

consideration for one or more of the build alternatives are listed below in Table 2-9.

Table 2-9. Existing and Potential New Station Areas 

Section Existing Stations Potential New Stations

A Eugene Station (Blue)

Albany Station (Blue, Red- Central Albany Option)

Springfield (Red) 

Albany (Red)

B Salem Station (Blue) Salem (Red)

Keizer (Red or Purple)

Woodburn (Blue, Purple, Red) (three locations)

C Oregon City Station (Blue)

Portland (Union Station) (Blue or Red)

Wilsonville (Purple, Red)

Tualatin (Red)

Portland (Blue or Red) 

2.4.3 Evaluation of Transportation Modes and Train Technologies

The passenger rail mode was the only transportation mode to pass all Step 1 screening questions. 

No further assessment of the passenger rail mode was conducted in the Step 2 Evaluation.

Three locomotive technologies emerged from screening into the evaluation process:

• Locomotive Hauled

• Diesel Multiple Units

• Dual Mode/Power

During the assessment of locomotive technologies in the Step 2 evaluation process, ODOT conducted 

research on the dual mode technology. The dual mode/power technology was found to require 

electrification of the rail line (typically through an overhead catenary) at an added cost. Unless substantial 

portions of the alignment were electrified, the technology would not achieve the benefit of higher speeds 

compared to the existing diesel technology. Further, the electrification of the line would require increased 

overhead clearance on existing and proposed rail alignments due to the overhead catenary lines. 

Electrification of joint passenger/freight corridor have potential impact on the height of freight containers. 

Because of the added cost and impacts associated with electrification without any travel time or ridership 

benefits, the dual mode/power technology was eliminated from further consideration. The locomotive 

hauled and diesel multiple units technologies have moved forward into the Draft EIS for further 

consideration.

2.4.4 Step 2, Evaluation – Conclusions

The alternatives which advanced to the Tier 1 DEIS analysis included a no-build alternative and two build 

alternatives. The build alternatives and associated station locations are illustrated in Figure 2-6 and 

summarized below, and described in more detail in Chapter 3.
CHAPTER 2 – ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING PROCESS

2 - 2 8 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018
CHAPTER 2 – ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING PROCESS

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2 - 2 9

OCTOBER 2018

Alternative 1 (formerly the Blue preliminary alternative) would parallel the existing Amtrak Cascades 

passenger rail route from Eugene north to Portland. A second mainline track would be added in sections 

where needed to accommodate additional passenger rail service while maintaining the current level of 

freight operations, as estimated through rail capacity modeling analysis conducted for the project (see 

Chapter 3 for more information). The maximum speed would be 79 mph. Communities with potential 

stations for Alternative 1 include: Eugene, Albany, Salem, Woodburn, Oregon City, and Portland (all are 

existing stations except for Woodburn, which would be a new station).

Alternative 2 (a hybrid of portions of the “Red,” “Purple” and “Blue” preliminary alternatives) would add 

new mainline track throughout the majority of the route where adjacent to the existing I-5 and I-205 

alignments. Alternative 2 would also add mainline track adjacent to the existing PNWR line between Keizer 

and Wilsonville and to the existing UPRR line north of Oregon City. No additional mainline track is proposed 

across or north of the Steel Bridge in Portland. The Central Albany Option, which would connect the Red 

alignment to the existing Albany Station, also advanced to the Tier 1 DEIS analysis. The maximum speed in 

passenger-only sections would be 110 mph. With the exception of a proposed tunnel below SE 2nd Avenue 

in Portland, Alternative 2 would be identical to Alternative 1 between Oregon City and Vancouver, WA. 

Communities with potential stations for Alternative 2 include: Springfield, Albany, Salem or Keizer, 

Woodburn, Wilsonville or Tualatin, and Portland (all would be new stations except for Portland and Albany 

with the Central Albany Option).
CHAPTER 2 – ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING PROCESS

2 - 3 0 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

This page intentionally left blank.
CHAPTER 3 

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3 - 1

OCTOBER 2018

Alternatives Advanced for Further Study

This chapter describes the OPR Project alternatives advanced for further study, which include two build 

alternatives (Alternative 1 and Alternative 2) as well as a No Action Alternative. Figure 3-1 shows the 

build alternative alignments and highlights the location of existing and potential new stations. 

The two build alternatives are: 

• Alternative 1 – This build alternative would be constructed within or immediately adjacent to the 

existing Amtrak Cascades passenger rail route (i.e., the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) line) between 

Eugene and Portland. Sections of mainline track and sidings would be added where needed to 

accommodate additional passenger rail service while maintaining the current level of freight rail 

operations. The route would serve seven passenger rail round trips per day—six on the Amtrak 

Cascades and one on the Coast Starlight (a “6+1” schedule). Alternative 1 would serve existing stations 

(Eugene, Albany, Salem, Oregon City and Portland).7

• Alternative 2 – This build alternative would involve construction of new mainline track and sidings 

throughout the majority of the route where it would be adjacent to the existing I-5 and I-205 

alignments. New mainline track would also be added adjacent to the existing Portland and Western 

Railroad (PNWR) line between Keizer and Wilsonville and to the existing UPRR line north of Oregon 

City. The route would serve seven round trips per day—six on the Amtrak Cascades and one on the 

Coast Starlight (a “6+1” schedule). Alternative 2 would serve the existing Portland station, and would

have new stations in Springfield, Albany, and in Salem or Keizer. A station to serve the southern portion 

of the Portland metropolitan area could be located in Wilsonville or Tualatin. Alternative 2 has one 

option:

The Alternative 2 with Central Albany Option – This option would be the same as Alternative 2 except 

in the vicinity of Albany, where the route would diverge from the I-5 area to serve the existing Albany 

station.

 

7 When ODOT began identifying potential project impacts, Alternatives 1 and 2 included a possible Woodburn Station. In 2016, ODOT and WSDOT 

adopted a Station Stop Policy for Amtrak Cascades service that would require any new station to meet defined criteria. Though Woodburn does not 

currently meet these criteria and is not included in the service and operations analysis of the Build Alternatives, future project development could 

include a station in Woodburn. To preserve information developed for potential new Woodburn Station locations, those locations continue to be 

shown on project maps and potential environmental impacts are broadly described in Chapter 4. Additional analysis of ridership, travel time, 

environmental impacts and costs would need to occur during the environmental analysis for the future project development prior to implementing 

a new station in Woodburn.
CHAPTER 3 – ALTERNATIVES ADVANCED FOR FURTHER STUDY

3 - 2 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018
CHAPTER 3 – ALTERNATIVES ADVANCED FOR FURTHER STUDY

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3 - 3

OCTOBER 2018

3.1 No Action Alternative

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) implementing 

regulations require Federal agencies to include an alternative of “no action” to serve as baseline in the 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for comparison with the proposed action and other reasonable 

alternatives carried forward. Analysis of a no action alternative provides a benchmark for comparison with 

the potential impacts of the build alternatives, and helps decision-makers and the public understand the 

consequences of taking no action.

The OPR Project No Action Alternative consists of the continuation of the existing Amtrak Cascades

passenger train route, stations, and service between Eugene and Portland. A mix of freight and passenger 

trains currently use the UPRR and BNSF trackage that also serves as the Amtrak route. BNSF Railway (BNSF)

owns the existing Amtrak route in Oregon north of Portland’s Union Station, and UPRR owns the route 

south of Portland’s Union Station. In addition to the Amtrak Cascades passenger rail service, ODOT 

operates “Thruway” intercity motor coach bus service with that provides six round trips per day between 

Eugene and Portland, and one round trip per day between Salem and Portland.

The No Action Alternative includes all committed improvements (that is, projects with dedicated or 

obligated funding) to the existing intercity passenger rail system, the intercity highway system, and other 

modes of transportation available to the public (particularly aviation and intercity bus services) in the OPR 

Project study area (this study area extends from Eugene-Springfield, OR, to Vancouver, WA). Under the 

No Action Alternative, the intercity passenger rail service improvements proposed under Alternatives 1 or 2

would not take place.

The No Action Alternative is described below according to the following parameters: 

• 3.1.1 Route and Infrastructure – anticipated improvements and maintenance on the existing system. 

• 3.1.2 Stations – descriptions of stations that would be served by the No Action Alternative. 

• 3.1.3 Operational and Service Assumptions – information on schedules and number of daily round trips 

on rail and bus. 

• 3.1.4 Ridership – presentation of estimated ridership in 2035 overall and by station.

• 3.1.5 Other Transportation Projects – information on committed transportation projects in the project 

area.

3.1.1 Route and Infrastructure

The No Action Alternative consists of the current intercity bus and passenger rail route and operations 

between Eugene and Portland. The passenger rail service would continue to serve existing stations in 

Eugene, Albany, Salem, Oregon City and Portland. The bus service would continue to serve existing stops in 

Eugene, Albany, Salem, Woodburn, and Portland.

The No Action Alternative does not include changes to current track configuration or operations; however,

as part of an ongoing safety improvement program that is independent of the OPR Project, Oregon 

Department of Transportation (ODOT) and UPRR will be closing two at-grade crossings in Linn County 

(C. Street in Shed and Twin Butte W. Dr. 29 in Halsey, with 146 at-grade crossings to remain on the route), 

and will install crossing arms and flashing lights at three at-grade crossings in Linn County (Pugh Dairy Drive 

in Shed, Oak Plain Drive 212 in Halsey, and Griffith Road in Hallawell). Appendix C contains a list of the atgrade crossings in the project area. In addition, Congress requires railroad mainlines with regularly 

scheduled intercity and commuter rail passenger service to implement Positive Train Control (PTC) by 

December 31, 2018. PTC uses communication-based/processor-based train control technology to provide a 

system to prevent train-to-train collisions, derailments due to excessive speed, and the movement of a 
CHAPTER 3 – ALTERNATIVES ADVANCED FOR FURTHER STUDY

3 - 4 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

train through a mainline switch in the wrong position. The No Action Alternative would include PTC 

improvements required by Congress.

The No Action Alternative would include maintenance activities that would be consistent with existing 

efforts, and these activities would continue to be the responsibility of the freight railroad owners and 

operators in accordance with their operating agreements with ODOT and Amtrak.

3.1.2 Stations

Amtrak intercity passenger trains currently serve five rail stations in the following Oregon cities within the 

OPR Project study area: Eugene, Albany, Salem, Oregon City and Portland. The existing stations have 

varying amenities, as well as parking and accommodation for transit, bicycle and pedestrian access. The 

Thruway bus service has two stops in Eugene (one at the Eugene Station and the second on the University 

of Oregon campus) and also stops at the Albany, Salem and Portland rail stations. One of its daily routes 

stops in Woodburn, at the Woodburn Transit Center near the I-5 and Highway 214 interchange. The No 

Action Alternative would continue existing train and bus service to these locations.

3.1.3 Operational and Service Assumptions

Within the Oregon portion of the Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor (PNWRC), the Amtrak Cascades intercity 

passenger rail service operates between Eugene and Portland. The Amtrak Cascades route proceeds 

through Washington and terminates in Vancouver, BC. Oregon is also served by Amtrak’s Coast Starlight 

service, with one daily round trip between Los Angeles and Seattle, and the Amtrak’s Empire Builder, which 

runs between Portland and Chicago daily, through Vancouver, WA. The current intercity passenger rail 

service consists of three round trips per day between Eugene and Portland (two Amtrak Cascades trains 

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

Vancouver, WA (a “4+2” schedule). In 2017, the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) 

will increase to a “6+2” schedule between Portland and Vancouver, WA, and “6+1” from Vancouver, WA to 

Seattle. The No Action Alternative would provide the same Amtrak Cascades passenger train frequency (a 

“6+2” schedule between Portland and Vancouver, WA; and a "2+1" between Eugene and Portland) in 2035.

In addition to the Cascades passenger rail service provided by Amtrak, ODOT operates “Thruway” intercity 

bus service that provides six round trips per day between Eugene and Portland, and one round trip per day 

between Salem and Portland. Under the No Action Alternative, ODOT would implement a programmed 

action to extend the intercity bus service round trip between Salem and Portland to also serve Albany and 

Eugene, thus increasing this service to seven round trips per day between Eugene and Portland.

Table 3-1 shows the current Amtrak Cascades scheduled times. The Coast Starlight has different travel times, 

as noted. ODOT anticipates that these travel times would not change under the No Action Alternative. The 

total train travel time between Eugene and Portland is 2 hours and 35 minutes; times between individual 

city pairs for northbound and southbound trains vary due to planned “recovery” time in the schedule, which 

accounts for potential delays found along the route. Thruway bus travel times vary based on time of day and 

planned stops, ranging from 2 hours and 30 minutes to 2 hours and 55 minutes between Eugene and 

Portland. Thruway buses serve two Eugene locations (Eugene Station and the University of Oregon), the 

Albany, Salem, and Portland train stations, and provide limited service to Woodburn.
CHAPTER 3 – ALTERNATIVES ADVANCED FOR FURTHER STUDY

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3 - 5

OCTOBER 2018

Table 3-1. Existing Amtrak Cascades Passenger Train Schedule Time (Fall 2016) 

Section

Amtrak Cascades

Northbound

(hh:mm)

Southbound

(hh:mm)

Eugene – Albany 00:41 01:00 

Albany – Salem 00:30 00:29 

Salem – Oregon City 00:43 00:43 

Oregon City – Portland 00:41 00:23 

Total Travel Time 02:35 02:35 

Note: Time is shown in hours and minutes (hh:mm). The Coast Starlight has a scheduled time from 

Eugene to Portland of 2:56 and from Portland to Eugene of 2:45, and Thruway bus times range from 

2:30 to 2:55 between the two cities, with intermediate stops.

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

Existing (2015) and 2035 Conditions for No Action Alternative 

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). 

3.1.5 Other Transportation Projects

Under the No Action Alternative, ODOT expects other forms of long-distance and regional transportation 

(such as commercial airline and bus services) to continue operating within the Eugene to Vancouver, WA

study area in the same manner as presently occurs. 
CHAPTER 3 – ALTERNATIVES ADVANCED FOR FURTHER STUDY

3 - 6 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

As listed in Table 3-3, the No Action Alternative includes all committed projects in ODOT’s 2015-2018 

Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP; ODOT, 2017). The STIP includes 10 projects on 

Interstate 5 (I-5) and two projects on Interstate 205 (I-205) within the OPR Project study area. The I-5 and 

I-205 projects will maintain or make minor improvements to the existing highways. The STIP also includes 

highway upgrades and active transportation improvement projects on OR 99E. While the current STIP does 

not include any construction projects that would substantially increase capacity on these highways, it does 

include preliminary engineering to design and acquire ROW for several projects along I-5, and planning and 

NEPA work for a future project to expand capacity on I-205 in the study area. The STIP also includes 

ongoing transportation planning, transit facilities and equipment capital investments, transit operating and 

maintenance activities, and Transportation Demand Management program funds that are distributed to 

Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), non-urban transportation organizations, and transit agencies 

in the OPR Project study area to advance transportation plans, and promote increased use of transit, 

carpools, vanpools, transit, bicycling, walking and teleworking.

Table 3-3. Study Area STIP Projects 

MPO/County Type STIP Project Name Description

Interstate Projects

Central Lane/Lane Preservation I-105 Willamette River and 1st

to 7th Avenue viaducts

Deck overlay; joints; bridge 

rail; concrete repairs

Albany Area/Linn Preservation I-5: N. Albany - Halsey Grind and patch concrete

Albany Area/Linn Preliminary Engineering and 

ROW

I-5 Santiam Highway – 

Viewcrest Dr. (Albany)

Project development to add 

capacity on northbound I-5 by 

adding a lane from the Knox 

Butte on-ramp to the 

Viewcrest interchange. ODOT 

will also add a southbound 

on-ramp at Knox Butte, and 

continue that lane to the 

Santiam Hwy off ramp

Salem/Keizer Area/Linn Preliminary Engineering I-5: Delaney Road to Albany Project Development to add a 

third lane on I-5 between 

Delaney Road and Albany

Salem/Keizer Area/Marion Modernization (noise 

abatement)

I-5: Kuebler interchange phase 

2 sound wall (Salem)

Build sound wall to mitigate 

noise from I-5 

Salem/Keizer Area/Marion Modernization (noise 

abatement)

I-5: Salem area bridge end 

panel raising

Raise end panels

Not Applicable/Marion Preservation I-5: Willamette River (Boone) 

Bridge - Woodburn

Grind existing surfacing and 

inlay the travel lanes

Not Applicable/Marion Preliminary Engineering I-5: Aurora-Donald Interchange 

(exit 278) IAMP & EA

Facility plan and NEPA for a 

future interchange project

Salem/Keizer Area/Marion Preservation I-5: Woodburn - Salem Paving project

Salem/Keizer Area/Marion Preliminary Engineering I-5: Kuebler Boulevard to 

Delaney RD widening

Design and ROW acquisition to 

add a third lane both NB and 

SB between the Kuebler and 

Delaney Interchange
CHAPTER 3 – ALTERNATIVES ADVANCED FOR FURTHER STUDY

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3 - 7

OCTOBER 2018

MPO/County Type STIP Project Name Description

Metro/Clackamas Modernization I-205; Pacific Highway – 

Abernethy Bridge

Concrete overlay, deck joint 

and panel repair on multiple 

bridges, and inlet and manhole 

adjustments as needed. 

Replace impacted ramp meter 

loops on Stafford, 10th, and 

OR42 with radar detection. 

Include 10th St paving

Metro/Clackamas Preliminary Engineering I-205: Stafford Road - OR99E Planning and NEPA to add a 

third lane in each direction 

between Stafford Road and 

OR43 and a fourth lane on the 

Abernethy Bridge to help 

separate through traffic

Metro/Clackamas Modernization I-5: Lower Boones Ferry ramps 

and SB aux lane to I-205 

Construct a SB auxiliary lane 

from Lower Boone Ferry Rd to 

the I-205 Interchange and 

widen the NB Lower Boones 

Ferry Exit Ramp

Highway Projects

Central Lane/Lane Preservation OR569: SCS CANAL & UPRR 

BRIDGE REPAIR

Bridge rail; seismic; deck 

overlay; joints; concrete repair; 

spot paint

Not Applicable/Linn Preliminary Engineering OR99E: American Drive to 

south city limit (Halsey)

Highway, curb, gutter, 

landscaping and utility 

relocation design on OR99E 

through downtown Halsey

Not Applicable/Marion Modernization Jefferson-Marion Highway: 

Marion Creek Bridge 

Replacement

Bridge replacement

Metro/Clackamas Preliminary Engineering French Prairie Bridge: Boones 

Ferry Rd to Butteville Rd

Planning and design for 

construction of 

bike/pedestrian/emergency 

vehicle bridge crossing over 

Willamette River

Metro/Multnomah Preservation OR99E: SE Harold ST - SE 

Harrison ST including Crystal 

Springs Creek Bridge 

Replacement

Pavement preservation, 

Americans with Disabilities Act 

(ADA) upgrades, sign 

replacement and replace 

Crystal Springs Bridge
CHAPTER 3 – ALTERNATIVES ADVANCED FOR FURTHER STUDY

3 - 8 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

MPO/County Type STIP Project Name Description

Transit Projects

Central Lane/Lane Construction West Eugene EmX Extension 

(Lane Transit District)

Construction from downtown 

to West Eugene

Central Lane/Lane Preliminary Engineering Multiple Routes: Eugene (Lane 

Transit District)

Complete NEPA process for 

possible BRT system expansion

Rail Projects

Not Applicable/Linn Safety Rail Crossing Improvements 

(UPRR) (Linn)

Install automatic signals at 

three crossings and close two 

crossings between Albany and 

Eugene

Salem/Keizer Area/Marion Enhancement Baggage depot restoration 

(Salem)

The existing rail depot building 

is being renovated into a bus 

station. Updated building 

exterior to meet historic 

requirements. Another phase 

will improve the site for buses 

and autos.

Salem/Keizer Area/Marion Safety Mill Street-UPRR: Enhance 

Pedestrian Safety at Rail 

Crossings

Adding lights to existing masts 

to improve pedestrian safety 

crossing at Mill St. and UPRR.

Not Applicable/Marion Safety St. Louis Road rail crossing 

safety project (Marion)

Install automatic gate signals at 

PNWR railroad crossing

The STIP includes funding for ODOT’s Rail Crossing Safety Program, and two projects in the STIP are for rail 

crossing improvements on the UPRR line. One project in Linn County will install automatic signals at three 

crossings and close two crossings between Albany and Eugene. The other project in Marion County will add 

lights to existing masts to improve pedestrian safety crossing at Mill Street and the UPRR line. The STIP also 

includes funding for a highway/rail crossing program but does not specify improvement locations.

In addition, Lane Transit District (LTD) is expanding their Emerald Express (EmX) bus rapid transit system 

that currently serves Eugene and Springfield to the east of downtown Eugene. Beginning service in fall 

2017, the West Eugene EmX Extension will connect LTD’s downtown Eugene Station with west Eugene via 

bus rapid transit. This EmX extension will bring high-capacity transit within just one-quarter mile of the 

Eugene Amtrak Station, and it will provide access to numerous regional destinations, including the 

University of Oregon campus, downtown Springfield, and West Eugene.

3.2 Build Alternatives

This section presents the two build alternatives (Alternative 1 and Alternative 2) and one design option 

(Alternative 2 with Central Albany Option) that were advanced for further study in this EIS. ODOT identified 

the infrastructure improvements for the build alternatives described below by developing conceptual

designs based on Rail Traffic Controller (RTC) analysis conducted for the OPR Project. RTC is a computer 

program that simulates rail line operations. These RTC simulations help to inform how the build alternatives 

would operate with different levels of freight and passenger service. ODOT used the RTC results to identify 

areas that have existing and future infrastructure deficiencies and developed proposed potential 

improvements for addressing rail capacity and operations in those areas. ODOT then used these proposed 

improvements to forecast future ridership, identify potential impacts and develop cost estimates.
CHAPTER 3 – ALTERNATIVES ADVANCED FOR FURTHER STUDY

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3 - 9

OCTOBER 2018

The build alternatives are described below according to the following parameters:

• 3.2.1 Route and Rail Improvements – anticipated improvements needed to support each of the build 

alternatives, including descriptions of the route, track needs, rail connections to industries and 

assumptions used to conduct RTC modeling efforts.

• 3.2.2 Station Opportunities – descriptions of existing and potential new stations for each alternative.

• 3.2.3 Operational and Service Assumptions – information on schedules and number of daily round 

trips. Each build alternative would provide six round trips per day on the Amtrak Cascades, one round 

trip on the Coast Starlight, and one round trip on Thruway bus between Eugene and Portland. 

• 3.2.4 Ridership – presentation of estimated ridership in 2035 overall and by station for each 

alternative.

• 3.2.5 Train Technologies – description of the potential propulsion technologies for the passenger rail 

service: diesel locomotive-hauled or diesel multiple units (DMUs). 

• 3.2.6 Cost – estimated capital costs, as well as operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, for each build 

alternative. The O&M costs include potential revenues for the build alternatives. 

Figure 3-1 shows the build alternatives and highlights the location of existing and potential new stations. 

3.2.1 Route and Rail Improvements

3.2.1.1 Alternative 1

Alternative 1 would improve the existing passenger rail route between Eugene and Portland, OR, with the 

addition of parallel track in multiple sections within or immediately adjacent to the existing alignment. 

The current Amtrak Cascades passenger rail service operates on existing UPRR track between Eugene and 

Portland Union Station. North of Union Station, the Amtrak Cascades service operates on existing BNSF 

track. The proposed track improvements would be built adjacent to the host railroad mainlines, as 

described below and shown schematically in Figure 3-2.

Under Alternative 1, passenger trains would continue to share track with freight trains, and the route would 

serve seven passenger rail round trips per day—six Amtrak Cascades and one Coast Starlight (a “6+1” 

schedule). Between Eugene and Portland, train frequency under Alternative 1 would reflect an increase in

four round trips per day over the No Action Alternative. North of Portland Union Station, Alternative 1 

would be the same as the 2035 No Action Alternative (eight round trips per day, a 6+2 schedule). More 

information on the service assumptions for Alternative 1 is included in Section 3.2.3.

Alternative 1 would add new railroad track or modify existing track at select sections on the UPRR 

alignment in order to facilitate four more passenger rail round trips per day while maintaining freight rail 

carrying capability between Eugene and Portland. Track modifications or additions would consist of 

mainline track, sidings, crossovers, and industry connections built or modified as needed to maximize the 

efficiency of freight and passenger rail operations throughout the full route. In most places, the new track 

for Alternative 1 would be offset 20 feet east of the existing UPRR mainline track, and could require 

acquisition of linear strips of new right-of-way (ROW) to the east of the existing UPRR ROW. 

ODOT identified where new mainline track would be needed based on the results of operational modeling 

conducted for the OPR Project. The additional mainline track and sidings would be built at specific locations 

chosen to maintain rail operational efficiency and minimize costs. Alternative 1 avoids the siting of railroad 

improvements within urban areas and across rivers whenever possible in order to minimize potential 

impacts to sensitive resources as well as to minimize infrastructure costs. Wherever possible, Alternative 1 

places the new track in locations where sidings previously existed to take advantage of existing railroad 

grades and infrastructure to reduce costs and impacts.
CHAPTER 3 – ALTERNATIVES ADVANCED FOR FURTHER STUDY

3 - 1 0 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

ODOT made several assumptions about road crossings in areas where Alternative 1 track improvements

would be made, including:

• No new at-grade road crossings or grade-separation of existing at-grade road crossings would be 

constructed.

• If an existing crossing has lights and gates, it would be upgraded to include lights and gates to 

accommodate the additional track.

• If an existing crossing does not have lights and gates, the recommendation to upgrade, close, or retain 

the crossing was primarily based on the roadway type and use. 

• In locations with an existing grade separation (the road goes over or under the railroad), the grade 

separation would be retained and modified as needed.

ODOT and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) are not proposing to close any crossings under this 

Tier 1 NEPA process, but could decide to close some crossings during future Tier 2 Federal environmental 

review processes. 

The Alternative 1 alignment (the full route between Eugene and Portland) has 148 existing at-grade 

crossings; nine of these are passive crossings (crossings without active warning devices, such as flashing 

lights or gates). ODOT and UPRR will be closing two of the nine passive at-grade crossings and upgrading 

three of the passive crossings to active crossings by installing crossing arms and flashing lights. Within the 

sections proposed for track improvements under Alternative 1, there are 73 at-grade crossings, including 

three of the aforementioned passive crossings that are planned to be upgraded or closed (also part of the 

No Action Alternative) to reduce the risk of vehicle-train collisions at these locations.

Figure 3-2 shows the full route for Alternative 1 as well as the specific areas where track improvements are 

proposed. Beginning at the southern end of the proposed alignment, approximately 1.5 miles southeast of 

the Eugene Station, Alternative 1 would build a new track east of and parallel to the existing UPRR mainline. 

This new mainline track would continue north approximately 13.5 miles to a location south of Junction City. 

An existing siding track in this area would connect to this new mainline and become part of the UPRR

mainline track. The proposed new track in this section would add two bridges over existing pedestrian 

undercrossings: one to accommodate the existing Ruth Bascom Bike Path and another to accommodate the

unnamed pedestrian undercrossing adjacent to it. 

Adjacent to, and directly west of the existing Eugene Station, planned rail infrastructure improvements 

include the Eugene Stub Tracks Project, which is a separate Federal NEPA action that would add train 

layover capacity to the Eugene Station for passenger rail service. Section 4.19.4 summarizes the 

environmental impacts associated with this proposed action, which was documented as a Categorical 

Exclusion under NEPA due to independent utility. Ultimately, the Eugene Stub Tracks Project must be built 

to achieve the level of passenger and freight train operations planned for the OPR Project in Alternative 1. 

Because construction funding for the Eugene Stub Tracks project is not yet reasonably foreseeable, 

the Alternative 1 capital cost estimate includes the construction cost of this project (approximately 

$23.4 million).

Between the Eugene Station and the location where the new mainline track would reconnect with the 

existing mainline south of Junction City, Alternative 1 would add six crossovers to facilitate freight and 

passenger train movements. Two crossovers between the Eugene Station and the UPRR Eugene Yard would 

allow the industries transporting freight from Coos Bay to cross onto the UPRR mainline without significant 

operational impacts from additional passenger rail service at the station. Two crossovers directly north of 

the UPRR Eugene Yard limits would facilitate moves into and out of the rail yard. Two crossovers south of 

the reconnection to the mainline near Junction City would allow trains to access the new mainline to the 

south and the existing siding to the north. The result of the proposed improvements would be a fully 

double-tracked section between Eugene and Junction City. 
CHAPTER 3 – ALTERNATIVES ADVANCED FOR FURTHER STUDY

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3 - 1 1

OCTOBER 2018

A new mainline track would connect to an existing siding north of Harrisburg and continue north for 

approximately 6.6 miles, reconnecting with the existing mainline at the north end of Halsey. A pair of 

crossovers 3 miles south of Halsey would facilitate passenger and freight movements through this track 

section.

One mile south of Tangent, a new mainline track would be built that would run north and connect to an 

existing siding (the Hallawell siding) that is located approximately 2.7 miles north of Tangent. A crossover 

would be added just north of the center of Tangent to facilitate movement into and out of existing industries 

(freight customers), and a pair of crossovers located in the vicinity of the connection to the Hallawell siding 

would facilitate movements between the new mainline track and the existing mainline. A new mainline track 

would connect to the north end of the Hallawell siding, reconnecting to the main line at the southern end of 

the UPRR Albany Yard. Just south of the Albany Yard, the AERC line branches from the UPRR line to the south 

toward Mill City. Alternative 1 would add a series of turnouts through Albany and adjust the AERC

connections to facilitate passenger operations into and out of the Albany Station.

A mile north of Albany, a new mainline track approximately 1.6 miles in length would be built that would 

connect to the existing siding south of Millersburg. The existing siding, which serves the local industries, 

would then connect to a new mainline that would itself continue north and connect to the existing 

Millersburg siding. The north end of the Millersburg siding would be extended an additional 1.5 miles, 

crossing under I-5. A new crossover in that northern section would facilitate movements between the 

existing UPRR mainline and the new mainline track.

A new mainline track approximately 3.4 miles in length would be built starting about 3 miles south of 

Marion that would connect to the existing siding through Marion. The existing siding would be extended 

north an additional 1 mile. A set of crossovers through the existing siding would allow efficient usage of the 

existing siding and ease train movements into Marion to the south and Turner to the north.

South of the existing UPRR Salem Yard, Alternative 1 would include improved transitions that would allow 

freight trains to use an existing siding and passenger trains to use the existing UPRR mainline. An industry 

track realignment and a pair of proposed crossovers between the mainlines would allow freight train 

movements into and out of the Salem Yard, thus facilitating service for area industries without reducing 

service for freight or passenger rail moving through this area.

North of downtown Salem, Alternative 1 would add a new 7,500-foot siding and modify rail connections to 

the industries east of the alignment. North of Keizer and through Brooks, Alternative 1 would provide a new 

6,700-foot siding and a pair of crossovers, modified connections to existing industries, and another new 

crossover to allow access to industries in Brooks.

Starting at the north end of an existing siding about 1.4 miles south of Woodburn, Alternative 1 would add 

a new mainline track approximately 4.4 miles in length west of the existing UPRR mainline through 

Woodburn, connecting back into the existing mainline at approximately 1 mile south of Hubbard.

North of the Molalla River, Alternative 1 would add new mainline track approximately 4.7 miles in length 

west of the existing UPRR mainline, starting at the north end of an existing siding. The new mainline would 

run north through Canby, eventually shift over to the east side and then connect to an existing siding 1 mile 

south of Rock Island. Connections to existing industries and to the Oregon Pacific Railroad would be modified, 

and a new set of crossovers would be added to allow access to and from the existing mainline track.

Two miles north of the Oregon City Station, Alternative 1 would add a new mainline track west of the 

existing UPRR mainline. This new mainline track would shift over to the east of the UPRR mainline near 

Milwaukie and run north to the Steel Bridge in Portland, adding almost 12.5 miles of new mainline track in 

this area. Just east of where the UPRR mainline goes under SE 82nd Avenue as it leaves Clackamas, 

Alternative 1 would add a new crossover to facilitate access to the industries south of I-205. A connection 

to local industries south of Milwaukie would be connected to the new mainline.
CHAPTER 3 – ALTERNATIVES ADVANCED FOR FURTHER STUDY

3 - 1 2 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

In Milwaukie, the new mainline track that started north of the Oregon City Station would turn north, 

continuing to parallel the existing mainline track, and travel under several existing bridges – the 

Springwater Trail, SE Tacoma Street and Bybee Boulevard. The new mainline track would cross over 

Johnson Creek. Several new crossovers would be added in this area to facilitate movement in and out of 

existing industries and the UPRR Brooklyn Yard.

The new mainline track would run along the east side of the UPRR Brooklyn Yard, crossing under Holgate 

Boulevard, and at the same time reconnecting to the existing industry tracks on the east. A new pair of 

crossovers would facilitate yard access and train positioning. The new main track would continue north 

toward central Portland, running on the east side of the existing UPRR mainline and ending just south of the 

Steel Bridge that crosses the Willamette River. Although Figure 3-2 does not show any project-level 

improvements north of Portland Union Station, infrastructure improvements in that section would consist 

of those proposed in separate Federal NEPA actions, specifically the proposed Willbridge Crossovers and 

North Portland/Peninsula Junction projects. This Tier 1 EIS does not address the potential environmental 

effects of these projects, because they were separate NEPA actions due to independent utility. These 

projects are marked on the map for reference. However, the two projects must be built to achieve the 

level of passenger and freight train operations planned for the OPR Project. The North Portland portion 

of the North Portland/Peninsula Junction project is funded for construction, thus is not included in the 

Alternative 1 costs. Because construction funding for the Willbridge Crossover project (approximately $8.1

million) and the Peninsula Junction portion of the North Portland/Peninsula Junction project 

(approximately $4.1 million) is not yet reasonably foreseeable, the capital cost estimate for Alternative 1 

includes the construction costs of these two projects. 

In all, proposed construction under Alternative 1 would include 395,200 feet (74.8 miles) of new track, 

300 feet of elevated track, crossovers, and 41 stream crossings (23 bridges and 17 culverts). Alternative 1 

would affect 73 existing at-grade railroad crossings along this 125-mile route.

3.2.1.2 Alternative 2

Between Springfield and Oregon City, Alternative 2 would consist of a mostly new rail route composed 

primarily of single track and would follow I-5, an existing freight rail route and I-205, as shown in Figure 3-2.

It would parallel the current passenger rail route north of Oregon City. The Alternative 2 track

improvements would be constructed primarily adjacent to the existing I-5 and I-205 freeways, the existing 

PNWR line between Keizer and Wilsonville, and adjacent to the existing UPRR alignment north of Oregon 

City. Alternative 2 would add new mainline railroad track throughout the full route between Springfield and 

Portland. Between Keizer and Wilsonville, and north of Oregon City, Alternative 2 track would be shared 

with freight traffic, on the PNWR and UPRR lines. Along the passenger rail-only sections of the route, siding 

tracks and crossovers would be placed every 10 to 12 miles to facilitate passing operations. The new rail 

line between Springfield and Keizer, and between Wilsonville and Oregon City, and the cut-and-cover 

tunnel section in inner southeast Portland, would be for the exclusive use of passenger rail service. 

Alternative 2 would serve seven round trips per day—six Amtrak Cascades and one Coast Starlight (a “6+1” 

schedule). Between Portland’s Union Station and Vancouver, WA, Alternative 2 would be the same as the 

2035 No Action Alternative and Alternative 1 (eight round trips per day, a 6+2 schedule).

Similar to Alternative 1, Alternative 2 would not change crossings that are currently at-grade to gradeseparated. However, where a current crossing is grade-separated, it would be reconstructed to 

accommodate new passenger tracks or a new grade-separated passenger crossing would be built adjacent 

to the existing crossing. Under Alternative 2, where an at-grade crossing exists along a railroad alignment, 

it would be considered for upgrading (if necessary) or would be closed. For example, under Alternative 2, 

the 15 at-grade passive crossings along the PNWR mainline would be upgraded or closed, resulting in 

improved safety. Alternative 2 would add one new at-grade crossing at Boeckman Road and SW 95th

Avenue in Wilsonville (250 feet east of the existing PNWR mainline at-grade crossing). Alternative 2 would 

require this new crossing to be able to move rail traffic from the PNWR mainline to the I-5 alignment.
CHAPTER 3 – ALTERNATIVES ADVANCED FOR FURTHER STUDY

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3 - 1 3

OCTOBER 2018

Fifty-two at-grade crossings are present along the Alternative 2 alignment (65 for the Alternative 2 with 

Central Albany Option). The improvements associated with Alternative 2 would result in the closure or 

upgrade of 21 existing passive crossings. Highlights of the Alternative 2 alignment include:

• Alternative 2 would begin in Springfield near LTD’s existing Springfield Station (a transit center). The 

proposed alignment would cross South 5th Street, South 2nd Street, and East 19th Avenue at grade 

because of the proximity to the potential new station and to diverging movements (places where 

one rail line diverges from another, for example, to connect to a freight rail customer’s site). 

• Alternative 2 would require two new crossings of the Willamette River in Springfield, one adjacent to 

the UPRR railroad bridge south of A Street, and the second parallel to the I-5 bridge. The second 

crossing would pass through the Eastgate Woodlands along I-5. The second Willamette River crossing 

would be just east of the recently constructed I-5 Willamette River Bridges. High-tension power lines 

located immediately east of I-5 in Springfield run north for approximately 4.2 miles to a substation at 

the northern city limits. These high-tension power lines and towers could require relocation, because 

the track alignment would also be located on the east side of I-5.

• The approximately 59.5-mile long section of the alignment from Springfield to south Salem is relatively 

flat and straight, traveling through farmland within the southern Willamette Valley. In order to cross

the hills south of Salem, the Alternative 2 alignment would require large cuts and fills.

• North of Salem, near Keizer, the Alternative 2 alignment would depart from the I-5 alignment, cross to 

the west side of the freeway, and run parallel to the existing PNWR line. The existing track would be 

upgraded, and additional mainline track and sidings would be added throughout this 23.5-mile long 

section. The alignment would follow this line along relatively flat and straight geometry until crossing 

the Willamette River on the existing PNWR rail bridge directly south of Wilsonville.

• The alignment would depart from the PNWR line in Wilsonville, where it would cross Boeckman Road at 

grade. From Boeckman Road, the alignment would travel approximately 0.7 mile along the west side of 

I-5, slowly elevating, until crossing into the median for approximately 3 miles, where it would turn to 

the east to follow the existing I-205 freeway alignment towards Oregon City.

• Along I-205, the Alternative 2 alignment would be located in the median until transitioning to the south 

side of the freeway west of 10th Street. This section would include tight horizontal curves to stay as 

close as possible to the freeway, thus reducing operating speeds. Excavation into rock would be 

required as the alignment heads toward the Willamette River crossing just west of Oregon City.

• North of Oregon City, Alternative 2 would be similar to Alternative 1, with new track paralleling the 

existing UPRR mainline into southeast Portland.

In addition to these highlights of Alternative 2, in southeast Portland, the Alternative 2 alignment would 

deviate from the Alternative 1 alignment and enter a cut-and-cover tunnel that would run below SE 2nd 

Avenue for approximately 3,300 feet (0.63 mile). This tunneled track would be exclusively for passenger-rail

use. The southern tunnel portal would be located south of SE Market Street, and the northern tunnel portal 

would be located north of SE Stark Street. The Alternative 2 route would rejoin the existing Amtrak 

Cascades, No Action and Alternative 1 alignment before crossing over the Steel Bridge in Portland. The cutand-cover tunnel would require ROW acquisition at the approach to each portal, and would likely involve 

the purchase of large commercial parcels and displacement of existing buildings and businesses. Multiple

street sections would need to be closed to construct the north portal (near SE Oak Street). SE Oak Street 

would be permanently closed in the vicinity of SE 2nd where the portal to the tunnel would be developed. 

No infrastructure improvements are proposed for Alternative 2 from the east approach to the Steel Bridge 

through the remainder of the OPR Project study area north of this location. Although Figure 3-2 does not 

show any project-level improvements north of Portland’s Union Station, infrastructure improvements in 

that section would consist of those proposed in separate Federal NEPA actions, specifically the proposed 
CHAPTER 3 – ALTERNATIVES ADVANCED FOR FURTHER STUDY

3 - 1 4 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

Willbridge Crossovers and North Portland/Peninsula Junction projects. The Tier 1 EIS Build Alternatives 

do not address the potential environmental effects of these projects, because they are separate 

environmental actions due to independent utility. However, the two projects must be built to achieve the 

level of passenger and freight train operations planned for the OPR Project, and are described below and in 

the cumulative impacts section of Chapter 4 (Section 4.19.4). The North Portland portion of the North 

Portland/Peninsula Junction is funded for construction. The Alternative 2 capital cost estimate includes the 

construction costs of the Willbridge Crossover project (approximately $8.1 million) and the Peninsula

Junction portion of the North Portland/Peninsula Junction project (approximately $4.1 million) because 

these projects have yet not secured construction funding. Figure 3-2 shows the route for Alternative 2 as 

well as the areas that include planned improvements.

3.2.1.3 Alternative 2 with Central Albany Option

The Alternative 2 with Central Albany Option varies from Alternative 2 near Albany. This option would allow 

service to the existing passenger rail station in Albany and would not require a new station in Albany 

near I-5.

Near the south edge of Albany, the Central Albany Option would depart from the Alternative 2 alignment

along I-5. This new alignment would be elevated above I-5 and cross from the east side to the west side of 

I-5. It would then travel to the west, running parallel to the existing AERC track for approximately 2.5 miles. 

From that point, the Central Albany Option would run parallel to the UPRR line into downtown Albany and 

serve the existing Amtrak station. The Central Albany Option alignment would continue eastward through 

Albany parallel to the UPRR mainline and return to the Alternative 2 alignment on the east side of I-5 north 

of Millersburg. The Alternative 2 with Central Albany Option would include 11 at-grade crossings along the 

10.7 miles of new track through Albany. 

3.2.1.4 Additional Projects

In addition to the improvements described above to support the build alternatives, three projects in 

Oregon are being developed under separate NEPA analyses. These projects are: 

• Willbridge Crossovers: Replaces the two main line crossovers with larger turnouts to reduce freight 

train congestion and allow passenger trains to crossover 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. (Categorical Exclusion signed by FRA on 10/8/2015)

• North Portland / Penn Junction: Realignment of track predominantly within existing rail right-of-way 

(ROW) and on an active rail line. Upgrades the existing turnouts with larger turnouts and broadened

curves to allow trains to travel at increased speeds. (Categorical Exclusion signed by FRA on 

10/16/2016)

• Eugene Stub Tracks: Provides additional storage track with provisions for power service at Eugene 

Station to allow the overnighting of Amtrak trains. (Categorical Exclusion signed by FRA on 8/31/2017)

Each of these projects has independent utility; that is, they would be usable and a reasonable expenditure 

even if no additional transportation improvements in the area are made. All three of the projects have 

obtained NEPA clearance through independent analysis. However, because funding has not been identified 

for implementation of the projects (except the North Portland portion of that project), they were not 

included in the No Build analysis for the OPR Project. Because each project would lend critical benefits to 

the OPR Project, this document discloses the costs of the projects in Section 3.2.6 and provides an overview 

of the environmental impacts associated with the projects in Section 4.19.
CHAPTER 3 – ALTERNATIVES ADVANCED FOR FURTHER STUDY

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3 - 1 5

OCTOBER 2018
CHAPTER 3 – ALTERNATIVES ADVANCED FOR FURTHER STUDY

3 - 1 6 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018
CHAPTER 3 – ALTERNATIVES ADVANCED FOR FURTHER STUDY

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3 - 1 7

OCTOBER 2018
CHAPTER 3 – ALTERNATIVES ADVANCED FOR FURTHER STUDY

3 - 1 8 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018
CHAPTER 3 – ALTERNATIVES ADVANCED FOR FURTHER STUDY

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3 - 1 9

OCTOBER 2018
CHAPTER 3 – ALTERNATIVES ADVANCED FOR FURTHER STUDY

3 - 2 0 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018
CHAPTER 3 – ALTERNATIVES ADVANCED FOR FURTHER STUDY

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3 - 2 1

OCTOBER 2018
CHAPTER 3 – ALTERNATIVES ADVANCED FOR FURTHER STUDY

3 - 2 2 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

3.2.2 Station Opportunities

Figure 3-2 shows the existing and potential new stations associated with each build alternative. 

Alternative 1 would use the five existing stations served by the current Amtrak Cascades passenger rail 

service in Oregon, which are located in or near Central Business Districts. Alternative 2 would also use 

five stations and proposes multiple new station locations that would be located near I-5 and generally away 

from downtown city cores. Potential new station locations are identified in general terms only to allow 

analysis of potential impacts. Final decisions on any new stations and specific locations would be made in 

association with future Tier 2 studies. The Station Stop Policy for Amtrak Cascades Service, jointly issued by 

ODOT and WSDOT on June 1, 2016, gives the PNWRC administrators the responsibility for evaluating 

proposals to add, remove or skip station stops for the Amtrak Cascades service. The companion Station 

Stop Policy Guidance Document (ODOT and WSDOT, 2016) describes the process for evaluating proposed 

station changes. Proposals to add stations beyond the five proposed under the build alternatives need to be 

considered through the Station Stop Policy8. 

The travel time and RTC modeling efforts used in the identification of the track-related improvements for 

the build alternatives limited the number of passenger rail stations for each alternative to five; this number 

of stations is consistent with the existing conditions and future conditions under the No Action Alternative. 

3.2.2.1 Alternative 1

Alternative 1 would use the existing stations along the current Amtrak Cascades route, and no improvements 

to the existing stations are proposed in this Tier 1 EIS.

Table 3-4 lists the passenger rail stations associated with Alternative 1.

Table 3-4. Alternative 1 Passenger Rail Stations 

Station Existing or New? Location

Eugene Existing 433 Willamette Street, Eugene

Albany Existing 110 10th Ave SW, Albany

Salem Existing 500 13th Street SE, Salem

Oregon City Existing 1757 Washington Street, Oregon City

Portland’s Union Station Existing 800 NW 6th Avenue, Portland

3.2.2.2 Alternative 2

Alternative 2 would require new passenger rail stations south of Portland’s Union Station. Each of the 

potential new stations would be located adjacent to the proposed alignment, generally near I-5. Table 3-5 

lists the passenger rail stations associated with Alternative 2. Figure 3-2 shows their general locations. 

This EIS assesses a 20-acre study area around each potential new station location. Assessment of potential 

impacts associated with the construction of potential new stations under Alternative 2 considered the 

station building or buildings, parking, access and egress routes, and other needed infrastructure. Decisions 

on new station locations would need to follow the Station Stop Policy for Amtrak Cascades Service 

(ODOT and WSDOT, 2016).

 

8 As noted in the introduction to this Chapter, when ODOT began identifying potential project impacts, Alternatives 1 and 2 included a possible 

Woodburn Station. In 2016, ODOT and WSDOT adopted a Station Stop Policy for Amtrak Cascades service that would require any new station to 

meet defined criteria. Though Woodburn does not currently meet these criteria and is not included in the service and operations analysis of the 

Build Alternatives, future project development could include a station in Woodburn. To preserve information developed for potential new 

Woodburn Station locations, those locations continue to be shown on project maps and potential environmental impacts are broadly described in 

Chapter 4. Additional analysis of ridership, travel time, environmental impacts and costs would need to occur during the environmental analysis for 

the future project development prior to implementing a new station in Woodburn.
CHAPTER 3 – ALTERNATIVES ADVANCED FOR FURTHER STUDY

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3 - 2 3

OCTOBER 2018

Table 3-5. Alternative 2 Passenger Rail Stations 

Station Existing or New? Location

Springfield New Near existing transit center adjacent to 

UPRR tracks

Albanya New Near I-5; suburban setting at eastern edge of 

urban growth boundary

Salem or Keizer New Salem: near I-5 in retail commercial setting 

2 miles east of downtown Salem 

Keizer: near I-5 adjacent to regional 

shopping center

Wilsonville or Tualatin New Wilsonville: near I-5 outside downtown and 

adjacent to existing transit center

Tualatin: in the median of the I-5 and I-205 

freeways

Portland’s Union Station Existing 800 NW 6th Avenue, Portland

a The Alternative 2 with Central Albany Option would not include this station, because the existing 

Albany Station would be used instead.

3.2.3 Operational and Service Assumptions

Both of the build alternatives would include six Amtrak Cascades train round trips and one Coast Starlight

train round trip per day, as well as supplemental Thruway bus service between Portland and Eugene. Some 

of the current Thruway bus service is scheduled so that it connects in Portland with Amtrak Cascades trains 

between Portland and Seattle. As shown Table 3-6, ODOT would incrementally replace Thruway bus service 

with passenger rail trips if a build alternative is implemented. The new round trips between Springfield/ 

Eugene and Portland would be scheduled to match with trains that currently start or end at Portland’s 

Union Station.

Table 3-6. Number of Amtrak Cascades Trains and Thruway Buses – 

2017 Existing Conditions and 2035 Conditions for No Action Alternative and Build Alternatives 

Station Locationa

Existing Conditions

(2016) 

No Action Alternative

(2035) 

Alternative 1

(2035) 

Alternative 2

(2035)b

Trains 

(NB/SB)

Buses 

(NB/SB)

Trains 

(NB/SB)

Buses 

(NB/SB)c

Trains 

(NB/SB) 

Buses 

(NB/SB)c

Trains 

(NB/SB)

Buses 

(NB/SB)c

Springfield - - - - - - 6/0 1/0 

University of Oregon - 6/0 - 7/0 - 1/0 - 1/1 

Eugene 2/0 6/6d 2/0 7/7d 6/0 1/1d - - 

Albany 2/2 6/6 2/2 7/7 6/6 1/1 6/6 1/1 

Salem or Keizer 2/2 7/6 2/2 7/7 6/6 2/1 6/6 2/1 

Woodburn - 2/2 - 2/2 - 1/1 - 1/1 

Oregon City 2/2 2/1 2/2 2/1 6/6 - - - 

Wilsonville or Tualatin - - - - - - 6/6 2/2 

Portland 4/2 0/7 6/2 0/7 6/6 0/2 6/6 0/2 

NB=Northbound; SB=Southbound

a Refer to Table 3-4 for Alternative 1 station locations, and Table 3-5 for Alternative 2 station locations.

b Also includes Alternative 2 with the Central Albany Option.
CHAPTER 3 – ALTERNATIVES ADVANCED FOR FURTHER STUDY

3 - 2 4 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

c The numbers of Thruway buses and locations that they serve in 2035 under any alternative are for planning purposes only, 

and are subject to change.

d Thruway buses stop to drop off passengers only (no boardings).

Sources: Amtrak Cascades Schedule (February, 2016) and consultation with ODOT Rail and Public Transit Division.

Table 3-7 shows the year 2035 forecast passenger rail travel times between Springfield/Eugene and 

Portland for each alternative. Bus travel times were not estimated.

The original Alternative 1 operational analyses were based on a projected six round trips per day on a fully 

double-tracked UPRR alignment. In December 2014, ODOT conducted additional operational analyses for 

Alternative 1 to consider whether the planned additional infrastructure could be reduced while preserving 

rail performance. The Alternative 1 operational model was revised to consider six, four and three round 

trips per day on varying amounts of additional infrastructure. Based on that analysis, it was determined 

that, even with a reduction in the originally assumed full double-tracking, Alternative 1 could support 

six round trips per day with the previously identified improvements (see Section 3.2.1.1.).

The original Alternative 2 operational analysis was also based on a projected six round trips per day. ODOT 

did not conduct operational analysis and modeling of fewer round trips for Alternative 2 because of the 

limited opportunities to reduce infrastructure and costs. A large portion of the Alternative 2 route would be 

on a new single-track alignment with a few sidings to allow passenger trains to pass. Fewer round trips 

could allow elimination of one or two sidings but would not significantly reduce the cost of Alternative 2.

Table 3-7. Passenger Train Travel Times for DEIS Alternatives (2035) 

Route No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2a

Total Travel Time (Eugene/Springfield 

to Portland) 02:35 02:20 02:02 

Notes:

Travel times assume three station stops between Eugene/Springfield and Portland. 

a Travel time for Alternative 2 with the Central Albany Option would be slightly longer than shown for Alternative 2, because 

the route would travel an additional 2.5 miles to accommodate the stop at the existing Albany Station.

3.2.4 Ridership

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

90 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 3-8 shows the existing (2015) and 2035 forecast 

Amtrak Cascades (including Thruway Bus) ridership between Eugene and Portland.

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

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 

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 
CHAPTER 3 – ALTERNATIVES ADVANCED FOR FURTHER STUDY

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3 - 2 5

OCTOBER 2018

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 3-9 shows the existing station activity and the projected activity for the No Action 

Alternative and Alternative 1 in 2035.

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

Existing and 2035 Conditions for No Action Alternative and Alternative 1 

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).

3.2.4.2 Alternative 2

In 2035, total ridership (both Amtrak Cascade trains and Thruway buses) under Alternative 2 is projected to 

be about 723,000 passengers per year compared to approximately 390,000 passengers per year under the 

No Action Alternative. That is an increase of 170 percent over existing ridership and an 85 percent increase 

over projected ridership for the No Action Alternative (Williams, 2015). Similar to the No Action Alternative, 

Portland’s Union Station and the potential new Springfield station would have the two highest numbers of 

passenger boardings and alightings of all the stations, while the potential new Albany and Wilsonville stations 

would have the two lowest. Forecast ridership and the expected market share of passenger rail trips are not 

anticipated to be much different between Alternative 2 and the Alternative 2 with Central Albany Option.

Table 3-10 shows the existing station activity and the projected activity for the No Action Alternative and 

Alternative 2 in 2035.

Table 3-10. Annual Amtrak Cascades Train and Thruway Bus Station Activity – 

Existing and 2035 Conditions for No Action Alternative and Alternative 2 Central Albany Option 

Station

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

Existing

Conditions

(2015) 

No Action 

Alternative

(2035) 

Alternative 2 

Central Albany 

Option (2035)

Existing Conditions 

to Alternative 2 

Central Albany 

Option (2035)

No Action Alternative 

to Alternative 2 

Central Albany 

Option (2035) 

Springfielda 85,800 172,500b 350,400 308% 103% 

Albany 31,800 54,800b 122,500c 285% 124% 

Salemd 65,300 97,100 203,500 212% 110% 
CHAPTER 3 – ALTERNATIVES ADVANCED FOR FURTHER STUDY

3 - 2 6 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

Station

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

Existing

Conditions

(2015) 

No Action 

Alternative

(2035) 

Alternative 2 

Central Albany 

Option (2035)

Existing Conditions 

to Alternative 2 

Central Albany 

Option (2035)

No Action Alternative 

to Alternative 2 

Central Albany 

Option (2035) 

Wilsonvillee 15,100 17,000 39,800 164% 134% 

Portlandf 458,800 961,100 1,125,500 145% 17% 

Totalg 656,800 1,302,500 1,841,700 180% 41% 

a Existing conditions and No Action Alternative values represent ridership at the existing Eugene Station. The analysis for 

Alternative 2 assumed a new station would be located near the potential new Springfield station (an existing transit center). 

b 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 daily bus round trip.

c All alternative values represent ridership at the existing Albany Station.

d Existing conditions and No Action Alternative values represent ridership at the existing Salem Station. The analysis for 

Alternative 2 assumed a new station would be located along I-5. 

e Existing conditions and No Action Alternative values represent ridership at the existing Oregon City Station. The analysis for

Alternative 2 assumed a new station would be located at the Wilsonville South Metro Area Regional Transit (SMART) Transit Center.

f Activity at Portland’s Union Station includes all Amtrak Cascades train and Thruway bus passengers in Portland, including those 

from north of the Portland market.

g Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

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

3.2.5 Passenger Train Engine Technology

Train engine technologies considered for the OPR Project build alternatives include the existing technology 

(diesel locomotive-hauled) as well as the diesel multiple units (DMU) technology. These technologies, as 

well as those screened out from further analysis, are introduced in Chapter 2 (Section 2.2.3).

Locomotive-hauled trains are diesel-powered and are paired with passenger coaches that are capable of 

operating at speeds up to 125 mph. The existing Amtrak Cascades fleet uses locomotive hauled trains, and 

their continued use would not introduce new maintenance or operational training requirements. 

Additionally, Washington State recently purchased eight next generation diesel-electric locomotives to 

include in the fleet for Amtrak Cascades service throughout the PNWRC.

DMUs are multiple-unit trains powered by on-board diesel engines that are also capable of operating at 

speeds up to 125 mph. A DMU requires no separate locomotive, as the engines are incorporated into 

one or more of the carriages. While DMUs would introduce a new technology to the fleet, they would use 

the same type of fuel (diesel) and track infrastructure as diesel locomotive hauled trains. Therefore, while it 

would be possible to integrate DMUs into the Amtrak Cascades service, DMUs would require separate 

maintenance and operational considerations.

This EIS assumes that either train engine technology would be suitable for the PNWRC.

3.2.6 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. 
CHAPTER 3 – ALTERNATIVES ADVANCED FOR FURTHER STUDY

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3 - 2 7

OCTOBER 2018

3.2.6.1 Capital 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 $870a, b $1,025a, b $3,622c $4,442c $3,657 $4,537 

New Train sets (2)d $40 $40 $40 $40 $40 $40 

Totale $915 $1,077 $3,667 $4,494 $3,702 $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 million and $801 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 

project ($13.2 million) has been identified via a Connect Oregon grant 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 project ($13.2 million) has been 

identified via a Connect Oregon grant and matched dollars from UPRR.

d Train set costs are based on 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 

each new train set is assumed to be $20 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).

3.2.6.2 Operations 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 
CHAPTER 3 – ALTERNATIVES ADVANCED FOR FURTHER STUDY

3 - 2 8 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

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.

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 million, including about $37.5 million for Amtrak and 

$10.5 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 $51.5 million a year, including about $41.0 million paid to Amtrak and $10.5 million for maintenance 

of the state-owned passenger trains.

3.2.7 Phasing Opportunities

The two build alternatives have very different opportunities to phase implementation over time. This 

section describes how ODOT could phase implementation of the build alternatives. For either alternative, 

phasing could be structured to add one round trip in each phase. ODOT would replace Thruway bus trips 

with Amtrak Cascade train trips.

3.2.7.1 Alternative 1 Phasing

Phasing for Alternative 1 would be flexible and coordinated closely with the railroad owners and operators. 

Because Alternative 1 follows the existing route, infrastructure investments could be broken up into 

relative small, lower-cost elements, so that ODOT could implement Alternative 1 incrementally as funding 

becomes available. ODOT could also implement the elements deemed most valuable to support expanded 

service, and expand service incrementally from two round trips to the six round trips that are considered 

full build-out for this alternative. This approach would allow ODOT to add round trips over time as the 

demand for additional passenger service grows.

3.2.7.2 Alternative 2 Phasing

In contrast to Alternative 1, Alternative 2 would need to be implemented in a few large phases in order to 

connect sections of new alignment to existing alignment. Potential phases could be Springfield to Albany, 

Albany to Salem, Salem to Oregon City, and north of Oregon City.

Even if implementation of Alternative 2 was broken into sections between these cities, each of the large 

phases could cost more than $1 billion. The most recent Federal transportation funding programs have 

required at least a 20 percent state and local match, so Oregon‘s local share would be at least $200 million 

per phase.
CHAPTER 3 – ALTERNATIVES ADVANCED FOR FURTHER STUDY

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 3 - 2 9

OCTOBER 2018

In addition, in a phased implementation scenario, ODOT could add round trips to the Amtrak Cascades 

service before Alternative 2 could be fully built out, requiring improvements along the existing alignment. 

These improvements would later be abandoned for passenger rail use. However, these improvements 

would provide a lasting benefit to freight rail. The environmental impacts of these improvements are 

uncertain because a phasing plan has not been determined. Any phasing approach and requirements for 

rail infrastructure improvements along the existing route would be subject to negotiation with the host 

railroad.
CHAPTER 3 – ALTERNATIVES ADVANCED FOR FURTHER STUDY

3 - 3 0 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

This page intentionally left blank.
CHAPTER 4 

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4 - 1

OCTOBER 2018

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences

4.1 Introduction

This Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is being prepared in compliance with the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 United States Code (USC) §4321 et seq.) to analyze and disclose the 

potential effects of improving intercity passenger rail service along the Oregon section of the Pacific 

Northwest Rail Corridor (PNWRC). Sections 1502.15 and 1502.16 of the Council on Environmental Quality 

(CEQ) NEPA regulations require an EIS to succinctly describe the environment of the area or areas to be

affected or created by the alternatives under consideration and to describe the environmental impacts of 

the alternatives including the proposed action. The CEQ NEPA regulations also require an EIS to identify any 

adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented, the 

relationship between short-term uses of the human environment and the maintenance and enhancement 

of long-term productivity, and any irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources that would be 

involved in the proposal should it be implemented. In addition, because the Federal Railroad Administration 

(FRA) is the Federal lead agency for the Oregon Passenger Rail (OPR) Project, this EIS also complies with 

FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (Environmental Procedures) (64 Federal Register

28545, May 26, 1999).

This chapter describes the affected environment and compares the potential environmental consequences 

for the No Action Alternative and each of the Build Alternatives consistent with CEQ regulations and FRA’s 

Environmental Procedures. In addition, this chapter discusses potential best management practices (BMPs), 

minimization measures, and mitigation strategies to reduce or eliminate adverse effects.

4.1.1 Overview of Chapter

The following summarizes the structure and content of each resource-based section in this chapter.

• Legal Requirements. This subsection lists and briefly describes laws and regulations in addition to 

NEPA and the CEQ’s NEPA implementing regulations (as noted in the preceding Introduction) that are 

relevant to the discipline/resource analysis. The laws and regulations are separated into Federal, state, 

and local requirements.

• Methods. This subsection summarizes the process used to gather data and the methods used to assess 

and evaluate potential effects on the resource. This section also describes discipline-/resource-specific 

considerations that would be evaluated in Tier 2 NEPA documents (see subsection 4.1.2, Tiered NEPA 

Analysis).

• Study Area. This subsection describes the discipline-/resource-specific study area for analyzing 

potential impacts.

• Affected Environment. This subsection describes conditions that would be potentially affected by the 

build alternatives (i.e., the existing conditions). This description is used as a baseline for assessment of 

effects for the alternatives considered.

• Environmental Consequences. This subsection identifies and compares the potential direct and indirect 

effects, as well as construction impacts, of the No Action Alternative and the two build alternatives 

(Alternative 1 and Alternative 2) relative to the environmental context (the Affected Environment).
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4 - 2 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

• Potential Mitigation. This subsection describes conceptual avoidance and minimization strategies 

applied to the OPR Project. This subsection also includes a list of mitigation strategies that would be 

further developed in Tier 2 NEPA documents (see subsection 4.1.2, Tiered NEPA Analysis).

4.1.2 Tiered NEPA Analysis

This chapter addresses the potentially affected environment and provides an analysis of the potential 

effects of improving intercity passenger rail service at a generalized, program level based on a preliminary 

conceptual level of engineering and passenger rail service planning for two build alternatives and a 

No Action Alternative. The build alternatives have not been refined to optimize performance and schedule, 

to reduce cost, or to avoid specific properties or individual environmental resources. That is, this Tier 1 EIS 

evaluates the potentially adverse and beneficial effects of No Action and Build Alternatives within the study 

area, given a conceptual level of design and service, without identifying specific track alignments, 

infrastructure locations and/or specific rail station locations within the respective subject corridors.

As stated previously in 1.1.5, Tiered Approach to the National Environmental Policy Act, if FRA selects a 

build alternative at the conclusion of this Tier 1 NEPA analysis, it is expected that ODOT would implement 

the OPR Project in phases. Phases will be added as demand increases and as funding becomes available. 

One or more of the components or operable segments of the selected alternative for the OPR Project could 

be developed as individual projects to advance into final design and construction. ODOT anticipates seeking 

a combination of Federal and state funding to advance the OPR Project into final design and construction,

however, currently no funding has been identified to advance the project. If ODOT advances the OPR 

Project into final design and construction and Federal funding permits, or other Federal approval is 

involved, a Tier 2 NEPA analysis, led by the appropriate Federal agency. 

4.2 Transportation

This section discusses transportation-related legal requirements, methods for analysis, the transportation 

study area and affected environment, and potential environmental consequences of alternatives for the 

OPR Project. This section also discusses potential mitigation strategies.

4.2.1 Legal Requirements

In addition to NEPA and the CEQ’s NEPA implementing regulations, FRA’s Procedures for Considering 

Environmental Impacts are applicable to this Tier 1 transportation analysis. Section 14.(n)(13) of FRA’s 

environmental procedures require an EIS to include consideration of “impacts on transportation, including 

impacts on both passenger and freight transportation, by all modes, from local, regional, national, and 

international perspectives. The EIS should include a discussion of both construction period and long-term 

impacts on vehicular traffic congestion.”

4.2.2 Methods

This transportation analysis utilized both qualitative and quantitative assessments to characterize the 

potential passenger rail travel market and transportation system, and to evaluate the potential 

transportation impacts of the alternatives. Several factors were evaluated, including mode share as a 

percentage of the total trip market, travel times, ridership, delay and safety at rail crossings, connectivity 

and accessibility at existing and potential new stations, and freight train delays and operations.

The Oregon Passenger Rail Analysis of Travel Markets Technical Report (ODOT, 2014d) compiled and 

examined quantitative data from several sources to identify the potential market for intercity passenger 

rail. Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and FRA used this information, along with operation 

simulations and ridership forecasting, to analyze potential shifts in travel-mode choice towards improved 

intercity passenger rail.
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4 - 3

OCTOBER 2018

To evaluate the potential transportation system impacts of the No Action Alternative and the build 

alternatives, the analysis compares 2035 ridership and travel times with current ridership and travel times.

Safety conditions at rail crossings are qualitatively summarized in terms of potential conflicts between rail 

and auto/non-motorized transportation modes, and in terms of delays on surface streets caused by rail 

traffic.

Connectivity and accessibility at existing and potential new stations are discussed in qualitative and 

quantitative terms based on existing and planned conditions at the station locations, along with projected 

increases in station activity. In addition, results from the Oregon Passenger Rail Revealed Preference Survey

(NuStats, 2014) of both Amtrak Cascades and Thruway bus passengers traveling within the study area are 

used to help determine the potential impacts of increased station activity. Specifically, the survey reflects

how people currently get to and from each of the stations, and is therefore used to predict how new riders 

would access the stations.

The potential freight-related delay for passenger trains and the potential impacts associated with freight 

capacity are qualitatively evaluated.

Tier 2 Analysis

ODOT and FRA will conduct project-level analyses of transportation conditions and potential impacts for 

individual projects proposed subsequent to the OPR Project if a build alternative is selected in the Tier 1 

Final EIS and Record of Decision. This could include, but would not be limited to, detailed traffic analyses, 

planning and design of potential connectivity and access improvements near stations, and site-specific 

measures to address traffic and safety impacts of railroad crossings.

4.2.3 Study Area

The transportation study area includes the existing intercity passenger rail system (including stations), the 

intercity highway system, and other modes of transportation available to the public (particularly aviation 

and intercity bus services) between Eugene and Portland. The transportation study area also includes the 

20-acre area around potential new station locations. Appendix D, Figure D-1 shows major transportation 

facilities in the study area.

The travel market study area for intercity passenger rail is more extensive than the study area for other 

transportation impacts, because, to identify a market of potential travelers, a broader catchment area that 

reflects travel movements between station locations is taken into consideration. In other words, the 

ridership model includes people who would travel from locations outside of the immediate study area to 

access the passenger rail system to make their trip.

4.2.4 Affected Environment

This section discusses the potential travel market for intercity passenger rail and the existing transportation 

system between Eugene and Portland, particularly existing modes of travel, safety conditions at rail 

crossings, and station connectivity and accessibility. The section also addresses freight operations.

4.2.4.1 Travel Market

The travel market for Amtrak Cascades passenger rail includes counties where the existing Amtrak Cascades 

rail alignment between Eugene and Portland is located, as well as counties from which it has the potential 

to draw additional riders. As such, the travel market spans 10 counties and 14,000 square miles with a 

population of over 3 million residents (see Table 4.2-1). More than 85 percent of these residents live in 

urban/suburban areas totaling approximately 2,500 square miles (ODOT, 2014a). 
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4 - 4 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

Table 4.2-1. Counties in the Travel Market 

County

Benton

Clackamas

Lane

Linn

Marion

Multnomah

Polk County

Washington County

Yamhill County

Clark County (Washington)

Source: ODOT, 2014a.

There are approximately 10.3 million daily person trips (a trip by one person by any transportation mode) 

within the travel market. On a typical weekday, 18 percent of these trips are for home-based work travel, 

53 percent are for home-based other travel (from home to another location, not work), and 29 percent are

for trips that are not home-based (between locations that do not include home). 

The travel market analysis for the OPR Project uses the Oregon Travel and Activity Survey (Oregon Modeling 

Steering Committee, 2011) to identify those trips within the travel market that are likely candidates for 

intercity passenger rail. This segment of the travel market is referred to in this document as the potential 

Amtrak Cascades intercity passenger rail market. The data indicates that the vast majority of the 

10.3 million daily trips within the travel market are shorter regional and local trips (i.e., less than 25 miles). 

Intercity passenger rail typically services trips of 100 to 200 miles, with Amtrak passenger data indicating 

another potential market for shorter trips in the approximately 50-mile range (ODOT, 2016). Therefore, the 

shorter regional and local trips are not likely candidates for intercity passenger rail, and should not be 

considered when determining the potential Amtrak Cascades intercity passenger rail market. Subtracting 

these shorter trips results in an estimated 114,000 potential daily person trips between the station 

communities and the surrounding areas of Eugene, Albany, Salem, Oregon City (including Lake Oswego), 

and the greater Portland area. Therefore, the current potential Amtrak Cascades intercity passenger rail 

market (114,000 daily person trips) represents just over 1 percent of all existing daily person trips in the 

total travel market (10.3 million daily person trips).

Of the total potential intercity passenger rail market (114,000 daily person trips), the two largest markets 

are the bi-directional Portland-Salem market (13,000+ daily person trips) and the bi-directional PortlandEugene market (2,800+ daily person trips).

The Oregon Passenger Rail Revealed Preference Survey (NuStats, 2014) gathered data from Amtrak 

Cascades rail and bus passengers traveling between Eugene, Oregon (OR), and Vancouver, WA. Of those 

riders, rail had a slightly larger share of the intercity transit market (55 percent rail; 45 percent Thruway 

bus). According to the survey, the most common purpose for trips for both bus and rail passengers 

(36 percent total) was to visit friends or relatives, followed by vacation/recreation (23 percent total). 

Only 6 percent of passengers were using Amtrak Cascades rail or Thruway bus services to commute to and 

from work, and another 6 percent were using rail or bus to travel to and from school (NuStats, 2014). 

Approximately 49 percent of riders indicated that they do not have a private vehicle available to them to 

make the trip that they were surveyed on, and 18 percent of passengers have zero vehicles in their 

household.
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4 - 5

OCTOBER 2018

4.2.4.2 Transportation System Conditions

This section documents the primary existing modes of travel potentially affected by the OPR Project, with 

information on operations, ridership, and travel time. As such, the study area is limited to the existing 

intercity passenger rail system, Interstate 5 (I-5), and other modes of transportation available to the public 

(particularly passenger airlines and intercity bus services) between Eugene and Portland. 

Passenger Rail and Thruway Bus

The current Amtrak Cascades passenger rail service between Eugene and Portland consists of three round 

trips per day (two Amtrak Cascades trains plus one Amtrak Coast Starlight train). In addition, Cascade Point 

(Amtrak Thruway) buses, sponsored by ODOT and operated by MTR Western, provide six round trips per

day between Eugene and Portland, with a seventh round trip between Salem and Portland. As described in 

Chapter 3, Amtrak Cascades trains stop in Eugene, Albany, Salem, Oregon City, and Portland. Thruway 

buses stop in each of these locations, plus Woodburn.

Ridership

In 2015, intercity ridership between Eugene and Portland via Amtrak Cascades passenger trains was 

approximately 105,000 and 89,000 for Thruway buses—a total annual ridership of 194,000. Based on those 

numbers, passenger rail represented a larger percentage of Amtrak Cascades ridership than Thruway bus 

(54 percent versus 46 percent, respectively).

Travel Time

According to published schedules,9 travel time between Eugene and Portland on the Amtrak Cascades is 

two hours and 35 minutes (2:35). Table 3-1 in Chapter 3 shows existing passenger-train travel times 

between stations.

The scheduled travel time between Eugene and Portland via Thruway bus varies between two hours, 

25 minutes (2:25) and three hours, 5 minutes (3:05), depending on the time of day and the number of 

intermediate stops. The Amtrak Cascades service in Oregon had an on-time performance of 82.3 percent in 

calendar year 2016.

Other Modes of Travel

In addition to passenger rail and Thruway bus, people use automobiles, commercial bus services, and 

passenger airlines as means to travel between Eugene and Portland. Each of these travel modes is 

discussed in more detail below.

Automobile Travel

Automobile travel makes up about 99 percent of all trips between Eugene and Portland, with drivers 

primarily using I-5, which is a four- to six-lane limited-access highway. The maximum posted speed limit on 

I-5 varies between 50 and 65 miles per hour (mph), depending on the location.

Travel times on I-5 between Eugene and Portland fluctuate between approximately 1 hour 46 minutes 

(1:46) when there is no congestion to well over two hours during peak commute and holiday travel periods. 

In 2011, the I-5 location with the most congestion (as measured by highest annual average daily traffic) was 

one-half mile south of the I-5/ Highway 217 (OR 217) interchange in Tigard, with 154,500 vehicles per day in 

both directions. Traffic was lowest 2 miles south of the I-5/ Highway 228 (OR 228) interchange near Halsey 

and one-quarter mile south of the Diamond Hill interchange, with 36,200 vehicles per day in both 

directions.

 

9 Summer 2015. 
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4 - 6 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

Commercial Bus Services

Two commercial intercity bus services are available in the travel market:

• Greyhound. As of 2014, Greyhound intercity buses operated four daily round trips between Eugene and 

Portland, with stops in Corvallis, Salem and Woodburn. The scheduled travel time between Eugene and 

Portland is between two hours, 25 minutes (2:25) and three hours, 15 minutes (3:15), depending on the 

time of day and the number of stops.

• BoltBus. As of 2014, BoltBus, a Greyhound subsidiary, operated two to three round trips per day 

between Eugene and Portland, four days a week (travel days between Thursday and Monday), with 

one intermediate stop in Albany. The scheduled travel time is two hours and 20 minutes (2:20). 

Greyhound and BoltBus do not release ridership or on-time performance data.

Air Travel

Currently, Alaska Airlines operates four daily round trips between Eugene and Portland. In addition, 

two daily flights operate between Eugene and Seattle, WA, and 26 daily round trips operate between 

Portland and Seattle, WA. Many passengers flying between Eugene and Portland or Seattle connect to 

other flights to their final destinations. The passenger volume between the Eugene and Portland airports 

was 160,000 between May 2013 and April 2014—a daily average of approximately 440 passengers. The 

other cities served by the Amtrak Cascades are too close together for commercial air travel to be practical.

The scheduled flight time between Eugene and Portland is 35 to 40 minutes. In addition to flight time, 

air travel requires that passengers arrive at the airport prior to the flight time for check-in, security, and 

boarding.

4.2.4.3 Rail Crossings – Delay and Safety Conditions

There are 175 existing at-grade public crossings (seven of which are bicycle/pedestrian-only crossings) and 

85 grade-separated crossings along the existing mainline rail alignments within the study area (between 

Eugene and Portland). As part of an ongoing safety improvement program independent of the OPR Project, 

ODOT and Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) will be closing two at-grade crossings, and installing crossing arms 

and flashing lights at three at-grade crossings. Table 4.2-2 shows existing at-grade and grade-separated rail 

crossings (both vehicular and non-motorized) and the total number of at-grade and grade-separated 

crossings for the Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 (including the Alternative 2 with Central Albany Option) 

alignments.

Table 4.2-2. Summary of At-grade Rail Crossings by Alternative 

Rail Crossings

Existing

Crossings

No Action

Alternative

Alternative

1 

Alternative

2 

Alternative 2 

with Central 

Albany Option

Total At-grade Crossings 175 173 140 46 59 

Total Grade-Separated 

Crossings 85 85 85 109 105 

Source: ODOT, 2016a. 
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4 - 7

OCTOBER 2018

Delay

Trains block at-grade crossings when they travel over or stop on the track. The length of the resulting delay 

for motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians varies based on several factors, including the length and speed of 

the train and the time the gates are down. For example, a short passenger train traveling at a fairly high 

speed may block a crossing for only a short time. Conversely, many freight trains are over 1 mile long and, 

while traveling at 20 mph, can take 3 minutes or more to clear a crossing (FRA, 2006). 

Delays resulting from blocked crossings are most acute on streets with relatively high traffic volumes.10

Within the study area, 18 crossings have high traffic volumes (i.e., greater than 10,000 vehicles per day). 

Of those, the following seven crossings have a history of trains blocking crossings by stopping or conducting 

switching activities while the train is in the crossing:

• Albany – 34th Avenue (UPRR crossing);

• Albany – Queen Avenue E; 

• Keizer – Chemawa Road; 

• Salem – McGilchrist Street; 

• Clackamas – Lawnfield Road; 

• Portland – NW Front Avenue E; and

• Portland – SE 11th Avenue E. 

Safety

The potential for collisions between rail traffic and vehicles and/or pedestrians or bicycles is a safety risk 

associated with at-grade rail crossings. This risk increases where only passive warning devices, rather than 

active warning systems, are used. Active warning systems use a combination of lights, bells,11 and gates to 

warn travelers when a train is approaching and to stop vehicles from entering the crossing. Passive systems

consist only of a stop or yield sign and a railroad crossbuck. Passive warning systems are typical at locations 

with very low traffic volumes. Along the existing rail alignments in the study area, 30 crossings have passive 

warning systems, and 6 of those are bicycle/pedestrian-only crossings.

Since 2003, 31 collisions at at-grade rail crossings have occurred along the existing rail alignments, resulting 

in 17 fatalities and 15 personal injuries. Eight crossing locations have been the sites of two or more 

collisions with trains, resulting in a cumulative total of 17 crashes at these locations (see Table 4.2-3). 

All but one of the multiple-incident crossings have active warning devices. The exception is the crossing at 

Perkins Street just north of Keizer, which has only passive signage. Although safety risks generally decrease 

at crossings where active warning systems are used, such crossings are also located in areas with higher 

traffic volumes than crossings with passive warning systems. Therefore, the higher number of collisions at 

crossings with active warning systems may be a function of traffic volume and/or roadway configuration as 

opposed to the safety of the warning system itself.

 

10 For the purposes of this EIS, average daily traffic (ADT) volumes at at-grade crossing locations were reviewed. The top 10 percent of crossing 

locations, based on the highest ADT volumes, roughly corresponded to roadways with greater than 10,000 vehicles per day. A threshold of 

10,000 vehicles per day was considered to represent relatively high volumes based on the ADT information.

11 Bells do not sound in “Quiet Zones”.
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4 - 8 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

Table 4.2-3. Summary of Multiple-Incident Rail Crossing Locations (Existing Alignment – 

Eugene to Portland) 

Crossing Location Railroad Number of Crashes

Albany – Queen Avenue UPRR 3 

Irving – Irving Road UPRR 2 

Junction City – 6th Street (Main) UPRR 2 

Salem – Court Street UPRR 2 

Woodburn – Hardcastle Street UPRR 2 

Broadacres – Butteville-Gervais Road PNWR 2 

Quinaby – Perkins Street (passive) PNWR 2 

Oregon City – 10th Street UPRR 2 

Source: ODOT, 2016a.

4.2.4.4 Connectivity and Accessibility

There are five existing Amtrak stations within the study area. Table 4.2-4 summarizes station characteristics 

including physical location, parking supply, rail and bus connections, and station activity.

Table 4.2-4. Summary of Existing Amtrak Stations in the Study Area 

Station 

Located in 

Downtown?

Parking Supply

(# of parking 

spaces12) 

Rail/Transit/

Bus Connections

Station Activity

(Annual # of Riders

On and Off)

Eugene

No; Periphery 

of Downtown 

Eugene

25 long-term; 

8 short-term

Rail: Amtrak Coast Starlight, Cascades

Transit: 

Lane Transit District

Bus:

Cascades POINT Thruway; Eugene-BendOntario-Coos Bay

Greyhound

67,000 

Albany Yes 50 long-term; 

20 short-term

Rail: Amtrak Coast Starlight, Cascades

Transit: 

Albany Transit System; Linn-Benton Loop

Bus:

Cascades POINT Thruway; PortlandAlbany-Corvallis-Newport 

(Valley Retriever);

Greyhound

24,500 

Salem No 30 long-term; 

30 short-term

Rail: Amtrak Coast Starlight, Cascades

Transit: 

Salem-Keizer Transit

Bus: Greyhound (future); Cascades POINT 

Thruway

49,000 

 

12 Most parking at Eugene and Portland Union Station is paid. Parking at Albany, Salem and Oregon City is mostly free.
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4 - 9

OCTOBER 2018

Station 

Located in 

Downtown?

Parking Supply

(# of parking 

spaces12) 

Rail/Transit/

Bus Connections

Station Activity

(Annual # of Riders

On and Off)

Oregon City

No; 1 mile east 

of central 

business district

50 long-term

Rail: Amtrak Cascades

Bus:

Cascades POINT Thruway

10,000 

Portland Union Yes 200 long-term; 

25 short-term

Rail: Amtrak Empire Builder, Coast 

Starlight, Cascades

Transit: MAX Green Line, MAX Yellow Line

Bus: Greyhound; Cascades POINT 

Thruway; Portland-Albany-CorvallisNewport (Valley Retriever); Northwest 

POINT/Thruway

450,000 

Source: ODOT, 2014b; ODOT, 2016a.

Table 4.2-5 identifies how people get to and from each of the existing stations based on survey responses 

to the Oregon Passenger Rail Revealed Preference Survey (NuStats, 2014). This information is important 

because the extent to which transit is accessed at each of the stations appears to correspond with the 

availability of transit service. The greater the availability and access the station has to transit service, the 

higher the reported mode share to transit for access and egress. For example, station access by transit is 

much higher in Portland than in other cities within the study area, and Portland has the highest level of 

transit access of any Oregon jurisdiction along the Amtrak Cascades alignment. Likewise, the station areas 

with better pedestrian/bike facilities have higher shares of access and egress by walking and biking. 

Table 4.2-5. Amtrak Cascades (Rail and Bus) Station Access/Egress – Percentage of Passengers by Mode 

Station 

Access and Egress Mode at Station

Walk Bike 

Drive Own 

Private Vehicle

Drop Off/

Pick Up – 

Private Vehicle

Drop Off/

Pick Up – 

Taxi

Public 

Transit Other

Eugene 5% 3% 9% 64% 9% 8% 2% 

Albany 5% 4% 15% 62% 7% 7% 0% 

Salem 18% 4% 12% 51% 4% 11% 0% 

Oregon City 0% 0% 5% 85% 5% 5% 0% 

Portland 0% 3% 2% 42% 7% 44% 1% 

All Stations 4% 3% 7% 54% 8% 24% 1% 

Source: ODOT, 2016a.

4.2.4.5 Freight Rail

In Oregon, trucks are the primary means for transporting freight. In 2011, trucks carried approximately 

75 percent of all freight tonnage statewide, while rail carried approximately 12 percent of freight tonnage 

statewide. Existing freight rail service in Oregon operates on 20 active railroads, transporting general 

merchandise, bulk commodities, and other goods in containers or trailers. Freight rail in Oregon operates 

on both Class I railroads (e.g., BNSF Railway (BNSF) and UPRR) and non-Class I railroads (Portland & 

Western Railroad (PNWR), Albany & Eastern Railroad Company (AERC), and Oregon Pacific Railroad 

Company). As discussed in Chapters 1 and 3, a mix of freight and passenger trains share the existing Amtrak 

route within the study area on the existing UPRR line. This track consists of Class I railroads capable of 

carrying the standard 286,000-pound (286K) freight rail cars (ODOT, 2014a). In addition, Class I railroads 

have Centralized Traffic Control (CTC), where traffic is controlled and managed remotely by dispatchers in 
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4 - 1 0 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

centralized locations. CTCs increase safety and capacity by allowing monitoring of multiple rail routes 

simultaneously. Railyards allow collection, distribution, and transfer of various commodities among rail 

lines. Major railyards within the study area are located in Eugene, Albany, Salem, and Portland.

4.2.5 Environmental Consequences

This subsection compares the potential transportation-related impacts of the No Action Alternative and the 

build alternatives. 

4.2.5.1 Direct and Indirect Impacts

No Action Alternative

The No Action Alternative represents the baseline condition against which the build alternatives are 

measured.

Travel Market

Under the No Action Alternative, ODOT and FRA project that population and employment, and thus Amtrak 

Cascades passenger rail ridership, would increase during the OPR Project planning horizon (2035). However, 

the increase in ridership would be relative to the increase in population. Based on population growth rates 

used for the Oregon Statewide Model (Bettinardi, 2013), the potential Amtrak Cascades intercity passenger 

rail travel market would be expected to increase to 174,000 daily person trips in 2035. ODOT forecasts 

540 daily Amtrak Cascades passenger rail trips in 2035, which represents 0.3 percent of the potential 

Amtrak Cascades intercity passenger rail travel market.

Changes to the share of potential Amtrak Cascades intercity passenger rail market would be unlikely to 

occur, because passenger rail service in 2035 would be similar to existing conditions, including the same 

passenger train frequency and the same number and location of station stops. ODOT plans to increase 

Thruway bus service from six round trips to seven round trips per day between Eugene and Portland by 

extending service of a Thruway bus that currently operates between Salem and Portland to Eugene and 

Albany. Without changes to service, it is probable that passengers would continue to utilize passenger rail 

and Thruway bus primarily for longer trips to visit friends or relatives or for vacation/recreation. Therefore, 

despite population and employment increases and a corresponding increase in ridership, a shift in travelmode is not expected under the No Action Alternative. Trips made by passenger rail would continue to be a 

relatively small share of the potential Amtrak Cascades intercity passenger rail market, as well as the overall 

travel market. 

Transportation System Conditions

Due to projected increases in population and employment, Amtrak Cascades passenger rail and Thruway 

bus ridership is expected to more than double during the OPR Project planning horizon under the No Action 

Alternative—increasing to approximately 390,000 annual passengers by 2035 (see Table 4.2-6). Projections 

show Thruway bus ridership increasing at a faster rate than passenger rail ridership; therefore, ridership in 

2035 is expected to be more evenly divided, with 51 percent of passengers riding passenger rail and

49 percent riding Thruway bus.

Table 4.2-6. Amtrak Cascades Ridership – Eugene to Portland – No Action Alternative* 

Eugene to Portland 2015 2035 Percentage Increase

Passenger Rail 105,000 197,000 88% 

Thruway Bus 89,000 193,000 117% 

Total 194,000 390,000 101% 

*Forecasting for the No Action Alternative assumes continuation of the current bus and train schedules.

Source: Williams, 2015; Holmes, 2016.
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4 - 1 1

OCTOBER 2018

Under the No Action Alternative, passenger train travel times between Eugene and Portland would be 

similar to, or slightly longer than, existing conditions. Although the No Action Alternative assumes no major 

infrastructure or other modifications to the current track configuration would occur, freight rail demand is 

forecasted to increase, which could result in bottlenecks, queues, and/or delays (see subsection 4.2.4.5, 

Freight Rail). 

Trips using other means of travel, particularly automobile and private bus, would increase under the 

No Action Alternative because of increased population and employment. However, the congestion on I-5 

is increasing, and no significant capacity improvements are included in the 2015-2018 Statewide 

Transportation Improvement Program (ODOT, 2014a). Without capacity and service improvements, travel 

times and/or service could worsen for these travel modes.

Transportation System Resiliency

The resiliency of the overall transportation system refers to the ability of the system to respond to events 

such as natural disasters. The No Action Alternative would not provide a new or alternate travel option, nor 

would it change or improve rail conditions and/or operations such that they would be more resilient to 

natural disasters or other events than the existing rail system. Therefore, the resiliency of the 

transportation system would not change under the No Action Alternative. 

Rail Crossings – Delay and Safety Conditions

Under the No Action Alternative, 173 existing at-grade public crossings and 85 grade-separated crossings 

would remain after closing of 2 at-grade crossings as part of an ongoing safety improvement program 

independent of the OPR Project. The frequency and length of delays resulting from blocked crossings would 

likely increase at crossings with high traffic volumes (see subsection 4.2.4.3, Rail Crossings – Delay and 

Safety Conditions) as a result of increased freight rail traffic and increased traffic on local streets.

Connectivity and Accessibility

The No Action Alternative would result in no changes or improvements to multimodal access and 

connectivity conditions at the five existing Amtrak Cascades stations beyond the funded projects already 

included in each jurisdiction’s Transportation System Plan (TSP). However, projected increases in 

population, employment, and Amtrak Cascades ridership would increase station activity, as shown in 

Table 4.2-7. 

The type of effects resulting from increased station activity would likely correspond to how passengers 

access the stations. The Oregon Passenger Rail Revealed Preference Survey (NuStats, 2014) indicates that 

64 percent of Amtrak Cascades rail and bus passengers traveling between Eugene and Portland access 

Eugene Station by being dropped off or picked up by private vehicle (ODOT, 2016a). Therefore, increased 

activity at this station could result in access issues associated with congestion on surrounding street 

networks. The Revealed Preference Survey shows that the majority of passengers accessed Portland’s 

Union Station via public transit (44 percent) and by being dropped off or picked up by private vehicle 

(42 percent) (ODOT, 2016a). Therefore, increased activity at Portland Union Station could result in greater 

numbers of people utilizing the transit system, as well as access issues associated with congestion on 

surrounding street networks.
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4 - 1 2 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

Table 4.2-7. Annual Amtrak Cascades Train and Thruway Bus Station Activity – 

Existing (2015) and 2035 Conditions for No Action Alternative 

Station 

Existing Conditions

(# of riders, both on 

and off)

2035 Conditions for 

No Action Alternative

(# of riders, both on 

and off) Percent Growth

Eugene 85,800 172,500 101% 

Albany 31,800 54,800 72% 

Salem 65,300 97,100 49% 

Oregon City 15,100 17,000 13% 

Portland Union 458,800 961,100a 109% 

Total 656,800 1,302,500 98% 

a Increased station activity under 2035 conditions reflect riders projected on 2 additional round trip trains 

between Portland and Seattle scheduled to begin service in 2017.

Source: ODOT, 2016a. 

Freight Rail

Under the No Action Alternative, freight demand is anticipated to increase by 40 to 50 percent between 

2010 and 2035 (ODOT, 2014b). The No Action Alternative does not include modifications or improvements

to the existing rail infrastructure that would increase the capacity and/or improve operations for freight 

trains.

In addition, increased freight traffic could increase passenger rail delays resulting from interactions with 

freight trains. Between April 2014 and March 2016, freight train interference was the second most frequent 

reason for host-related railroad delay13 on both the UPRR- and BNSF-hosted portions of the Amtrak 

Cascades route, behind passenger train interference and slow order delays, respectively (FRA, 2016). With 

the expected increase in freight demand, delays would continue and could increase, resulting in increased 

travel times and decreased reliability for passenger trains.

Alternative 1 

Travel Market

Under Alternative 1, four round trips per day would be added to Amtrak Cascades passenger rail service, 

while Thruway bus trips would be reduced. This added passenger train capacity and reduction in Thruway 

bus service, along with improved travel times and reliability as discussed below, could result in a shift in 

travel mode choice towards increased travel by passenger rail. Specifically, increased track capacity as 

envisioned by Alternative 1 would enhance reliability through a reduction of conflicts with freight,

increased frequency and reduced travel times of passenger trains. With more frequent and reliable 

passenger rail service, rail could become a more attractive mode of travel that is integrated with the overall 

transportation system, thus increasing overall travel market share.

Under Alternative 1, ODOT projects approximately 1,770 daily Amtrak Cascades passenger rail trips in 2035. 

As discussed under the No Action Alternative, based on average growth rates from the Oregon Statewide 

Model, the potential Amtrak Cascades intercity passenger rail market would be expected to increase to 

174,000 daily trips in 2035. Therefore, Amtrak Cascades passenger rail trips under Alternative 1 would 

comprise approximately one percent of the potential Amtrak Cascades intercity passenger rail market. 

 

13 Host-related delays are operating delays not attributable to Amtrak when operating on tracks of a host railroad, such as track- and signal-related 

delays, power failures, freight and commuter train interference, routing delays, etc.
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4 - 1 3

OCTOBER 2018

Although this is still a relatively small share of the potential Amtrak Cascades intercity passenger rail 

market, it is more than triple the market share under the No Action Alternative (0.3 percent).

Transportation System Conditions

Under Alternative 1, ODOT project total annual Amtrak Cascade ridership to increase approximately

89 percent to 739,000 passengers by 2035, compared to 390,000 under the No Action Alternative. 

However, under the No Action Alternative, ODOT and FRA forecast ridership in 2035 to be almost evenly 

divided between passengers riding passenger rail and passengers riding Thruway bus. The opposite is true 

under Alternative 1, where 646,000 of the 739,000 passengers, or 87 percent, are projected to ride on 

Amtrak Cascades passenger rail, compared to only 93,000 passengers, or 13 percent, riding Thruway bus 

(see Table 4.2-8). This difference in mode share is likely the case because, under Alternative 1, Thruway bus 

trips would be “replaced” incrementally with four additional Amtrak Cascades passenger train round trips. 

In other words, under Alternative 1, as the number of Amtrak Cascades trains trips per day increases, the 

number of Thruway bus trips per day would decrease.

Table 4.2-8. Amtrak Cascades Ridership – Eugene to Portland – Alternative 1 

Eugene to 

Portland 2015 

No Action 

Alternative

(2035) 

Percentage 

Increase 

(2015/No Action)

Alternative 1

(2035) 

Percentage 

Increase 

(No Action/Alt. 1)

Passenger Rail 105,000 197,000 88% 646,000 228% 

Thruway Bus 89,000 193,000 117% 93,000 -52% 

Total 194,000 390,000 101% 739,000 89% 

Source: Williams, 2015; Holmes, 2016.

Passenger train travel times on the Amtrak Cascades between Eugene and Portland would be expected to 

decrease to two hours and 20 minutes (2:20) under Alternative 1—a reduction of 10 percent in comparison 

to the current travel time of two hours and 35 minutes (2:35). The addition of mainline track in certain 

areas, with improved crossovers and additional sidings, would increase capacity and help bypass and reduce 

congestion that occurs from conflicts between passenger trains and when freight trains are switching 

between mainline and industry tracks. Because passenger trains travel faster than freight trains, the ability 

to use new crossovers would provide opportunities for passenger trains to maintain higher speeds. 

Given the increase in Amtrak Cascades passenger rail ridership under Alternative 1 in comparison to the 

No Action Alternative, Alternative 1 could include a reduction in the number of vehicles on I-5 between 

Eugene and Portland. In terms of overall quantity, this shift would not be significant enough to affect or 

improve congestion on I-5. Similarly, some trips by private bus or air travel could shift to passenger rail 

under Alternative 1, but any change would probably not be significant. 

Transportation System Resiliency

Under Alternative 1, additional mainline track capacity in certain locations, along with modifications and 

improvements to crossovers, sidings, and at-grade crossings, would improve transportation system 

resiliency by supporting long-term system preservation and by improving the ability of the transportation 

system to mitigate and recover from natural disasters and/or human-caused disruptions. 
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4 - 1 4 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

Rail Crossings – Delay and Safety Conditions

Alternative 1 includes new segments of mainline track parallel to the existing track but would not create 

new at-grade crossings, nor would it grade-separate existing at-grade crossings. Where a current crossing is 

grade-separated and new parallel track would be constructed, the crossing would be improved to 

accommodate new passenger tracks.

Alternative 1 would increase the number of passenger trains traveling through existing rail crossings 

(by adding four round trips per day to the Amtrak Cascades service) and would therefore result in more 

frequent delays at rail crossings. While the delays would be shorter than those caused by freight trains 

(because passenger trains are much shorter and generally travel faster), the addition of eight passenger 

trains per day at each crossing would increase the number of times that vehicles, pedestrians, and cyclists 

would be delayed at crossings in comparison to the No Action Alternative. 

The addition of eight passenger train trips per day (four round trips) at each crossing along the Alternative 1 

alignment could also increase potential safety hazards for vehicles, pedestrians, and cyclists at crossings in 

comparison to the No Action Alternative. 

Connectivity and Accessibility

Alternative 1 includes service at the five existing Amtrak Cascades stations, as well as the potential for 

service at one new station in Woodburn.14 As under the No Action Alternative, no changes or 

improvements to multimodal access and connectivity conditions at the five existing stations are assumed 

under Alternative 1 beyond the funded projects already included in each jurisdiction’s TSP. Table 4.2-9

shows the increase in station activity modeled under Alternative 1.

Under Alternative 1, the Eugene, Albany, Salem, and Oregon City stations would see considerably more 

activity than under the No Action Alternative (see Table 4.2-9). At each of these stations, the majority 

(over 50 percent) of passengers traveling between Eugene and Portland access the station by being

dropped off/picked up by private vehicle or taxi. For this reason, the increase in trips to and from these 

stations could affect traffic patterns on surrounding surface streets, and adversely affect access by 

increasing congestion. These potential impacts would be evaluated in future Tier 2 analyses. 

Table 4.2-9. Annual Amtrak Cascades Train and Thruway Bus Station Activity – 

Existing and 2035 Conditions for No Action Alternative and Alternative 1 

Station 

Station Activity (# of riders, both on and off)a Percent Growth

Existing 

Conditions

(2015) 

No Action 

Alternative

(2035) 

Alternative 1 

(2035) 

Existing 

Conditions to 

No Action

Existing 

Conditions to 

Alternative 1 

Eugene 85,800 172,500 362,300 101% 322% 

Albany 31,800 54,800 119,300 72% 275% 

Salem 65,300 97,100 03,700 49% 212% 

Oregon City 15,100 17,000 40,500 13% 168% 

Portlandb 458,800 961,100c 1,136,900 109% 148% 

Total 656,800 1,302,500 1,862,700 98% 184% 

 

14 As noted in Chapter 3, when ODOT began identifying potential project impacts, Alternatives 1 and 2 included a possible Woodburn Station. 

In 2016, ODOT and WSDOT adopted a Station Stop Policy for Amtrak Cascades service that would require any new station to meet defined criteria. 

Though Woodburn does not currently meet these criteria and is not included in the service and operations analysis of the Build Alternatives, future 

project development could include a station in Woodburn. To preserve information developed for potential new Woodburn Station locations, those 

locations continue to be shown on project maps and potential environmental impacts are broadly described in Chapter 4. Additional analysis of 

ridership, travel time, environmental impacts and costs would need to occur during the environmental analysis for the future project development 

prior to implementing a new station in Woodburn.
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4 - 1 5

OCTOBER 2018

a Station activity (riders on and off) includes the addition of 4 round trips per day to Amtrak Cascades passenger rail service and 

thus reflects an additional 8 trains per day at each station.

b Portland Union Station activity encompasses all Amtrak Cascades passengers in Portland, including those from north of the 

Portland market.

c Increased station activity under 2035 conditions reflect riders projected on 2 additional round trip trains between Portland and 

Seattle scheduled to begin service in 2017.

Source: ODOT, 2016a.

Freight Rail

Under Alternative 1, as under the No Action Alternative, ODOT anticipates freight demand to increase by 

40 to 50 percent between 2010 and 2035 (ODOT, 2014b). However, freight operations could improve as

compared to the No Action Alternative, because improvements made under Alternative 1 to support 

increased passenger service would add capacity and reduce passenger/freight conflicts, thus improving

freight operations. The track modifications or additions included in Alternative 1, such as mainline track, 

sidings, crossovers, and industry connections, would increase the efficiency of freight and passenger rail 

operations and allow for more flexibility for both freight trains and passenger trains. In addition, Alternative 

1 envisions the upgrading and constructing of new local-industry track connections that would improve 

freight operations compared to the No Action Alternative. Specifically, multiple existing industry track 

connections would be realigned or improved to allow freight to access local industries without blocking or 

impeding other trains. These improved industry connections would also provide more area to separate and 

assemble railcars off the mainline. Therefore, Alternative 1 would be expected to result in fewer freightrelated delays for passenger rail trains, as well as improved capacity and operations for freight trains.

Alternative 2 

Travel Market

Under Alternative 2, four round trips per day would be added to the Amtrak Cascades service, and Thruway 

bus trips would be reduced. As under Alternative 1, added capacity and reduction in Thruway bus service, 

along with improved travel times and reliability resulting from Alternative 2 improvements, could result in a 

shift in travel mode choice towards increased travel by passenger rail.

Under Alternative 2, ODOT projects approximately 1,729 daily Amtrak Cascades passenger rail trips in 2035. 

As discussed under the No Action Alternative, based on average growth rates from the Oregon Statewide 

Model, the potential Amtrak Cascades intercity passenger rail market would be expected to increase to 

174,000 daily trips in 2035. Therefore, Amtrak Cascades passenger rail trips under Alternative 2 would 

comprise approximately 1 percent of the potential Amtrak Cascades intercity passenger rail market. This is 

the same share of the potential Amtrak Cascades intercity passenger rail market as under Alternative 1, and 

more than triple the market share under the No Action Alternative (0.3 percent).

Transportation System Conditions

Under Alternative 2, total Amtrak Cascade ridership would increase approximately 85 percent to 

723,000 passengers by 2035, compared to 390,000 under the No Action Alternative (see Table 4.2-10). 

Both Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 would incrementally replace Thruway bus trips with four additional 

Amtrak Cascades round trips. As a result, ridership on the Amtrak Cascades passenger rail is projected to 

increase by 220 percent in comparison to the No Action Alternative, and Thruway bus ridership is projected 

to decrease by 52 percent. Alternative 2 would have slightly less ridership than Alternative 1, even though 

travel times would be shorter under Alternative 2. The difference in ridership is likely due to lower 

population and employment densities around the potential new Springfield station location compared to 

the existing Eugene Station under Alternative 1.
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4 - 1 6 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

Table 4.2-10. Amtrak Cascades Ridership – Eugene to Portland – Alternative 2 

Eugene to 

Portland 2015 

No Action 

Alternative

(2035) 

Percentage 

Increase 

(2015/No Action)

Alternative 2

(2035) 

Percentage 

Increase 

(No Action/Alt. 2)

Passenger Rail 105,000 197,000 88% 631,000 220% 

Thruway Bus 89,000 193,000 117% 92,000 -52% 

Total 194,000 390,000 101% 723,000 85% 

The passenger rail travel time between Eugene and Portland is expected to decrease to two hours and 

two minutes (2:02)—a 21 percent decrease compared to the No Action Alternative and a 13 percent 

decrease from the travel time under Alternative 1. Alternative 2 would add new mainline railroad track 

throughout the full route between Springfield and Portland, with the new rail line between Springfield and 

Keizer, and between Wilsonville and Oregon City, as well as a tunnel in southeast (SE) Portland for the 

exclusive use of passenger rail service. These and other improvements would help reduce congestion with 

freight traffic and decrease Amtrak Cascades passenger rail travel time between Eugene and Portland by up 

to 33 minutes compared to the No Action Alternative.

Given the increase in Amtrak Cascades passenger rail ridership under Alternative 2 in comparison to the 

No Action Alternative, Alternative 2 could include a reduction in the number of vehicles on I-5 between 

Eugene and Portland. In terms of overall quantity, this shift would not be significant enough to affect or 

improve congestion on I-5. Similarly, some trips by private bus or air travel could shift to passenger rail 

under Alternative 2, but any change would probably not be significant. 

Alternative 2 would not be expected to significantly reduce congestion on freeways, but it could result in 

impacts to travel on I-5 and Interstate 205 (I-205). Portions of the Alternative 2 alignment would be

adjacent to, or in the median of, I-5 and I-205, and the alignment crosses over the freeways in several 

places. The potential Tualatin station could be situated in the median of the I-5/I-205 interchange. These 

improvements could preclude or limit future expansion of I-5 or I-205 and, depending on design, could 

result in adverse effects to existing interchanges and access.

In addition, Alternative 2 could result in transportation impacts on local roadways. Construction of multiple

elevated structures along I-5 and I-205 could require realignment of existing local roadways in the following 

two locations, although access to existing properties is anticipated to be maintained: 

• Near I-5 milepost (MP) 245 (just north of the Jefferson Highway/Oregon Highway 99E interchange with 

I-5): The topography and existing roadway geometry would necessitate relocating Enchanted Way SE 

farther away from the freeway mainline to situate the rail line within or as close to the freeway right-ofway (ROW) as possible.

• At Marietta Street SE in Salem, where it intersects Fairview Industrial Drive SE just east of I-5 near 

MP 252 (just north of the Kuebler Boulevard interchange): In this section, the alignment profile must 

maintain 23.5-foot clearance above the UPRR mainline to accommodate freight traffic, while adhering 

to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations preventing the structure from intruding on the 

airspace of the Salem Municipal Airport. Where the airspace crosses the alignment, the total height of 

the train structure cannot be higher than 20 feet off the ground. Because of these constraints and the 

prevailing topography, Marietta Street would need to be shifted southeast away from I-5 at its western 

end to accommodate the new track alignment, based on a maximum allowable track grade of 3 to 

4 percent.
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4 - 1 7

OCTOBER 2018

Alternative 2 would also impact the existing surface street intersection of SW 95th Avenue and Boeckman 

Road in Wilsonville, because the passenger rail alignment is expected to cross the intersection diagonally 

at-grade. While the intersection would not need to be relocated, the introduced delay of passenger rail 

operations could affect existing intersection operations. 

Finally, the construction of the new tunnel under SE 2nd Avenue in Portland could necessitate the 

relocation or closure of some streets for the north portal in the vicinity of SE Oak Street and would likely 

require changes in traffic patterns. These potential impacts would be evaluated in future Tier 2 analyses.

Transportation System Resiliency

In terms of resiliency, Alternative 2 would improve the state’s railroad network and provide a mostly new 

travel route for passenger trains between Eugene and Portland and, in doing so, would increase the 

number of north/south rail track options that could be used during emergencies or threats (in addition to 

the existing alignment). This improvement and increase in options would support the ability of the overall 

transportation system to mitigate and recover from natural disasters or human-caused disruptions. 

Rail Crossings – Delay and Safety Conditions

For Alternative 2, where dedicated passenger rail track is proposed adjacent to I-5 and I-205, new gradeseparated passenger train crossings would be built to bridge intersecting bridges and interchanges. The 

grade-separated passenger train crossings would be located next to intersections and bridges in order to 

cross where the existing roadway is at-grade.

Alternative 2 would introduce one new at-grade crossing at Boeckman Road and SW 95th Avenue in 

Wilsonville (250 feet east of the existing PNWR mainline at-grade crossing). There are 46 existing at-grade 

crossings on the Alternative 2 alignment; 33 of these would not be upgraded, including 27 along the PNWR 

line between Keizer and Wilsonville. However, Alternative 2 would upgrade or close 15 at-grade passive 

crossings along the PNWR mainline. In addition, the number of trains passing through the at-grade 

crossings in the Central Eastside Industrial District in Portland would be reduced, because passenger trains 

would use the proposed SE 2nd Avenue tunnel. Because Alternative 2 would result in fewer at-grade 

crossings and would upgrade or close some existing passive crossings, safety conditions at rail crossings 

would be improved in comparison to the No Action Alternative and Alternative 1. 

Alternative 2 would shift passenger rail traffic from the UPRR mainline to a dedicated passenger rail track 

for much of the alignment; therefore, the frequency of delays resulting from blocked crossings would likely 

decrease at crossings on the UPRR mainline in comparison to the No Action Alternative and Alternative 1. 

However, the frequency of delays at the remaining crossings with high traffic volumes (see subsection 

4.2.4.3, Rail Crossings – Delay and Safety Conditions) would still increase as a result of increased freight rail 

traffic and increased traffic on local streets.

Connectivity and Accessibility

Alternative 2 includes service at the existing Portland Union Station, as well as the potential for service at 

five other stations—the existing Oregon City Station or new stations in Tualatin or Wilsonville, and/or new 

stations in Springfield, Albany, Salem or Keizer, and/or Woodburn. Like the No Action Alternative, no 

changes or improvements to multimodal access and connectivity conditions at the Oregon City or Portland 

Union stations are assumed beyond the funded projects already included in each jurisdiction’s TSP. 

Table 4.2-11 shows the increase in modeled station activity expected under Alternative 2.

Alternative 2 could result in impacts associated with multimodal access and connectivity conditions at the 

proposed/potential station locations as well as impacts to surrounding street networks. Trips to and from 

new stations could impact traffic patterns on surface streets surrounding the new station locations. Rail 

passengers driving to, or getting dropped off at, the potential new stations would increase traffic levels and 

turning movements into and out of the stations, which could cause delays on adjacent streets. These 

potential impacts would be evaluated in future Tier 2 analyses.
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4 - 1 8 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

Several of the potential station locations lack access and/or multimodal connections. For instance, due to 

the proximity of the freeway to both the Albany and Tualatin station locations, multimodal access to 

surrounding neighborhoods and/or transit service could be limited. At the potential new Salem station 

location, multimodal connections are available in all directions, but access to the station would affect

existing traffic circulation patterns, because it would require removal of parking areas at the mall. The 

potential new Keizer station location would require access through a residential area, so a new station 

would have an impact on traffic flow in this area. The potential new Woodburn station site is located 

outside of the city’s urban growth boundary and, as such, multimodal connections are limited, and the 

PNWR mainline and I-5 alignments constrain east–west travel. These potential impacts would be evaluated 

in future Tier 2 analyses.

In addition, the potential new Wilsonville station would be in the same location as the last stop for TriMet’s 

Westside Express Service (WES) commuter rail, which operates during peak periods in the morning and 

afternoon every weekday. The passenger rail vehicles and the commuter rail vehicles have different 

boarding configurations and, as a result, new platforms would need to be constructed at this station. 

Therefore, passenger rail service would need to be coordinated with TriMet in Wilsonville.

Table 4.2-11. Amtrak Cascades Station Activity – 

Existing and 2035 Conditions for No Action Alternative and Alternative 2 

Station 

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

Existing

Conditions

(2015) 

No Action 

Alternative

(2035) 

Alternative 2

(2035) 

Existing 

Conditions to 

No Action

Existing 

Conditions to 

Alternative 2

Springfieldb 85,800 172,500 350,400 101% 308% 

Albanyc 31,800 54,800 122,500b 72% 285% 

Salemd 65,300 97,100 203,500 49% 285% 

Wilsonvillee 15,100 17,000 39,800 13% 212% 

Portlandf 458,800 961,100g 1,125,500 109% 164% 

Totalh 656,800 1,302,500 1,841,700 98% 145% 

a Station activity (riders on and off) includes the addition of 4 round trips per day to Amtrak Cascades passenger rail service 

and thus reflects an additional 8 trains per day at each station.

b Existing conditions and No Action Alternative values represent ridership at the existing Eugene Station. The analysis for 

Alternative 2 station assumes a new station would be located near the Springfield Station (an existing transit center). 

c All alternative values represent ridership at the existing Albany Station.

d Existing conditions and No Action Alternative values represent ridership at the existing Salem Station. The analysis for 

Alternative 2 assumes a new station would be located along I-5. 

e Existing conditions and No Action Alternative values represent ridership at the existing Oregon City Station. The analysis for

Alternative 2 assumes a new station would be located at the Wilsonville South Metro Area Regional Transit (SMART) Transit Center.

f Activity at Portland’s Union Station includes all Amtrak Cascades passengers in Portland, including those from north of the 

Portland market.

g Increased station activity under 2035 conditions reflect riders projected on 2 additional round trip trains between Portland and

Seattle scheduled to begin service in 2017. 

h Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Source: ODOT, 2016a.

Freight Rail

Freight demand is expected to increase by 40 to 50 percent between 2010 and 2035, which could result in 

increased freight train traffic on the existing rail alignment (ODOT, 2014b). Alternative 2 would result in 

more opportunities to separate passenger rail trains from potential delays and interruptions associated 

with freight rail activities than under the No Action Alternative. In areas where Alternative 2 would remove 
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4 - 1 9

OCTOBER 2018

Amtrak Cascades passenger trains from the current route and allow them to run on a separate, dedicated 

track (on the UPPR mainline between Springfield and Salem/Keizer and between Wilsonville/Tualatin and 

Oregon City), train congestion would be reduced and freight capacity could be increased.

However, where the dedicated passenger rail track would reconnect with shared freight track, new points 

of conflict with freight would be introduced, and dispatch coordination would be required. Therefore, while 

Alternative 2 would result in greater flexibility in reducing congestion and increasing freight train capacity 

as a result of increased mainline track, benefits could be offset by increased interface with freight trains 

along the alignment at other locations.

Alternative 2 with Central Albany Option

Outside of the Albany area, the Alternative 2 with Central Albany Option has the same alignment and 

operational characteristics, and thus similar impacts, as those described for Alternative 2. Rather than 

considering a new station along I-5 in Albany, however, the Central Albany Option would provide an 

additional mainline track connecting to the existing Albany Station to the east of the Alternative 2 alignment.

The Central Albany Option would not result in a substantial shift in market share or ridership different 

from that under Alternative 2. Station activity at the Albany Station would be projected to increase 

approximately 233 percent from the No Action Alternative in 2035 (from 36,000 riders on and off to 

120,000). Similar to the No Action Alternative, this increased activity at the Albany Station under the 

Central Albany Option would likely increase traffic on the surface streets surrounding the station and could 

adversely affect access by increasing congestion.

The travel time between Eugene and Portland under the Central Albany Option would be expected to be 

longer than under Alternative 2.

System resiliency under the Alternative 2 with Central Albany Option is expected to be similar to 

Alternative 2.

The Central Albany Option would increase the number of at-grade crossings by 13, for a total of 59.

Increasing the number of at-grade crossings would increase the number and frequency of delays for 

vehicles, pedestrian and cyclists resulting from blocked crossings.

Under the Alternative 2 with Central Albany Option, congestion on the UPRR mainline would be reduced, 

and freight capacity could be increased in a similar manner as described under Alternative 2 above. 

However, the Central Albany Option would require passenger trains to move off the Alternative 2 

alignment to a downtown Albany section, where AERC and UPRR would take control of passenger train 

movement along with freight movement. This would likely result in more freight-related delays for 

passenger rail trains and operational impacts to freight than under Alternative 2. 

4.2.5.2 Construction Impacts

Alternative 1

During construction of Alternative 1, transportation facilities in proximity to existing at-grade crossings

would likely experience congestion in some areas due to intermittent stoppages, slower speeds, reduction 

of useable lanes, and/or temporary closures as a result of construction activities (work zones, detours, etc.).

Trucks and passenger vehicles bringing personnel, materials, and equipment necessary to upgrade the 

crossings or install new track would arrive throughout the day. Potential impacts are not anticipated to be 

significant, but they could include reducing roadway capacity and causing longer delay times at the 

crossings for a short amount of time. Roadway closures or detours for upgrades to at-grade crossing 

locations could occur. Construction schedules would be coordinated with the local governments to 

minimize delays.

Delays to trains on the existing track could occur during the construction of Alternative 1. Construction 

schedules would be coordinated with the host railroad to minimize delays.
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4 - 2 0 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

Alternative 2

During construction of Alternative 2, congestion on the existing roadways surrounding crossing locations 

(both elevated and at-grade) would likely increase as a result of intermittent stoppages, slower speeds, 

reduction of useable lanes, and/or temporary closures due to construction activities (work zones, detours, 

etc.). Access at locations away from crossings is a possibility and would minimize some of those impacts. 

Trucks and passenger vehicles bringing personnel, materials, and equipment necessary to upgrade or 

construct the crossings or install new track would arrive throughout the day.

Potential impacts could include reduced roadway capacity and longer delay times at the at-grade crossings, 

as well as delays and operational impacts at or around locations where elevated structures are being 

constructed for a short amount of time. Construction of Alternative 2 would also likely require changes in 

traffic patterns because of roadway relocations (such as along Enchanted Way SE or at Marietta 

Street SE/Fairview Industrial Drive SE in south Salem). Existing structures would likely need to be relocated 

and streets would be closed to construct the north portal (near Oak Street) of the new passenger rail tunnel 

under SE 2nd Avenue in Portland. Oak Street would close permanently as a result of construction of the 

north portal. Construction schedules would be coordinated with the local governments to minimize delays.

Where Alternative 2 proposes new track adjacent to existing track, delays to trains on the existing mainline 

track could occur as new connections, crossovers, and sidings are installed. Construction of these new 

features would require the existing track to be accessed directly. While construction could occur during 

off-peak times, freight could be affected, because such trains travel at all times of the day. Construction

schedules would be coordinated with the host railroad to minimize delays.

Alternative 2 includes the potential for service at four new stations. Construction at any of the potential 

station locations could result in increased traffic on surrounding roadways, as well as roadway closures or 

detours.

Alternative 2 with Central Albany Option

The Central Albany Option would construct additional mainline track connecting to the existing Albany 

Station to the west of the Alternative 2 alignment. During construction of the Central Albany Option, 

congestion on the existing roadways surrounding crossing locations would likely increase as a result of 

intermittent stoppages, slower speeds, reduction of useable lanes, and/or temporary closures as a result of 

construction activities (work zones, detours, etc.). Trucks and passenger vehicles bringing personnel, 

materials, and equipment necessary to upgrade or construct the crossings or install new track would arrive 

throughout the day. Potential construction impacts could include reduced roadway capacity and higher 

delay times at the at-grade crossings. During construction of new track, delays to trains on the existing 

mainline track could occur as new connections, crossovers, and sidings are installed.

4.2.6 Potential MitigationStrategies

Project-specific mitigation strategies for transportation impacts would be considered and implemented as 

necessary during subsequent Tier 2 environmental studies. If FRA and ODOT determine them to be 

warranted, future project-level mitigation measures could include, but would not be limited to, the 

following:

• Additional signal upgrades and infrastructure improvements to decrease passenger and freight conflicts 

on shared track beyond the improvements incorporated into the Build Alternatives; 

• Additional crossing upgrades or closure to improve safety beyond those incorporated into the Build 

Alternatives; and/or

• Implementation of a traffic management plan during construction activities to route roadway traffic 

away from construction zones, minimize traffic pattern disruptions, and reduce construction-related 

delays (all build alternatives).
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4 - 2 1

OCTOBER 2018

4.3 Land Use/Farmland

This section discusses land use legal requirements, methods of analysis, the land use study area, affected 

environment, potential environmental consequences and potential mitigation strategies of the alternatives 

for the OPR Project.

4.3.1 Legal Requirements

In addition to NEPA and the CEQ’s NEPA implementing regulations, Federal, state, and local laws, 

regulations and orders related to land use and applicable to this Tier 1 analysis include the following:

Federal

• FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts. Section 14.(n)(15) of FRA’s environmental 

procedures require an EIS to include consideration of potential environmental impacts on existing and 

future land uses. Specifically, an EIS should assess the impacts of each alternative on local land use 

controls and comprehensive regional planning, as well as on development within the affected 

environment, including, where applicable, other proposed Federal actions in the area.

• Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended 

(42 United States Code [U.S.C.] 61). The act provides for uniform and equitable treatment of persons 

displaced from their homes, businesses, or farms by Federal and Federally assisted programs and 

establishes uniform and equitable land acquisition policies for Federal and Federally assisted programs.

• Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 (7 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 658). The Farmland 

Protection Policy Act (FPPA) is intended to minimize the impact of Federal programs in regards to the

unnecessary and irreversible conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses. The FPPA seeks to ensure 

that, to the extent possible, Federal programs are administered compatible with state, local, and

private programs and policies intended to protect farmland. Projects are subject to FPPA requirements 

if they may irreversibly convert farmland (directly or indirectly) to nonagricultural use and are 

completed by a Federal agency or with assistance from a Federal agency. For the purpose of FPPA, 

farmland includes prime farmland, unique farmland, and land of statewide or local importance. 

Farmland subject to FPPA requirements does not have to be currently used for cropland. It can be 

forest land, pastureland, cropland, or other land, but not water or urban built-up land (NRCS, 2016). 

State

• Oregon Statewide Planning Goals. The Oregon Statewide Planning Goals express the state’s policies on 

land use and related topics such as transportation planning. The 19 Statewide Planning Goals are 

achieved through local comprehensive plans, which must be consistent with the goals. For the purposes 

of this Tier 1 analysis, the following Statewide Planning Goals are the most relevant:

– Goal 3, Agricultural Lands. Statewide Planning Goal 3 (Agriculture) requires all agricultural lands to 

be inventoried and protected by adopting exclusive farm use (EFU) zones, thereby supporting the 

farmland protection goals of the FPPA. According to Goal 3, land inside of an Urban Growth 

Boundary (UGB) is not considered agricultural land. Counties are responsible for planning and 

zoning of land outside UGBs, and allowable nonfarm uses are included in county zoning regulations. 

Oregon Administrative Rule 660-012-0065, which implements Goal 12 (Transportation), states that 

railroad mainlines and branchlines are allowed on rural lands consistent with Goal 3 (Agricultural 

Lands) without a goal exception. However, accessory uses and structures (such as stations and 

infrastructure development to implement railroad mainlines and branchlines) may not be 

consistent with these goals. 

– Goal 5, Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces. Goal 5 is intended to protect 

natural resources. Local governments are responsible for inventorying Goal 5 resources, including 
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4 - 2 2 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

mineral and aggregate resources, and identifying conflicts with inventoried resource sites. 

This identification is done primarily by examining the uses allowed in broad zoning districts 

established by the jurisdiction and identifying conflicting uses (ones that, if allowed, could 

negatively affect Goal 5 resource sites). These potential impacts must be evaluated through an 

analysis of the economic, social, environmental, and energy consequences of allowing, limiting, or 

prohibiting conflicting uses.

– Goal 15, Willamette River Greenway. Goal 15 aims to protect, conserve, enhance, and maintain the 

quality of land along the Willamette River. Consistent with Goal 15, each local jurisdiction with land 

use authority in areas adjacent to the Willamette River has adopted regulations to limit and review 

development within the Greenway Overlay. This goal is applicable to land use permitting in 

jurisdictions where improvements to existing bridges or new bridge crossings of the Willamette 

River would be necessary.

• Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 215.243, Agricultural Land Use Policy. ORS 215.243 establishes the 

state’s agricultural land use policy affirming the preservation of the maximum amount of limited 

agricultural land, the restriction of urban development on rural land, the use of EFU zones to limit 

alternatives to the use of rural land, and the creation of incentives and privileges for owners of land in 

EFU zones.

Local

• Local Comprehensive Plans and Zoning Ordinances. Oregon Statewide Planning Goals are reflected in 

local comprehensive plans. Local zoning ordinances implement local comprehensive plans and, by 

extension, the Oregon Statewide Planning Goals. The OPR Project Land Use Technical Memorandum

(ODOT, 2015b) includes a description of local plans and ordinances that apply to the study area and 

OPR Project alternatives.

4.3.2 Methods

To characterize existing and planned land uses and evaluate potential impacts along the 130-mile study 

area, geographic information system (GIS) mapping, including relevant land use plans and public zoning 

data, were obtained from the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) as well 

as relevant Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), counties, and cities. Aerial photography from 

Google EarthTM assisted in identifying and mapping existing land uses. Land uses in the vicinity of potential 

stations were summarized from the Oregon Passenger Rail Station Area Assessments (ODOT, 2014e).

Field surveys of existing land uses were not conducted as part of this Tier 1 EIS. 

For this analysis, broad land use categories are generally used to describe the study area, so that 

comparisons can be made across jurisdictions and between alternatives. For example, under Oregon law, 

every urban area and most cities have created an Urban Growth Boundary, or UGB, which is a line that 

demarcates where rural and urban uses are expected. Subsection 4.3.4, Affected Environment, 

characterizes the study area by the amount of land inside and outside of UGBs to indicate the general type 

and intensity of land uses present. However, specific land uses are identified and discussed where 

conversion and/or compatibility impacts related to alternative improvements would be more likely because 

of the existing built environment. Because the OPR Project planning horizon is 2035, the analysis includes 

land use designations to assess potential impacts at the time of buildout.

As discussed above, Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 3 supports the farmland protection goals of the FPPA. 

This analysis uses the framework of the Oregon Statewide Planning Goals, rather than the FPPA, to evaluate

potential impacts on farmland. Therefore, the EFU designation is used in the impact analysis to identify 

potential impacts to farmland rather than using the U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (NRCS) farmland classifications (prime farmland, unique farmland, and land of 

statewide or local importance).
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4 - 2 3

OCTOBER 2018

Tier 2 Analysis

Future Tier 2 environmental studies for individual projects proposed subsequent to the OPR Project would 

consider a parcel-by-parcel analysis of land use, including specific effects on land use, property acquisition 

impacts, and consistency with local land use controls and comprehensive regional planning. For agricultural 

lands, this would include the quantification of types of farmland potentially impacted by the proposed 

action or actions. In addition, Tier 2 environmental studies would include qualitative analyses of potential 

indirect land use impacts, including agricultural lands impacts, that could result from development or 

redevelopment around new and existing stations. 

4.3.3 Study Area

The study area for land use follows two build alternative routes between the Eugene/Springfield area and 

Portland, OR, and includes land surrounding both existing and potential new station locations. The analysis 

of impacts on existing and planned land uses focuses on the consequences of changes within 100 feet from 

the centerline of the track alignment and a 20-acre area surrounding potential new station locations. For 

existing stations, the assumption is that land use impacts would be limited to the property footprint of each 

station. Where no additional track is proposed along the rail alignment, the only impacts anticipated would 

be attributable to increased passenger rail trips.

4.3.4 Affected Environment

The land use study area follows two alternative passenger rail routes between the Eugene/Springfield area 

and Portland, OR, and land surrounding both existing and potential new station locations. Both build 

alternatives pass through several counties and cities (see Table 4.3-1), as well as within and outside of the 

UGBs of those jurisdictions. Appendix D, Figure D-1 shows general land uses in the study area. Generally, 

land outside of UGBs tends to be agricultural, forested, or mineral resource-related, while land inside of

UGBs tends to be developed with urban uses. As such, the intensity of existing and planned land uses within 

the study area vary from agricultural and rural to highly developed urban areas (see Table 4.3-2).

For No Action Alternative and Alternative 1, the study area brackets the existing UPRR rail line beginning in 

Eugene in the south and ending in north Portland, passing through 5 counties and 19 cities (see Table 4.3-1). 

The study area for Alternative 1 also includes existing rail stations in the cities of Eugene, Albany, Salem, 

Oregon City, and Portland, and a 20-acre area surrounding a potential new station in Woodburn. 

Approximately 41 percent of this study area contains agricultural/forest/rural land, and 59 percent contains 

urban/other land. The majority of urban land within the study area for the No Action Alternative and 

Alternative 1 is designated for industrial uses.

For Alternative 2, the study area starts in southwest Springfield and ends in Portland, passing through 

6 counties and 12 cities (see Table 4.3-1). The study area for Alternative 2 also includes a 20-acre area 

surrounding six potential new station locations in the cities of Springfield, Albany, Salem, Keizer, 

Wilsonville, and Tualatin.15 Approximately 50 percent of this study area contains agricultural/forest/rural 

land, and 50 percent contains urban/other land (see Table 4.3-2). Where the Central Albany Option 

alignment departs from I-5, 49 percent of the study area contains agricultural/rural land, and 51 percent 

contains urban land. Similar to Alternative 1, urban land use within the study area for Alternative 2 and 

Alternative 2 with Central Albany Option is primarily industrial.

 

15 Alternative 2 assumes the need for three or four new passenger rail stations south of Portland. The exact location of each new station has not 

been determined; the EIS considers six potential Alternative 2 station locations for the three to four new stations.
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4 - 2 4 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

Table 4.3-1. Summary of Jurisdictions in the Land Use Study Area 

No Action Alternative and

Alternative 1

Alternative 2

(including Central Albany Option)

Clackamas County Clackamas County

Barlow

Canby

Gladstone

Milwaukie 

Oregon City

Gladstone

Milwaukie

Oregon City

West Linn

Wilsonville

Lane County Lane County

Eugene

Junction City

Coburg

Springfield

Linn County Linn County

Albany

Halsey

Harrisburg

Jefferson

Millersburg

Tangent

Albany

Marion County Marion County

Aurora

Gervais

Hubbard

Salem

Woodburn

Donald

Keizer

Salem

Multnomah County Multnomah County

Portland Portland

− Washington County

− Tualatin

Source: ODOT, 2015a. 

Table 4.3-2. Summary of Designated Land Uses within the Study Area (by acreage) 

Land Use 

Designation 

No Action 

Alternative

(in acres)

Alternative 1

(in acres)

Alternative 2

(in acres)

Alternative 2

(Central Albany 

Option)

(in acres)

Agricultural 1,339 1,339 1,583 1,574 

Industrial 804 817 512 575 

Commercial 159 159 120 96 

Unzoned/ROWa 408 408 496 493 

Public 117 124 70 70 

Residential 317 317 277 303 

Mixed Use 114 114 103 104 

Retail 12 12 10 17 

Other 1 1 0 0 

Forest 0 0 5 5 

Totalb 3,271 3,291 3,176 3,237 

Source: ODOT, 2015a. 

a Jurisdictions vary in their categorization of ROW. In this analysis, any area lacking zoning data was designated “Unzoned/ROW.”

b Numbers may not add up to totals due to rounding.
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4 - 2 5

OCTOBER 2018

4.3.5 Environmental Consequences

This subsection compares the potential direct, indirect, and construction-related impacts on land use, 

including agricultural lands, for the No Action Alternative and the build alternatives.

4.3.5.1 Direct and Indirect Impacts

Potential OPR Project impacts to land use include acquisition of ROW, land use conversion to a 

transportation use, and/or displacement of existing buildings and other structures, because they would 

either be within or too close to the study area for proposed improvements and would need to be removed 

or relocated.

No Action Alternative

The No Action Alternative represents the baseline condition against which the build alternatives are 

measured. The No Action Alternative would continue to serve existing stations in Eugene, Albany, Salem, 

Oregon City, and Portland, and would not include changes to current track configurations or operations.16

Therefore, no direct land use impacts are anticipated under the No Action Alternative.

Alternative 1

Rail Alignment Impacts

Alternative 1 would involve the continued use of existing track, as well as the modification and addition of 

track in selected areas. While there is typically some buffer distance from the existing UPRR mainline to 

structures on either side of the ROW, there are areas along the Alternative 1 alignment where nearby

buildings or structures are in close vicinity (within 50 feet) of the existing rail line. These land uses, which 

are primarily industrial, could be affected in locations where new or modified track is proposed, because 

the acquisition of additional ROW could be required, and the proposed improvements could displace 

existing buildings and other structures. 

Specifically, proposed new/improved track in Eugene (in the vicinity of Oregon Highway 126), in Brooks 

(north of Salem) and in Millersburg (north of Albany) could affect existing industrial uses adjacent to the rail 

alignment. Near the I-5/Murder Creek interchange in south Millersburg, large industrial structures line both 

sides of the railroad track, and current roadways limit options for accommodating changes to the rail line. 

Some of these structures are likely associated with freight movement and, if displaced, could require 

relocation to have a similar relationship to the rail alignment. Where the use of potentially affected 

structures is not dependent on being close to the rail line, relocation could be complicated by the lack of 

vacant industrial land in the area south of the I-5/Murder Creek interchange and west of I-5.

There are structures near to the track in the City of Turner (where industrial structures in the vicinity of 

Mill Creek are located within 50 feet of the track), the City of Salem (12th Street), and the City of Jefferson 

(where industrial uses and a residential subdivision are within 100 feet of the track). However, the 

Alternative 1 alignment would use existing track in these areas, meaning that no changes to current track 

configurations would occur. Therefore, the potential for direct impacts in these areas is low. 

In the City of Milwaukie and the unincorporated community of Clackamas, there are areas where new track 

has the potential to affect adjacent industrial and commercial uses. In Portland’s Central Eastside Industrial 

District, between Hawthorne Boulevard and SE Washington Street, industrial buildings are located within 

50 feet of the track on both sides. While some area is available east of the existing track to potentially 

accommodate improvements or relocate impacted uses, there is no vacant industrial land and little 

underutilized land (such as parking lots) in the area. Therefore, industrial displacement could necessitate 

 

16 As noted in Chapter 3, ODOT and UPRR will be closing two existing at-grade crossings and upgrading the warning systems at three at-grade 

crossings as part of an ongoing safety improvement program that is independent of the OPR Project.
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4 - 2 6 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

relocating businesses outside of this area, and potentially result in adverse impacts to the industrial use of 

these properties. 

The proposed Alternative 1 rail alignment would include new or modified track in EFU zones. Agricultural 

uses on EFU lands that lie in the immediate vicinity of the rail line include field crops, as well as specialized 

structures and equipment associated with nursery, forest product, and dairy operations. Impacts related to 

disrupting or moving these businesses are potentially greater than those associated with agricultural uses 

that do not include structures. However, no direct impacts on agricultural uses have been identified, 

because it appears that adequate space exists to accommodate potential improvements, and to avoid the 

structures and facilities associated with agricultural production. Furthermore, because Alternative 1 would 

parallel the existing rail alignment, fragmentation of agricultural land and remnant parcels would be 

unlikely to occur.

Station Area Impacts

No impacts to existing station areas are anticipated, and no new stations are proposed under Alternative 1.

While not included under Alternative 1, the potential site for a Woodburn station is vacant and zoned Light

Industrial (IL), which is intended for industrial and land-intensive activities, including transit and ground 

transportation facilities (City of Woodburn, 2015). The surrounding 20-acre study area includes compatibly 

zoned land, including other land zoned IL and land zoned Public/Semi-Public (P/SP), which is meant for 

public uses, parks, schools, and cemeteries.

Depending on the exact location and/or site design of the station, infrastructure modifications necessary to 

provide access to the new station could result in impacts to the OR 214/N. Front Street interchange.

Alternative 2

Rail Alignment Impacts

Alternative 2 would include the addition of new single track throughout the full alignment, with additional 

siding tracks placed every 10 to 12 miles to facilitate passing operations. Therefore, ODOT and FRA 

anticipate that Alternative 2 would result in a greater degree of direct impacts than Alternative 1 in relation 

to the acquisition of ROW as well as the associated land use conversion to a transportation use and/or 

displacement of existing buildings and other structures.

Areas along the Alternative 2 alignment where buildings or structures are close to the proposed new and

existing rail lines and thus could be impacted by proposed new track include the following:

• Salem. The Oregon Department of Corrections Central Distribution Center on State Street is large and 

would be difficult to relocate within the area due to a lack of large, vacant industrial sites.

• Salem. Residential land adjacent to I-5 is largely developed. However, there is vacant land near the 

proposed alignment that could be suitable for residential relocation if Alternative 2 were to affect 

existing residences.

• Town of Donald. A few industrial structures and improvements are within 50 feet of the track; 

however, an area to the east would potentially be sufficient to accommodate upgrades and additional 

mainline track and sidings.

• North of SW Boeckman Road (near Wilsonville). Alternative 2 would affect existing structures north of 

SW Boeckman Road as the alignment rejoins the I-5 median, including a car dealership and office 

building. There is vacant land west of I-5 that could potentially accommodate relocation of affected 

businesses. 

• Portland’s Central Eastside Industrial District. Alternative 2 primarily follows the same alignment as 

Alternative 1 north of the Willamette River crossing near Oregon City. The notable difference in impacts 

on Portland’s Central Eastside Industrial District is that the Alternative 2 alignment would include a cut-
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4 - 2 7

OCTOBER 2018

and-cover tunnel between SE Market Street and SE Stark Street. This would result in the removal of 

more industrial structures and greater impacts associated with industrial displacement than 

Alternative 1.

The Alternative 2 rail line alignment would also involve new or modified track in EFU zones, including areas 

where the proposed alignment would likely affect existing farm structures (e.g., at the Diamond Hill Drive/ 

I-5 interchange near Harrisburg). To preserve the functionality of existing I-5 interchanges and road 

overcrossings, the Alternative 2 alignment would swing farther to the east in these locations, shifting away 

from the existing I-5 ROW. As a result, it is possible that Alternative 2 would impact productivity by 

converting agricultural lands and by bisecting productive farmland into smaller units that could be divided 

by new track. For this reason, ODOT and FRA anticipate that direct impacts to EFU zones/agricultural lands 

would be greater under Alternative 2 than under Alternative 1. These exact impacts (e.g., acreage and 

number of parcels) would be evaluated in future Tier 2 analyses.

In addition to direct impacts associated with land use conversion and displacement, Alternative 2 would 

require local planning actions to be consistent with Oregon Statewide Planning Goals. The land use analysis

identified two significant aggregate resource sites along the Alternative 2 alignment—one in Lane County 

north of the McKenzie River and one in Marion County north of the I-5 and OR Highway 164 interchange. 

The proposed new alignment could affect mining operations at one or both of these sites. If it is determined 

that proposed Alternative 2 related improvements would be likely to affect these resource sites, 

amendments to local Goal 5 inventories could be required, and the impacts would need to be evaluated (see 

Goal 5 under subsection 4.3.1, Legal Requirements). If a railroad line is determined to be a conflicting use 

within the Goal 5-protected aggregate site, a local comprehensive plan amendment could be needed to 

revise the analysis of the economic, social, environmental, and energy consequences of allowing the use or to 

determine a balance between protection of the significant resource (aggregate) with a new potential 

conflicting use (rail).

Alternative 2 would result in new crossings of the Willamette River – two in Springfield and one between 

West Linn and Oregon City. An exception to Goal 15 (Willamette River Greenway) would be required where 

new crossings of the Willamette River occur. A new bridge crossing is not considered a “river-dependent 

use” under Goal 15 and an exception to Goal 15 would be required to accommodate new bridges and other 

rail-supportive improvements within the adopted greenway boundary. The potential crossings along the 

Alternative 2 alignment would likely require an exception through a local plan amendment process. 

(Because Alternative 1 relies on existing bridges to cross the Willamette River, it would likely not need an 

exception to Goal 15.) 

Station Area Impacts

Alternative 2 would involve the construction of three or four new stations; the study area includes 

six potential locations for the new stations.17 The potential direct land use impacts related to siting new 

stations consist of conversion of existing uses to a transportation-related use, displacement of existing uses, 

and impacts to agricultural lands. These potential impacts would be minimized where potential new 

stations would be located on vacant or underdeveloped land in urban areas.

• Springfield Station Location. The Downtown District Urban Design Plan and Implementation Strategy 

(City of Springfield, 2010) identifies this site for a station. The surrounding land is mainly zoned for 

Mixed Use Commercial, Industrial, and Public uses, and a fair amount of underdeveloped or vacant land 

exists within the study area. Therefore, direct impacts are anticipated to be minimal. 

• Albany Station Location. The potential Albany station would be on the east side of I-5, near industrial 

land uses. Because the potential station would be located adjacent to and east of the interstate, 

no direct impacts to residential uses west of I-5 are anticipated.

 

17 See Chapter 3 for details. Proposed new stations include: (1) Springfield; (2) Albany; (3) Salem or Keizer; (4) Wilsonville or Tualatin.
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

4 - 2 8 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

• Salem Station Location. There is a high likelihood for direct impacts on land use related to a new Salem 

station because the land within the study area is developed with high-intensity uses such as the 

regional shopping center (Lancaster Mall). Even so, some of the land is surface parking lots, which 

provides opportunities for redevelopment and the placement of a new station without direct impacts 

on existing structures. Impacts on NE Center Street and NE D Street would also be a consideration, 

because these streets would connect the potential new Salem station with popular destinations in the 

downtown Salem area.

• Keizer Station Location. The potential Keizer station location is adjacent to a regional shopping center 

(Keizer Station), which is home to corporate stores such as Lowes and REI. An established residential 

neighborhood lies to the west. Although there is vacant land in the study area, the minimum distance 

between buildings is approximately 140 feet. If the station were to be located to the east of the track, 

large parking lots within the shopping center could be affected by an influx of passenger rail users.

• Woodburn Station Location. While not included under Alternative 2, anticipated direct land use 

impacts associated with a potential new station in Woodburn (a different location than the potential 

Woodburn station considered under Alternative 1) consist of conversion of land designated EFU to a 

transportation-related use. Development of a new station would require a formal Goal Exception for 

Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 3 (Agriculture) pursuant to ORS 197.732.

• Wilsonville Station Location. Locating a new Wilsonville station for Alternative 2 could affect 

developed industrial and commercial properties. However, most of the land use within the study area is 

currently dedicated to public transportation and commuter options accommodating TriMet’s WES and 

Wilsonville’s South Metro Area Regional Transit. A large portion of the study area is surface parking, 

which provides redevelopment opportunities and a potential location for a new station without 

affecting existing buildings.

• Tualatin Station Location. The potential Tualatin station would be sited in the I-5/I-205 interchange 

median, but parking areas would likely need to be located southeast of the interchange on EFU land 

with existing agricultural uses. If parking for the station were to be sited on EFU land, an exception to 

Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 3 (Agriculture) or an expansion of the Metro UGB would be required to 

allow the use. This land was designated Urban Reserve by Metro in 2014, indicating that it is suitable 

for eventual urban development. Urban Reserves are the first priority areas for inclusion in the UGB in 

the future. However, inclusion of an Urban Reserve area into the UGB must be supported by a regional 

land needs analysis prepared by Metro and decided on by the elected Metro Council through a public 

adoption process.

Alternative 2 with Central Albany Option

Outside of the Albany area, the Alternative 2 with Central Albany Option has the same alignment and 

operational characteristics, and thus similar land use impacts, as those described for Alternative 2. Rather 

than considering a new station along I-5 in Albany, however, the Central Albany Option would provide an 

additional mainline track connecting to the existing Albany Station to the east of the Alternative 2 alignment.

Where the Central Albany Option alignment diverges from I-5, land uses are predominantly industrial along 

the potential alignment west of Marion Street and south of OR 99, although the alignment does traverse 

developed, single-family residential land in south Albany. In addition, there are some parcels being farmed 

directly to the south of the existing track. Therefore, the Central Albany Option could result in impacts to 

residential and agricultural uses in Albany. If residential displacements were to occur, vacant areas to the 

south of the proposed centerline are zoned for residential uses and could potentially accommodate 

residential relocation. North of the existing Albany Station, the Central Albany Option alignment follows the 

alignment of Alternative 1 along existing UPRR track through industrial and residential areas north and west 

of OR 99E. Within the City of Millersburg, the Central Albany Option is located to the east of nearby 

commercial and industrial uses. There could be potential direct impacts on industrial and residential 
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4 - 2 9

OCTOBER 2018

structures adjacent to the rail ROW in this area if additional ROW needed to be acquired east of the existing 

alignment.

4.3.5.2 Construction Impacts

Alternative 1

Construction of Alternative 1 would result in short-term effects on adjacent land uses and areas used for 

agriculture with temporary increases in noise, vibration, dust and traffic, and parking and access changes

associated with construction equipment and staging areas. Areas that would be more likely to experience 

impacts from construction coincide with identified places within the study area where existing structures lie 

to either side of the existing railroad line where new track is proposed. These include specific areas where 

buildings are situated very close (within 50 feet) to the railroad line in Brooks, Eugene, Millersburg, 

Jefferson, Turner, Salem, unincorporated Clackamas, Milwaukie, and Portland. 

Alternative 2

Alternative 2 construction activities would be more intensive than those of Alternative 1 because of the 

amount of new track needed where none currently exists. Negative impacts on existing adjacent land uses

and areas used for agriculture from the construction of Alternative 2 could include temporary increases in 

noise, vibration, dust and traffic, and parking and access changes associated with construction equipment 

and staging. Negative impacts along much of the alignment would be well buffered from other existing 

uses, because much of the construction would be within, or would abut, the I-5 and I-205 ROWs, and would 

not be adjacent to residences and businesses. Areas that would be more likely to experience impacts from 

construction coincide with identified places within the study area where existing structures lie to either side 

of the proposed new and existing railroad lines. These include specific areas where buildings are situated 

very close (within 50 feet) to the railroad line in Salem, Donald, north of SW Boeckman Road, and 

Portland’s Central Eastside Industrial District. 

Four of the potential new station locations (Springfield, Albany, Salem, and Keizer) under Alternative 2

would be constructed near existing homes or businesses. The likelihood of short-term construction impacts 

is greater in urban areas where the surrounding built environment precludes providing adequate space for 

equipment or where there would not be an adequate buffer between existing uses and the construction 

area. Such locations include Albany, Keizer, Salem, and, possibly, Wilsonville. In addition, the potential

Tualatin station would be within the median of the I-5/I-205 interchange, so intermittent traffic impacts 

would be likely during construction.

Alternative 2 with Central Albany Option

Negative impacts on existing land uses from the construction of Alternative 2 with Central Albany Option 

could include noise, dust, increased traffic, and parking and access issues associated with construction 

equipment and staging. Areas that would be more likely to experience impacts from construction would 

include residential areas south of the existing Albany station and residential areas north and west of OR 99E. 

4.3.6 Potential Mitigation

Generally speaking, the types of potential mitigation strategies are similar for both build alternatives. 

However, the number of areas of impact, and thus the level of effort to seek out appropriate measures to 

mitigate specific impacts on specific land uses, are much different. One consideration ODOT used when 

designing improvements for Alternative 1 was to minimize impacts to urban areas by adding new track 

outside cities wherever possible. Therefore, Alternative 1 would have relatively fewer direct and indirect 

land use impacts, and thus require less mitigation, than Alternative 2.

Project-specific mitigation strategies for land use impacts would be considered and implemented as 

necessary during subsequent Tier 2 environmental studies. Future project-level mitigation measures could

include, but would not be limited to, the following:
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4 - 3 0 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

• Ensuring that needed modifications that could extend beyond the existing ROW (such as new sidings) 

are not proposed to be located in areas where buildings are located very close to the existing roadway 

or railroad line (which would be more difficult to achieve with Alternative 2, for which greater amounts 

of ROW acquisition would be required);

• Designing and siting modifications to avoid structures where possible and using the less constrained 

side of the ROW;

• Generally complying with the Uniform Act requirements; and

• Creating new crossings and alternative routes for farm uses. 

Additional mitigation strategies could be facilitated through the Statewide Planning Program and require 

land use coordination with local jurisdictions along the proposed alignment. Only Alternative 2 would 

require additional local land use actions.

4.4 Environmental Justice

This section discusses environmental justice legal requirements, methods of analysis, the study area, 

affected environment, potential environmental consequences, and potential mitigation strategies of OPR 

Project alternatives.

4.4.1 Legal Requirements

In addition to NEPA and the CEQ’s NEPA implementing regulations, Federal and state laws, regulations, and 

orders related to environmental justice and applicable to this Tier 1 analysis include the following:

Federal

• Executive Order (EO) 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations 

and Low-Income Populations. This EO requires that Federal agencies evaluate the impacts of their 

actions, programs, or policies on low-income and minority populations to determine if such populations 

bear an undue burden of the high and adverse human health or environmental impacts.

• U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) Order 5610.2(a), Actions to Address Environmental Justice 

in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations. This order requires agencies to consider human 

health and environmental effects related to transportation projects that may have a disproportionately 

high and adverse effect on minority or low-income populations. The order also requires agencies to 

implement procedures to provide “meaningful opportunities for public involvement” by members of 

those populations during project planning and development (Section 5[b][1]).

• Executive Order 13166, Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency.

This EO requires that Federal agencies improve access to their programs and activities by eligible 

persons with limited English proficiency (LEP). This order has particular relevance to the NEPA mandate 

to foster public involvement in the environmental review process. It stipulates that Federal agencies 

must make accommodations for persons with LEP who wish to participate in public environmental 

reviews.

• Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Title VI prohibits discrimination based on race, color, national origin, age, 

sex, or disability in programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance.

• FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts. Section 14.(n)(20) of FRA’s environmental

procedures require an EIS to include consideration of environmental justice impacts. 
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4 - 3 1

OCTOBER 2018

4.4.2 Methods

The assessment of potential environmental justice impacts was reliant on Geographic Information Systems 

(GIS) mapping and U.S. Census Bureau (U.S. Census) data for multiple levels (state, county, tract, and block 

group18) to determine whether minority or low-income populations are present within the study areas. The 

following categories of data are compiled and assessed for the environmental justice study area (which 

includes rail stations and rail alignments): 

• Total population; 

• Average median household income; 

• Low-income population (percentage of individuals living below the poverty threshold in the last

12 months);

• Low-income population under 18 years (percentage of children that lived in poverty in the last

12 months);

• Minority population (percentage of the total population that identifies as African American, American, 

Indian/Native Alaskan, Hispanic, Asian American, and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander); and 

• LEP (percentage of the people who are not fluent English speakers/do not speak English at home). 

This analysis uses the term “Environmental Justice (EJ) populations” to refer collectively to minority and 

low-income populations. In addition, the analysis examines LEP populations in this context as a way to 

provide richer data for the individuals who may be associated with EJ populations.

The CEQ’s Environmental Justice Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy Act (1997), states that a 

minority population should be identified where: (1) the minority population of the affected area exceeds 

50 percent; or (2) if the minority population percentage of the affected area is “meaningfully greater” than 

the minority population percentage in the general population or other “appropriate unit of geographic 

analysis” (CEQ, 1997). For this analysis, the tract and block group demographic data for minority 

populations adjacent to rail stations and rail alignments are compared to the state- and county-level data.

The analysis categorizes high, medium, and low threshold concentrations of EJ populations as follows:

• High concentration, if more than 50 percent of the tract/block group population is higher than that of 

the county (where it is located); 

• Medium concentration, if more than 25 percent of the tract/block group population is higher than that 

of the county (where it is located); and 

• Low concentration, if more than 10 percent of the tract/block group population is higher than that of 

the county (where it is located). 

The methods used are somewhat limited because distribution of populations is not uniform within 

U.S. Census tracts or block groups (or even counties and cities). In addition, this Tier 1 level of analysis does 

not identify the precise locations of rail alignments and/or specific locations of potential new stations, and 

the analyses for other disciplines/resources do not discuss project-specific effects (adverse or beneficial). 

Therefore, this evaluation does not provide conclusions on whether the build alternatives would result in 

disproportionately high and adverse impacts on EJ populations. Instead, concentrations of low-income and 

minority populations in the EJ study area are identified and, based on the analysis contained in this EIS, 

potential effects are discussed in broad terms. As discussed below, subsequent Tier 2 environmental 

 

18 Census tracts are small, relatively permanent statistical subdivisions of a county or equivalent entity that generally cover a contiguous area, 

follow visible and identifiable features, and have a population size between 1,200 and 8,000 people. Block groups are statistical divisions of census 

tracts that generally cover a contiguous area, contain between 600 and 3,000 people, and are used to present data and control block numbering 

(U.S. Census Bureau, 2016).
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4 - 3 2 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

studies would provide detailed analyses comparing specific adverse and beneficial effects of individual 

projects within the selected alternative. 

Tier 2 Analysis

Future Tier 2 EJ analyses for individual projects proposed subsequent to the OPR Project would include the 

use of location- and project-specific GIS mapping, U.S. Census and other demographic data, and targeted 

public outreach. Future projects would use this information to identify the presence of EJ populations near

the proposed action(s), as well as populations dependent upon potentially affected resources. Future Tier 2 

environmental analyses would also determine the degree to which individual project effects would be

adverse and/or beneficial for EJ populations in comparison to other populations. 

4.4.3 Study Area

The EJ study area consists of the following:

• Rail stations. The EJ study area includes the area within a 1-mile-radius around existing and potential 

rail stations.

• Rail alignments. The EJ study area extends continuously from the Eugene/Springfield area to Portland 

and consists of the area within 100 feet of either side of the proposed alignment that consists of the rail 

centerline of the existing track where no improvements are proposed, and new track where it is 

proposed to be added. However, where the discussion of impacts on minority and low-income

communities relates to air quality, vibration, and noise, the analysis assumes a study area of 500 feet 

on either side of the rail centerline consistent with the study areas for those disciplines/resources.

4.4.4 Affected Environment

Table 4.4-1 summarizes key demographic data for the State of Oregon and for counties in which the build 

alternative alignments and rail stations would be located. As discussed in subsection 4.4.2, Methods, state 

and county data is a reference used for comparison purposes.

Table 4.4-1. Summary of EJ and LEP Demographic Data for Study Area Counties 

Location

(State, County)

Total 

Population

Individuals

Below Poverty

Threshold 

(Low-income)

Median

Household

Income 

Children in

Poverty Minority LEP

State of Oregon 3,868,721 16% $50,229 5% 22% 6% 

Lane 346,021 18% $42,931 5% 16% 3% 

Linn 116,910 16% $46,939 8% 13% 3% 

Marion 308,783 16% $46,885 7% 32% 11% 

Clackamas 377,962 9% $64,352 3% 16% 5% 

Multnomah 732,970 17% $52,511 5% 28% 9% 

Washington 533,789 8% $64,180 3% 31% 10% 

Note: Items in red bold are higher than the relevant state percentage and indicate higher concentrations of low-income individuals, 

children, minorities, or LEP populations. Items in bold italic indicate lower median household income than the state median 

household income. 

Source: ODOT, 2016b.
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4 - 3 3

OCTOBER 2018

Table 4.4-2 contains key demographic data that conveys EJ population characteristics adjacent to the rail 

alignments for each alternative. Compared to the relevant state data, the build alternatives have higher 

concentrations of minority populations. Alternative 1 has a higher concentration of LEP populations 

adjacent to the proposed alignment than the state, and the median household income is lower than the

state median household income.

Alternative 2 has higher concentrations of minority populations adjacent to the proposed alignment than 

the state. However, where the Central Albany Option alignment diverges from the Alternative 2 alignment 

(referred to as “Option Only” in the Table 4.4-2 and herein), higher concentrations of minority populations 

are not present. The Option Only portion of the Central Albany Option also has a median household income 

that is lower than the state median household income, while the overall study area for the Alternative 2 

alignment does not.

Table 4.4-2. Summary of Key EJ and LEP Demographic Data for Proposed Rail Alignments (Within 100 Feet) 

Alternative

Block Group Tract

Total 

Population

Lowincome 

Households1

Median 

Household 

Income Minority

Total 

Population

LowIncome 

Households1

Median 

Household 

Income

Children 

in Poverty Minority LEP

Alternative 1 194,654

6%

(4,800) $43,914 20%

(38,975) 342,295

3%

(9,230) $43,576 5%

(16,897)

20%

(67,636)

9%

(29,482)

Alternative 2 181,078

6%

(4,288) $51,912 19%

(33,525) 339,005

3%

(8,590) $50,426 4%

(14,706)

18%

(61,276)

6%

(19,049)

Alternative 2 

with Central 

Albany 

Option – 

Option Only

34,559

9%

(1,254) $39,977 11%

(3,822) 77,314

8%

(2,502) $42,031 5%

(4,015)

15%

(11,514)

3%

(2,400)

Alternative 2 

with Central 

Albany 

Option - 

TOTAL

183,977

6%

(4,586) $51,120 19%

(34,263) 360,790

1%

(4,768) $42,031 2%

(7,813)

6%

(22,484)

6%

(20,020)

Note: Items in red bold are higher than the relevant state percentage and indicate higher concentrations of low-income individuals, 

children, minorities, or LEP populations. Items in bold italic indicate lower median household income than the state median 

household income.

1 Individuals below poverty threshold. 

Source: ODOT, 2016b.

Table 4.4-3 contains key demographic data that conveys EJ and LEP population characteristics adjacent to 

existing and potential stations.

Table 4.4-3. Summary of Key EJ and LEP Demographic Data for Rail Stations (Within 1-Mile Radius) 

Station 

Location

Block Group Tract

Total 

Population

LowIncome 

Households1

Median 

Household 

Income Minority

Total 

Population

LowIncome 

Households1

Median 

Household 

Income

Children 

in Poverty 

(under 18 

years) Minority LEP

Eugene

(existing) 36,134

4%

(696) $25,129 20%

(7,305) 41,083

5%

(844) $26,644 3% 

(1,029)

20%

(8,346)

4%

(1,588)

Springfield

(potential) 20,145

10%

(875)

$31,979 18%

(3,545) 30,658 9% $35,398 4%

(1,349)

17%

(5,078)

3%

(883)

Albany

(potential) 24,951

7%

(547)

$38,354 14%

(2,757) 28,421

7%

(742) $34,577 5%

(1,504)

14%

(3,943)

5%

(1,222)

Albany

(existing) 36,573

8%

(1,013)

$38,191 16%

(4,892) 49,073

7%

(1,345) $38,853 5%

(2,440)

14%

(6,853)

4%

(1,857)
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4 - 3 4 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

Station 

Location

Block Group Tract

Total 

Population

LowIncome 

Households1

Median 

Household 

Income Minority

Total 

Population

LowIncome 

Households1

Median 

Household 

Income

Children 

in Poverty 

(under 18 

years) Minority LEP

Keizer

(potential) 24,595

6%

(557)

$53,664 19%

(4,765) 40,260

9%

(1,332) $52,010 7%

(2,886) 

21%

(8,277)

8%

(2,972)

Salem

(existing) 31,023

7%

(708)

$33,674 18%

(4,532) 34,357

8%

(1,076) $31,682 6%

(2,010)

18%

(6,069)

9%

(2,839)

Salem

(potential) 48,819

11%

(1,595)

$36,600 27%

(11,796) 56,254

10%

(2,060) $37,096 8%

(4,306)

26%

(14,735)

17%

(8,656)

Woodburn 1

(potential) 20,552

10%

(630)

$38,961 40%

(8,286) 31,782

9%

(924) $43,844 7%

(2,149)

38%

(12,177)

33%

(9,445)

Woodburn 2

(potential) 8,600

7%

(234)

$44,051 29%

(2,467) 18,192

7%

(453) $43,844 6%

(1,105)

33%

(6,021)

28%

(4,671)

Wilsonville

(potential) 14,112

6%

(318)

$50,114 21%

(2,922) 16,536

5%

(344) $58,243 3%

(576)

19%

(3,192)

9%

(1,317)

Tualatin

(potential) 25,660

5%

(565)

$68,646 15%

(4,124) 28,842

5%

(486) $81,630 3%

(981)

14%

(4,151)

7%

(1,996)

Oregon City

(existing) 27,338

6%

(620)

$45,489 13%

(3,554) 44,268

6%

(1,001) $56,695

4%

(1,752)

12%

(5,309)

3%

(1,139)

Portland

(existing) 37,326

2%

(512)

$32,609 25%

(9,338) 51,476

2%

(714) $33,159 1%

(551)

24%

(12,469)

4%

(2,053)

Note: Items in red bold are higher than the relevant state percentage and indicate higher concentrations of low-income individuals, 

children, minorities, or LEP populations. Items in bold italic indicate lower median household income than the relevant county 

median. 

1 Individuals below poverty threshold. 

Source: ODOT, 2016b.

Appendix D, Figure D-3 shows the areas at the census tract level for high concentrations of minority, and 

low-income populations within the study area.

4.4.5 Environmental Consequences

This subsection discusses the potential for adverse and/or beneficial effects for EJ populations, and 

identifies where EJ populations are most likely to experience those potential effects. 

4.4.5.1 Direct and Indirect Impacts

No Action Alternative

The No Action Alternative represents the baseline condition against which the build alternatives are 

measured. Under the No Action Alternative, Amtrak Cascades passenger rail service would continue serving 

existing stations in Eugene, Albany, Salem, Oregon City, and Portland, and changes to current track 

configurations or operations would not occur. The No Action Alternative would not meet the OPR Project 

Purpose and Need, and would result in associated impacts in communities including EJ populations near 

existing stations. The No Action Alternative would not result in beneficial effects on EJ populations

associated with improvements to enhance intercity passenger rail service. In addition, under the No Action 

Alternative, the ridership would continue to grow based on population growth and but the associated 

impacts at the station locations could occur without any physical improvements to mitigate.
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4 - 3 5

OCTOBER 2018

Alternative 1

EJ and LEP populations are present within or adjacent to the proposed Alternative 1 rail alignment and 

around the existing/potential station locations. The most notable potential for adverse and/or beneficial 

effects that could affect EJ populations includes the following:

• Transportation. Increased intercity travel frequency and capacity, and reduced Amtrak Cascades 

passenger rail travel time under Alternative 1 in comparison to the No Action Alternative could provide 

transportation-related benefits for people in EJ communities, including increased travel options to 

access education, employment, and social and health services. 

• Railroad Crossings. The addition of eight train trips per day (four round trips) at each crossing along the 

Alternative 1 alignment would increase the number of delays and potential safety hazards for 

automobiles, pedestrians, and cyclists at crossings in comparison to the No Action Alternative.

• Noise and Vibration. The increased number of train trips under Alternative 1 would increase noise and 

vibration, and the majority of potentially impacted residential lands are located within urban areas and 

include EJ communities. Therefore, increased noise and vibration could affect EJ communities.

• Air Quality. Long-term benefits related to air quality could occur for EJ communities, because enhanced 

passenger rail service would likely replace some passenger vehicle, bus, or plane travel. For example, 

Alternative 1 would incrementally replace four Thruway bus trips with four additional passenger rail 

round trips. However, the increased number of delays at at-grade rail crossings due to increased 

passenger trains could adversely affect localized air quality because of increased vehicle emissions from 

idling at intersections. Increased traffic congestion and localized impacts of carbon monoxide (CO) and 

particulate matter may also occur near rail stations along with passengers’ increased use of surface 

routes to access the stations. Localized emissions from Alternative 1 could have the potential to expose 

the nearby population to air toxics such as diesel particulate matter; the highest potential exposure 

would be around existing stations in urban areas.

• Displacements/Community Cohesion and Character. It is anticipated that Alternative 1 would result in 

few impacts on community characteristics/cohesion, because the alignment is primarily within or 

adjacent to an existing transportation ROW. Where existing rail lines are currently a barrier in 

communities, Alternative 1 would not improve conditions. The additional track in certain locations 

could potentially make segments of rail alignment and/or crossings moderately wider than what 

currently exists. While the addition of track would require additional distance for people to traverse 

these crossings, improvements to the travel surface and crossing equipment would enhance safety and 

accessibility at these locations.

• Native American Populations/Stream Impacts. Alternative 1 could require new or modified stream 

crossings in some locations, which could directly impact cultural resources, including fish and aquatic

habitat of concern to Tribal communities.

As discussed in subsection 4.4.2, Methods, this Tier 1 EIS analysis does not include any quantitative analysis 

to determine whether the effects discussed above would be potentially disproportionately high and 

adverse to EJ populations. Urban areas with a high concentration of EJ populations are most likely to 

experience adverse impacts and/or benefits. The following urban areas in the EJ study area for Alternative 1 

show high concentrations of EJ populations:

• Around the Eugene Station

• Around Delta Highway/Beltline Highway in Eugene

• In Millersburg at the intersection of Old Salem Road NE

• South of the Albany Station
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4 - 3 6 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

• Around 34th Avenue and Queen Avenue SW in Albany

• Around the Salem Station

• Around the potential Woodburn station

• In Canby

• In Clackamas at the junction of SE 82nd and I-205

• In Milwaukie

• In Portland, from the Multnomah County line to SE Holgate

• In Portland, between SE Holgate and SE Division

• In Portland, at the inner SE industrial area south of SE Stark

• Around Portland’s Union Station

Tier 2 environmental analyses could reveal EJ populations and/or further potential impacts not identified 

above.

Alternative 2

EJ and LEP populations are present within or adjacent to the proposed Alternative 2 rail alignment and 

around the existing/potential new station locations. The most notable potential for adverse and/or 

beneficial effects that could affect EJ populations includes the following:

• Transportation. Increased intercity travel frequency and capacity under Alternative 2 in comparison to 

the No Action Alternative, and reduced travel time under Alternative 2 in comparison to both the 

No Action Alternative and Alternative 1 could provide transportation-related benefits for EJ 

communities. In addition, the addition of new stations in areas not currently served by passenger rail 

could provide increased transportation options for EJ populations to access education, employment, 

and social and health services. 

• Railroad Crossings. Alternative 2 would result in fewer at-grade crossings for passenger trains 

compared to the No Action Alternative and Alternative 1. Alternative 2 would shift passenger rail traffic 

from the UPRR mainline through the majority of the route to a dedicated passenger rail track for much 

of the alignment, and the frequency of delays resulting from blocked crossings would likely decrease at 

crossings on the UPRR mainline south of Oregon City. Compared to the No Action Alternative and 

Alternative 1, Alternative 2 would shift passenger rail traffic from the UPRR mainline to a new track 

adjacent to the PNWR line between Keizer and Wilsonville, and would increase the frequency of trains 

and associated delays at crossings along the PNWR alignment.

• Noise and Vibration. Alternative 2 would build about 81 miles of track on a new alignment, and thus 

would introduce a potential new source of noise and vibration to areas that currently do not experience 

train-generated impacts. Increased noise and vibration resulting from passenger rail trains under 

Alternative 2 would potentially affect more residential land uses in urban areas than Alternative 1. 

Therefore, Alternative 2 could result in more noise and vibration impacts to EJ populations. 

• Air Quality. Similar to Alternative 1, long-term benefits related to air quality could occur because more 

frequent and efficient intercity train service would replace some passenger vehicle, bus, or plane travel, 

as well as decrease Thruway bus trips. While Alternative 2 would result in a lower number of at-grade 

crossings than the No Action Alternative and Alternative 1, increased delays at crossings with more 

frequent trains could adversely affect localized air quality. Increased traffic congestion and localized 

impacts of CO and particulate matter may also occur near Alternative 2 existing and potential new rail 

stations along with passengers’ increased use of routes to access the stations. Localized emissions from 
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4 - 3 7

OCTOBER 2018

Alternative 2 could have the potential to expose the nearby population to air toxics such as diesel 

particulate matter; the highest potential exposure would be around existing stations in urban areas.

• Visual Impacts. Elevated structures associated with Alternative 2 could have potential adverse visual 

effects for residents and for viewers from community resources, such as parks or trails that have views 

toward the structures.

• Displacements/Community Cohesion and Character. Alternative 2 would include the addition of new 

track throughout the full alignment and the potential for more new stations. Therefore, it is anticipated 

that Alternative 2 would result in a greater degree of direct impacts than Alternative 1 in relation to the 

acquisition of ROW, displacement, and community cohesion.

• Native American Populations/Stream Impacts. Alternative 2 has the highest potential to directly

impact cultural resources of importance to local Tribes, including fish and aquatic habitat of concern to 

Tribal communities. The proposed Alternative 2 alignment would require new railroad bridges over the 

McKenzie, Santiam, and Tualatin rivers, and three new bridges over the Willamette River. Impacts to 

cultural resources from Alternative 2 construction could potentially result in adverse EJ impacts to 

Native American populations.

The following urban areas in the Alternative 2 study areas show high concentrations of EJ populations and 

would therefore be most likely to experience adverse impacts and/or benefits:

• Around the potential Springfield station

• In Springfield, east of I-5 and north of OR 126 to Gateway Road

• Around the potential Albany station

• West of I-5, north of the potential Albany station

• Around the Albany Station

• South of Albany

• Around 34th Avenue and Queen Avenue SW in Albany

• Within Salem, and north and south of Salem

• Near the potential Salem station

• Near the potential Keizer station

• At the intersection of I-5 and Indian School Road in north Salem

• Around the potential Wilsonville station

• Around the potential Woodburn station

• In Salem, east of I-5 between Sunnyview and Silverton Roads

• In Salem, between State Street and Sunnyview Road

• In Salem, between Mission and State Streets

• Around the potential Tualatin station

• Through Clackamas between Oregon City and I-205

• In Clackamas County, at junction of SE Linwood and Harmony

• In Milwaukie, at the junction of SE 82nd and I-205

• In Milwaukie
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4 - 3 8 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

• In Portland, from Multnomah County line to SE Holgate

• In Portland, between SE Holgate and SE Division

• In Portland, at the inner SE industrial area south of SE Stark

• Around Portland’s Union Station

The EJ analysis for Alternative 2 indicated high concentrations of EJ populations near potential new 

stations, with relatively lower concentrations adjacent to the rail alignment. Therefore, the effect and type 

of EJ impacts would likely be dependent on the specific station locations selected. For example, there are 

demographic differences between the potential stations at Wilsonville and Tualatin. Development of the 

Wilsonville station could have more EJ impacts related to displacement, because the area around the 

potential station location has higher concentrations of minority and low-income groups. However, local and 

regional transit could better serve the potential Wilsonville station, which would be a benefit to EJ 

populations. The potential Tualatin station area has fewer adjacent concentrations of EJ populations, but 

there are higher concentrations outside of the EJ study area. Therefore, there could be fewer displacement 

effects on EJ populations associated with the potential Tualatin station.

Alternative 2 with Central Albany Option

Outside of the Albany area, the Alternative 2 with Central Albany Option would have similar impacts 

associated with EJ populations as those described for Alternative 2. Where the Central Albany Option would 

provide an additional mainline track connecting to the existing Albany Station to the west of the 

Alternative 2 alignment, other impacts than discussed for Alternative 2 could occur. The EJ populations 

most likely to experience adverse impacts and/or benefits associated with the Central Albany Option would 

be the areas of high concentration around the existing Albany Station and north of the station. The Central 

Albany Option would increase the number of at-grade crossings and travel time compared to Alternative 2, 

which could adversely affect safety and transportation options for EJ communities. The increased number 

of at-grade crossings could also adversely affect air quality because of increased vehicle idling.

4.4.5.2 Construction Impacts

Alternative 1

Construction of Alternative 1 could temporarily affect EJ populations by increasing traffic congestion, delays 

at at-grade public roadway crossings, and noise and vibration. Construction would also increase dust and 

particulates that could affect air quality, particularly for those EJ populations living and working close to the 

proposed rail alignment and the potential Woodburn station.

Alternative 2

Construction impacts to EJ populations under Alternative 2 would be similar to those described for 

Alternative 1, but would be more intensive because of the amount of new track needed where none 

currently exists, the increased amount of construction required for elevated structures, and the number of 

proposed new stations. 

Alternative 2 with Central Albany Option

Construction of the Alternative 2 with Central Albany Option would create impacts similar to Alternative 2, 

with additional potential EJ population impacts through north Albany adjacent to the UPRR mainline track.

4.4.6 Potential Mitigation

The alignments for the build alternatives generally follow either the existing UPRR alignment (Alternative 1) 

or the existing I-5 and I-205 freeway and PNWR alignment (Alternative 2), thus avoiding and/or minimizing 

impacts on surrounding land uses and developed communities, and natural resources, as discussed 
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4 - 3 9

OCTOBER 2018

throughout this chapter. BMPs will be used to minimize construction effects as practicable. If effects cannot 

be avoided or minimized, mitigation strategies will be implemented.

Specific mitigation measures are not identified as part of this Tier 1 analysis but will be identified during the 

project-level analysis when details on the proposed facilities are determined. These project-level analyses

would pursue further outreach to, and engagement with potentially affected EJ and LEP communities in 

order to communicate project information and potential impacts, and to discuss potential mitigation 

strategies, as appropriate. 

Tier 2 project-specific evaluations of disproportionately high and adverse impacts on EJ populations would 

include consultation with local governments and planning agencies, and would consider minimizing barrier 

effects to maintain neighborhood integrity including protected rail crossings, and improved visual quality of 

project facilities. In coordination with local jurisdictions, ODOT would develop and implement a traffic 

control plan to minimize traffic delays and periodic lane and/or access revisions during and after 

construction.

4.5 Socioeconomics

This section discusses socioeconomic resources and associated legal requirements, methods of analysis, the 

study areas for socioeconomic resources, affected environment, potential environmental consequences, 

and potential mitigation strategies of project alternatives for the OPR Project. Socioeconomics includes 

information on demographic characteristics such as population, housing, employment, community 

characteristics, and community resources (such as schools [public and private], places of worship, 

community centers, cemeteries, hospitals, emergency facilities, parks, open spaces, libraries, government 

offices, and museums).

4.5.1 Legal Requirements

In addition to NEPA and the CEQ’s NEPA implementing regulations, FRA’s Procedures for Considering 

Environmental Impacts are applicable to this Tier 1 analysis of socioeconomics. Section 14(n)(16) of FRA’s 

environmental procedures require an EIS to include consideration of potential environmental impacts on 

the socioeconomic environment, including potential for community disruption or cohesion and the 

possibility of demographic shifts, as well as the number and kinds of available jobs likely to be affected by 

the alternatives. It also considers the positive and negative consequences of each alternative on existing 

business districts and the immediate project area.

4.5.2 Methods

A literature review of documented empirical evidence on potential impacts of intercity passenger rail 

service was conducted. This examination focused on the relationship between passenger rail service and 

factors known to influence a region’s economic competitiveness. An economic base analysis determined 

the industry mix and employment trends and assessed land use characteristics, and provided an 

understanding of the general socioeconomic composition of the affected areas.

4.5.2.1 Categories of Socioeconomic Impacts

Socioeconomic direct impacts were assessed using the following categories:

• Community characteristics. The potential for changes in community characteristics was qualitatively 

evaluated for potential changes in neighborhood context/land uses, community population 

characteristics, and community resource accessibility. Some examples of potential impacts are:

separating and isolating land uses, redistributing population, and cutting off or otherwise restricting 

access. The analysis included reviews of maps of the build alternative alignments and potential new 

stations, as well as aerial photography to assess potential impacts. 
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4 - 4 0 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

• Community resources. The analysis qualitatively assessed potential ROW acquisition, displacement of 

resources, circulation and access to the resources, changes in emergency services, and environmental 

quality (such as traffic, noise, visual impacts, and air quality). The analysis relied on an evaluation of 

mapped data to determine whether, and how, community resources could be affected by the build 

alternatives.

• Community benefits. The potential for positive changes in the community, such as urban revitalization, 

station area development, and increased connectivity or mobility, was qualitatively evaluated. 

This component of the social resources analysis relied on findings from the Oregon Passenger Rail 

Transportation Technical Memorandum (ODOT, 2016f) and the Oregon Passenger Rail Economics 

Technical Memorandum (ODOT, 2016a) to interpret effects of each proposed rail alignment as a whole 

and on communities within the project study area.

• Economic development impacts. The characteristics of the areas affected by the OPR Project were 

compared to those revealed in the literature review to determine those characteristics that would most 

likely give rise to economic development impacts.

• Construction jobs. A qualitative overview revealed the potential construction-related jobs that could 

result from the build alternatives.

The analysis assessed indirect impacts qualitatively using the following categories: 

• Changes in community cohesion and accessibility (such as access to shopping, recreational areas, 

health services, and emergency response). This analysis assessed impacts to community cohesion due 

to changes in access that may occur as part of the OPR Project.

• Changes to the jobs/housing balance by community. The analysis used potential areas of displacement 

or land use isolation impacts to assess potential changes to jobs and housing by community that could 

occur over time or farther in distance.

• Value of increased accessibility, connectivity, and amenity value (the value associated with the 

existence of passenger rail). These indirect impacts include changes to business districts, housing 

markets, and tourism attractions.

• Potential temporary impacts from construction. This analysis reviewed potential temporary impacts, 

such as temporary changes in driveway access, that could occur as part of the OPR Project.

4.5.2.2 Tier 2 Analysis

This socioeconomic analysis is based on a preliminary conceptual level of engineering and passenger rail 

service planning for the two build alternatives and a No Action Alternative. No site-specific field 

investigation was conducted for this analysis.

The context for the socioeconomic affected environment includes identification of demographic data 

(community population/residents), community characteristics, and community resources adjacent to the

two build alternative rail alignments, existing stations, and potential new stations.

Future Tier 2 environmental studies for individual projects proposed subsequent to this Tier 1 analysis for 

the OPR Project would consider:

• More detailed project-level economic analysis;

• Detailed assessment of specific temporary impacts, the extent of temporary impacts, and appropriate 

mitigation measures; and

• Project-level analyses regarding residential and business displacements, noise and vibration impacts, 

visual impacts, transportation impacts, and air quality impacts related to social resources.
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4 - 4 1

OCTOBER 2018

4.5.3 Study Area

Potential impacts to social resources were evaluated within the following OPR Project study area 

boundaries:

• Direct Impacts Study Area: Within 200 feet of proposed rail centerlines where rail improvements are 

proposed, the existing station areas, and within a 20-acre area around the potential new passenger rail 

station areas. Impacts from increased passenger train frequency were considered for the entire 

alignment, regardless of where new track would be constructed.

• Indirect Impacts Study Area: Within a 1⁄4-mile buffer around the existing/proposed rail alignments, and 

existing and potential new station areas.

The primary study area for the economic impacts assessment included all counties where there are existing 

or proposed new passenger rail stations. In addition to county-level information, the assessment also 

considered national and station area socioeconomic data in order to facilitate relative comparisons of 

various economic indicators and attributes.

4.5.4 Affected Environment

4.5.4.1 Community Characteristics

Table 4.5-1 summarizes demographic data for the State of Oregon and counties within the OPR Project 

Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 study areas. Table 4.5-2 summarizes demographic data for the State of 

Oregon and cities within the OPR Project study areas. Overall, population is increasing for Oregon and for 

all of the counties present in the OPR Project study areas. In cities that the study areas transect, the 

concentrations of populations under 18 years old range from 18 percent (Eugene) to 30 percent 

(Woodburn), and the concentrations of populations over 65 years old range from 8 percent (Tualatin) to 

15 percent (Woodburn). In cities that the study areas transect, the concentrations of minority populations 

range from 14 percent (Oregon City) to 62 percent (Woodburn), and concentrations of LEP populations 

range from 3 percent (Oregon City) to 34 percent (Woodburn). The subsections that follow Table 4.5-2 

describe community characteristics and community resources in the study areas. Tables 4.5-3 and 4.5-4 

summarize the community resources identified within the study area for each of the build alternatives and 

as shown on maps in Appendix D, Figure D-3.

Table 4.5-1. Summary of Demographic Data for State of Oregon and Counties in the Study Area 

Location

(State, County)

2000 Total 

Population

2010 Total 

Population

Total 

Population 

Change

(2000–2010) 

Forecasted 

Population 

in 2040

2010 

Under

18 Years 

Old

2010 

Over

65 Years 

Old

2010 

Minority

2010 

LEP

State of Oregon 3,421,399 3,838,957 12% 5,203,000 22% 14% 22% 6% 

Clackamas 338,391 376,891 11% 537,753 23% 14% 16% 5% 

Lane 322,959 351,983 9% 437,345 20% 16% 16% 3% 

Linn 103,069 116,910 13% 156,505 24% 16% 13% 3% 

Marion 284,834 316,096 11% 453,557 26% 13% 32% 11% 

Multnomah 660,486 737,902 12% 936,729 20% 11% 28% 9% 

Washington 445,342 531,744 19% 830,100 25% 11% 31% 10% 

Sources: Information collected from U.S. Census Population Data 2000 and 2010, and Oregon Office of Economic Analysis, 2013.
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4 - 4 2 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

Table 4.5-2. Summary of Demographic Data for State of Oregon and Cities in the Study Area 

Location

(State, City)

Total 

Population

Under

18 Years Old

Over

65 Years Old Minority LEP

State of Oregon 3,868,721 22% 14% 22% 6% 

Albany 50,828 26% 13% 19% 4% 

Eugene 157,318 18% 13% 19% 4% 

Keizer 36,681 27% 14% 26% 7% 

Oregon City 33,115 25% 10% 14% 3% 

Portland 594,687 19% 11% 28% 9% 

Salem 156,937 25% 13% 30% 9% 

Springfield 59,692 23% 11% 19% 4% 

Tualatin 26,383 26% 8% 29% 8% 

Wilsonville 19,636 22% 14% 23% 7% 

Woodburn 24,101 30% 15% 62% 34% 

Sources: Information collected from U.S. Census American Community Survey (ACS) (2006–2010 and 2009–2013). The table 

presents ACS 5-year average data, which is the most reliable option for presenting demographic data for the study area.

No Action Alternative and Alternative 1

The No Action Alternative/Alternative 1 alignment follows a historic freight and passenger railroad line that 

currently hosts Amtrak passenger rail service to a number of the cities in the study area. This alignment 

passes through Lane, Linn, Marion, Clackamas, and Multnomah counties. The alignment passes through the 

cities of Eugene, Junction City, Harrisburg, Halsey, Tangent, Albany, Millersburg, Jefferson, Salem, Keizer, 

Brooks, Woodburn, Hubbard, Aurora, Barlow, Canby, Oregon City, Gladstone, Milwaukie, and Portland.

There are existing passenger rail stations in Eugene, Albany, Salem, Oregon City, and Portland. These 

stations would continue to be used by the No Action Alternative and Alternative 1.

Outside of the cities, the study area is largely agricultural, sparsely populated, and has few community 

characteristics of note. Within the cities, a majority of the adjacent uses are related to industrial and 

commercial activities. Where there is residential development, the majority is composed of single-family 

units and is a mixture of older residential with areas of new development that abut the railroad property. 

While the existing UPRR infrastructure is an impediment to local access and mobility throughout portions of 

the study area, there are numerous crossings of the railroad tracks.

Alternative 2

Alternative 2 would generally parallel the I-5, PNWR, I-205, and UPRR rights-of-way and would pass through 

Lane, Linn, Marion, Clackamas, Washington, and Multnomah counties. It would pass through the cities of 

Springfield, Eugene, Coburg, Albany, Millersburg, Keizer, Woodburn, Donald, Wilsonville, Tualatin, West 

Linn, Oregon City, Gladstone, Milwaukie, and Portland. Alternative 2 would use the existing Portland Union 

Station and possibly the existing Albany station (Central Albany Option). Proposed new passenger rail 

stations for this alternative would be located in Springfield, Albany (except with the Central Albany Option), 

Salem or Keizer, and Wilsonville or Tualatin. The Eugene, Albany (except with the Central Albany Option), 

Salem, and Oregon City stations would no longer be served by passenger rail and would be converted to 

other uses.

The construction of I-5 bisected many of the communities and is a barrier to local access and mobility 

through major portions of the study area. However, I-5 also provided new opportunities as a major north-
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4 - 4 3

OCTOBER 2018

south transportation corridor for the entire West Coast. The I-5 ROW is generally the boundary for 

industrial uses and residential developments, and commercial uses are present in proximity to I-5 

interchanges. Residential development in the study area consists primarily of single-family residential areas 

that do not center on or face toward the proposed rail alignment. Outside of the cities, Alternative 2 would 

be adjacent to primarily agricultural-related uses, with limited residential development.

Where the Alternative 2 with Central Albany Option diverts from the I-5 alignment, the proposed route 

would be built parallel to an existing railroad alignment through Albany and would then rejoin the 

alignment adjacent to I-5 north of Albany.

4.5.4.2 Community Resources

Table 4.5-3 identifies the 62 community resources within the Alternative 1 study area.

Table 4.5-3. Community Resources within the Alternative 1 Study Areaa 

Community Resource Location

Community 

Resource Type

Approximate Distance from 

Existing/Proposed Rail 

Infrastructureb

New Life Apostolic Tabernacle Eugene Place of Worship 200 feet

U.S. Marshals Service Office Eugene Law Enforcement 200 feet

Lane County Corrections Division Eugene Law Enforcement 200 feet

Washington/Jefferson Park Eugene Park/Open Space Less than 25 feet

Walnut Grove Park Eugene Park/Open Space 100 feet

Day Memorial Park Junction City Park/Open Space 200 feet

Harrisburg Fire and Rescue Station Harrisburg Fire Station 100 feet

Harrisburg Area Museum Harrisburg Museum 175 feet

Harrisburg City Park/Skatepark Harrisburg Park/Open Space 75 feet

Alford Cemetery Linn County Cemetery 125 feet

Tangent Rural Fire Department Tangent Fire Station 25 feet

Swanson Park Albany Park/Open Space 125 feet

Maple Lawn Park Albany Park/Open Space 125 feet

Simpson Park Albany Park/Open Space 125 feet

5th Street Park Turner Park/Open Space Less than 25 feet

Turner Fire Department Turner Fire Station 25 feet

State of Oregon Law Library Salem Library 150 feet

Willamette Heritage Center Salem Museum 50 feet

North Salem High School Salem School 50 feet

Barrick Field Park Salem Park/Open Space 175 feet

Claggett Creek Natural Area Salem Park/Open Space 50 feet

Chemawa Cemetery Salem Cemetery 100 feet

Gervais Police Department Gervais Law Enforcement 125 feet
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4 - 4 4 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

Community Resource Location

Community 

Resource Type

Approximate Distance from 

Existing/Proposed Rail 

Infrastructureb

Gervais City Hall Gervais Government Building 125 feet

House of Zion Lutheran Church Woodburn Place of Worship 75 feet

St. Luke’s Cemetery Woodburn Cemetery 100 feet

Woodburn Historical Museum Woodburn Museum 75 feet

Chemeketa Community College Woodburn School Less than 25 feet

North Front Street Park Woodburn Park/Open Space 75 feet

Settlemier Park Woodburn Park/Open Space 100 feet

Woodburn Police Station Woodburn Station 

(Potential) Law Enforcement 375 feet

Christ Baptist Church Hubbard Place of Worship 150 feet

Hubbard Rural Fire Department Hubbard Fire Station Less than 25 feet

Canby Regional Park Canby Park/Open Space Less than 25 feet

Church of the Nazarene Canby Place of Worship 200 feet

Canby Depot Museum Canby Museum 100 feet

Coalca Landing Willamette River 

Greenway Clackamas County Park/Open Space 25 feet

Canemah Bluff Natural Area Oregon City Park/Open Space 100 feet

Canemah Cemetery Oregon City Cemetery 150 feet

Old Canemah Park Oregon City Park/Open Space 150 feet

Museum of the Oregon Territory Oregon City Museum 175 feet

McLoughlin Promenade Oregon City Park/Open Space Less than 25 feet

Victorious Faith Family Church Oregon City Place of Worship 200 feet

Providence Willamette Falls 

Community Center Oregon City Community Center 75 feet

North Clackamas District Park Three 

Creeks Natural Area Clackamas County Park/Open Space Less than 25 feet

Minthorn North Natural Area Milwaukie Park/Open Space 50 feet

Milwaukie Museum Milwaukie Museum 75 feet

Milwaukie Police Department Milwaukie Law Enforcement 125 feet

Springwater Corridor Portland Park/Open Space Less than 25 feet

Roswell Pond Open Space Portland Park/Open Space Less than 25 feet

Eastmoreland Golf Course Portland Park/Open Space Less than 25 feet

Buddhist Daihonzan Henjyoji Temple Portland Place of Worship 75 feet
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4 - 4 5

OCTOBER 2018

Community Resource Location

Community 

Resource Type

Approximate Distance from 

Existing/Proposed Rail 

Infrastructureb

Portland Community College Portland School Less than 25 feet

Vera Katz Eastbank Esplanade Portland Park/Open Space Less than 25 feet

Steel Bridge Riverwalk Portland Park/Open Space Less than 25 feet

Gov. Tom McCall Waterfront Park Portland Park/Open Space Less than 25 feet

The Fields Neighborhood Park Portland Park/Open Space Less than 25 feet

Harbor View Property Portland Park/Open Space Less than 25 feet

Peninsula Crossing Trail Portland Park/Open Space Less than 25 feet

Jehovah’s Witnesses Portland Place of Worship Less than 25 feet

Smith and Bybee Wetlands Natural 

Area Portland Park/Open Space 150 feet

Heron Lakes Golf Course Portland Park/Open Space Less than 25 feet

a The affected environment study area includes the full Alternative 1 alignment, regardless of where new track would be 

constructed.

b Distance rounded to the nearest 25 feet.

Table 4.5-4 identifies the 47 community resources within the Alternative 2 study area.

Table 4.5-4. Community Resources within the Alternative 2 Study Areaa 

Community Resource Location

Community 

Resource Type

Approximate Distance from 

Proposed Infrastructureb

Springfield IOOF Cemetery Springfield Cemetery 125 feet

Laurel Hill Cemetery Springfield Cemetery 150 feet

James Park Springfield Park/Open Space 200 feet

Eastgate Woodlands Natural Areas Springfield Park/Open Space Less than 25 feet

Gateways High School Springfield Station 

(Potential) School 475 feet

Armitage County Park Lane County Park/Open Space Less than 25 feet

Freeway Lakes County Park Linn County Park/Open Space Less than 25 feet

Albany Mennonite Church Albany Place of Worship 150 feet

Oregon State Police Office Albany Law Enforcement 25 feet

The Difference Church Albany Place of Worship 175 feet

St Matthews Church of Christc Albany Place of Worship 200 feet

Simpson Parkc Albany Park/Open Space 125 feet

Swanson Parkc Albany Park/Open Space 125 feet

Maple Lawn Parkc Albany Park/Open Space 125 feet

Waverly Memorial Cemeteryc Albany Cemetery 175 feet
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4 - 4 6 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

Community Resource Location

Community 

Resource Type

Approximate Distance from 

Proposed Infrastructureb

Roberts High School Salem School 100 feet

Pauline Memorial Zion Church Salem Place of Worship 175 feet

Cascade Gateway Park Salem Park/Open Space 200 feet

Keizer Church of Christ Keizer Place of Worship 75 feet

Keizer Little League Park Keizer Park/Open Space 125 feet

St. Louis Ponds Park Marion County Park/Open Space 50 feet

Grace Chapel Wilsonville Place of Worship Less than 25 feet

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – Office 

of Law Enforcement Wilsonville Law Enforcement 50 feet

Atfalati City Park Tualatin Park/Open Space 175 feet

Stafford Country Montessori Tualatin School 200 feet

Three Rivers Charter School West Linn School 175 feet

West Bridge Park West Linn Park/Open Space Less than 25 feet

Sportcraft Landing Oregon City Park/Open Space Less than 25 feet

Jon Storm Park Oregon City Park/Open Space 175 feet

North Clackamas District Park Three 

Creeks Natural Area Clackamas County Park/Open Space Less than 25 feet

Minthorn North Natural Area Milwaukie Park/Open Space 50 feet

Milwaukie Museum Milwaukie Museum 75 feet

Milwaukie Police Department Milwaukie Law Enforcement 125 feet

Springwater Corridor Portland Park/Open Space Less than 25 feet

Roswell Pond Open Space Portland Park/Open Space Less than 25 feet

Eastmoreland Golf Course Portland Park/Open Space Less than 25 feet

Buddhist Daihonzan Henjyoji Temple Portland Place of Worship 75 feet

Portland Community College Portland School Less than 25 feet

Vera Katz Eastbank Esplanade Portland Park/Open Space Less than 25 feet

Steel Bridge Riverwalk Portland Park/Open Space Less than 25 feet

Gov. Tom McCall Waterfront Park Portland Park/Open Space Less than 25 feet

The Fields Neighborhood Park Portland Park/Open Space Less than 25 feet

Harbor View Property Portland Park/Open Space Less than 25 feet

Peninsula Crossing Trail Portland Park/Open Space Less than 25 feet

Jehovah’s Witnesses Portland Place of Worship Less than 25 feet
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4 - 4 7

OCTOBER 2018

Community Resource Location

Community 

Resource Type

Approximate Distance from 

Proposed Infrastructureb

Smith and Bybee Wetlands Natural 

Area Portland Park/Open Space 150 feet

Heron Lakes Golf Course Portland Park/Open Space Less than 25 feet

a The affected environment study area includes potential new station areas and the full Alternative 2 alignment, regardless of 

where new track would be constructed.

b Distance rounded to the nearest 25 feet.

c For Central Albany Option only. 

4.5.4.3 Economic Base Analysis

The economic base analysis is used to study the current economic conditions for each county hosting 

existing or proposed new passenger rail stations. Specifically, the analysis identified those industries that 

are growing or declining in terms of employment and productivity.

The analysis involved performing location quotient (LQ) and shift-share analyses, which are standard 

analyses used to understand an area’s local economy and measure the concentration of all industries 

within the study area compared to the nation. These analyses identify which industries within the study 

area are strong and/or growing. If these identified industries are those that are more likely to benefit from 

passenger rail service (for example, the Knowledge-Based and Educational Services industries), the 

expansion of service to an existing or new passenger rail station could further strengthen these industries. 

The following key industries have the greatest potential influences on the economic development potential 

of new or expanded passenger rail service in the study area: 

• Knowledge-Based – includes Information, Professional, and Technical Services; Finance and Insurance; 

Management of Companies and Enterprises; and Real Estate.

• Tourism – includes Accommodation and Food Services; Retail Trade; Leisure and Hospitality; and Arts,

Entertainment, and Recreation.

• Educational Services – include schools, colleges, universities, and training centers.

• Public Administration – includes Federal, state, and local government agencies that administer, 

oversee, and manage public programs. These agencies also set policy, create laws, adjudicate civil and 

criminal legal cases, and provide for public safety and national defense. In general, government 

establishments in the Public Administration sector oversee governmental programs and activities that 

are not performed by private establishments.

The analysis was conducted on a county level because of the availability and accuracy of the county data. 

Performing an economic base analysis at a level smaller than a county (such as a U.S. Census tract) has a 

high possibility for producing exaggerated and inaccurate results. Other industry-related analyses were 

conducted at the station community level to account for this limitation.

Location Quotient (LQ)

An LQ is used to quantify which industries in a region are unique or concentrated when compared to the 

nation; this comparison is made by dividing a region’s employment share within a particular industry by 

the nation’s employment share within the same industry. The LQ analysis was based on a county’s 

concentration and specialization of Knowledge-Based, Tourism, and Educational Services industries, 

with LQ expressed as a ratio. An LQ greater than 1 indicates an industry with a greater share of the county 

employment than its share of employment in the nation. Multnomah and Lane counties, which include the 

locations of the Eugene, Springfield, and Portland stations, have the highest performance, with a handful of 
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4 - 4 8 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

these industries categorized as specialized or emerging. Continued growth in these specialized industries is

key to a strong economic base.

Linn, Marion, and Washington counties have the lowest LQ performance, because few, if any, of the key 

industries have an LQ greater than 1 and/or the key industries are not growing.

Shift-Share Analysis

The shift-share analysis is similar to the LQ analysis; however, instead of investigating total jobs in the 

industry, this analysis concentrates on job growth. Specifically, it highlights industries that have a local 

economic competitive advantage compared to the nation. The criteria for evaluating the shift-share results 

are similar to those for the LQ analysis—that is, looking at the growth and competitiveness of the key 

industries. These key industries are those most able to support passenger rail service and generate the 

most ridership.

Washington County, which could be home to one station (the potential new Tualatin station associated 

with Alternative 2), has the highest shift-share performance, with all of the key industries growing, based 

on the local (not national) conditions. Most of the other counties have average shift-share performance, 

with approximately half of the growth/decline in employment because of national performance. In Lane 

and Linn counties, most of the growth is attributed to the overall employment change in the nation.

The description of the affected environment uses factors documented as having an impact on the economic 

development potential of new or expanded passenger rail service. The description of the current economic 

conditions (the affected environment) is categorized into the following three sections: 

• Socioeconomic attributes

• Employment and industry by station

• Land use

Socioeconomic Attributes

The population distribution and socioeconomic characteristics of the areas surrounding passenger rail 

stations can be used to estimate the receptiveness of the population to service expansion at existing 

stations or potential new stations. The analysis considered population density, average household size and 

educational attainment of residents within 1⁄4 mile of each existing and potential new station, and the 

distribution of employees within 1⁄2 mile of each existing and potential new station (based on U.S. Census 

tract data). The results of this analysis are summarized as follows:

• Population – Development supportive of passenger rail would primarily be dense, with high 

concentrations of residents and commercial development. The existing station in Albany, potential new 

station in Salem (Alternative 2), and the potential new station in Woodburn along Alternative 1 have 

the highest population densities. 

• Average household size – Household size has been shown to be an influencing factor related to the 

effect of passenger rail stations on economic expansion. Singles and couples without children are more 

likely to live near and use public transportation. Only two stations had an average household size equal 

to or less than two persons: the Eugene Depot and Portland’s Union Station.

• Educational attainment – The educational attainment of residents in an area can suggest the 

attractiveness of that area to employees with specialized skills. Those with associate’s or higher degrees 

are more likely to be employed in Knowledge-Based industries. A larger than average portion of 

Woodburn (Alternative 2) has residents with less than an associate’s degree (80 percent of residents), 

while Portland’s Union Station has the highest portion of residents with a higher education degree 

(54 percent of residents). In addition, 48 percent of residents around the potential Wilsonville Station 

and 44 percent of residents around the potential Tualatin Station have higher education degrees 
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4 - 4 9

OCTOBER 2018

(although the data for the potential new Tualatin Station is limited due to the large U.S. Census tract 

area that extends beyond the potential new station area).

• Distribution of Employees – The distribution of the number of employees in certain industries helps 

analysts understand the availability of Knowledge-Based, Tourism, Educational Services, and Public 

Administration industries in the area. These industries were identified as benefiting most from 

passenger rail service, and have located or could locate close to existing or proposed stations to take 

advantage of the benefits. Portland’s Union Station and the potential Wilsonville Station have the 

largest percentage of employees in the Knowledge-Based industries (34 percent and 35 percent, 

respectively). Surrounding the Eugene Depot, the Educational Services industry (34 percent of 

residents) and Tourism industries (29 percent of residents in the Retail Trade or Arts, Entertainment, 

and Recreation) are the most popular. Public Administration does not make up a particularly large 

share of employment in any county, although in Marion County it has an LQ of greater than 1. 

Employment and Industry by Station

This subsection is focused on station area attributes related to commuting and business travel. While 

commuting and business travel does not make up a large portion of the total trips on passenger rail, it is 

still a portion and is directly related to economic development through agglomeration, or impacts resulting 

from businesses and/or people clustering in an area.

This analysis gathered data on the number and types of business establishments within a 1⁄4-mile radius of 

each existing and potential new station. The number of businesses and number of employees provide 

information on the employment opportunities and the supply of labor for industries surrounding these 

stations.

This information supplements the socioeconomic attributes and economic base analyses by further 

exploring the possibilities for increasing economic competitiveness based on the types of employees and 

firms in the area. Because the 1⁄4-mile-radius catchment area encompassed multiple counties near some 

stations, the analysis used the county with the largest share of employees.

The existing Albany and Portland station areas include all or most key industries, as well as KnowledgeBased-industry employees. New passenger rail service in Wilsonville and Tualatin would likely have the 

smallest economic development impact potential of any of the existing or potential new station areas, 

because these areas do not contain many of the key industries. The Tualatin Station area has few industries 

overall, which severely limits the potential for economic development benefits.

Land Use

Section 4.3, Land Use/Farmland, describes the areas surrounding the existing and potential new stations. 

Factors such as a location close to a Central Business District (CBD), the existing planned development and 

zoning (high density, residential/commercial zoning), and the presence of a major draw to the area 

(including a university) contribute to the success and economic competitiveness of a passenger rail station. 

Having residential, commercial, and/or mixed-use zoning with sites ready for development that support 

passenger rail transportation could also enhance the economic competitiveness in the area.

Locating a station within a CBD not only increases connections among modes but also allows for supportive 

development around the station. Generally, Alternative 1 has more stations close to CBDs than 

Alternative 2, and thus Alternative 1 is more likely to benefit from existing land uses, transit and other 

modal connections, and supportive development.

The major cities (Portland, Eugene, Springfield, Salem, and Oregon City) have favorable zoning in the areas 

surrounding the existing and potential new stations. This zoning includes the availability of a mixture of 

different uses compatible with passenger rail service including residential, commercial, and educational 

uses and community services. Conversely, agricultural and industrial land uses do not support passenger 

rail service.
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4 - 5 0 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

Having a destination or draw to the area would entice more visitors to travel to a certain station and could 

also serve as a catalyst for attracting visitors to other nearby areas. For example, a visitor who attends a 

convention in Eugene might visit other areas in the region as a vacation or day trip. Having a passenger rail 

connection would increase the transportation options, consequently increasing the likelihood that the 

individual would make the trip. Many universities in the study area are accessible from the existing and 

proposed stations. In addition, hospitals, governmental offices, and local attractions can be major draws. 

These situations exist for stations within the Portland, Salem, and Eugene areas. In addition, because the 

destination might not be adjacent to the station, having a robust and convenient local public transportation 

system serves as a “last mile” connection.

4.5.5 Environmental Consequences

This subsection identifies the potential direct, indirect, and construction-related impacts on social resources 

for the No Action Alternative and the build alternatives. Social impacts are described by alternative, while 

economic impacts are described for both build alternatives, because impacts are assessed at the city and 

county level and most stations do not show a difference at this scale. Stations unique to an alternative are 

described separately.

4.5.5.1 Social Resources Direct and Indirect Impacts

No Action Alternative

The No Action Alternative represents the baseline condition against which the build alternatives are 

measured. Under the No Action Alternative, Amtrak Cascades passenger rail service would continue at 

existing stations in Eugene, Albany, Salem, Oregon City, and Portland, and changes to current track 

configurations or operations would not occur. The No Action Alternative would not result in the separation

or isolation of land uses, redistribution of population, or the bisecting of communities, nor would it require 

ROW acquisition or the displacement of community resources.

Increases in population and employment are expected to increase Amtrak Cascades passenger rail and 

Thruway bus ridership during the OPR Project planning horizon under the No Action Alternative. As shown 

in Table 4.2-7 in subsection 4.2.5.1 above, ODOT and FRA expect station activity to increase considerably at 

the Eugene Depot and Portland’s Union Station. In response to the increased ridership, demand for station 

area services and amenities could beneficially influence local commercial activity and associated 

development. The increased activity at stations could also contribute to higher levels of congestion on 

surrounding transportation networks, resulting in potential adverse impacts to local mobility and access.

In addition, increased freight train traffic under the No Action Alternative would likely result in more 

frequent vehicle delays at rail crossings, and potentially additional delays to passenger rail travel time. 

Emergency response and access could be adversely affected by increased delays.

The No Action Alternative would have few and negligible direct or indirect economic impacts, because the 

proposed action would not be constructed, and the service levels and stations served by trains and buses 

would remain the same as in the existing condition.

Alternative 1

Community Characteristics, Resources, and Cohesion

Alternative 1 would involve the continued use of existing UPPR mainline track, as well as the modification 

and addition of track in selected areas. Because Alternative 1 would either share or parallel the existing 

UPRR ROW, impacts related to community cohesion as a result of the bisection of communities or barriers 

to interaction would be minimal. The greatest potential for direct impacts to community resources, such as 

displacement and/or disruption of access, could occur where the community resources are near track that 

is being modified or proposed new track. Table 4.5-3 includes a list of community resources adjacent to the 

proposed Alternative 1 alignment. However, ODOT located proposed track modifications and new track 
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4 - 5 1

OCTOBER 2018

outside of urban areas as much as possible in order to minimize community impacts. In urban areas where 

modified or new track would be located, land uses are predominately industrial and commercial. Therefore, 

ODOT and FRA do not expect Alternative 1 to have direct impacts to community resources due to the 

conversion of land use or displacement of existing buildings. Furthermore, Alternative 1 is not expected to 

directly affect community resources as a result of land use separation, isolation, or displacement, 

redistribution of populations, and/or restriction of access.

The addition of eight passenger train trips per day (four round trips) could increase noise, vibration, or 

air quality impacts to community resources (such as parks and places of worship) adjacent to both existing 

and proposed track, as well as residential areas including low-income, elderly, and youth populations. 

Outside of the cities that the proposed rail alignment passes through, potential community impacts would 

be limited. Within the cities, the land uses within the study area are primarily related to industrial 

development, as discussed above and in subsection 4.3.5.1. Community resources and populations within 

the Alternative 1 study area already experience impacts related to noise, vibration, and air quality; the 

increase in service frequency could change the duration and intensity of these impacts. In addition, users of 

the community resources could experience potential delays in access to and from these resources, because 

additional passenger trains would result in more at-grade crossing delays each day. Emergency response 

and access could also be adversely affected by increased at-grade crossing delays. However, passenger 

trains travel much faster and are much shorter than freight trains; therefore, crossings by passenger trains

are typically closed for a minute or less . The delays resulting from the increased passenger train trips per 

day would likely be minimal, because the eight additional closures would be spread throughout the day and 

have a short closure time. 

The Alternative 1 study area includes 12 parks or open spaces adjacent to proposed new infrastructure and 

31 total parks or open spaces adjacent to the entire Alternative 1 route (including existing infrastructure). 

Generally, the access to, and recreational amenities of, these parks and open spaces would be unaffected

by Alternative 1. Refer to Section 4.7, Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources, for information on parks and 

recreational areas that could be affected.

Community Benefits

Alternative 1 would benefit communities within the study area by providing faster and more frequent 

passenger rail service. Under Alternative 1, the Eugene, Albany, Salem, and Oregon City stations would see 

considerably more activity than under the No Action Alternative (see Table 4.2-9 in subsection 4.2.5.1). 

For the communities around these stations, employment growth and greater patronage of the businesses 

in the surrounding area would be possible. These potential increases would depend on the kinds of 

development zoning would allow and the nature of the businesses in the surrounding area. For example, 

restaurants, coffee shops, and retail businesses would have the greatest potential for increased patronage. 

A potential new station in Woodburn could also offer a new access point for that community, providing 

benefits associated with improved access and mobility, including to Environmental Justice populations, as 

described in Section 4.4. 

In addition, populations in the study area could receive air quality benefits, because the increased rail 

service would likely replace some passenger vehicle and bus trips. However, the increased number of 

delays at at-grade rail crossings due to increased passenger trains could adversely affect localized air quality 

because of increased vehicle emissions from idling at intersections. Increased traffic congestion and 

localized impacts of carbon monoxide (CO) and particulate matter may also occur near rail stations along 

with passengers’ increased use of surface routes to access the stations. Localized emissions from 

Alternative 1 could have the potential to expose the nearby population to air toxics such as diesel 

particulate matter; the highest potential exposure would be around existing stations in urban areas.
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4 - 5 2 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

Changes to Jobs/Housing Balance

The level of analysis for this Tier 1 EIS did not reveal potential for changes to the housing mix in 

communities where new development could occur around station areas. However, with more frequent 

and reliable intercity passenger rail service, rail could become a more attractive mode of travel that is 

integrated with the overall transportation system, thus increasing the overall travel market share for 

passenger rail under Alternative 1 compared to the No Action Alternative (see subsection 4.2.5.1). This shift 

in mode choice towards passenger rail could result in increased commercial activity, employment, potential 

new development, and a commensurate increase in jobs in the vicinity of the existing station areas in 

Eugene, Albany, Salem, and Oregon City. Additionally, the service could facilitate access to the Portland jobs 

market from areas of the Willamette Valley with more affordable housing. The potential new station in 

Woodburn could also result in increased development activity and new jobs for that area. 

Alternative 2

Community Characteristics, Resources, and Cohesion

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

placed every 10 to 12 miles to facilitate passing operations. Alternative 2 would be constructed within or 

adjacent to the existing I-5, I-205, PNWR, and UPRR ROW, which already bisect communities; therefore, 

potential impacts related to the bisection of communities would be minor.

Alternative 2 would result in more ROW acquisition and a greater potential for displacement of buildings 

and structures than Alternative 1. Table 4.5-3 includes a summary of community resources adjacent to the 

proposed Alternative 2 alignment and potential new station areas. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) Office of Law Enforcement north of Wilsonville is within 50 feet of the alignment and is the only 

resource that could be adversely affected by Alternative 2. 

Alternative 2 would also involve the construction of four new stations; the study area includes six potential 

locations for the new stations. Depending on existing land uses and zoning (see subsection 4.3.5.1), new 

stations could result in the displacement of existing uses (including community resources) and changes to 

access, and could represent a new type of development in the surrounding area. In addition, elevated 

structures associated with Alternative 2 could have potential adverse visual effects for residents and for 

viewers from community resources, such as parks or trails that have views toward the structures. For these 

reasons, Alternative 2 could result in a greater degree of impacts than Alternative 1 in relation to 

community characteristics and cohesion.

The addition of eight train trips per day (four round trips) could result in additional noise, vibration, or air 

quality impacts to community resources (such as parks and places of worship) adjacent to the Alternative 2 

alignment, as well as residential areas including low-income, elderly, and youth populations. Community 

resources and populations within the Alternative 2 study area already experience some noise, vibration, 

and air quality impacts; the increase in service frequency would increase the frequency of those impacts. 

Along I-5 and I-205, Alternative 2 would construct grade-separated crossings over existing highways and 

roads. Users of the community resources under Alternative 2 would experience fewer delays in access to 

and from these locations than under the No Action Alternative and Alternative 1, because Alternative 2 

would result in fewer at-grade crossings for passenger trains.

The Alternative 2 study area includes 17 parks or open spaces adjacent to proposed new infrastructure and 

24 total parks or open spaces adjacent to the entire Alternative 1 route (including existing infrastructure). 

Generally, the access to, and recreational amenities of, these parks and open spaces would be unaffected

by Alternative 2. Refer to Section 4.7, Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources, for information on parks and 

recreational areas that could be affected.
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4 - 5 3

OCTOBER 2018

Community Benefits

Alternative 2 would benefit communities within the study area by providing faster and more frequent 

passenger rail service. In cities with potential new stations, as well as in Portland around Union Station, 

increases in residential infill, employment growth, and greater patronage of the businesses in the 

surrounding area would be possible. The extent and type of community benefits would likely be dependent 

on the station locations selected (i.e., they would depend on the demographic character of the surrounding 

area, how riders access the station, the kinds of development zoning would allow, and the nature of the 

businesses in the surrounding area). The potential new station locations are predominantly in less 

developed locations than the existing passenger rail stations. Therefore the potential for, and extent of, 

community benefits would be greater around potential new station areas. Alternative 2 would likely 

present more opportunities for community benefits than Alternative 1.

Changes to Jobs/Housing Balance

As under Alternative 1, added passenger train capacity and reduction in Thruway bus service, along with 

improved travel times and reliability resulting from Alternative 2 improvements, could result in a shift in 

travel mode choice towards increased travel by passenger rail (see subsection 4.2.5.1). The shift in mode 

choice towards passenger rail combined with new commercial and residential development and associated 

jobs near potential new stations in Springfield, Albany, Salem or Keizer, and Wilsonville or Tualatin under 

Alternative 2 could indirectly benefit the jobs/housing balance to a greater extent than Alternative 1. While 

not part of Alternative 2, a potential new station in Woodburn could also result in increased development 

activity and new jobs, as it would in Alternative 1.

Alternative 2 with Central Albany Option

Outside of the Albany area, the Alternative 2 with Central Albany Option would have similar impacts to 

social resources as those described for Alternative 2. Where the Central Albany Option would provide an 

additional mainline track connecting to the existing Albany Station to the west of the Alternative 2 

alignment, other impacts than those discussed for Alternative 2 could occur. Specifically, in addition to the 

Alternative 2 impacts discussed above, the Central Albany Option could adversely affect one place of 

worship, three parks, and one cemetery.

4.5.5.2 Economics

Location Quotient (LQ)

The LQ analysis was based on an area’s concentration and specialization of Knowledge-Based, Tourism, and 

Educational Services industries. With respect to this measure, Multnomah and Lane counties have the best 

performance, with a handful of these industries as “specialized” or “emerging” (see Table 4.5-5). Continued 

growth in these specialized industries is key to a strong economic base, and there could be an opportunity 

to expand the economic competitiveness of the local economy with the emerging industries through 

improvements to intercity passenger rail. 

Linn, Marion, and Washington counties do not perform as well, because few, if any, of the key industries 

have an LQ greater than 1 and/or the key industries are not growing. However, these underperforming 

counties also present an opportunity for intercity passenger rail service to enhance and induce new 

development.

Shift-Share Analysis

The criteria for evaluating the shift-share results are similar to those for the LQ analysis—that is, they focus 

on the growth and competitiveness of the key industries. These industries are the ones that are the most 

able to take advantage of passenger rail service and generate the most ridership. Shift share and location 

quotient are both forward-looking analyses that consider how those industries are growing. These analyses 

rely on county-level data, because the county is the smallest geography that is available for these purposes.
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4 - 5 4 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

Washington County has the highest shift-share performance: All of the key industries are growing because 

of local conditions. Most of the other counties have average shift-share performance, with approximately 

half of the growth/decline in employment because of national performance. The counties with most of 

their growth attributed to the overall employment change in the nation are Lane and Linn counties.

Socioeconomic Attributes

The presence of certain socioeconomic characteristics (including dense population, high educational 

attainment, and small households) also contributes to the likelihood of increasing economic 

competitiveness because of improved passenger rail service. This analysis investigated whether the 

counties already have a population base that has characteristics similar to those of people who are 

attracted to use passenger rail. The existing Oregon City and Portland station areas have such a population 

base with similar characteristics: many employees in Knowledge-Based industries (those that rely upon 

intellectual capabilities and not physical inputs/outputs), higher educational achievements, and smaller 

households.

Employment Attributes

An employment and industry analysis was conducted within the areas surrounding the existing and 

potential new passenger rail stations. The existing Albany and Portland stations possessed the most desired 

characteristics in this category, including the presence of all or most of the key industries, as well as 

Knowledge-Based-industries employees. New passenger rail service in Wilsonville and Tualatin is predicted 

to have the smallest economic development impact potential, because these potential new stations do not 

have many of the key industries. The potential Tualatin Station area has few industries overall, which 

severely affected the results. However, some redevelopment opportunities could be possible in these 

areas.

Land Use Attributes

Land uses surrounding the existing and potential new stations were assessed for their ability to support 

passenger rail service. Characteristics such as having certain types of existing development and zoning (such 

as mixed-use), and proximity to the CBD, and having a major draw to the area were the key attributes for 

this analysis. The existing Eugene, Salem, and Portland stations had the characteristics most in line with the 

successful land use attributes identified in the literature review for areas surrounding passenger rail 

stations. It is predicted that current and planned future development around these stations would further 

support passenger rail service.

Areas that would need additional development or land use policies to increase potential ridership include 

the stations in Clackamas County (the existing Oregon City Station (Alternative 1) and the proposed new 

Wilsonville Station (Alternative 2) in Clackamas County. To make these areas more supportive of passenger 

rail service, it would be necessary to provide connections to major destinations in the area and to grow 

successful key industries to attract more employees and employers.

Table 4.5-5 summarizes the findings of the qualitative economic assessment described above. In Table 4.5-5, 

circle symbols are used as follows:

○ Very low impact potential ◔ Low impact potential ◑ Average impact potential ◕ High impact potential

● Very high impact potential
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4 - 5 5

OCTOBER 2018

Table 4.5-5. Summary of Qualitative Assessment of Economic Development Impact Potential of the Oregon Passenger Rail Project 

Findings

Counties and Train Station Areas

Clackamas Lane Linn Marion Multnomah Washington 

Oregon 

City Wilsonville Eugene Springfield Albany

Albany

Amtrak 

Salem

Amtrak 

N.

Salem Keizer Portland Tualatin 

Location Quotient

Knowledge-Based ◑ ◑ ◑ ◑ ◕ ◑

Tourism ◑ ◑ ◑ ◔ ◕ ◑

Education ○ ○ ◑ ○ ● ○

Shift-Share

Knowledge-Based ◑ ◔ ○ ◑ ◔ ●

Tourism ◑ ◔ ◑ ◔ ◕ ●

Education ● ● ○ ● ◕ ●

Public Administration ○ ○ ◔ ○ ○ ●

Socioeconomic Attributes

Knowledge-Based 

Employees ◑ ● ◑ ◑ ◑ ◑ ◑ ◑ ◑ ● ●

Tourism-Based 

Employees ◑ ◑ ● ◑ ◑ ◑ ◑ ◑ ◑ ○ ○

Education-Base 

Employees ◑ ◔ ● ◑ ◑ ◕ ◕ ◑ ◑ ◑ ◑

Residents with Higher 

Education ◕ ● ◑ ◑ ◑ ◑ ◑ ○ ◑ ● ●

Lower-Income 

Households ● ◔ ○ ◑ ◑ ◑ ◕ ◕ ◔ ● ○
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4 - 5 6 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

Findings

Counties and Train Station Areas

Clackamas Lane Linn Marion Multnomah Washington 

Oregon 

City Wilsonville Eugene Springfield Albany

Albany

Amtrak 

Salem

Amtrak 

N.

Salem Keizer Portland Tualatin 

Smaller Household Size ● ◑ ◑ ◑ ◑ ◑ ◕ ◑ ◑ ● ◑

High Population ◑ ○ ◔ ◔ ● ● ◑ ● ◑ ○ ○

Employment

Knowledge-Based 

Companies ◔ ◔ ● ◑ ◔ ◑ ○ ◑ ◔ ● ◑

Tourism-Based 

Companies ◔ ○ ◑ ◑ ○ ◔ ◔ ● ● ◑ ○

Education-Based 

Companies ○ ○ ○ ◔ ○ ◑ ● ◑ ○ ◑ ○

Knowledge-Based 

Employees ◑ ○ ◕ ◑ ◑ ◕ ◑ ◔ ○ ◕ ●

Tourism-Based 

Employees ● ○ ◔ ◔ ● ◔ ○ ● ● ○ ○ 

Education-Based 

Employees ○ ○ ○ ◔ ○ ◑ ● ◔ ○ ◑ ○

Mixture of Large and 

Small Companies ○ ◑ ● ◑ ◔ ◔ ◕ ◔ ◔ ● ○

Land Use

Close to CBD ◔ ◔ ● ◑ ◕ ◕ ● ◑ ◔ ● ◕

Existing Desired 

Development & Zoning ◑ ◔ ● ◕ ◑ ◑ ◕ ◑ ◑ ● ◑

Major Draw to 

Area/University ○ ○ ◕ ◑ ○ ○ ● ◔ ◑ ● ○
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4 - 5 7

OCTOBER 2018

4.5.5.3 Construction Impacts

Alternative 1

Construction impacts would be temporary and could include increased noise, increased vibration, visual 

impacts, and dust. In addition, community resources could experience temporary impediments to facility 

access and/or temporary closures to driveways or roads. It is possible that existing roads near railroad 

construction areas could need to be temporarily closed, relocated or provided with detours. However, 

construction impacts associated with Alternative 1 would be less intensive and of shorter duration than 

Alternative 2 construction impacts, because Alternative 1 would include less new infrastructure and could 

be constructed incrementally.

Alternative 1 would likely result in a short-term stimulus to the local economy. The stimulus generated by 

construction expenditures would not be limited only to those jobs involved directly with the construction 

itself (direct economic impacts). Construction companies often purchase raw materials, rent equipment, 

and consume other goods and services from local businesses in order to complete the construction 

projects. These local businesses therefore also benefit from the investment, producing additional wages 

and employment (generally referred to as indirect economic impacts). A further stimulus to the economy 

would be derived from the additional consumption from those direct and indirect wages and jobs. 

Employees of the construction companies and supporting businesses would likely spend a portion of their 

wages in the local community (at grocery stores, restaurants, and movie theaters, for example). This further 

spending is referred to as induced economic impacts.

Alternative 2 and Alternative 2 with Central Albany Option

While construction impacts would also be temporary under Alternative 2 and Alternative 2 with Central 

Albany Option, these impacts would be greater than Alternative 1 due to a much larger construction area 

and negligible opportunities to construct the project incrementally. Increased noise, increased vibration, 

visual impacts, and dust could affect communities in proximity to construction activities. In addition, 

community resources could experience temporary impediments to facility access and/or temporary 

closures to driveways or roads. It could be necessary to temporarily close, relocate or provide detours for 

roads that intersect or abut construction areas.

Alternative 2 and Alternative 2 with Central Albany Option would include the construction of a mostly new 

passenger railway alignment, including grade-separated portions over roadways, which would have a 

greater impact on any communities close to this alignment than Alternative 1. The construction of gradeseparated structures over existing roadways would require temporary road closures and detours, and 

would have a greater intensity of impacts related to noise from any required pile driving, as well as visual 

impacts from equipment and any required construction staging area.

Alternative 2 would likely result in a short-term economic stimulus to the local economy, although it would 

require more new rail infrastructure, including stations, and would take a longer period of time to construct 

than Alternative 1. Therefore, Alternative 2 would create a larger short-term economic stimulus through its 

construction than Alternative 1.

4.5.6 Potential Mitigation

Mitigation strategies identified in the other sections would contribute to minimization and avoidance of 

impacts on social resources, including those strategies identified in Section 4.8.6, Noise and Vibration, and 

Section 4.16.6, Air Quality. During construction, temporary traffic control plans (including plans for transit 

stops, cyclists, and pedestrians) would be required to maintain needed access to destinations and provide 

necessary circulation within and between communities. Subsequent Tier 2 environmental reviews and 

documentation would provide additional details related to mitigation measures for minimizing or avoiding 

impacts. 
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4 - 5 8 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

No mitigation is expected to be required for potential economic effects. Tier 2 environmental studies would 

consider and implement project-specific mitigation strategies for economic resources if impacts are 

identified that require mitigation.

4.6 Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources

This section identifies study area properties protected by Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act of 1966 

(Section 4[f]) and Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (LWCFA) of 1965 (Section 6[f]), 

and discusses legal requirements, methods of analysis, study area, affected environment, potential 

environmental impacts, and potential mitigation strategies. 

This Tier 1 EIS does not provide the level of detail available that FRA would need to make final approvals on 

uses of protected Section 4(f) or Section 6(f) resources. Therefore, this section focuses on the potential use 

of these properties. Final decisions on specific location and design will be made at the project level, when 

more detailed information is available and specific properties can be evaluated.

4.6.1 Legal Requirements

In addition to NEPA and the CEQ’s NEPA implementing regulations, Federal and state laws, regulations, and 

orders related to Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) and applicable to this Tier 1 analysis include the following:

4.6.1.1 Federal

• Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act of 1966 (49 USC 303[c]), 23 USC 138. Section 4(f) refers to the original 

section in the USDOT Act of 1966 that sets the requirement for consideration of publicly owned parks

and recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites (whether publicly or privately 

owned) in transportation project development. It prohibits an operating administration within the 

U.S. Department of Transportation from approving a project that would use land from a Section 4(f) 

resource unless there is no prudent and feasible alternative to using that land and the project includes 

all possible planning to minimize harm or the operating administration finds the use would be de 

minimis.

• Section 6(f) of the LWCFA of 1965, 16 USC 460. Section 6(f) of the LWCFA of 1965 concerns projects 

that propose conversion of outdoor recreation property acquired or developed with LWCFA grant 

assistance. Section 6(f) prohibits the conversion of recreation property acquired or developed with 

these grants to a non-recreation purpose without the approval of the National Park Service. Section 6(f) 

directs the National Park Service to ensure that land conversions provide replacement lands of equal 

value, location, and usefulness as conditions of approval.

• Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), as amended, 54 USC 300101 et seq.

Section 106 of the NHPA requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings on 

historic properties, defined as any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object 

included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). This includes 

artifacts, records, and material remains related to such a property or resource. A historic site typically is 

considered a Section 4(f) resource if it is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A, B, or C. Section 106 is 

described in more detail in section 4.11, Cultural Resources. 

Section 11502 of the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) (Pub. L. 114-94, December 4, 

2015) amended the Section 4(f) legislation at 23 U.S.C. § 138(f) and 49 U.S.C. § 303(h) to exempt from 

Section 4(f) review the use of railroad and rail transit lines, or elements thereof, that are in use or that were 

historically used for the transportation of goods and passengers. The exemption applies regardless of 

whether the railroad or rail transit line, or element thereof, is listed on or eligible for listing on the NRHP. 

The exemption has two exceptions:

• The exemption does not apply to rail stations or transit stations; and
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4 - 5 9

OCTOBER 2018

• The exemption does not apply to bridges or tunnels located on a rail line that has been abandoned 

under the process described in 49 U.S.C. § 10903, or a transit line that is not in use.

4.6.2 Methods

4.6.2.1 Affected Environment Methods

ODOT consulted GIS data and other digital mapping sources to assist in the preliminary identification of 

parks, recreation lands, and wildlife/waterfowl refuges within or adjacent to the OPR Project study area. 

No wildlife or waterfowl refuges were identified. The nearest such refuge is Ankeny National Wildlife 

Refuge, which is approximately 0.75 mile west of the proposed rail alignment centerline for Alternative 2. 

Therefore, no further discussion of potential Section 4(f) impacts to wildlife and waterfowl refuges is 

warranted.

ODOT conducted additional review of the identified parks and recreation lands using Google EarthTM, 

applicable state and local park maps, and property descriptions to determine if they are publicly owned, 

open to the public, and used for recreation. To determine if any of the recreation lands in the study area 

have received LWCF assistance and, and are therefore protected under Section 6(f), ODOT reviewed the 

National Park Service LWCF website, which contains a listing of grants, by county.

Architectural and archaeological historians consulted GIS layers maintained by the State Historic 

Preservation Officer (SHPO) to identify NRHP-listed and NRHP-eligible properties (see section 4.11, Cultural 

Resources), because these properties are subject to the requirements of Section 4(f).

4.6.2.2 Impact Assessment Methods

There are three types of Section 4(f) uses. First, a permanent incorporation occurs when a proposed action 

permanently incorporates a Section 4(f) property into the transportation facility (i.e., a “permanent use”). 

Second, a constructive use occurs when a proposed action could result in proximity impacts or indirect 

impacts so severe that the protected activities, features, or attributes that qualify a property for protection 

under Section 4(f) are substantially impaired. Third, a temporary use occurs when a proposed action would 

not result in a permanent incorporation of Section 4(f) property but would result in a temporary occupancy 

of that property (“temporary use”) that is adverse in terms of the statute’s preservationist purpose. 

Under Section 4(f), in some cases even where there is a permanent incorporation the operating 

administration may determine that the impacts to the property are negligible, or de minimis. Use of a 

Section 4(f) property may be determined to be de minimis if it does not adversely affect the activities, 

features and attributes that qualify the resource for protection under Section 4(f). For properties protected 

under Section 106, an operating administration may only make a de minimis impact finding if it finds the 

project would result in “no adverse effect” to the property, and it has received concurrence from the 

official with jurisdiction (i.e., the State Historic Preservation Officer or Tribal Historic Preservation Officer).19

For parks, recreation areas or wildlife refuges, an operating administration must receive the concurrence 

from the official with jurisdiction (agency who owns or manages the property) on its de minimis impact 

determination after seeking public comments.

Given the early level of conceptual engineering and the program-level environmental analysis conducted 

for this Tier 1 EIS, a final determination of potential permanent, constructive, or temporary Section 4(f) 

“use” is not possible. Therefore, this analysis discusses relative potential impacts to Section 4(f) resources. 

Formal Section 4(f) analyses and/or approvals, as appropriate, will be completed during subsequent Tier 2 

environmental studies, as discussed below. 

 

19 Section 4(f) does not apply to NRHP-listed or NRHP-eligible archaeological sites when the resource is important chiefly because of what can be 

learned by data recovery and has minimal value for preservation in place.
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4 - 6 0 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

The calculation of parkland in the study area is the result of a two-dimensional GIS analysis that calculated 

the total amount of Section 4(f) park property intersected by the proposed ROW footprint of the respective 

build alternatives. Therefore, calculations may overstate the amount of potentially affected parkland, 

especially where improvements would be elevated.

For Section 6(f)-protected parks and recreational properties that could be directly impacted by the OPR 

Project, the discussion below includes an assessment of the activities, features, and attributes of each 

Section 6(f) resource.

For Section 4(f) cultural resources that could be directly impacted by the OPR Project, the discussion below 

addresses whether NRHP-listed or NRHP-eligible historic properties could be adversely affected under 

Section 106 of the NHPA (see section 4.11, Cultural Resources). Within this Tier 1 analysis, potential 

Section 106 adverse effects are considered to be potential impacts to Section 4(f) cultural resources.

4.6.2.3 Tier 2 Analysis

The supporting analyses for this Tier 1 Draft EIS were based on a conceptual level of engineering, and 

therefore, any specific Section 4(f) “use” and/or Section 6(f) “conversion” cannot be determined at this 

time. Additional confirmation and/or data gathering would be necessary during the subsequent tier of 

environmental analysis, after coordinating with the official or officials with jurisdiction over Section 4(f) 

resources. Future Tier 2 environmental analyses would include specific location and design parameters, 

along with the use of location- and project-specific GIS mapping that could be used to document and 

further address potential Section 4(f) use and minimization of harm.

If a build alternative has the potential to result in the conversion of Section 6(f)-protected lands, then 

coordination efforts would be initiated, and reasonable and feasible options for avoiding or minimizing 

conversion of Section 6(f) property would be further evaluated during Tier 2 environmental analyses. 

If avoidance is not feasible, minimization of the conversion footprint would be a primary goal.

In addition, as the OPR Project moves forward and time passes, field verification in subsequent Tier 2 

environmental analyses would be necessary to ensure the accuracy of historic sites identified in this 

analysis and to identify any potentially affected historic sites not addressed in this Tier 1 EIS.

4.6.3 Study Area

The study area for parks and recreation resources, both Section 4(f) and Section 6(f), is the area within 

100 feet from the track centerline and potential new station locations for the entire route of both build 

alternatives. The impact analysis focuses on parks and recreation resources within 100 feet from the track 

centerline of proposed new track improvements.

The study area for Section 4(f) cultural resources is that area within 100 feet from the track centerline and 

within a 20-acre area of potential new station locations for the entire route of both build alternatives; the

impact analysis focuses on new track improvements. Appendix D, Figure D-2 shows locations of Section 4(f) 

parks and historic resources.
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4 - 6 1

OCTOBER 2018

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 No

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
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4 - 6 2 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

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 No

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 No

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.
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4 - 6 3

OCTOBER 2018

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
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4 - 6 4 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

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 six 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 expect 
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4 - 6 5

OCTOBER 2018

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). 
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4 - 6 6 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

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

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 
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4 - 6 7

OCTOBER 2018

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

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

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.

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 
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4 - 6 8 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

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

Alternative 2 would result in potential impacts to 18 Section 4(f) parks/recreation 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.
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4 - 6 9

OCTOBER 2018

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. 

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.
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4 - 7 0 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

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.

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.
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4 - 7 1

OCTOBER 2018

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 

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.
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4 - 7 2 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

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. 

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 
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4 - 7 3

OCTOBER 2018

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. 

4.7 Visual Resources

This section discusses the legal requirements, methods of analysis, affected environment, potential 

environmental consequences, visual resources study area, and potential mitigation strategies related to 

potential visual impacts caused by the OPR Project.

4.7.1 Legal Requirements

In addition to NEPA and the CEQ’s NEPA implementing regulations, Federal and state requirements related 

to the assessment of visual resource impacts during a Tier 1 NEPA analysis include the following:

Federal

• FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts. Section 14.(n)(12) of FRA’s environmental 

procedures require an EIS to include consideration of potential environmental impacts on the aesthetic 

environment and scenic resources. Specifically, the environmental procedures require an EIS to identify 

any significant changes likely to occur in the natural landscape and in the developed environment. The 

procedures also require an EIS to discuss the consideration given to design quality, art, and architecture 

in project planning and development.
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4 - 7 4 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

State

• Oregon Statewide Planning Goals. The Oregon Statewide Planning Goals implement state policy 

regarding planning, particularly land use and transportation planning. Local comprehensive plans carry 

out the 19 Statewide Planning Goals, and plans must be consistent with the goals. For the purposes of 

this Tier 1 analysis, the following Statewide Planning Goal related to visual resources is relevant: 

– Goal 5, Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces. The intent of Goal 5 is to 

protect natural resources. This state goal directs local governments to adopt programs “To protect 

natural resources and conserve scenic and historic areas and open spaces.” 

4.7.2 Methods

Because of the extent and variety of environments in the study area, this Tier 1-level assessment does not 

characterize the visual quality of all views of and from proposed OPR Project improvements. The 

assessment instead focuses on OPR Project elements most likely to have visual impacts, as well as key 

scenic resources, parks, and publicly accessible open spaces in the study area. The assessment considers 

potential visual impacts for multiple viewer groups, including adjacent land users (that is, views of the 

project) and rail passengers (views from the train). The analysis uses readily available GIS datasets and 

existing aerial imagery and does not include field visits, specific viewpoint evaluations, or computer-based 

viewshed modeling.

ODOT performed a broad review in order to identify key scenic resources in the study area, particularly 

those adjacent to the build alternative alignments. Key scenic resources are those designated and managed 

for high visual quality (such as Scenic Byways, parks, open spaces, and natural areas). Although not always 

officially designated as scenic resources, parks and publicly accessible open spaces, including bike and 

pedestrian facilities, are commonly valued within a community for offering attractive or unique scenery. 

Therefore, the review of scenic resources identified parks and open spaces where they are located adjacent 

to a build alternative alignment route and thus, where they could have views of the proposed OPR Project 

improvements.

4.7.2.1 Tier 2 Analysis

Future Tier 2 environmental studies could include, as appropriate, GIS line-of-sight analyses to determine 

the physical extent and anticipated visual character of proposed improvements, as well as the geographic 

extent and numbers of viewers who would have views of those elements. 

For all listed Scenic Byways, parks, and open spaces, further investigation could be required in subsequent 

Tier 2 analyses to establish the visual context and to determine whether visual changes would cause 

adverse effects.

4.7.3 Study Area

The track alignment study area for visual resources extends 100 feet from the centerline of existing track 

where no improvements would occur and 100 feet from centerline of proposed new track in areas it would 

be added, for a total width of 200 feet, for each of the build alternatives. However, because elements of the 

build alternatives would be visible from locations well outside of this primary study area, specific area 

discussions are included in order to begin identifying and assessing potential effects on scenic resources 

and to describe points in the landscape from which the build alternatives could potentially be visible. 

Examples of these areas include where the build alternatives would intersect identified scenic resources or 

in areas surrounding large-scale project elements (such as elevated viaducts, retained-earth fill, or new 

bridges). Subsequent Tier 2 NEPA analyses could use GIS modeling to determine an individual project’s 

“viewshed,” which could extend beyond the study area used in this Tier 1 analysis.
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4 - 7 5

OCTOBER 2018

For proposed new stations, the study area consists of the area immediately surrounding the potential 

station location (i.e., approximately 100 feet in any direction from the potential location, with consideration 

of wider viewsheds depending on topography) to analyze land uses and thus viewer types (i.e., residential, 

commercial, rural) that could be neighboring the stations.

4.7.4 Affected Environment

The alternative alignments would pass through both developed and rural lands, closely following existing 

railroad tracks (for Alternative 1) or a combination of railroad tracks and interstate freeway (for 

Alternative 2).

Key scenic resources that could intersect (via at-grade crossings or visually, via line-of-sight) with the 

alternative alignments include the following: 

• Willamette Valley Scenic Bikeway. The Willamette Valley Scenic Bikeway (Bikeway) begins at Armitage 

County Park, which is located on the south bank of the McKenzie River and west of I-5 near Coburg. 

The Bikeway then follows rural back roads northward through the Willamette Valley for 104 miles 

before finishing at Champoeg State Park (south of Portland). (Alternatives 1 and 2)

• Silver Falls Tour Route (Scenic Byway). The Silver Falls Tour Route is a 55-mile drive that begins at 

Woodburn and I-5 and ends west of Turner and I-5. The route travels along OR 214, and through 

farmland and Silver Falls State Park. (Alternatives 1 and 2)

• Over the Rivers and Through the Woods Scenic Byway (Oregon Scenic Byway). The Over the Rivers 

and Through the Woods Scenic Byway route begins at I-5, where it intersects OR 228, about 20 miles 

north of Eugene. The byway then follows OR 228 east toward Brownsville before continuing along 

U.S. Highway 20 (US 20) toward Sweet Home. With access to rivers, reservoirs, parks, and 

campgrounds, many trails and snow-play areas, this byway offers a wide range of recreational activities 

(ODOT, 2016f). (Alternative 2)

• Willamette Falls. Willamette Falls is a large, horseshoe-shaped waterfall along the Willamette River 

between Oregon City and West Linn. The falls are visible from several viewpoints, including two 

improved viewpoints on I-205, as well as from several parks and open spaces in the surrounding area. 

(Alternatives 1 and 2)

Appendix D, Figure D-2 illustrates the location of identified parks and open spaces adjacent to the 

Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 alignments. 

4.7.5 Environmental Consequences

This subsection identifies the potential direct, indirect, and construction-related impacts to visual resources 

under the No Action Alternative and the build alternatives.

4.7.5.1 Direct and Indirect Impacts

No Action Alternative

The No Action Alternative represents the baseline condition against which the build alternatives are 

measured. The No Action Alternative would not include changes to current track configurations to 

accommodate passenger rail service. Passenger rail service and operations would continue at current levels 

(three round trips per day between Eugene and Portland). Activities related to railroad maintenance would 

continue to occur mostly within existing ROW. Therefore, views along the UPRR mainline, looking both 

from and toward the railroad, would remain essentially the same as they currently exist, and the scenic 

quality of identified visual resources would be unaffected. The continuation of existing passenger rail 

service would not result in adverse visual impacts under the No Action Alternative.
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4 - 7 6 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

However, ODOT and FRA anticipate a 40 to 50 percent increase in freight demand between 2010 and 2035

under the No Action Alternative (ODOT, 2014f). This increase in freight demand could increase freight 

traffic and, in cases where the railroad is visible but is not a prominent feature until a train passes by, 

increase foreground views of passing freight trains. This change could represent a visual impact to sensitive 

receptors, particularly those viewing from their residences. Other people with short, infrequent views of 

the railroad might not notice the increased number of freight trains. In addition, changes to current track 

configurations to accommodate freight rail service may occur due to demand.

Alternative 1

Potential Impacts for Viewer Groups

Alternative 1 would include construction of intermittent new mainline track and sidings, as well as 

improvements to at-grade crossings; these improvements would be constructed immediately adjacent to 

existing UPRR mainline track and within or adjacent to the existing railroad ROW. Therefore, new 

infrastructure under Alternative 1 would essentially expand the current visual condition. Furthermore, in 

the developed parts of the study area, additional track would not be highly visible because vegetation, 

buildings, or, less frequently, slopes screen the ROW from view in many locations. Views from the tracks 

(train passenger views) would not change noticeably with the proposed improvements.

Additional tracks and/or expanded ROW could require clearing of vegetation or property that would change 

views to and from the tracks. Where clearing of vegetation to expand the rail ROW would expose views of 

the railroad to adjoining residential areas, the changes in views could affect sensitive receptors, providing 

new, close-up views of passing trains. However, these impacts would be temporary, because new 

vegetation would eventually grow to screen or block views of the railroad from adjacent properties.

Alternative 1 would result in eight more passenger trains per day (four round trips per day) traveling on the 

alignment. When considered along with the anticipated increase in freight traffic discussed above, 

Alternative 1 could create a noticeable visual change (i.e., more frequent views of trains) for viewers from 

adjacent properties.

Alternative 1 envisions a potential new rail station in Woodburn near where the UPRR track intersects 

OR 214/Newberg Highway. The analysis conducted for this EIS did not identify any specifically scenic 

resources within the station study area. The study area includes vacant land, residential development, and 

Woodburn High School and St. Luke’s Cemetery. A station would not be visually out of character for the 

area and could result in a visual improvement, potentially providing an architectural anchor in this 

transitioning neighborhood.

Potential Impacts to Key Scenic Resources

Of the key scenic resources identified in subsection 4.8.4, Affected Environment, the Alternative 1 

alignment intersects (via at-grade crossings) the Willamette Valley Scenic Bikeway and the Silver Falls Tour 

Route. The Alternative 1 alignment intersects the Willamette Valley Scenic Bikeway at three locations and 

runs parallel to it briefly near the rural community of Jefferson. Because railroad crossings and track already 

exist at these locations, no adverse visual impacts on the Bikeway are expected. For the same reason, ODOT 

does not anticipate adverse visual impacts to occur where Alternative 1 would intersect the Silver Falls Tour 

Route at two locations.

Potential Impacts to Parks and Open Spaces

Vegetation clearing of the existing ROW along the Alternative 1 for the track improvements could increase 

the visibility of trains from various parks and open spaces, as shown in Appendix D, Figure D-2. ODOT and 

FRA anticipate that visual impacts to these parks and open spaces would be minor, because these parks and 

open spaces are next to an active freight mainline (UPPR), which existed prior to the resource 

establishments. All of these resources are currently subject to visual intrusion from freight and passenger 

rail activity. Additional analysis of potential visual impacts will be conducted during Tier 2.
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4 - 7 7

OCTOBER 2018

Alternative 2 

Potential Impacts for Viewer Groups

Alternative 2 would include construction of 81 miles of new mainline track, located predominantly along 

the east side of I-5 and the PNWR line, as well as 39 miles of rail sidings placed every 10 to 12 miles. 

Instead of exclusively following the existing UPRR railroad line (as under Alternative 1), the Alternative 2 

alignment would follow the I-5 freeway between Eugene and Salem, the PNWR line between Salem and 

Wilsonville, and I- 5/I-205 between Wilsonville and Portland. The addition of a new rail alignment would 

introduce a new visual element along the I-5 and I-205 freeways.

In comparison to Alternative 1, Alternative 2 would include significantly more elevated structures, including 

viaducts, bridges, and retained earth walls, throughout its alignment. Depending on the height, lateral 

extent, design aesthetic, and proximity to specific neighboring properties, elevated structures could result 

in adverse visual impacts as follows:

• Elevated Structures. Alternative 2 would introduce over 20 miles of elevated structures that would pass 

above freeway interchanges and overpasses. Because of the heights that would be required, these 

elevated structures could be visible from significant distances beyond the railroad ROW and could be 

visually dominating when viewed from the adjacent landscape. Particularly, such impacts could occur 

where the elevated structures would be visible from neighboring residential development; from visually 

sensitive areas such as parks, where the structures might block existing highly scenic views; or where 

the structures would require property changes or impacts (such as right-of-way acquisition).

• Bridges. Several new bridges associated with Alternative 2 would be visually prominent and could 

result in impacts. Specifically, the proposed rail bridge over the Willamette River adjacent to the I-205 

Abernethy Bridge would be prominently visible to drivers and pedestrians on McLoughlin Boulevard in 

Oregon City, and especially for viewers from a recently completed pedestrian promenade and overlook 

that faces toward the Abernethy Bridge and provides views of the river. The majority of viewers would 

view the bridge from below, which could make it more visually dominant. West Bridge Park (West Linn) 

and Jon Storm Park (Oregon City) are located on the riverfront, and would also have views of the new 

bridge adjacent to the I-205 Abernethy Bridge. Drivers, bicyclists and pedestrians on the Oregon City 

Arch Bridge, which carries Oregon Highway 43 (OR 43) over the Willamette River, would also have 

views of the bridge, though it would be seen in the middle ground and would not dominate the view. 

In addition, a new bridge structure would cross the Willamette River at Alton Baker Park-Eastgate 

Woodlands, along the park’s western boundary and adjacent to the I-5 Whilamut Passage Bridge. The 

new rail bridge would be most prominently visible from its east side to west-facing viewers, including 

river recreationists, park trail users, and cyclists and pedestrians on a bike path north of Franklin 

Boulevard. Currently, these users have good views of the I-5 bridge’s double-arch span, so a new rail 

bridge here would effectively obscure those views.

• Retained Earth Structures. Alternative 2 could require retained-earth wall approach structures. These 

walls would introduce new elevated visual features potentially visible from surrounding residential 

areas or parks.

Taken as a whole, the extent of elevated structures under Alternative 2 has the potential to result in 

adverse visual effects.

While the potential for adverse effects exists for viewers looking toward Alternative 2 improvements, it is 

likely that the frequently elevated position of the Alternative 2 alignment could provide rail passengers with 

highly vivid and scenic views of the Willamette Valley landscape in general, as well as of specific landmarks. 

These vivid and scenic views for rail passengers could be available equally in developed areas and in rural 

landscapes. For example, river crossings over the Willamette, McKenzie, and Santiam Rivers would be 

attractive, as could potential views of Cascade Mountain peaks to the east.
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4 - 7 8 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

Alternative 2 would involve the construction of four new stations; the study area includes seven potential 

locations for the new stations.20 The analysis conducted for this Tier 1 EIS did not identify any specifically 

scenic resources within the station study areas for Alternative 2. Direct impacts to visual character would 

be dependent on specific siting and design of any future stations selected for development, as well as 

surrounding viewers. Potential impacts to the seven potential station locations include the following 

considerations:

• Springfield Station Location. The Springfield station location would be sited in an industrial/commercial 

setting with a fair amount of underdeveloped or vacant land within the study area. A station would not 

be visually out of character for the area and could result in a visual improvement.

• Albany Station Location. The Albany station location would be built near industrial land uses and I-5. 

ODOT anticipates minimal visual impacts associated with development of a station in this location.

• Salem Station Location. ODOT anticipates minimal visual impacts associated with development of this

station adjacent to I-5, because development within the study area consists of large-scale retail uses 

such as the regional shopping center (Lancaster Mall). Given the amount of surface parking lots in the 

study area, a station could result in a visual improvement. 

• Keizer Station Location. The potential Keizer station location is adjacent to a large-scale, regional 

shopping center (Keizer Station). Therefore, ODOT anticipates minimal visual impacts associated with 

development of a station in this location. 

• Woodburn Station Location. This potential Alternative 2 station would be located outside of city limits 

to the west, along the existing PNWR line. The area is rural agricultural, and the station would introduce 

a change in the appearance of the area. No residences are located in the immediate vicinity of the

potential station. If constructed, the station would require a new roadway to connect it to the 

developed areas of Woodburn. Because the station would represent a new type of development in the 

surrounding area, visual impacts could occur. Future Tier 2 environmental studies would be required to 

determine whether adverse effects would occur.

• Wilsonville Station Location. Most of the land within the Wilsonville station study area is currently 

dedicated to public transportation and commuter options accommodating TriMet’s WES and 

Wilsonville’s South Metro Area Regional Transit. The study area also includes industrial and commercial 

uses. Therefore, a new station would likely be visually consistent with the land uses already in the study 

area, and ODOT anticipates minimal visual impacts associated with development of a station in this 

location.

• Tualatin Station Location. The potential Tualatin station location would be located in the I-5/I-205 

interchange median; however, parking areas would likely need to be located southeast of the 

interchange on agricultural land. In addition, some views from residential areas on the west side of I-5 

could be affected. Future Tier 2 environmental studies analyzing station site layout and design details 

would be required to determine whether adverse effects would occur in association with residential 

and agricultural views. 

Potential Impacts to Key Scenic Resources

Of the key scenic resources identified in subsection 4.8.4, Affected Environment, the Alternative 2 

alignment has the potential to affect the Willamette Valley Scenic Bikeway, the Over the Rivers and 

Through the Woods Scenic Byway, and views of Willamette Falls. Visual impacts to the Willamette Valley 

Scenic Bikeway would be possible at specific locations where elevated crossings would pass over the bike 

route, introducing a new, and potentially dominating, visual element that could obstruct open views of the 

surrounding landscape. Specifically, the Alternative 2 alignment would pass over the Bikeway in four 

 

20 See Chapter 3 for details. Potential new stations include: (1) Springfield; (2) Albany; (3) Salem or Keizer; and (4) Wilsonville or Tualatin.
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4 - 7 9

OCTOBER 2018

locations (at Diamond Hill Drive, Linn-West Drive, Grand Prairie Road, and Talbot Road). It is reasonable to 

predict that the structures would be visually dominant to bicyclists, because they would be located above 

and crossing over the bicycle route. They would interrupt open views of the landscape currently available 

from atop the freeway overpasses, and could result in adverse effects at these specific locations. The 

Alternative 2 alignment would also be visible to drivers along the Over the Rivers and Through the 

Woods Scenic Byway (at its western terminus at OR 228) and the terminus of the Silver Falls Tour Route 

(west of Turner at Delaney Road and I-5). However, each of these locations is at a freeway connection, and 

drivers would have only very brief views of the rail alignment as they began or ended their journeys. 

Therefore, any visual impacts would be minor, and ODOT does not anticipate adverse effects to the scenic 

qualities of this the Over the Rivers and Through the Woods Scenic Byway or the Silver Falls Tour Route. 

The proposed new railroad bridge over the Willamette River between West Linn and Oregon City could 

affect views of Willamette Falls from surrounding parks and open spaces, depending on the specific 

viewpoint. Detailed analysis will be conducted in Tier 2.

Potential Impacts to Parks and Open Spaces

In addition to the scenic resources, the improvements associated with Alternative 2 (primarily the elevated 

structures discussed above) could impact views from the adjacent parks and open spaces identified in 

subsection 4.8.4, Affected Environment. In some cases, Alternative 2 would include new structures 

immediately adjacent to existing freeway or rail bridges that are already visible from the park or open 

space. These structures would represent an addition to an existing visual element, rather than the 

introduction of a new one. In other areas, the parks are predominantly wooded and somewhat sloping, or 

vegetation and/or slopes would limit opportunities to view the new railroad from within the park. 

Therefore, at most parks/open spaces, Alternative 2 would have minor visual impacts. Detailed analysis will

be conducted in Tier 2.

Alternative 2 with Central Albany Option

Under Alternative 2 with Central Albany Option, south of Albany an elevated structure would carry 

northbound passenger trains over I-5, from east to west, returning to grade at a location parallel to an 

existing (AERC) spur line. Another elevated structure near Millersburg would cross I-5 from west to east, 

returning to the Alternative 2 alignment on the east side of I-5. The elevated crossings could be visible from 

up to two miles away and would introduce a significant new visual element into the present landscape. 

Residents and drivers along I-5, among others, would have close views of the structures. Cyclists along the 

Willamette Valley Scenic Bikeway would also have views of the structures from various points in southern 

Albany. The Central Albany Option alignment would parallel the existing UPRR mainline adjacent to 

industrial and residential areas through the city of Albany. Vegetation and fencing could screen views of the 

track from adjacent property. Future Tier 2 environmental studies would further assess the scenic context 

and potential visual impacts of the Central Albany Option.

4.7.5.2 Construction Impacts

Alternative 1

Construction-related visual impacts of Alternative 1 could involve traffic congestion, views of heavy 

equipment and material storage, dust, and activities related to the clearing of vegetation or potential 

property demolition required for the expansion of rail ROW. These impacts would be most noticeable 

where the alignment is tightly constrained by adjoining development in urban settings and at roadway 

crossings (both at-grade crossings and undercrossings). Impacts would be limited in duration; that is, any 

potential visual impacts would occur only during those times when construction was active, and only last 

until construction was completed.
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4 - 8 0 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

Alternative 2

The types of visual impacts from Alternative 2 construction would include those mentioned above for 

Alternative 1. However, the construction-related visual impacts under Alternative 2 would be more visible 

and of longer duration than those under Alternative 1, given the extents of proposed earthwork, retaining 

structures, elevated viaducts, and bridges. Compared to Alternative 1, the visual impacts from Alternative 2 

construction activities would occur over a greater area and would require significant lengths of time, larger 

and more numerous staging areas, and more crews and equipment.

Alternative 2 with Central Albany Option

Construction-related visual impacts under the Alternative 2 with Central Albany Option would be similar to 

those described for Alternatives 1 and 2. Areas that would be more likely to experience visual impacts

during construction would include those near the elevated crossings. 

4.7.6 Potential Mitigation

Tier 2 environmental studies for either build alternative would consider and implement project-specific 

mitigation strategies for visual impacts, as appropriate. Future project-level mitigation measures could

include, but would not be limited to, the following:

• Design the most visually prominent elements (such as station buildings or elevated structures) to 

improve the aesthetic environment; 

• Employ context-sensitive design, taking into consideration regional, local, and site-specific cues (such as 

color, texture, form, and scale), in the designed appearance of bridge abutments, retaining walls, 

bridges, viaducts, and other structures; 

• Provide appropriate vegetated buffers, where space allows, to screen the tracks and trains from view 

by adjacent developments.

4.8 Noise and Vibration

In addition to NEPA and the CEQ’s NEPA implementing regulations, this section discusses the legal 

framework, methods of analysis, noise and vibration study areas, affected environment, potential 

environmental consequences and mitigation strategies related to noise and vibration for each of the OPR 

Project alternatives.

4.8.1 Legal Requirements

Federal and state laws, regulations and orders related to noise and vibration, and applicable to this Tier 1 

analysis include the following:

4.8.1.1 Federal

• FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts. Section 14(n)(3) of FRA’s environmental 

procedures requires an EIS to consider noise and vibration by assessing alternatives with respect to 

applicable Federal, state, and local noise standards. 

• 40 CFR Part 201 and 49 CFR Part 210. These two complementary rules govern noise emissions from 

railroad line and yard operations: 40 CFR Part 201 – Noise Emission Standards for Transportation 

Equipment and Interstate Rail Carriers, and 49 CFR Part 210 – Railroad Noise Emission Compliance 

Regulations (FRA, 2009). The EPA standards in 40 CFR Part 201 set forth operational noise standards 

and procedures for noise measurements. The FRA’s enforcement provisions contained in 49 CFR 

Part 210 include measurement criteria and operational noise standards.
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4 - 8 1

OCTOBER 2018

• 49 CFR Parts 222 and 229. Noise from train horns and other audible warning devices are regulated by 

49 CFR Part 229 – Railroad Locomotive Safety Standards (specifically, 49 CFR Part 229.129), and 49 CFR 

Part 222 – Use of Locomotive Horns at Public Highway-rail Grade Crossings. These rules set both 

minimum and maximum sound levels for locomotive and wayside horns;

21 describe measurement 

instruments and test site requirements; and specify meteorological criteria, background noise criteria, 

sound-level measurement procedures, and recordkeeping procedures. Part 222 also provides standards 

for the creation and maintenance of quiet zones where the sounding of locomotive horns is not 

required.

4.8.2 Methods

Both FRA and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) have issued manuals setting forth methods and 

procedures for determining potential noise and vibration impacts resulting from transit and passenger rail 

projects, and for determining potential mitigation of impacts. The noise analysis for this Tier 1 EIS is based 

on the methods and procedures in those manuals: FRA’s High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and 

Vibration Impact Assessment (2012) and FTA’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (2006), 

as described below.

4.8.2.1 Study Area Methods

For projects where technology or alignments have not been selected, the FRA and FTA manuals call for a 

preliminary screening of the project study area to identify noise- and vibration-sensitive land uses near a 

project and whether there is likely to be an impact. The preliminary screening also serves to determine the 

noise and vibration study areas for further analysis (FTA, 2006). 

Both the FTA manual and the FRA manual prescribe a screening procedure that identifies and allows for the 

analysis to focus further on locations where impacts are likely. The screening procedures are based on very 

general assumptions about noise/impact criteria, the type of project, and noise-sensitive land uses; 

therefore, they can be applied in the early phases of a project before specific project elements have been 

defined (FRA, 2012). The screening procedures also include screening distances that delineate a project's 

noise study area (see subsection 4.9.3, Study Area). The study areas defined by the screening distances are 

meant to be sufficiently large to encompass all potentially impacted locations and are determined using 

relatively high-capacity scenarios for a given project type (FTA, 2006).

4.8.2.2 Noise and Vibration Analysis Methods

For the noise analysis, ODOT reviewed the following data sources to locate and inventory potentially noiseand vibration-sensitive land uses in the study area: land-use maps prepared by regional or local planning 

agencies; GIS databases available from state, county or local planning departments; and aerial photographs 

from Google EarthTM and other Internet-based mapping websites. The review did not include field 

investigation to confirm land uses or to identify new land uses not discovered from existing data sources.

The FRA manual bases noise impact criteria for passenger rail projects on research of community reactions 

to noise and on changes in noise levels using a sliding scale. The noise criteria and descriptors for human 

annoyance depend on land use, characterized by three categories. The FRA criteria also specify and define 

two levels of impact—severe and moderate—depending on the future noise exposure as determined by 

combining the existing noise exposure and the additional noise exposure a railroad project would generate. 

Given the early level of conceptual engineering and the high-level environmental analysis conducted for 

this Tier 1 EIS, this noise analysis does not define a level of impact for future noise exposure, nor does it 

consider the proximity of other transportation noise sources (such as freeways).

 

21 Wayside horn means a stationary horn located at a highway rail grade crossing, designed to provide, upon the approach of a locomotive or train, 

audible warning to oncoming motorists of the approach of a train (49 CFR 222.9).
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4 - 8 2 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

This analysis instead quantifies the numbers and general locations of noise-sensitive land uses, based on 

the FRA noise impact criteria land use categories. The analysis then presents general findings for each 

alterative. The potentially noise-sensitive land use categories include: 

• Category 1 - Lands set aside for serenity and quiet. Land uses include amphitheaters, concert pavilions, 

concert halls, and national historic landmarks with significant outdoor use.

• Category 2 - Residential areas. The analysis uses the total area (in acres) of residential-zoned land 

within the noise study area as a proxy for residences.

• Category 3 - Institutional land uses. Land uses include parks/open spaces (including natural areas), 

schools, libraries, places of worship, cemeteries, monuments, museums, hospitals, and community 

centers.

FRA and FTA ground borne vibration impact criteria are based on existing land uses and planned train 

frequencies. The criteria are applied primarily to residential land uses (including hotels and other places 

where people sleep) and institutional land uses. Rather than applying specific impact criteria, this Tier 1 

analysis compares the relative sizes of the areas of potential vibration impact among the alternatives.

4.8.2.3 Tier 2 Analysis

Future Tier 2 environmental studies would determine and quantify the potential for noise and vibration 

impacts at the project level. This would include the collection of background noise-level data and 

consideration of specific FTA and FRA noise and vibration impact criteria. Tier 2 environmental analyses 

would also reassess the noise study area to differentiate between rural and urban areas, proximity to other 

transportation noise sources (such as highways), and areas with buildings or other barriers between the 

noise source and the sensitive land use.

4.8.3 Study Area

The study area for noise extends 500 feet from the centerline of existing rail alignments and 600 feet from 

the centerline of new rail alignments. As the No Action Alternative and Alternative 1 parallel the existing 

passenger rail alignment, the noise study area is 500 feet for the entire length of those alternatives.

Alternative 2 would include:

• New track parallel to the existing UPRR railroad alignment between new Springfield station and I-5 

• New railroad alignment east of I-5 between Springfield and Keizer; 

• New track parallel to the existing PNWR railroad alignment between Keizer and Wilsonville; 

• A new railroad alignment along I-5 and I-205 between Wilsonville and Oregon City; and

• New track parallel to the existing UPRR railroad alignment between Oregon City and Portland.

Therefore, the noise study area for Alternative 2 is either 500 feet or 600 feet, depending on the location 

along the alignment. The study area for potential vibration impacts is 100 feet from rail alignment 

centerlines for both build alternatives.

4.8.4 Affected Environment

4.8.4.1 Noise

Generally, noise is defined as sound that is loud or unpleasant or that causes disturbance. Railroad noise 

varies with operating factors and conditions. Operating factors include the numbers of trains, locomotive 

technology, lengths of trains, types of train cars, and operating speeds. Conditions include the curvature of 

the track, track and vehicle maintenance, and the terrain in which the track is set. In addition, at-grade 

crossings require certain whistles and warning bells (except in designated Quiet Zones). The significance of 
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4 - 8 3

OCTOBER 2018

the noise depends not only on conditions, but also on the particular land uses and activities that occur 

along the track alignment and the sensitivity of those affected by the noise. The Methods subsection above 

discusses categories of land use considered to be potentially noise-sensitive, including lands set aside for 

serenity and quiet (Category 1), residential areas (Category 2), and institutional land uses (Category 3). 

There are no Category 1 land uses located within the noise study areas for any of the alternatives. 

Therefore, this analysis focuses on residential areas and institutional land uses. Table 4.8-1 summarizes 

residential areas and institutional land uses in the noise study area for each alternative.

4.8.4.2 Vibration

Vibration associated with train operations is the result of the steel wheels rolling on steel rails, creating 

vibrational energy that transmits through the rail structure and ground to nearby buildings. In addition, axle 

weight and soil conditions affect vibration. When sufficient vibrational energy reaches a building, it may 

result in the perceptible motion of objects and a rumbling noise generated by the motion of the structural 

surfaces in the room. As previously discussed, vibration criteria are applied primarily to residential land uses 

(including hotels and other places where people sleep) and institutional land uses. Table 4.8-1 summarizes 

such uses in the vibration study area for each alternative.

Table 4.8-1. Summary of Potentially Noise- and Vibration-Sensitive Land Uses in the Study Area 

Land Use

No Action Alternative/

Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Alternative 2 with Central 

Albany Option

Residential-Zoned Land (in acres)

Residential-Zoned Acres1 in Noise 

Study Area

(Percentage of Total Acres)

1,615 

(26%) 

2,185 

(34%) 

2,055 

(30%) 

Residential-Zoned Acres in 

Vibration Study Area

(Percentage of Total Acres)

317 

(11%) 

275 

(10%) 

303 

(11%) 

Institutional Land Uses (# of uses)

Total in Noise Study Area 71 50 54 

Total in Vibration Study Area 7 8 6 

1 Rounded to the nearest 5 acres.

Source: ODOT, 2016g.

4.8.4.3 Quiet Zones

Quiet Zones are defined in 23 CFR 222.9 as “a segment of a rail line, within which is situated one or a 

number of consecutive public highway-rail crossings at which locomotive horns are not routinely sounded”.

In a Quiet Zone, trains do not sound their horns when approaching at-grade crossings, except in emergency 

situations or to comply with other Federal regulations or railroad operating rules. Train horns can be 

silenced only when other safety measures compensate for the absence of the horns.

Railroad Quiet Zones exist in the following locations within the study areas for each alternative; no Quiet 

Zones are in the Central Albany Option study area: 

• No Action Alternative / Alternative 1:

– Salem (UPRR alignment) from Mill Street SE to Market Street NE

• No Action Alternative / Alternative 1 and Alternative 2:

– Milwaukie (UPRR alignment) from east of 37th Avenue to northern city limit

– Portland (BNSF alignment) from NW 9th Avenue to NW 17th Avenue
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4 - 8 4 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

4.8.5 Environmental Consequences

This subsection identifies the potential direct, indirect, and construction-related noise and vibration 

impacts under the No Action Alternative and the build alternatives.

4.8.5.1 Direct and Indirect Impacts

No Action Alternative

The No Action Alternative represents the baseline condition against which the build alternatives are 

measured. Under the No Action Alternative, Amtrak Cascades passenger rail service in 2035 would be 

similar to existing conditions, with the same passenger train frequency and the same number and location 

of station stops. The No Action Alternative does not include modifications to track configurations for 

passenger rail purposes. Therefore, the No Action Alternative would not introduce new sources of noise 

and/or vibration to the study area. However, ODOT anticipates that freight demand will increase by 40 to 

50 percent between 2010 and 2035 (ODOT, 2014f) under the No Action Alternative. This increase in freight 

train traffic could incrementally increase noise and vibration within the study area, particularly at at-grade 

crossings.

Alternative 1

Alternative 1 would involve the incremental construction of new sections of track parallel to the existing 

UPPR mainline track. Therefore, train-related noise and vibration are already present in the noise 

environment of the study area, and noise-sensitive land uses are accustomed to hearing them.

Under Alternative 1, the addition of eight additional passenger trains (four round trips) between Eugene 

and Portland could increase noise and vibration within the study area. Within the screening distances 

comprising the noise study area for Alternative 1, there are 1,615 acres of residential-zoned land use and 

71 institutional uses (i.e., Category 3 noise-sensitive land uses). Within the screening distances comprising 

the vibration study area for Alternative 1, there are 317 acres of residential-zoned land and 7 institutional 

land uses. The majority of the potentially impacted residential and institutional lands under Alternative 1 

are located within urban areas, where noise-sensitive uses tend to be concentrated and the existing 

ambient noise level is higher than rural, less developed areas.

Overall, the greatest potential for noise impacts would occur at at-grade crossings, where locomotives 

sound their horns as they approach. Alternative 1 would not grade-separate any existing at-grade crossings 

or create new at-grade crossings; however, the increased number of trains would increase the frequency of 

warning horns at the existing 140 at-grade crossings (but not at those in designated Quiet Zones, which are

currently in central Salem, Milwaukie, and northwest Portland). Alternative 1 would also upgrade four atgrade crossings with passive warning systems to active warning devices with bells, which would increase 

noise when activated by passing passenger rail and freight trains.

Alternative 2 

Similar to Alternative 1, Alternative 2 would add eight additional passenger trains (four round trips) 

between Springfield and Portland, increasing noise and vibration within the study area. However, 

Alternative 2 consists of a new railroad alignment between Springfield and Keizer, and between Wilsonville 

and Oregon City. In these locations, noise from passenger trains would be new to the ambient noise 

environment and could therefore be more perceptible to noise-sensitive land uses. Even so, the new 

Alternative 2 alignment would generally follow the I-5 and I-205 freeways—areas where land uses have 

adapted to freeway noise.

Within the screening distances comprising the noise study area for Alternative 2, there are 2,185 acres of

residential-zoned land use and 50 institutional uses (i.e., Category 3 noise-sensitive land uses). Within the 

screening distances comprising the vibration study area for Alternative 2, there are 275 acres of residentialzoned land and eight institutional land uses. Alternative 2 would potentially impact more residential areas
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4 - 8 5

OCTOBER 2018

and fewer institutional uses than Alternative 1. The majority of the potential noise impacts under 

Alternative 2 are in urbanized areas. 

Under Alternative 2, where the alignment is adjacent to existing freeways between Springfield and 

Salem/Keizer and between Wilsonville/Tualatin and Oregon City, all passenger rail crossings would be 

grade-separated. Alternative 2 would include only 46 at-grade crossings, less than half of the number of 

at-grade crossings under Alternative 1. Therefore, Alternative 2 would result in significantly less potential 

for noise impacts from horns sounding at at-grade crossings than Alternative 1.

Indirect impacts from Alternative 2 could also include revised vehicular traffic patterns in proximity to new 

passenger rail stations, which could increase local noise levels.

Alternative 2 with Central Albany Option

The Alternative 2 with Central Albany Option would have impacts similar to Alternative 2, with the majority 

of the potential noise impacts in urban areas. However, the Central Albany Option would include more 

potential for noise impacts near at-grade crossings (59) than would Alternative 2 (46).

4.8.5.2 Construction Impacts

Alternative 1

Construction activities under Alternative 1 could expose noise- and vibration-sensitive land uses within the 

Alternative 1 study area to noise and vibration originating from construction equipment, such as large 

machinery and track-mounted specialty vehicles. Although noise and vibrations of this type would tend to 

be intermittent and temporary, it could create a nuisance condition, depending on the types of 

construction activity and the types of equipment used for construction.

Alternative 2

The types of potential construction noise and vibration impacts would be similar to those for Alternative 1. 

However, ODOT anticipates that the noise and vibration construction impacts would be more severe and of 

longer duration under Alternative 2 than under Alternative 1. This is because Alternative 2 construction 

would include a mostly new railroad alignment with several grade-separated structures (that would likely 

require more intermittent noise-intensive pile driving), four to five new passenger rail stations, and a 

cut-and-cover tunnel in southeast Portland.

Alternative 2 with Central Albany Option

Construction impacts under the Alternative 2 with Central Albany Option would be similar to those 

described for Alternative 2. 

4.8.6 Potential Mitigation

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

and vibration impacts, as warranted and appropriate. Future project-level mitigation measures could

include, but would not be limited to, the following:

• Selection and use of equipment and construction techniques that produce the least noise and/or 

vibration;

• Evaluation of the continued use of operational controls, such as the reduction of train horn noise, in 

compliance with the Quiet Zone requirements under FRA’s whistle ban regulation in the Train Horn 

Rule (49 CFR 222); and

• Installation of noise barriers and/or building insulation.
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4 - 8 6 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

4.9 Hazardous Materials

This section discusses the legal framework, methods of analysis, hazardous materials study area, affected 

environment, potential environmental consequences, and mitigation strategies related to hazardous 

materials for each of the OPR Project alternatives.

4.9.1 Legal Requirements

In addition to NEPA and the CEQ’s NEPA implementing regulations, Federal and state laws, regulations, and 

orders related to hazardous materials and applicable to this Tier 1 analysis include the following:

4.9.1.1 Federal

• FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts. Section 14.(n)(18) of FRA’s environmental 

procedures require an EIS to assess the transportation or use of any hazardous materials which may be 

involved in the alternatives, and the level of protection afforded residents of the affected environment 

from construction-period and long-term operations associated with the alternatives.

• Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 42 USC 9601 et seq.: Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation and Liability Act (1980). In 1980, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly known as Superfund.22 The law created 

a tax to fund the clean-up of abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous waste sites and also provides broad 

Federal authority to respond directly to releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances that 

may endanger public health or the environment. CERCLA authorizes the EPA to identify parties 

responsible for the release of hazardous substances into the environment and require cleanup of those 

sites.

• EPA, 42 USC 6901 et seq.: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (1976). The Resource Conservation 

and Recovery Act (RCRA) gives the EPA the authority to control hazardous waste from “cradle to grave,” 

including the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. The 

1986 amendments to the RCRA enable EPA to address environmental problems resulting from 

underground tanks storing petroleum and other hazardous substances. In Oregon, the EPA has 

authorized the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to implement and enforce RCRA 

requirements.

• EPA, 33 USC 1251 et seq.: Federal Water Pollution Control Act (1972). The Federal Water Pollution 

Control Act (Clean Water Act) is the principal Federal law governing pollution control for water quality.

• EPA, 42 USC 300f et seq.: Title XIV of the Public Health Service Act: Safety of Public Drinking Water 

Systems (Safe Drinking Water Act) (1974). This act is the key Federal law for protecting public water 

supplies from harmful contaminants.

• EPA, 15 USC 2601 et seq.: Toxic Substances Control Act (1976). The purpose of the act is to ensure the 

development of adequate data on the effects of chemical substances on health and the environment; 

to regulate the production, distribution, use, and disposal of harmful chemicals; and to provide 

authority to EPA to take action on those chemicals that present an “imminent hazard.”

• EPA and USDOT, 49 USC 5101-5128: Hazardous Materials Transportation Control Act (Hazardous 

Materials Transportation Act) (1975). This act improves the uniformity of existing regulations for 

transporting hazardous materials, and prevents spills and illegal dumping that would endanger the 

public and the environment.

 

22 CERCLA was amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) in 1986. 
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4 - 8 7

OCTOBER 2018

• EPA, 42 USC 11001 et seq.: Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (1986). The 

Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) applies to storage of hazardous 

materials. The EPCRA requires that facilities report storage of certain chemicals above a certain amount 

to the state and local authorities. The principal purpose of the EPCRA is to provide citizens with 

information on the manufacture, use, and environmental release of potentially toxic chemicals in their 

communities.

4.9.1.2 State

• Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 340-122-0010, Division 122 – Hazardous Substance Remedial 

Action Rules Cleanup Rules. These rules establish the procedures for implementation of a site 

discovery program for hazardous substance releases, including a process for evaluation and preliminary 

assessment of releases of hazardous substances, and a process for developing and maintaining a 

statewide list of confirmed releases and an inventory of sites requiring investigation, removal, remedial 

action, or related long-term engineering or institutional controls.

4.9.2 Methods

For the purposes of this Tier 1-level analysis of hazardous material effects on human health and the 

environment, ODOT reviewed the information listed in available environmental databases to identify sites 

of concern within the study area, as well as the potential for contaminants to migrate toward the proposed 

build alternative improvements. The environmental databases provided preliminary information to identify 

the potential presence of hazardous sites within the study area; this review did not include site-specific

fieldwork or investigations. The review included the following environmental databases:

• Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Facility Profiler Database. This Oregon DEQ database 

contains information on current operations and activities, closed facilities, completed cleanups, and 

past operations. The following types of regulated facilities/sites are identified: permitted air and 

water dischargers, hazardous and solid waste sites, cleanup sites, and leaking and underground storage 

tanks (LUST/UST) (DEQ, 2016).

• Environmental Cleanup Site Information Database. The Environmental Cleanup Site Information (ECSI) 

is a database to track sites in Oregon with known or potential contamination from hazardous 

substances and to document sites where DEQ has determined that no further action is required (DEQ, 

2016). The ECSI database includes all Federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, 

and Liability Information System (CERCLIS)-listed and former CERCLIS-listed sites, including National 

Priority List (NPL) sites.23

• Oregon Fire Marshall’s Office Database. The Oregon Fire Marshall’s Office database lists known 

hazardous waste spills. However, access to the database was unavailable for this review. As a proxy, the 

Fire Marshall’s Office provided for review a spreadsheet listing the spills that occurred during transport. 

The analysis considers the following specific existing conditions from the environmental databases:

• Location and approximate distance from alignment features of sites with known or reported 

contamination, as well as sites listed as in the process of being cleaned up; 

• Location and approximate distance from alignment features of sites that are suspected of having

contamination by regulatory agencies because of current or historical land use; and

• Types of known or suspected hazardous materials at the identified sites. 

 

23 The National Priorities List (NPL) is the list of national priorities among the known releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, 

pollutants or contaminants throughout the United States and its territories.
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4 - 8 8 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

Using this data, ODOT evaluated sites with known and/or suspected hazardous materials and waste 

disposal conditions that one could encounter during construction of the current conceptual engineering 

features for proposed new track and potential new stations. Based on general contaminant distribution

modeling,24 ODOT categorized the build alternative alignments (including potential new station areas) 

as having known contamination, suspected contamination or no indication of contamination. The analysis 

uses these categories as follows:

• Known contamination. When contamination has been confirmed or reported in the environmental 

record and the contamination is within 50 feet of a proposed track centerline or a potential new station 

(as measured in GIS).

• Suspected contamination. When contamination has been confirmed, reported or presumed in the 

environmental record and where migration of the contamination to within 50 feet of a proposed track 

centerline or a potential new station is considered possible using default assumptions for contaminant 

transport.

• No indication of contamination. Sites of concern that are located beyond migration-screening 

distances (i.e., 1 mile from proposed track centerlines and potential new stations) for their respective 

contamination types.

Subsequently, the analysis compares the hazardous materials sites to the following conceptual engineering 

features to assess the potential direct and indirect impacts resulting from construction:

• At-grade. At-grade track assumes minimal earthwork but would require subballast, ballast, tie, rails, 

and fasteners.

• At-grade earthwork. Areas that would require some cut or fill and small ballast walls. Typical 

application would be adjacent to a highway embankment where a bench could be needed. Includes

subballast, ballast, tie, rails, and fasteners.

• Retained fill. Approach structures and other areas requiring retaining walls. Assumes two walls at an

average wall height of 15 feet. Includes subballast, ballast, tie, rails, and fasteners.

• Elevated viaduct. Bridge on pier or straddle bent structures. Includes direct fixation fasteners and rails.

• Open trench/retained cut. Approach structures and other areas requiring retaining walls to create the 

track foundation. Assumes two walls at an average wall height of 20 feet. Includes subballast, ballast,

tie, rails, and fasteners.

• Tunnel – cut-and-cover. Includes surface excavation, two walls, track grading, and cover along with 

required earthwork. Assumes an average cover of 20 feet. Assumes tunnel section to be 20 feet wide

and 25 feet high (inside diameter) for a single track.

• Bridges, rail bridge. New rail bridge over roadway, river, drainage, etc. Based on a 16-foot 6-inch 

standard vertical clearance over roadways (National Highway System and High Routes could require 

greater clearances: 17-foot 0-inch and 17-foot 4-inch, respectively). Includes abutments, subballast, 

ballast, tie, rails, guardrail, and fasteners.

4.9.2.1 Tier 2 Analysis

Future Tier 2 environmental studies for individual projects proposed subsequent to the OPR Project could

include Phase I and/or Phase II Environmental Site Assessments, as appropriate, to identify and/or 

characterize the extent of contamination from all known or suspected hazardous materials sites.

 

24 Migration screening distances used in the modeling are necessarily only crude estimates because of the lack of detailed information collected on 

soil type, hydraulic gradients, contaminant release dates, and quantities and concentrations of contaminants in this Tier 1 analysis. Thus, the results 

are qualitative and intended as a comparative assessment of the potential for known and hypothetical contaminants to reach various segments of 

proposed new track and/or potential new stations.
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4 - 8 9

OCTOBER 2018

Such assessments generally include site reconnaissance, additional database searches, and a review of 

historical land uses and agency records, and can take into consideration soil type, hydraulic gradients, 

contaminant release dates, and quantities and concentrations of contaminants. 

4.9.3 Study Area

The study area for the affected environment of each build alternative alignment includes the area within 

0.5 mile from new alignment centerlines and an additional area of 0.5 mile to evaluate area-wide 

contamination listings (for example, significant groundwater contamination plumes) (total of 1 mile). 

The study area for potential stations also includes the area within 0.5 mile and 1 mile to identify sites of 

concern. The 0.5-mile and 1-mile area distances are generally accepted minimum search distances 

recommended in the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard E1527-13, Standard 

Practices for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process (ASTM 

International, 2013) and are appropriate at the planning level to evaluate the potential for subsurface 

contaminant migration.

Delineation of known and suspected contamination sites within the study area boundaries sets the stage 

for further analysis of potential impacts based on contaminant types and severity, subsurface media, and 

relative proximity to areas proposed for construction. Consequently, and as a practical matter, the primary 

study area for evaluating potential impacts to known and suspected hazardous materials contamination 

sites is designated as the area within 50 feet of proposed track centerlines and potential station areas.

4.9.4 Affected Environment

The USDOT defines hazardous material as a substance or material capable of posing an unreasonable risk to 

health, safety, and property when transported in commerce, and that has been designated as hazardous by

Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 CFR §171.8). As discussed above, this analysis included 

a review of environmental databases to identify sites of concern related to hazardous materials and waste 

disposal within the affected environment area for each build alternative. Table 4.9-1 details the types of 

sites identified within the study area for the build alternatives. Appendix D, Figure D-4 shows sites of known 

and suspected contamination within the affected environment area. The potential for these sites to affect 

and/or be affected by construction is discussed in subsection 4.10.5, Environmental Consequences. 

Table 4.9-1. Number of Hazardous Materials Sites Identified within the Study Area 

Resource Indicator, Topic, or Measurement Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Alternative 2 with 

Central Albany Option

Sites of concern 825 657 700 

Superfund1 sites 4 4 3 

State cleanup sites2 303 220 238 

Leaking USTs3 518 433 459 

1 Common reference for CERCLA sites.

2 ECSI sites. 

3 LUST sites.

Source: ODOT, 2016h.

4.9.5 Environmental Consequences

Existing hazardous materials sites within the study area would have limited, if any, potential to affect 

passenger rail operations. Conversely, the operation of passenger rail service is generally not associated 

with the transportation and/or release of hazardous materials. As such, the potential for hazardous 

materials impacts from the OPR Project would primarily result from construction activities. 
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4 - 9 0 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

Subsection 4.10.5.2, Construction Impacts identifies and compares the direct and indirect impacts 

associated with construction of the build alternatives.

4.9.5.1 Direct and Indirect Impacts

No Action Alternative

Because no construction activities would be associated with the No Action Alternative, no known or 

suspected subsurface hazardous materials would be encountered. Handling and disposal of contaminated 

soil and groundwater would not be necessary; workers and ecological receptors would not be exposed to 

contamination; and contamination would not have the potential to be further released into the 

environment by construction disturbance and material/waste transport. Waste generation and disposal 

associated with current Amtrak Cascades operations and maintenance work would continue. Therefore, 

no direct or indirect impacts would be associated with hazardous materials and waste disposal under this 

alternative.

Impacts Common to Alternative 1, Alternative 2, and Alternative 2 with Central Albany Option

As discussed in section 4.3, Land Use, there are areas along both the Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 

alignments where nearby buildings/structures are close (within 50 feet) to the existing rail line. The build 

alternatives also include improvements to existing at-grade railroad crossings. As such, the build 

alternatives could require removal of buildings/structures containing hazardous materials, such as asbestos 

or lead-based paint. The discussion below qualitatively compares the potential for the build alternatives to 

result in the demolition and/or modification of existing buildings and other structures. This Tier 1 analysis 

does not include hazardous materials surveys of specific land uses; future Tier 2 environmental studies

would address the identification, handling, and remediation/disposal of all known or suspected hazardous 

materials in buildings proposed for demolition or modification. 

Alternative 1

Although Alternative 1 would primarily involve the continued use of existing UPRR mainline track, the 

modification and addition of track is envisioned in selected areas. There are areas along the Alternative 1 

alignment where nearby buildings/structures are close (within 50 feet) to the existing rail line. However, 

Alternative 1 improvements are not likely to result in the demolition or modification of these primarily 

industrial land uses where new or modified track is proposed. Alternative 1 track construction would also 

include improvements to 73 existing at-grade railroad crossings. Structures requiring demolition or 

modification would require hazardous materials surveys to determine the presence of hazardous materials 

and, if necessary, the appropriate handling and remediation/disposal. 

Alternative 2

Areas along the Alternative 2 alignment where nearby buildings/structures are close to the existing rail line 

include: Salem (industrial and residential), Donald (industrial), near Wilsonville (commercial) and in 

Portland (industrial). Alternative 2 would include the addition of new track throughout the full Alternative 2 

alignment, with siding tracks placed every 10 to 12 miles to facilitate passing operations. Therefore, ODOT 

anticipates that Alternative 2 would result in the demolition and/or modification of existing buildings and 

other structures to a greater degree than Alternative 1. Track construction under Alternative 2 would 

include improvements to 46 existing at-grade railroad crossings, far less than the 73 at-grade crossings 

improved under Alternative 1. Structures requiring demolition or modification would require hazardous 

materials surveys to determine the presence of hazardous materials and, if necessary, the appropriate 

handling and remediation/disposal. 

Alternative 2 with Central Albany Option

Outside of the Albany area, the Alternative 2 with Central Albany Option has the same alignment and 

operational characteristics, and thus similar hazardous materials impacts, as that described for 

Alternative 2. Where the Central Albany Option alignment diverges from I-5, there are areas where nearby 
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4 - 9 1

OCTOBER 2018

buildings/structures are close (within 50 feet) to the existing AERC and UPRR rail lines. These areas include 

industrial land uses west of Marion Street and south of OR 99, as well as industrial and residential 

structures within the City of Millersburg. The Alternative 2 with Central Albany track construction would 

also include improvements to ten existing at-grade railroad crossings in addition to those improved under 

Alternative 2. Structures requiring demolition or modification would require hazardous materials surveys to 

determine the presence of hazardous materials and, if necessary, the appropriate handling and

remediation/disposal. 

4.9.5.2 Construction Impacts

Construction involving ground-disturbing activities (e.g., excavation and grading) increases the likelihood 

for encountering previously unknown hazardous materials contamination from historical use of a property. 

Disturbance of contaminated sites could affect human health and the environment and/or pose a safety 

risk to workers possibly exposed to contaminated soil, water, and vapors.

Direct impacts could include worker/public exposure, construction delays, high treatment and disposal 

costs, and costly remedial actions.

No Action Alternative

The No Action Alternative represents the baseline condition against which the build alternatives are 

measured. The No Action Alternative would not include changes to current track configurations; therefore, 

no construction activities would occur, and known and suspected hazardous materials would not be 

encountered. Handling and disposal of contaminated soil and groundwater would not be necessary; 

workers and ecological receptors would not be exposed to contamination; and contamination would not 

have the potential to be further released into the environment by construction disturbance and 

material/waste transport. Therefore, no direct or indirect impacts would be associated with hazardous 

materials and waste disposal under the No Action Alternative.

Alternative 1

While much of Alternative 1 would involve the continued use of existing track, new or modified track would 

be constructed in selected areas. Construction of the relevant conceptual engineering features associated 

with Alternative 1 (see subsection 4.10.2, Methods) could result in hazardous material impacts because of 

the known and suspected presence of contamination from current and historical land uses within the study 

area. Under Alternative 1, there are approximately 2.2 linear miles of proposed track potentially affected by

known contamination, and there are five sites with known contamination that could be disturbed/affected 

by construction activities. There are approximately 47.4 linear miles of proposed track potentially affected 

by suspected contamination, and there are 117 sites with suspected contamination that could be 

disturbed/affected by construction activities.

Table 4.9-2 identifies and briefly summarizes the specific locations of potential direct impacts associated 

with hazardous materials from the construction of proposed track under Alternative 1.

Table 4.9-2. Potential Hazardous Materials Impacts – Alternative 1 

Location Construction Activity Contamination Type and Sourcea

Southern boundary of Alternative 1 

alignment to Riverfront Parkway in 

Eugene

At-grade earthwork

Potential presence of petroleum, 

laboratory waste, and coal gas tar from 

current and historical land uses

Central part of Halsey At-grade track construction; 

at-grade earthwork Suspected presence of petroleum

North of the OR 34 junction At-grade earthwork

Known presence of gasoline and 

suspected presence of petroleum and 

VOC from current and historical land uses
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

4 - 9 2 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

Location Construction Activity Contamination Type and Sourcea

North of the OR 34 junction to 

Beta Drive in southern Albany

At-grade earthwork; bridge 

construction

Suspected presence of gasoline, 

petroleum, and VOC from current and 

historical land uses

Between northern Albany and the 

southern boundary of Alternative 1 

alignment

At-grade earthwork; bridge 

construction

Suspected presence of gasoline, 

petroleum, VOC, SVOC and low-level 

radionuclides; current and historical land 

uses in the study area include Teledyne 

Wah Chang (a Superfund site and 

suspected source of contamination) at 

1600 Old Salem Road in Albany

Silverton Road in Salem

Elevated viaduct construction; 

at-grade track construction; 

at-grade earthwork

Known presence of gasoline and 

petroleum contamination from current 

and historical land uses

Near 37th Avenue in Milwaukie At-grade earthwork

Known and suspected presence of 

petroleum and VOC from current and 

historical land uses

North of SE Hawthorne Boulevard 

in Portland At-grade track construction Known presence of petroleum from 

current land use

Majority of the Alternative 1 

alignment through the industrial 

areas of Portland

Construction activities

Two Superfund sites and suspected 

sources of contamination—Gould, Inc., at 

5909 NW 61st, and McCormick & Baxter 

Creosoting Co., at 6900 N. Edgewater 

Avenue—are located along the 

Willamette River adjacent to the 

alignment

a VOC = Volatile Organic Compounds; SVOC = Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds. 

Source: ODOT, 2016h.

Alternative 1 would include service at the five existing stations and there are known or suspected 

contaminants present at each of the five existing stations. Because Alternative 1 assumes no improvements 

or changes to existing stations, no station-related hazardous material impacts from Alternative 1 

construction are anticipated.

Alternative 2

Alternative 2 would add new mainline railroad track throughout the full route between Springfield and 

Portland, as well new grade-separated passenger rail crossings built adjacent to existing road crossings at 

several locations along I-5. Additionally, Alternative 2 would include construction of a new, dedicated 

passenger rail tunnel under SE 2nd Avenue in Portland. Alternative 2 would also involve the construction of 

four to five new stations; the study area includes seven potential locations for the new stations. As such, 

Alternative 2 envisions substantially more construction activities than would occur under Alternative 1. 

Even so, Alternative 2 has only 0.8 linear mile of proposed track potentially affected by known 

contamination (as compared to 2.2 linear miles under Alternative 1). There are approximately 27.6 linear 

miles of proposed track potentially affected by suspected contamination under Alternative 2. This 

corresponds to 151 sites with suspected contamination that could be disturbed/affected by construction 

activities. Although Alternative 1 has fewer sites with suspected contamination that could be disturbed 

during construction (117 sites under Alternative 1 compared to 151 sites under Alternative 2), the sites 

affect fewer miles of track under Alternative 2 (27.6 miles under Alternative 1 compared to 47.4 miles 

under Alternative 2).
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4 - 9 3

OCTOBER 2018

Table 4.9-3 identifies and briefly summarizes the specific locations of potential direct impacts associated 

with hazardous materials from the construction of proposed track under Alternative 2.

Table 4.9-3. Potential Hazardous Materials Impacts – Alternative 2 

Location Construction Activity Contamination Type and Sourcea

Junction with OR 569 Elevated viaduct construction 

requiring deep excavations

Suspected presence of gasoline from 

current and historical land uses

Near the junction with OR 228 Construction activities with deep 

excavations Migrating contamination in groundwater

At Tangent Drive and the southern 

approach of OR 34

Elevated viaduct construction 

requiring deep excavations

Suspected presence of gasoline from 

current and historical land uses

At southern approach of US 20 in 

Albany Elevated viaduct construction Suspected presence of gasoline from 

current and historical land uses

Along the northern portion of 

adjacent airport property through 

north Albany

At-grade earthwork; bridge 

construction

Suspected presence of gasoline, petroleum, 

VOC, SVOC and low-level radionuclides; 

current and historical land uses in the study 

area include Teledyne Wah Chang (a 

Superfund site and suspected source of 

contamination) at 1600 Old Salem Road in 

Albany

Near Murder Creek Bridge construction Suspected presence of gasoline from 

current and historical land uses

Near Viewcrest Lane in Millersburg Elevated viaduct construction 

requiring deep excavations

Suspected presence of VOC from current 

and historical land uses

In the area south of Hoefer Road 

NE north of Millersburg

Elevated viaduct construction 

requiring deep excavations

Suspected presence of gasoline from 

current and historical land uses

Turner Road and the existing Union 

Pacific Railroad right-of-way in 

Salem

Elevated viaduct construction 

(construction of the southern 

approach of the viaduct)

Suspected presence of metals 

contamination from current and historical 

land uses

South of OR 213 in Salem Retained fill Known and suspected presence of gasoline 

from current and historical land uses

At the junction with Stafford Road 

south of Lake Oswego

Elevated viaduct construction 

requiring deep excavations

Suspected presence of gasoline from 

current and historical land uses

McLoughlin Boulevard Elevated viaduct construction 

requiring deep excavations

Suspected presence of gasoline from 

current and historical land uses

North of OR 224 At-grade earthwork Suspected presence of gasoline, petroleum, 

and VOC from historical land use

Near 37th Avenue in Milwaukie At-grade earthwork

Known and suspected presence of 

petroleum and VOC from current and 

historical land uses

North of SE Hawthorne Boulevard 

in Portland At-grade track construction Known presence of petroleum from current 

land use
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4 - 9 4 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

Location Construction Activity Contamination Type and Sourcea

Majority of the Alternative 2 

alignment through the industrial 

areas of Portland

Construction activities

Two Superfund sites and suspected sources 

of contamination– Gould, Inc., at 5909 NW 

61st, and McCormick & Baxter Creosoting 

Co., at 6900 N. Edgewater Avenue – are 

located along the Willamette River adjacent 

to the alignment

SE Portland Tunnel – Cut-and-Cover (during 

excavation and dewatering)

Known presence of petroleum and 

suspected presence of gasoline, petroleum, 

VOC, SVOC, PCBs, pesticides, metals, acids, 

and cyanide from current and historical 

land uses

a VOC = Volatile Organic Compounds; SVOC = Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds; PCB = Polychlorinated biphenyls. 

Source: ODOT, 2016h.

Alternative 2 would include service at the existing Union Station in Portland, as well as the potential for 

service at three to four new stations, as discussed above. The analysis did not identify any known or 

suspected contaminated sites associated with the potential new station locations under Alternative 2. 

While the existing Portland Union Station has nine suspected contamination sites that could affect the 

station, Alternative 2 assumes no improvements or changes to this station. Therefore, ODOT anticipates 

that the only potential hazardous materials impacts related to construction of new stations would be 

associated with demolition of existing structures that could be required prior to new station construction.

A separate project is currently reviewing potential environmental effects of proposed building and track 

improvements at Portland Union Station.

Alternative 2 with Central Albany Option

Outside of the Albany area, the Alternative 2 with Central Albany Option would have similar constructionrelated hazardous material impacts as those described for Alternative 2. Where the Central Albany Option 

would provide an additional mainline track connecting to the existing Albany Station to the east of the 

Alternative 2 alignment, additional impacts beyond those discussed for Alternative 2 could occur. 

Specifically, under the Alternative 2 with Central Albany Option there are approximately 0.2 additional mile 

of proposed track potentially affected by known contamination and 4.4 additional miles of proposed track 

potentially affected by suspected contamination compared to Alternative 2.

At-grade earthwork and bridge construction from northern Albany through the Millersburg area could 

encounter contamination during construction activities requiring excavations because of the suspected 

presence of gasoline, petroleum, VOC, SVOC and low-level radionuclides from current and historical land 

uses. These land uses include Teledyne Wah Chang (a Superfund site and suspected source of 

contamination) at 1600 Old Salem Road in Albany. Potential impacts at these locations would also occur 

under Alternative 1 (see Table 4.9-2).

4.9.6 Potential Mitigation

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

hazardous material impacts as necessary. These could include, but would not be limited to, the following:

• Use of avoidance methods and procedures, including during design of engineering features, to limit 

and/or address conflicts with known and suspected contamination; and

• Use of construction safety methods and procedures that protect human health and prevent/minimize 

hazardous materials releases during construction, including personal protection, workplace monitoring

and site-specific health and safety plans.
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4 - 9 5

OCTOBER 2018

4.10 Cultural Resources

This section discusses legal requirements, methods of analysis, study area, affected environment, potential 

environmental consequences, and mitigation strategies related to cultural resources (i.e., historic (built) 

structures and archaeological sites) for each of the OPR Project alternatives. For this Tier 1 analysis, a broad 

study area has been used to help identify areas of historic concern. The area of potential effects (APE) will 

be established for Tier 2 analysis as appropriate. 

4.10.1 Legal Requirements

In addition to NEPA and the CEQ’s NEPA implementing regulations, Federal and state laws and regulations 

related to cultural resources are discussed in this Tier 1 analysis, and include the following:

4.10.1.1 Federal

• FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts. Section 14(n)(21) of FRA’s environmental 

procedures require an EIS to identify all properties that may be affected by the alternatives that are 

included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).

• Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) sets forth national policy and 

procedures regarding historic properties, which are defined as districts, sites, buildings, structures, and 

objects included in, or eligible for, the NRHP. Section 106 requires that Federal agencies consider the 

effects of their undertakings on historic properties in project planning and decision-making. Section 

11504 of the FAST Act mandated development of an exemption for railroad ROWs from Section 106 

review. As of the date of this DEIS, USDOT has drafted a proposed exemption, but the Advisory Council 

on Historic Preservation has not approved it. Once approved, the Section 106 exemption would apply 

to future Tier 2 projects that involve maintenance, upgrades and improvements to railroad 

infrastructure in existing ROW.

• Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 establishes the requirement for 

consideration of potential impacts to park and recreational lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and 

historic sites in transportation project planning and development when financial assistance or other 

approval from USDOT modal administrations is involved. The law is codified in 49 United States Code 

(USC) §303 and 23 USC §138. FRA currently does not have its own Section 4(f) implementing 

regulations, but in practice FRA follows those of the Federal Highway administration at 23 CFR 774.

• 36 CFR Part 800, Protection of Historic Properties. The procedures in this part define the four-step 

process Federal agencies must follow to comply with Section 106 of the NHPA.

• 36 CFR 60, National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) sets forth the procedural requirements for 

listing properties on the NRHP.

4.10.1.2 State

• ORS 358.653, “Protection of Publicly Owned Historic Properties.” Obligates state agencies and all 

“political subdivisions” of the state (that is, counties, cities, universities, school districts, and local taxing 

districts) to consult with the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to avoid inadvertent 

impacts to historic properties for which they are responsible. The statute follows the general guidance 

of Section 106; for this reason, in cases where Federal funds, permits, or licenses are used, ORS 358.653 

is superseded by Section 106.

• The State Land Use Planning Law – Goal 5 (OAR 660-023-0200). Encourages state agencies and local 

governments (including those that participate in the Certified Local Government [CLG] program) to 

develop and maintain inventories of local historic resources, to adopt programs that will protect 
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4 - 9 6 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

historic resources for present and future generations, and to adopt a historic preservation plan and 

complementary ordinances.

• ORS 358.905–955. This law provides definitions of archaeological sites and significance and cultural 

patrimony, prohibits the sale and exchange of cultural items, and proscribes damage to archaeological 

sites on public and private lands. Items of cultural patrimony or those associated with human remains 

are protected everywhere, unless an archaeological excavation permit authorizes the activity.

4.10.2 Methods

ODOT consultants meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s (SOI) Standards consulted the Oregon SHPO’s 

GIS data to identify previously recorded historic architectural properties within the Tier 1 study area for the 

OPR Project (the Tier 2 APE is addressed in subsection 4.11.3, below). GIS data from the various county 

assessors’ offices were used to identify those properties built in or before 1969 located within the Tier 1 

study area for the build alternatives. Supplementary resources were also reviewed to fill gaps in the data. 

No primary data collection was done. Oregon SHPO records were reviewed, including historic studies of 

Oregon counties, cities, and statewide thematic contexts and survey records available online through the 

Oregon Historic Sites Database and the Oregon Historic Sites Map.

Oregon SHPO GIS data were also reviewed to identify previously recorded archaeological sites and isolated 

finds (isolates) within the study area of the build alternatives. Only those resources that Oregon SHPO 

either has recorded and assigned Smithsonian Trinomial site numbers or has identified as isolates are 

included in the archaeological resources analysis. No fieldwork was conducted as part of this Tier 1 analysis. 

Although most of these sites have not been evaluated for NRHP eligibility, this analysis assumes that 

unevaluated sites are potentially eligible and thus could represent an impact from the construction of a 

build alternative. Isolates, except in rare circumstances, are not eligible for listing in the NRHP. However, in 

incompletely surveyed areas, the presence of known isolates can reflect past human activity of potential 

archaeological significance.

For the purposes of this Tier 1 EIS analysis, the term “effect” is used to discuss analysis under Section 106 

and the term “impact” is used to discuss analysis under NEPA. 

Under Section 106 of the NHPA, the term “historic properties” refers to any prehistoric or historic district, 

site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the NRHP.

An effect is adverse under Section 106 if it may alter, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics of a 

historic property that qualify the property for inclusion in the NRHP in a manner that would diminish the 

integrity of the property's location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association.

Examples of adverse effects are provided in 36 CFR 800.5(2) and include, but are not limited to, the 

following:

• Physical destruction of or damage to all or part of a property. 

• Alteration of a property that is not consistent with the SOI Standards for the Treatment of Historic 

Properties. 

• Introduction of visual, audible, or atmospheric elements that diminish the integrity of the property’s 

significant historic features.

Under NEPA, direct impacts to historic properties are those caused by the proposed action and that occur 

at the same time and place. To determine the potential direct impacts to historic properties from the OPR 

Project, the following information was analyzed at a conceptual level:

• Location of the project components and their proximity to known historic properties

• Potential visual effects on historic properties
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4 - 9 7

OCTOBER 2018

• Potential partial or complete acquisition of historic properties

• Construction methods

• Potential for vibration (short- or long-term) that could damage historic properties

• Potential for noise that could affect the use of historic properties

After known and potential historic properties were identified within the OPR study area, the potential for 

effects and/or direct impacts to these properties was assessed at a conceptual level. The conceptual-level 

analysis considered which possible effects could have a greater potential to be adverse under Section 106 

of the NHPA. Within this context, the analysis applied the following two key assumptions:

• All known and potential historic properties within the APE that will need to be established under Tier 2

could incur Section 106 effects and/or direct impacts.

• Known and potential historic properties immediately adjacent to proposed passenger rail infrastructure 

improvements could incur Section 106 and/or indirect impacts.

Potential construction (temporary) impacts to historic properties (to the degree that such impacts are 

distinguishable from long-term direct impacts) were also identified at a conceptual level. 

For indirect impacts, secondary actions (such as changes in land use) that the OPR Project could induce 

were identified and analyzed qualitatively, based primarily on those seen from similar projects. Potential 

indirect impacts could include activities related to the project but not directly part of the project or known 

at the time of the analysis.

4.10.2.1 Tier 2 Analysis

Future Tier 2 environmental studies for proposed actions subsequent to the OPR Project would consider 

the following:

• Establishment of an APE that takes into account potential direct and indirect effects of a Tier 2 project 

on historic properties; 

• Pre-fieldwork consultation with SHPO and Tribes; 

• Field studies to identify previously unrecorded historical properties and evaluate eligibility of 

unevaluated properties; 

• Post-fieldwork consultations with SHPO and Tribal; 

• Specific direct impacts related to the individual project, the extent of such impacts, and appropriate 

avoidance and mitigation measures (under Section 106, the detrimental effects that could be adverse 

would necessitate further evaluation);

• Further research to verify missing information (such as the property name, type, date of construction, 

and area of significance for each eligible property) for known NRHP-eligible properties within the APE 

(which are historic properties afforded the same review considerations as properties listed in the 

NRHP); 

• Further evaluation to determine the effects of ROW acquisition (which could potentially result in 

acquisition and demolition of historic properties); 

• Further evaluation to determine the effects of the construction of new elevated viaducts and bridges 

associated with Alternative 2 (such structures could have visual impacts and adverse effects on the 

settings of surrounding historic properties);

• Further effects analysis regarding any potential changes of use of historic properties; 
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4 - 9 8 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

• Further analysis related to the final proposed locations of stations and other amenities (because the 

APE will be refined for Tier 2 study to address the exact locations of the stations and the types and 

locations of amenities, properties that are not situated adjacent to the proposed station locations at 

this Tier 1 level of analysis could also have a potential for impact);

• Determination of potential adverse effects to archaeological sites (this Tier 1 EIS evaluation was based 

on existing information; Tier 2 analysis will include field investigations to inventory previously 

unrecorded sites); and

• Assessment of effects that could be caused by construction activities that result in access to 

archaeological sites not previously identified or previously inaccessible.

4.10.3 Study Area

The OPR Project study area for cultural resources is focused on identifying previously listed cultural 

resources, NRHP-listed properties and areas of archaeological sensitivity within the study area as gleaned 

through desktop analysis. The Tier 2 APE, which, based on the current level of design, represents the area 

within which the OPR Project may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic 

properties if such properties exist. The OPR Project APE primarily includes known and potential historic 

properties that are located:

• Within 100 feet of the railroad alignment centerlines (including proposed new rail improvements and 

existing UPRR, AERC, PNWR and BNSF alignments, and I-5 and I-205 sections); 

• Within the potential locations of new stations (a 20-acre radius around proposed station locations); and

• Within existing station property boundaries. 

To assess the potential consequences of increased passenger train frequency on known and potential 

historic properties, the APE includes the area within 100 feet of track centerlines for the full length of each 

build alternative alignment, regardless of where infrastructure improvements are specifically proposed.

Consultation and coordination with SHPO and the Tribes are recommended to occur early in the planning 

process, and continue through fieldwork and evaluations, where applicable.

4.10.4 Affected Environment

One hundred twenty-one historic architectural properties were identified as listed in or eligible for the 

NRHP within the OPR Project study area, including 15 buildings and 3 historic districts that are listed in the 

NRHP (Table 4.10-1) and shown in Appendix D, Figure D-2. Ten built environment properties within the 

study area contribute to the three listed historic districts; six properties within the study area are located 

within one of these historic districts but have been previously determined as ineligible/non-contributing 

resources. The remaining 93 properties have been previously determined eligible for the NRHP by the 

Oregon SHPO.

The Alternative 1 study area includes more historic (built) properties, many of which are associated with 

the historic Oregon & California mainline, than the Alternative 2 study area. 

For this Tier 1 EIS level of analysis, detailed property information was obtained only for those historic 

architectural properties that are listed in the NRHP; available data for properties previously determined 

eligible for the NRHP was obtained from the Oregon Historic Sites Database inventory records, which and 

were often incomplete because some information was omitted from the inventory form. Architectural 

historians conducted research on the listed properties to verify the information provided in the GIS data.
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4 - 9 9

OCTOBER 2018

Table 4.10-1. NRHP-Listed Built Properties in the Study Area 

Property Name Year Built Address Alternative

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

McCracken Brothers Motor Freight 

Building

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

Hackleman Historic District

(1 contributing building in APE)

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 

Salem Southern Pacific Railroad 

Station

1918 500 13th Street SE, Salem Alternative 1

Aurora Colony Historic District

(2 contributing buildings in APE)

c. 1856–1881 Aurora, Marion County Alternative 1

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

Chemawa Indian School Site 1885 3700 Chemawa Road NE, Chemawa Alternative 1

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

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

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

Spokane, Portland & Seattle Railway 

Steam Locomotive

1938 2250 SE Water Avenue, Portland Alternative 1; Alternative 2

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 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 

c. = circa

Table 4.10-2 provides a tabulation of previously recorded archaeological sites within the OPR Project study 

area. 
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4 - 100 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

Table 4.10-2. Known Archaeological Sites and Isolates in the Study Area 

Site Number Type NRHP Status County Study Area

35LA209 Pre-contact Unevaluated Lane Alternative 1

35LA680 Pre-contact Unevaluated Lane Alternative 1

35LA1334 Historic Unevaluated Lane Alternative 1

35LA1277 Multi-component Unevaluated Lane Alternative 1

35LA1478 Historic Eligible Clackamas Alternative 1

35CL330 Multi-component Unevaluated Multnomah Alternatives 1 and 2

35MU229 Historic Unevaluated Multnomah Alternatives 1 and 2

35MU235 Multi-component Unevaluated Lane Alternatives 1 and 2

35LA1456 Historic Eligible Lane Alternative 2

35LIN678 Pre-contact Unevaluated Linn Alternative 2

35MA011 Pre-contact Eligible Marion Alternative 2

35MA063 Pre-contact Eligible Marion Alternative 2

35MA070 Pre-contact Eligible Marion Alternative 2

35CL013 Multi-component Unevaluated Clackamas Alternative 2

35CL019 Multi-component Unevaluated Clackamas Alternative 2

The total number of known sites for the Alternative 2 with Central Albany Option is the same as for Alternative 2. 

4.10.5 Environmental Consequences

4.10.5.1 Direct and Indirect Impacts

No Action Alternative

No track or station improvements would be made as a result of the No Action Alternative; present-day 

Amtrak Cascades operations and maintenance activities would continue into the future. Therefore, the 

No Action Alternative would have no direct impacts to NRHP-listed or eligible historic properties.

Alternative 1

Forty-eight NRHP-listed or NRHP-eligible (built) properties are located within the Alternative 1 study area

for the proposed rail alignment and station facilities. For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that 

historic properties within the study area for Alternative 1 could be subject to direct impacts and adverse 

effects. Properties adjacent to the proposed rail alignment and station facilities of Alternative 1 where track 

would be added along sections of the UPRR alignment and where other infrastructure improvements would 

be made could experience direct impacts from the construction as well as minor visual and noise proximity 

impacts from the increased number of trains operating along the existing UPRR mainline. All historic or 

potentially historic (built) properties immediately adjacent to an existing track within the Alternative 1 

study area could experience visual, noise, and vibration impacts. However, these impacts may not be 

adverse, because changes to the existing conditions of these historic properties, which are already adjacent 

to an active rail line, would likely be negligible compared to the No Action Alternative. The proposed 

infrastructure improvements along Alternative 1 would primarily involve construction of additional 

mainline railroad track 20 feet east of the existing UPRR mainline at specific locations between Eugene and 

Portland. Infrastructure improvements would also include sidings, cross-overs, and industry connections. 
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4 - 101

OCTOBER 2018

These improvements would likely not cause significant impacts to the surrounding historic (built) 

properties, because the historic properties along these segments of the alignment are already situated next 

to an existing active rail line. Depending on future detailed design, there may be ROW acquisition necessary 

along the existing UPRR ROW, which could result in the acquisition and demolition or removal of historic 

properties. This could result in a direct adverse effect, and therefore would need to be assessed further at 

the Tier 2 level based on the specific improvement project or projects. 

Five of the six stations along Alternative 1 would use existing station buildings, all of which are historic. 

It is unlikely that a significant direct physical impact would occur on existing stations under Alternative 1, 

because physical changes to the stations are not anticipated. Any potential improvements within the 

station property, however, could result in changes to the settings of the existing historic stations. Three of 

the existing stations are listed in the NRHP—those in Eugene, Salem, and Portland. The existing Southern 

Pacific Co. Freight Depot (1924) in Oregon City was moved to its current location in 2009 (1757 Washington 

Street) and is currently within the APE. The property was recorded at its former location (1709 Washington 

Street) in 2004 and was described as altered but recommended as eligible for the NRHP. The existing 

Albany Southern Pacific Depot (c. 1910) is also eligible for listing in the NRHP. To minimize the impacts, any 

potential changes made to the existing stations could be done in accordance with the Secretary of Interior’s 

standards for rehabilitation, which could result in a finding of no adverse effect.

Construction of the potential new Woodburn station adjacent to the Alternative 1 alignment could also 

result in acquisition and demolition or removal of potential historic (built) properties and thus could result 

in potential direct adverse effects.

Railroad tracks are an integral part of the settings of existing historic railroad stations. Since the 

construction of the former Southern Pacific mainline in the late 19th century, elements of the railroad have 

been routinely repaired, maintained and improved to adapt to changing train technology and changes in 

capacity and service levels, and to ensure safe and reliable operations. As a result of regular maintenance, 

repair and improvements, the settings of the existing historic railroad stations have been altered 

throughout history 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.

Under Alternative 1, direct impacts on the historic railroad line would likely occur. The existing UPRR 

mainline could experience impacts, including physical alterations and changes to the setting, as a result of 

the proposed rail improvements. The former Southern Pacific line between Eugene and Portland, however, 

is a very long linear resource (approximately 125 miles) composed of multiple segments of track and 

associated railroad features. Construction of a new adjacent track and additional sidings, cross-overs, and 

industry connections would affect certain segments of the former Southern Pacific line, but it is not likely 

that such improvements would significantly diminish the integrity of the overall resource, nor would they 

be likely to adversely affect the railroad line’s character-defining qualities. Addition of a parallel mainline 

track and improvements to the existing UPRR mainline 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 the direct impacts to the historic rail line would result in adverse effects.

Direct impacts to archaeological resources could be caused by physical, ground-disturbing actions 

associated with infrastructure construction. For archaeological sites, any direct impact is permanent and 

potentially adverse. One of the eight known archaeological sites within the Alternative 1 study area has 

been determined eligible for listing in the NRHP. However, 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. 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 
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4 - 102 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

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

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

proposed rail alignment and station facilities. Thirty-seven NRHP-listed or NRHP-eligible properties are 

located within the Alternative 2 with Central Albany Option study area. For the purposes of this evaluation, 

it is assumed that known or potentially historic properties within the study area could be subject to direct 

impacts and possible adverse effects. Alternative 2 would primarily involve capital improvements either in 

or adjacent to the existing I-5 and I-205 freeway corridors, adjacent to the existing the UPRR line in 

Springfield and between Oregon City and Portland’s Union Station, or adjacent to the existing PNWR line 

between Keizer and Wilsonville. A new passenger railroad track would be constructed along the entire 

length of the alignment. For the majority of the 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.

The addition of a mainline track adjacent to the existing freeway could result in increased visual, noise, and 

vibration impacts to the surrounding historic (built) properties. However, because of the existing traffic on 

I-5 and I-205, it is unlikely that impacts to adjacent historic properties under Alternative 2 would be 

significant; that is, any additional noise or impacts from the proposed infrastructure improvements would 

likely not be a significant change from the existing conditions. ROW acquisition could potentially result in 

acquisition and demolition of historic properties, which could result in adverse effects.

Alternative 2 would include construction of new elevated viaducts and bridges. Such structures could have 

visual impacts and adverse effects on the settings of surrounding historic (built) properties, including one 

NRHP-eligible site located directly east of I-5 and south of Harlow Road in Eugene, and one NRHP-eligible 

site that ODOT owns in Marion County south of Salem. Construction of new stations along Alternative 2 

could also result in adverse effects on historic properties. Up to four25 of the five stations proposed along 

Alternative 2 would be new construction. The construction of new stations would end passenger rail service 

to several existing stations, resulting in a potential change of use for existing historic railroad stations in 

Salem, Eugene, Albany, and Oregon City, although details are not known at this time. Changes that alter the 

characteristics of the existing railroad stations that qualify them for inclusion in the NRHP could result in an 

adverse effect. In addition, the potential Salem and Tualatin station location options (alternatives to the 

potential Keizer or Wilsonville station location options) 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. 

Those buildings would be evaluated for NRHP eligibility in Tier 2 analysis. These new stations could require 

demolition of existing buildings or structures, which would likely result in adverse effects on potential 

 

25 There would be three new stations with the Central Albany Option which would use the existing Albany Station. There would be four new 

stations if a new Albany station is added adjacent to I-5.
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4 - 103

OCTOBER 2018

historic properties that are on or adjacent to those sites. The potential Tualatin station is proposed to be 

constructed in the freeway median, which should limit the impact to any surrounding historic properties.

At this time, there are no known properties constructed in or before 1969 within the study area for the 

potential Springfield, Albany, Keizer, Woodburn or Wilsonville stations. However, for approximately 70 

properties in the study area of the aforementioned proposed station areas, the year of construction is still 

unknown. For this reason, the number of potentially impacted historic buildings associated with the 

potential stations could be higher.

Direct impacts to archaeological resources could be caused by physical, ground-disturbing actions 

associated with infrastructure construction. Four of the ten known archaeological sites within the 

Alternative 2 study area have been determined eligible for listing in the NRHP. Additional archaeological 

sites could be inadvertently discovered during construction, and if so would be evaluated for NRHP 

eligibility at that time.

For this Tier 1 EIS analysis, it is assumed that the indirect impacts to historic properties from Alternative 2 

would be of greater magnitude than those from Alternative 1. Improved passenger service and increased 

ridership could lead to local transportation improvements and commercial growth near station areas, 

especially in the vicinity of the potential new stations in Springfield, Albany, Salem or Keizer, and Wilsonville 

or Tualatin. With an increase in commercial activity, employment near station areas could increase, while 

new development could potentially result in physical impacts to historic properties as well as adverse 

effects on the settings of small towns and individual properties. Conversely, local transportation 

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

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 with Central Albany Option

The Central Albany Option would diverge from the existing I-5 alignment, running northwest parallel to 

existing AERC track for approximately 2.5 miles, where it would join the existing UPRR line in order to reach 

downtown Albany. The line would transition back east to the I-5 alignment parallel to the existing UPRR 

track, north of Millersburg. Approximately 53,000 feet of mainline track would be constructed parallel to 

the existing AERC and UPRR track through Albany. The NRHP-listed Hackleman Historic District is primarily 

adjacent to the APE of the Central Albany Option, but one building that contributes to the Hackleman 

Historic District is within the Central Albany Option study area. No significant impacts to the historic district 

or the contributing resource are anticipated, although minor visual, noise, and vibration impacts that could 

affect the district’s integrity of setting and feeling could occur, and could need to be further analyzed.

In addition, the NRHP-eligible Albany Southern Pacific Depot (c. 1910), Robert L Burkhart House (1922), 

one NRHP-eligible industrial property (44517, date of construction unknown), and one rural NRHP-eligible 

property (Resource 20416, date of construction unknown) are located within the Central Albany Option 

study area. No physical changes are expected to occur to the Albany Southern Pacific Depot. In addition, 

the identified (built) historic properties along the Central Albany Option, including the existing station, are 

already adjacent to an existing railroad line and, although some visual impacts could occur from an 

additional mainline track, improvements to the line would likely not have a significant direct impact or 

adverse effect to the historic properties. Visual, noise, and vibration impacts to historic properties would 

need to be further assessed for Tier 2 projects involving the Central Albany Option alignment.

Direct impacts to archaeological resources could be caused by physical, ground-disturbing actions 

associated with Central Albany Option construction. While there are currently no known archaeological 

sites within the Central Albany Option study area, archaeological sites could be inadvertently discovered 

during construction, and if so would be evaluated for NRHP eligibility at that time.
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4 - 104 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

Indirect impacts associated with the Central Albany Option would be similar to those described above for 

Alternative 1 and Alternative 2.

4.10.5.2 Construction Impacts

Alternative 1

Construction impacts to historic properties within the Alternative 1 study area could include increased 

heavy truck traffic, temporary restriction of access, visual effects, noise, vibration, and the dust and debris 

of construction activities. These effects would be temporary, but could be adverse to historic properties. 

Potential adverse indirect construction impacts can likely be avoided or mitigated through construction 

protection plans and other actions. Ground-disturbing actions could also adversely affect the integrity and 

content of archaeological sites, which would likely constitute permanent impacts.

Alternative 2 and Alternative 2 with Central Albany Option

For this Tier 1 EIS analysis, construction impacts are anticipated to be more intense under Alternative 2 

than under Alternative 1, although fewer identified historic properties are potentially impacted by 

construction of Alternative 2. Because an existing railroad line does not exist adjacent to substantial 

portions of Alternative 2 and several 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. For these reasons, Alternative 2 would have more construction-related impacts than 

Alternative 1.

Up to four new stations would be added along the Alternative 2 alignment. No historic properties were 

identified immediately adjacent to the potential station locations. However, properties adjacent to the 

potential Salem and Tualatin station locations contain buildings that were constructed in or before 1969 

that have not been evaluated for NRHP eligibility—specifically, one Salem school district property adjacent 

to the proposed Salem station location that has a construction date of 1964 and one residential property in 

the vicinity of the proposed Tualatin station location that has a construction date of 1924. These properties 

are potentially historic and would need to be evaluated for NRHP eligibility at the Tier 2 level. If found to be 

eligible, further analysis would be necessary to determine whether the possible effects from construction 

would be adverse. 

Several properties that contain buildings constructed in or before 1969 that have not been evaluated for 

NRHP eligibility are located within approximately 500 feet of the proposed Albany and Woodburn stations. 

Because the APE would likely be revised when the exact locations of the stations are determined and the 

types and locations of amenities are defined, properties that are not presently situated adjacent to the 

proposed station locations at this Tier 1 EIS phase of analysis could also have a potential for impact. In 

addition, the proposed cut-and-cover tunnel in Southeast Portland would temporarily close SE 2nd Avenue 

to vehicular traffic. However, various construction approaches, including phased construction, could be 

used to minimize the temporary impacts to the adjacent historic properties, including the NRHP-listed 

John Deere Plow Company Building, the Olympic Cereal Mill, and three NRHP-eligible buildings.

Ground-disturbing actions could also adversely affect archaeological sites through damage or destruction, 

and if they did so, would likely constitute permanent impacts. Significant archaeological sites that warrant 

preservation in place are protected under Section 4(f).

4.10.6 Potential Mitigation

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

affected historic properties, as appropriate.

The purpose of Section 106 review is to identify historic properties in an undertaking’s APE, assess effects 

to those properties, and seek ways to avoid, minimize or mitigate any adverse effects on historic 

properties. When an undertaking is found to have an adverse effect, Section 106 requires consultation with 
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4 - 105

OCTOBER 2018

Oregon SHPO, affected Tribes, consulting parties and other interested parties on appropriate avoidance or 

mitigation measures. Mitigation for adverse effects could include redesigning aspects of individual Tier 2 

projects, development and implementation of construction protection plans, relocating historic buildings, 

recordation of buildings and structures, data recovery of archaeological sites, and/or alternative mitigation 

strategies.

If a finding of adverse effect is determined for any subsequent Tier 2 project, the product of Section 106 

consultation would be a Memorandum of Agreement, as stipulated in 36 CFR 800.6(c). This Memorandum 

of Agreement would contain stipulations that specify measures to be implemented that would avoid, 

minimize or mitigate the adverse effects to historic properties.

During construction, if ground-disturbing activities encounter human remains or archaeological materials, 

the work would be stopped, the affected area would be secured, and ODOT would contact the FRA, Oregon 

SHPO, and the applicable County coroner.

4.11 Geology and Soils

This section discusses legal requirements, methods of analysis, study area, affected environment, potential 

environmental consequences, and mitigation strategies related to geology and soils for each of the OPR 

Project alternatives.

4.11.1 Legal Requirements

Federal and state laws and regulations related to geology and soils and applicable to this Tier 1 analysis 

include the following:

4.11.1.1 Federal

• In addition to NEPA and the CEQ’s NEPA implementing regulations, FRA’s Procedures for Considering 

Environmental Impacts are applicable. Section 14(n) of FRA’s environmental procedures require an EIS 

to include consideration of relevant environmental factors and impacts.

4.11.1.2 State

• Goal 5: Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces – OAR 660-015-0000(5). Goal 5 

is one of Oregon’s Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines. It requires local governments to maintain 

current inventories of natural resources, scenic and historic areas, and open spaces, including mineral 

and aggregate resources. Guideline A.6 states: “In conjunction with the inventory of mineral and 

aggregate resources, sites for removal and processing of such resources should be identified and 

protected.”

4.11.2 Methods

A GIS database was compiled to document the existing geology and soils conditions within the study area. 

Specific conditions documented include:

• Mapped faults

• Mapped slope failures

• Suspected unstable slopes

• Potentially compressible soil

• Mapped landfills

• Potentially liquefiable soil

• Slopes susceptible to seismic-induced landslides
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4 - 106 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

• Mapped mineral and aggregate resource removal and processing sites

Information incorporated into the GIS database includes:

• The Oregon Geologic Data Compilation, Release 5 (OGDC-5) by the Oregon Department of Geology and 

Mineral Industries (DOGAMI) (Ma et al., 2009)

• The Quaternary Fault and Fold Database of the United States by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 

(USGS, 2006)

• The Statewide Landslide Information Database for Oregon, release 3 (SLIDO-3.0) (Burns and Watzig, 

2014)

• ODOT’s dataset of unstable slopes affecting ODOT-owned roads (as of 10/10/2010)

• Light detection and ranging (LiDAR) data provided by ODOT

• Oregon Wetland Soils by The Wetlands Conservancy

• Oregon DEQ Facility Profiler Database

• DOGAMI Open File Report O-13-06, “The Ground Motion, Ground Deformation, Tsunami Inundation, 

Coseismic Subsidence, and Damage Potential Maps for the 2012 Oregon Resilience Plan for Cascadia 

Subduction Zone Earthquakes” by the Oregon DOGAMI (Madin and Burns, 2013)

• The Mineral Information Layer for Oregon, release 2 (MILO-2) (Niewendorp and Geitgey, 2010)

• ODOT’s dataset of aggregate source locations

Within 500 feet of new alignment centerlines, existing stations, and potential new stations, OPR Project 

alternatives were evaluated for potential direct impacts to and from substandard geology and soil 

conditions, including:

• Mapped and suspected unstable slopes

• Potentially compressible soils and landfills

• Potentially liquefiable soils 

• Slopes susceptible to seismic-induced landslides

• Mapped mineral and aggregate resource removal and processing sites

Data sources were evaluated in GIS for potential indirect impacts within 0.25 mile of alignment centerlines, 

including:

• Mapped and suspected unstable slopes

• Potentially compressible soil and landfills

• Mapped mineral and aggregate resource removal and processing sites

Appendix D, Figure D-4 shows mapped locations of unstable slope, historic landslide, scarp, landslide hazard 

area, and hydric soils.

Tier 2 Analysis

Future Tier 2 environmental studies for individual projects proposed subsequent to the OPR Project would 

entail detailed project-level geological analysis based on advanced design.

4.11.3 Study Area

The study area for the affected environment and potential direct impacts to geology and soils includes the 

area within 500 feet of alignment centerlines, existing stations, and potential new stations. A 10-mile buffer 
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4 - 107

OCTOBER 2018

was used for mapped faults. A larger buffer is appropriate for faults because of the inherent imprecision in 

the mapped locations and the potential for catastrophic impacts, such as a surface rupture.

The study area for indirect impacts for the geology and soils technical analysis includes terrain within 

0.25 mile of alignment centerlines and station areas. This relatively large buffer area is appropriate because 

several related features and events (such as landslides) could impact the project from a greater distance.

4.11.4 Affected Environment

The build alternative alignments traverse nearly the entire length of the Willamette Valley physiographic 

province, a north–south trending, elongated lowland stretching from the Columbia River to Cottage Grove, 

OR. Bounded on the west by the Coast Range and on the east by the Cascade Range, the valley is 

approximately 130 miles long and generally 20 to 40 miles wide, tapering down to a point at its southern 

terminus. Much of Oregon’s geologic history, including that of the Willamette Valley, has been shaped by 

an adjacent tectonic plate boundary, where oceanic crust is subducting beneath the North American 

continental crust.

Tables 4.11-1 and 4.11-2 provide a summary of the geology and soils characteristics that represent the 

affected environment.

Table 4.11-1. Summary of Geology and Soils Characteristics for Each Alternative Alignment 

Resource Indicator, Topic, or Measurement Alternative 1a,b Alternative 2a,b

Number of Mapped Class A Faults 15 16 

Linear Miles of Mapped Slope Failures 7.4 miles (1.4 miles) 11.7 miles (2.3 miles)

Acres of “All Hydric” Soil within Study Area 4,102 acres

(2,039 acres)

8,423 acres

(6,412 acres)

Acres of Liquefaction-Susceptible Soil within 

Study Area

6,854 acres

(2,905 acres)

7,648 acres

(4,029 acres)

Linear Miles of Mapped Earthquake-Induced 

Landslide-Susceptible Slopes

116 miles

(57 miles)

115 miles

(68 miles)

Number of Mapped Mineral and Aggregate 

Resources Sites

2 7 

a The No Action Alternative and Alternative 1 follow the same general alignment.

b Values in parentheses apply only to the portions of the alignment where new track would be constructed, where different.
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4 - 108 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

Table 4.11-2. Summary of Geology and Soils Characteristics for Each Existing and Proposed Station 

Resource 

Indicator, Topic, 

or Measurement Springfield Eugeneb Albanya Salema Keizer Woodburna Wilsonville Tualatin

Oregon 

City Portland

Miles to Mapped 

Class A Fault 30 miles 30 

miles

5 miles

7 miles

4 miles

3 miles

7 

miles

1 mile

2 miles 4 miles 2 miles 1 mile 0.5 mile

Percentage of 

“All Hydric” Soil 

within Station 

Area

0% 0% 100% 

25% 

0% 

10% 0% 10% 

25% 0% 10% 0% 0% 

Percentage of 

LiquefactionSusceptible Soil 

within Station 

Area

0% 0% 100% 

100% 

0% 

100% 100% 0% 

0% 75% 75% 100% 75% 

EarthquakeInduced 

LandslideSusceptible 

Slopes within 

Station Area?

No Yes Yes

Yes

No

Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

a Top value applies to Alternative 1 station location. Bottom value applies to Alternative 2 station location.

4.11.5 Environmental Consequences

4.11.5.1 Direct and Indirect Impacts

No Action Alternative

No impacts to or from geology and soils would result from the No Action Alternative. Routine maintenance 

and emergency repair of infrastructure following events such as rockfall, landslides, flooding, or 

earthquakes would continue to be required.

Alternative 1

Minor grade changes and no major retaining structures are planned. Therefore, limited changes to the 

stability of existing slopes and no impacts from compressible soils are anticipated.

No impacts due to mapped liquefaction-susceptible soils are anticipated from Alternative 1. However, 

without mitigation, liquefaction-related ground displacements could impact the completed track, 

associated structures, and station facilities during an earthquake. The existing Albany Station is located in 

an area mapped with a liquefaction susceptibility of “very high.”

Limited impacts from earthquake-induced, landslide-susceptible slopes are anticipated from Alternative 1. 

Areas with a relatively high risk of slope failure, both static and seismic-induced, appear to be river and 

stream banks and the following list of general locations with steep slopes within 500 feet of the alignment 

centerline. This list of locations below is based on a preliminary review of the available data with the 

conceptual engineering developed for the OPR Project. These areas appear more likely to require 

mitigation to construct the project without causing failures or to achieve an acceptable factor of safety for 

static or seismic slope stability.

• East of the alignment to Scravel Hill Road NE, north of Millersburg 

• East of the alignment between Cemetery Hill Road SE and Parrish Gap Road SE, north of Jefferson

• West of the alignment between Parrish Gap Road SE and Pearson Road SE, north of Jefferson
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4 - 109

OCTOBER 2018

• West of the alignment between Delaney Road SE and Timber Drive SE in Turner

• West of the alignment from Kuebler Boulevard SE to north of the I-5 undercrossing south of Salem

• West of the alignment along Mill Race Road NE, south of Ehlen Road NE, in Aurora

• From Ehlen Road NE north about 1.25 miles to approximately where the alignment becomes adjacent 

to OR 99E, north of Aurora

• East of the alignment along the adjacent sand and gravel mine pit in Turner

• West of the alignment near the intersection of Otto Road and OR 99E in Canby

• East of the alignment from E Territorial Road to the northern edge of Canby at the Willamette River

• From the northern edge of Canby at the Willamette River 6.3 miles north to 12th Street in Oregon City 

(In this area the Alternative 1 alignment is located on a relatively narrow area between the Willamette 

River and steep slopes and rock cuts. Near 1st Street in Oregon City, the tracks are close to the 

riverbanks; therefore, riverbank stability to the west and slope stability to the east are both hazards. 

North of 1st Street, the tracks are farther from the riverbank, and the primary hazard is rockfall from 

the adjacent cliffs to the east. The ODOT data indicates a significant number of rockfall events affecting 

OR 99E near Oregon City.)

• North of the Clackamas River near 82nd Drive and SE Charles Court to south of OR 212/OR 224

• West of the alignment along NW St. Helens Road/OR 30 north of NW Kittridge Avenue in Portland

• Both sides of the alignment from N Edgewater Street to N Fessenden Street in Portland

Indirect impacts due to slope failures are possible at the same locations identified for direct impacts. 

Indirect impacts could consist of rockfall or landslide debris on the tracks, but these are less likely to require 

complete reconstruction of the tracks.

Alternative 2 and Alternative 2 with Central Albany Option

Several bridges and elevated viaduct structures with retained approach fills are planned for Alternative 2. 

Most of the area is mapped as “All Hydric” soil; therefore, mitigation for settlement could be required for 

construction of some fills. The following list identifies specific areas that appear to be at higher risk due to 

compressible soil.

• Long-term settlement of approach fills on the north bank of the Willamette River in Springfield could 

occur if landfill deposits or non-engineered fill extend below the tracks.

• Variable, unconsolidated deposits may be present where the alignment crosses a mapped fan deposit, 

between the McKenzie River and just north of Coleman Road.

• Talbot Road, north of Millersburg

• From 37th Avenue SE to Hagers Grove Road SE in Salem

• South approach to SW Norwood Road viaduct structure

• North of Blankenship Road

No impacts due to mapped liquefaction-susceptible soils from Alternative 2 or Alternative 2 with Central 

Albany Option are anticipated. However, liquefaction-related ground displacements could impact the track, 

associated structures, and station facilities during an earthquake. 

Areas with a relatively high risk of slope failure, both static and seismic-induced, appear to be rock cuts, 

river and stream banks, and the following list of general locations with steep slopes within 500 feet of the 

alignment centerline. This list of locations is based on a preliminary review of the available data with the 
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4 - 110 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

conceptual engineering developed for the OPR Project. These areas appear more likely to require 

mitigation to construct the project without causing failures or to achieve an acceptable factor of safety for 

slope stability or earthquakes.

• River and stream banks and slopes near the east end of Arnold Lane NE in Albany

• Proposed cut south of Dever Conner Road NE/Santiam Bluffs Road NE

• East of the alignment between OR 164/Jefferson Highway and south of Jackson Hill Road SE

• West of the alignment between Twin Hills Drive SE and south of Jackson Hill Road SE, south of Salem

• Proposed cuts and slopes along both sides of I-5 between Jackson Hill Road SE and Battle Creek, 

from Turner to Salem

• Proposed cuts near Kuebler Boulevard SE in Salem

• From the northern end of NE Prahl Road, south of Wilsonville

• Proposed cut south of Dever Conner Road NE/Santiam Bluffs Road NE

• East of the alignment between OR 164/Jefferson Highway and south of Jackson Hill Road SE

• West of the alignment between Twin Hills Drive SE and south of Jackson Hill Road SE, south of Salem

• Proposed cuts and slopes along both sides of I-5 between Jackson Hill Road SE and Battle Creek, 

from Turner to Salem

• Proposed cuts near Kuebler Boulevard SE in Salem

• From the northern end of NE Prahl Road, south of Wilsonville

• East of I-205 near SW 65th Avenue

• Both sides of I-205 in the vicinity of SW Prosperity Park Road

• Both sides of I-205 in the vicinity of S Woodbine Road

• Along Willamette Falls Drive between 6th Street in West Linn and the east end of the viaduct structure 

over the Willamette River in Oregon City

The quarry located just north of the McKenzie River on the east side of I-5 could be impacted, depending on 

the distance from the tracks to the constructed rock cut and the location of the property line.

The alignment would cross the access to the Frohmader Quarry from Enchanted Way SE on an elevated 

viaduct, and the alignment would be very close to the edge of the pits in some locations. Mitigation could 

be required to attain an acceptable factor of safety of the slope, particularly for placing fill at the top of the 

slopes. If a failure of the slope along the edge of the pit adjacent to the tracks is expected to cause 

displacement of the soil supporting the tracks, the most cost-effective mitigation measure to construct 

would require placing engineered fill in the pit to increase the offset from the top of the slope to the tracks.

Rock cuts below I-205 and above Willamette Falls Drive would require careful design and construction 

following a comprehensive geologic exploration program, particularly below the existing landslide deposit 

between South Salamo Road and Beaconhill Drive in West Linn, where a large bedrock failure occurred 

during excavation for I-205 southbound. It is likely that design and construction of the rock cut along 

Willamette Falls Drive would be the most challenging portion of Alternative 2 with respect to geology and 

soils.

With regard to direct impacts explicitly associated with the Central Albany Option, the Albany Station is 

located in an area mapped with a liquefaction susceptibility of “very high.”
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4 - 111

OCTOBER 2018

Indirect impacts of slope failures are possible at the same locations identified for direct impacts. Indirect 

impacts could consist of rockfall or landslide debris on the tracks, but these are less likely to require 

complete reconstruction of the tracks.

4.11.5.2 Construction Impacts

Alternative 1

If unmitigated settlement were to be caused adjacent to existing facilities or right-of-way boundaries, the 

adjacent facilities, utilities, or properties could be impacted.

Moderate quantities of high-quality sand, gravel, and crushed rock would likely be required for 

construction, increasing demand for materials from aggregate sources in the vicinity of the alignment. 

Limited grade changes and no major retaining structures are proposed for Alternative 1, so impacts to local 

aggregate sources would likely be limited.

Alternative 2 and Alternative 2 with Central Albany Option

The construction impacts identified for Alternative 1 also apply to Alternative 2. Alternative 2 would require 

significantly more earthwork than Alternative 1 and is, therefore, more likely to impact the supply, demand, 

and cost for aggregate resources in the vicinity of the project.

Construction impacts would also be associated with a cut-and-cover tunnel in SE Portland. Considerations 

related to geology and soils associated with this tunnel include:

• Dewatering and groundwater control would be a major issue. The groundwater elevation along 

SE 2nd Avenue is expected to be close to the water level in the Willamette River, which has an average 

elevation of about 10 feet. The lowest portion of the tunnel would be around elevation -8 feet, about 

18 feet below the river level.

• Protecting adjacent building foundations and utilities from vibration, settlement, and displacement 

while the cut is open would be important. Many of the facilities are old and likely sensitive to minor 

ground displacements. In addition, complete records documenting their foundation types and design 

assumptions might be difficult to locate.

• Temporary easements would probably be required for installation of tiebacks to support the shoring 

walls that would be needed to keep the trench open during construction. The tiebacks for the walls 

would probably be much longer than what could be installed within the SE 2nd Avenue ROW.

• Historically, large quantities of fill material have been placed along the Willamette River. This fill is 

typically highly variable, and it often contains obstructions, wood debris, and other undesirable 

material.

4.11.6 Potential Mitigation

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

address local geologic and soil conditions, as appropriate. Technical mitigation measures during 

construction would likely be required for the project design criteria to be met where unstable slopes, 

liquefiable soils, and/or compressible soils are present within the construction area. Mitigation measures 

could include retaining walls, slope re-grading, deep foundations, foundations designed to resist landslideinduced lateral loads, surcharge fills, ground improvement, rock bolts, and other measures. Rock tunneling 

would be an approach to avoid unstable slopes and rockfall from the cliffs on both sides of the Willamette 

River through West Linn and Oregon City.
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4 - 112 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

4.12 Biological Resources

This section discusses legal requirements, methods of analysis, study areas, affected environment, potential 

environmental consequences and mitigation strategies related to biological resources for each of the OPR 

Project alternatives.

4.12.1 Legal Requirements 

In addition to NEPA and the CEQ’s NEPA implementing regulations, Federal and state laws and regulations 

related to biological resources and applicable to this Tier 1 analysis include the following:

4.12.1.1 Federal

• FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts. Section 14(n)(5) states that an EIS should 

assess both construction-period and long-term impacts of alternatives on wildlife and vegetation in the 

affected environment. Section 14(n)(7) states that an EIS, where applicable, should discuss the impacts 

of the alternatives on endangered or threatened species or wildlife.

• Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) (16 USC Section 1531 et seq.) provides protection for federally 

listed fish, wildlife, and plant species, and designated critical habitat. The ESA outlines procedures to 

follow when actions may impact listed species; it also contains exceptions and exemptions to take 

(e.g., to capture, wound, harass, kill, or otherwise injure the species).

• The Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation Management Act governs the conservation and 

management of ocean fishing, and it protects anadromous fish habitat.

• The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prevents the unpermitted take, killing or possession of 

migratory birds. Removal of inactive nests (i.e., devoid of eggs or dependent young) does not require a 

permit; therefore, removal of a nest should occur before nest occupancy. A take permit may be issued 

at the discretion of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), but early coordination is critical.

• The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act prohibits the take or possession of and commerce in bald 

and golden eagles and their nests, with limited exceptions authorized by a USFWS permit.

• Section 401, Water Quality Certification, of the Federal Clean Water Act specifies that projects with 

in-water work or discharge into the Waters of the United States or the state may need a water quality 

certification permit. This permit is concurrent with the Section 404 review process.

• Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act enables the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to regulate fill, 

including pilings and other structures, within Waters of the United States.

• Executive Order 11990: Protection of Wetlands, was issued in 1977. The Executive Order directs 

Federal agencies to avoid to the extent possible the long and short term adverse impacts associated 

with the destruction or modification of wetlands and to avoid direct or indirect support of new 

construction in wetlands wherever there is a practicable alternative.

4.12.1.2 State

• Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) – Oregon laws (ORS 509.580 through 910 and 

OAR 635, Division 412) regulate artificial obstructions located in waters in which native migratory fish 

are currently, or were historically, present. Native migratory fish include but are not limited to native 

salmon, trout, lamprey, sturgeon, and suckers. Fish passage requirements are triggered by the 

installation, major replacement or abandonment of an artificial obstruction (e.g., culverts).

• The Oregon Removal/Fill Act enables the State of Oregon to regulate fill or removal within waters of 

the state.
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4 - 113

OCTOBER 2018

• The Oregon Endangered Species Act (Oregon ESA) (ORS 496.171 to 496.192, 498.026, and 564.100 to 

564.135) protects state-listed threatened and endangered species. It includes most native species listed 

under the Federal ESA that reside in Oregon as well as additional species designated threatened or 

endangered by ODFW and the Oregon Department of Agriculture. Invertebrates are not protected 

under Oregon state law.

4.12.2 Methods

4.12.2.1 Existing Conditions 

The following information sources were used to document existing conditions within the potential impact 

areas of the OPR Project. No field work was conducted as part of this Tier 1 biological resources analysis to 

verify or supplement data collection efforts.

• The USFWS ESA species list and ODFW species list for Lane, Linn, Marion, Clackamas, Washington, and 

Multnomah counties (USFWS, 2015; ODFW, 2012) were used to identify listed, proposed, and 

candidate species.

• The Oregon Biodiversity Information Center (ORBIC) database (ORBIC, 2015) was used to map known 

locations of rare, threatened, and endangered plant and animal species over the last 25 years.

• USFWS and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) critical habitat maps (USFWS, 2014a, b; NMFS, 

2014a, b) were used to identify designated and proposed critical habitat.

• StreamNet (StreamNet, 2014) and ODFW Distribution/Habitat maps (ODFW, 2010) were used to 

identify salmon and steelhead trout occurrence and habitat use. In addition, the total number of 

stream crossings were identified and tabulated by project alternative and by occurrence of listed fish 

species. 

• The Oregon Conservation Strategy (OCS) (ODFW, 2005) was used to identify non-listed species and 

habitats of conservation concern. Strategy habitats in the Willamette Valley include oak woodland and 

savannah, riparian areas, grasslands (including Willamette Prairie), and wetlands.

• The ODFW Centralized Oregon Mapping Products and Analysis Support System (COMPASS) (ODFW, 

2014a); the Northwest Habitat Institute (NWHI) Vegetation Land Cover Map (NWHI, 2000); and other 

Federal and state fish, wildlife, and vegetation natural resource GIS databases mentioned previously 

were used to identify species and habitats occurring along the study area.

• ODFW hosted a 2007 workshop that identified wildlife linkages (ODFW, 2007). The information from 

that workshop was used to evaluate potential impacts to wildlife linkages by comparing the number of 

times a proposed alignment would cross a wildlife linkage.

• The Nature Conservancy has worked with government agencies and nonprofit partners to produce a 

synthesis of the major Willamette Basin conservation planning efforts. The Willamette Valley Synthesis 

Map (ODFW, 2005) was used to evaluate whether the proposed rail alignments would cross 

conservation opportunity areas.

• Potential fish passage barriers were tabulated as the number of new and existing stream crossings by 

alternative alignments from data provided by ODFW (2013).

• The National Conservation Easement Database (NCED, 2014), a national database of conservation 

easement information, was used to identify easements within each of the study areas. This database 

compiles records from land trusts and public agencies throughout the United States to help 

organizations plan more strategically and identify opportunities for collaboration.
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4 - 114 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

4.12.2.2 Direct Impacts

Direct impacts are defined as habitat and species impacts caused by an action at the time of the action 

(e.g., loss of habitat, addition of infrastructure to a natural environment, etc.). Direct impacts that could 

result from the OPR Project were assessed for terrestrial and aquatic species and their habitats, including 

designated and proposed critical habitat, within 100 feet of proposed rail centerlines and a 20-acre area for 

each potential new rail station location. Multiple Federal and state GIS data sets were used to characterize 

existing biological conditions and hypothesize about possible project impacts.

In practice, infrastructure improvements needed for a future build alternative would not result in direct 

impacts to the entire direct impacts study area. However, for the purposes of the OPR Tier 1 EIS, the known 

resources within the direct impacts study area were used as a means to compare the alternatives, and to 

make preliminary assessments regarding which alternative would likely have greater impacts on biological 

resources. The following measures were used to assess potential direct impacts to biological resources:

• General wildlife habitat types (acres potentially impacted)

• Wildlife and plant critical habitat (acres potentially impacted)

• Threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate wildlife or plant species (number of known 

populations or individuals)

• OCS non-listed species (number of known populations or individuals)

• ODFW wildlife linkages (number of intersections with proposed rail alignments)

• Non-listed fish species (number of proposed stream crossings and area of riparian disturbance)

• Threatened and endangered fish species (number of proposed stream crossings in occupied habitat, 

in proposed or designated critical habitat, and across watersheds)

• Fish and aquatic habitat (number of proposed new stream crossings)

For the purposes of this conceptual-level assessment, it was assumed that the more habitat and species 

locations within the study area, the greater the probability that these resources would be impacted. 

Additionally, the total number of streams in the direct impacts study area was used as an indicator of 

potential impact on all fish species, whether resident, anadromous, native, or introduced. The number of 

stream crossings with listed and proposed fish species present was used as an indicator of potential impact 

on those species.

4.12.2.3 Indirect Impacts

The potential indirect impacts of the OPR Project on terrestrial species were derived from general 

disturbance impacts that could be caused by the construction, operation, and maintenance of passenger 

rail infrastructure, and through potential fragmentation impacts to the biological resources in the study 

area.

Two primary variables were used to assess potential indirect impacts on fish and other aquatic species: 

(1) the number of locations of riparian clearing (not associated with stream crossings) and, more important, 

(2) the area of new impervious surface generated by proposed build alternatives. Permanent clearing of 

substantial areas of riparian vegetation for project facilities could impair ecological functions such as water 

temperature moderation, stream bank stabilization, runoff filtration, and the contribution of woody debris 

for stream structure development and organic matter to the aquatic trophic system. Because the ultimate 

area of riparian clearing cannot be determined for each alternative alignment without detailed project 

design, the number of locations where new railroad would be within 100 feet of a stream was used to 

represent the relative risk for potential indirect impacts to aquatic resources.
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4 - 115

OCTOBER 2018

The net increase in impervious surface typically has the most significant indirect impact on fish and other 

aquatic life because of the fundamental and persistent changes it causes to hydrology and water quality. 

New impervious surface created by the OPR Project would be related to new or expanded bridges and any 

new station developments and their paved parking areas. Most of the proposed rail infrastructure would 

consist of compact soil and gravel that would be pervious and allow for infiltration, though infiltration could 

be compromised compared to existing conditions due to compaction of built facilities. 

4.12.2.4 Construction Impacts

Potential temporary (construction-related) biological resources impacts were identified at a conceptual 

level. Specific temporary impacts, the extent of temporary impacts, and appropriate mitigation measures 

would be evaluated in more detail in subsequent Tier 2 environmental studies.

4.12.2.5 Tier 2 Analysis

Future Tier 2 environmental studies for individual projects proposed subsequent to the OPR Project would 

consider:

• Performing field work based on advanced design, which could result in avoidance and minimization of 

many of the potential impacts described in this biological resources section;

• Evaluating oak woodland/savannah and the native grassland habitats that have been reduced to small 

remnant patches and as such are not evident on larger-scale maps; and

• Analyzing construction impacts to biological resources.

4.12.3 Study Area

4.12.3.1 Terrestrial

The study area for the direct impacts analysis for terrestrial species included the area within 100 feet of 

proposed rail centerlines and a 20-acre area for each potential new rail station location. The study area for 

the assessment of existing conditions and indirect impacts included the areas within 2,000 feet of proposed 

rail centerlines and a 20-acre area surrounding each existing and potential new rail station. A 0.5-mile 

buffer from proposed rail centerlines was used to identify known bald and golden eagle nests. 

4.12.3.2 Aquatic

All analyses of potential direct impacts to aquatic resources (with the exception of stormwater) were based 

on the area within 100 feet of proposed rail centerlines and the 20-acre areas surrounding potential new 

stations. Post-construction indirect impacts to stormwater could occur beyond the 100-foot distance from 

centerlines because of the fundamental and persistent changes new impervious surface can cause to 

hydrology and water quality downstream greater than 100 feet from the centerline.

4.12.4 Affected Environment

Because of the wide variety of geographic features, habitat types, and special status species located within 

the sizeable OPR Project study area, this section is divided into the following seven biological resources 

categories:

(1) Special Status Terrestrial Species and Critical Habitats

(2) General Wildlife Habitat

(3) OCS Species and Habitat

(4) Wildlife Linkages

(5) Conservation Opportunity Areas
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4 - 116 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

(6) Conservation Easements

(7) Aquatic Resources

Appendix D, Figure D-5 shows wildlife linkages, conservation opportunity areas, conservation easements, 

and major water bodies that provide aquatic habitat.

4.12.4.1 Special Status Terrestrial Species and Critical Habitats

Special status species, as defined for this Tier 1 EIS, include Federal and state listed, proposed, and 

candidate species. ORBIC data was used to determine known locations of special status species 

(ORBIC, 2015).

There is no designated or proposed critical habitat for any terrestrial species within the study area. 

The number of known occurrences of special status species is listed by build alternative in Table 4.12-1

(ORBIC, 2015). 

4.12.4.2 General Wildlife Habitat

There are 293 native vertebrate species reported to be residents, seasonal migrants, or irregular visitors 

to the Willamette Valley ecoregion. Birds comprise the greatest number of species (186), followed by 

mammals (73), amphibians (18), and reptiles (16). At least 19 non-native vertebrate species are established 

in the Willamette Valley (Oregon Explorer, 2014).

The vast majority of the habitats common to all alternatives is agricultural land, followed by urban land. 

With the exception of wetland habitats, the remaining habitat types are fairly evenly distributed among the 

alternatives. For wetland habitats, Hawthorne-Willow Scrubland is the most abundant type, with Palustrine 

Forest Wetland and Palustrine Emergent Wetland nearly equally distributed. Although some habitat types, 

such as grasslands or areas dominated by shrubs rather than forest, likely occur in the study area, they are 

not identified on the larger-scale habitat maps used in this Tier 1 analysis.

Table 4.12-1. Habitat Use by Special Status Species with the Potential to Occur within the OPR Project Terrestrial Study 

Area 

Species

Federal

Statusa

State 

Statusb Habitat c

Plants 

Nelson’s sidalcea

(Sidalcea nelsoniana)

LT LT Willamette Valley populations of Nelson’s checkermallow are 

typically found in open prairie remnants along the margins of 

streams, sloughs, ditches, roadsides, fence rows, and drainage 

swales and in fallow fields. Occasionally, the species occurs in the 

understory or at the edges of ash woodlands or among woody 

shrubs. Substrates at Willamette Valley sites range from gravelly, 

well-drained loams to poorly drained, hydric clay soils.

Shaggy horkelia

(Horkelia congesta ssp. 

congesta)

SOC C Within Willamette Valley prairies, populations occupy a variety of 

microsites, ranging from slight topographic rises within wet

prairies to distinctly dry uplands, and from completely open areas 

(i.e., grassy balds) to shady understories of oak/fir woodlands.

Thin-leaved peavine

(Lathyrus holochlorus) 

SOC − The characteristic habitat of this species is believed to be prairie 

edge/oak savanna/prairie-oak woodland ecotone, which 

historically was maintained by fire. Currently occupied habitats 

include roadsides, fencerows, partially cleared land, grasslands 

and pastures, low scrubby vegetation, creek banks, forest edges, 

and open woods and clearings. Soil is usually a moist loam.
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4 - 117

OCTOBER 2018

Species

Federal

Statusa

State 

Statusb Habitat c

White rock larkspur

(Delphinium leucophaeum) 

SOC LE White rock larkspur is found on the edges of oak woodlands, in dry 

roadside ditches, on basalt cliffs, along riverbanks and bluffs, on 

moist rocky slopes, and in moist lowland meadows. It inhabits 

loose, shallow soils typically 5 to 7 cm deep with a high organic 

matter content and high level of sand relative to the soils in which 

other Pacific Northwest delphiniums occur.

White-topped aster 

(Sericocarpus rigidus) 

SOC LT The majority of white-topped aster populations, those occurring in 

western Washington, are found primarily on gravelly, glacial 

outwash soils. The southernmost populations of Oregon occupy 

deep, poorly drained clayey soils, and the northernmost 

populations of British Columbia occupy very shallow soils overlying 

bedrock. The species occurs in open, grassy, seasonally moist 

prairie and savannah habitats.

Tall bugbane

(Cimicifuga elata) 

− C This species grows in moist woods and forest habitat. It is mostly 

restricted to lower elevations and is more common on northfacing slopes.

Howell’s montia

(Montia howellia)

− C Moist to wet habitat, including vernal pools and meadows. It 

sometimes grows in shallow standing water such as puddles.

Birds

Streaked horned lark 

(Eremophila alpestris 

strigata) 

LT C Found in wide-open spaces with no trees and few or no shrubs. 

Nests are found on the ground in sparsely vegetated sites 

dominated by grasses and forbs (ODFW, 2014b; Pearson and 

Altman, 2005).

Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus) 

− SV Breeding habitat most commonly includes areas close to (within 

4 km) coastal areas, bays, rivers, lakes, reservoirs, or other bodies 

of water that reflect the general availability of primary food 

sources including fish, waterfowl, or seabirds (Campbell et al., 

1990). Nests usually are in tall trees or on pinnacles or cliffs near 

water.

American peregrine falcon 

(Falco peregrinus) 

− SV The species lives mostly along mountain ranges, river 

valleys, coastlines, and increasingly in cities (Ferguson and 

Christie, 2001).

Reptiles

Western pond turtle

(Actinemys marmorata) 

SOC SC Habitat includes permanent and intermittent waters of rivers, 

creeks, small lakes and ponds (including human-made stock ponds 

and sewage-treatment ponds; Germano, 2010), marshes, unlined 

irrigation canals, and reservoirs. Substantial populations can exist 

in water bodies in urban areas (Spinks et al., 2003). It often basks 

on logs, vegetation mats, or rocks.

Painted turtle

(Chrysemys picta) 

− SC Painted turtles live in slow-moving, shallow waters with soft 

bottoms, basking sites, and aquatic vegetation: streams, marshes, 

swamps, ponds, lakes, and reservoirs. They may colonize 

seasonally flooded areas near permanent water. Hibernation 

occurs in water. Females dig nests in soft soil in open areas up to 

several hundred meters from water. Hatchlings usually remain in 

nest in winter and emerge in spring (Packard and Packard, 1995).

Insects 

Fender’s blue butterfly

(Icaricia icarioides fenderi) 

LE − Occurs in native prairie habitats (USFWS, 2006).

a USFWS (2015).

b ODFW (2008) and ODFW (2012).
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4 - 118 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

c ODA (2016), unless otherwise noted.

C = candidate

LE = listed endangered

LT = listed threatened

SC = sensitive critical

SOC = species of concern

SV = sensitive vulnerable 

Notable points about the affected environments for the respective build alternatives include:

• Alternative 1 contains fewer acres of mixed conifer/mixed deciduous forest than Alternative 2 

• Alternative 1 contains fewer acres of Oregon white oak forest than Alternative 2 

• Alternative 1 contains the greatest amount of palustrine forest wetland

• Alternative 2 contains a greater amount of alder/cottonwood riparian habitat than Alternative 1

• Both build alternatives would avoid most of the open water in the study area

4.12.4.3 Oregon Conservation Strategy (OCS) Species and Habitat

The OCS is a conceptual framework for long-term conservation of Oregon’s native fish, wildlife, 

invertebrates, and plants (ODFW, 2006). The OCS emphasizes proactively conserving declining species and 

habitats to reduce the possibility of future Federal or state listings. It is not a regulatory document. Instead, 

it presents issues and opportunities, and recommends voluntary actions that will improve the efficiency and 

effectiveness of conservation in Oregon. The OCS was used to identify non-listed species and habitat that 

could be impacted by the OPR Project. OCS habitats in the Willamette Valley include oak woodland/

savannah, riparian, native prairie (including Willamette prairie), and wetlands. It should be noted that the 

habitat types listed by the OCS do not precisely match the sources used for habitat mapping. Oak 

woodland/savannah and the native grassland habitats have been reduced to small remnant patches that 

are not evident on larger-scale maps.

4.12.4.4 Wildlife Linkages

ODFW, under the Oregon Wildlife Movement Strategy and in partnership with ODOT and other government 

agencies, identified wildlife linkages in Oregon. Wildlife linkages are key movement areas for wildlife 

(ODFW, 2007). This Tier 1 analysis focused on wildlife linkage areas that have been identified and prioritized 

by ODFW.

Table 4.12-2 shows the number of times a build alternative alignment crosses an identified wildlife linkage 

(ODFW, 2007). The table includes only medium- and high-priority linkages; low-priority linkages were not 

included in the data in order to focus attention on higher-priority linkages. This information is provided in 

an attempt to describe the type of information currently available for wildlife linkages, and should be 

considered preliminary at this stage. Later analysis for specific rail improvement projects would need to 

review each linkage separately to determine the attributes that could be affected.

Table 4.12-2. Wildlife Linkages within the Terrestrial Study Area 

Wildlife Linkage Rank Alternative 1 – Total Crossings Alternative 2 – Total Crossings

Medium Priority 34 77 

(79) 

High Priority 14 47 

Note: The amount within parentheses refers to the Alternative 2 with Central Albany Option when the amount differs 

from that of Alternative 2.
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4 - 119

OCTOBER 2018

4.12.4.5 Conservation Opportunity Areas

Conservation Opportunity Areas (COAs) were identified under the OCS as priority areas for conservation 

actions that directly benefit wildlife and natural habitats (ODFW, 2006). Generally, these are either areas of 

high biodiversity or areas with unique habitat values where conservation actions will best meet the needs 

of OCS species and natural habitats. There are nine Conservation Opportunity Areas within the study area 

(see Table 4.12-3). The COAs include waterways, riparian, and upland habitat.

Table 4.12-3. Conservation Opportunity Areas within the Terrestrial Study Area 

Conservation Opportunity Areas

Alternative 1: COA Acreage in

Study Area

Alternative 2: COA Acreage in

Study Area 

Calapooia River 501 702 

(719) 

Coburg Ridge Area 0 410 

McKenzie River 0 625 

Lower and North Santiam River 800 507 

Lower Little Pudding River 1,540 0 

Portland Forest Park 49 49 

Salem Hills-Ankeny National Wildlife Refuge 189 191 

Smith-Bybee Lakes 269 269 

Willamette River Floodplain 5,399 3,352 

(3,547) 

Total Acreage in COAs 8,747 6,105 

(6,317) 

Note: Amounts within parentheses refer to the Alternative 2 with Central Albany Option when the amount differs 

from that of Alternative 2.

Source: Oregon Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy, ODFW 2006.

4.12.4.6 Conservation Easements

A conservation easement is a legal agreement between a landowner and a land trust or governmental 

agency that permanently limits the uses of the land to protect its conservation values (Land Trust Alliance, 

2014). Conservation easements have some flexibility; some might allow land use activities such as farming 

and the addition of structures, while others with rare wildlife habitat might prohibit any development. 

The National Conservation Easement Database (NCED), a national database of conservation easement 

information, was used to identify easements within the study area (NCED, 2014). Some of the easements 

identified are part of the Wetlands Reserve Program. The purpose of this program is to achieve the greatest 

wetland functions and values, as well as optimum wildlife habitat (USDA-NRCS, 2011). Table 4.12-4 lists the 

acreage in conservation easements within the study area for each of the build alternatives (e.g., the full 

alignment).

Table 4.12-4. Conservation Easements Acreage within the Terrestrial Study Area 

Alternative 1: Total Acreage of Easements Alternative 2: Total Acreage of Easements

128 49 

Note: There was no difference in the number of easements between Alternative 2 and the Alternative 2 with 

Central Albany Option.
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4 - 120 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

4.12.4.7 Aquatic Resources

The OPR Project study area falls within nine different watersheds and many subbasins. Special status 

species, as defined for this Tier 1 EIS, include Federal and state listed, proposed, and candidate species. 

ORBIC data was used to determine whether a special status species is known to occur (ORBIC, 2015). 

Table 4.12-5 shows the special status aquatic species that occur within the aquatic study area from NMFS 

and ORBIC databases. The special status fish species are present in study areas for both Build Alternatives. 

Additionally, for each of the species listed below, there is critical habitat within the study area for both 

Alternatives 1 and 2.

Table 4.12-5. Special Status Fish Species Present in the Aquatic Study Area 

Listed Species Federal Status State Status

Columbia River chum salmon

(Onncorhynchus keta) 

LT – 

Lower Columbia River coho salmon

(Oncorhynchus kisutch) 

LT LE

Lower Columbia River Chinook salmon

(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) 

LT – 

Lower Columbia River steelhead trout

(Oncorhynchus mykiss) 

LT – 

Upper Willamette River Chinook salmon 

(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) 

LT – 

Upper Willamette River steelhead trout 

(Oncorhynchus mykiss) 

LT – 

Bull trout

(Salvenlinus confluentus) 

LT – 

Eulachon (smelt)

(Thaleichthys pacificus) 

LT – 

LE = listed endangered

LT = listed threatened

Sources: NMFS (2014a, b) and ORBIC (2015).

4.12.5 Environmental Consequences

4.12.5.1 Direct and Indirect Impacts

No Action Alternative

The No Action Alternative would have no direct impacts related to construction or operation of new or 

modified rail infrastructure. There would be no increase in passenger train traffic or maintenance activities 

between the existing Eugene Depot and Portland’s Union Station, and no new passenger rail infrastructure 

would be constructed in adjoining terrestrial habitats, streams, and other waters. Potential impacts from 

continued long-term rail operations and maintenance would involve pesticides and clearing/mowing, while 

continuing operations cause air emissions, can include potential releases of grease, tar, oil, solvents, and 

involve grinding of metal on metal which can end up in surface waters. There could also be a minor 

increased risk of material spills from freight trains, because freight train traffic would increase under the No 

Action Alternative.

Build Alternatives

The build alternatives addressed in this section include Alternative 1, Alternative 2, and Alternative 2 with 

Central Albany Option. For each biological resources category, potential direct impacts within the study 
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4 - 121

OCTOBER 2018

area are addressed for the proposed new track as well as with respect to potential new stations. 

Table 4.12-6 summarizes potential direct impacts to biological resources associated with each build 

alternative.

Table 4.12-6. Summary of Potential Direct Impacts to Biological Resources 

Biological Resources Alternative 1

Alternative 2

(Alternative 2 with Central Albany 

Option)

Special-Status Terrestrial Species 13 species 7 species

(5 species)

General Wildlife Habitata 95 acres 284 acres

(258 acres)

Oregon Conservation Strategy (OCS) 

Habitat

7.4 acres 20.6 (20.9) acres

Wildlife Linkages 14 linkages 64 linkages

(65 linkages)

Conservation Opportunity Areas 260 acres 175 acres

Conservation Easements 1.8 acres 2.8 acres

(0 acres)

Stream crossings with proposed 

new or modified bridges/culverts 40 crossings 115 crossings

(117 crossings)

Stream crossings with new or 

modified bridges/culverts proposed 

at designated critical fish habitat b

10 crossings 22 crossings

(22 crossings)

Number of locations with riparian 

impacts c 9 streams / 5 wetlands 10 streams / 32 wetlands 

(12 streams / 33 wetlands)

Lineal feet of stream / acres of 

wetland within potential impact 

area (stream or wetland not crossed 

by project) c

6,850 ft streams / 1.8 acre wetlands 2,260 ft streams / 14.4 acres wetlands

(3,785 ft streams / 14.9 acres wetlands)

Number of locations with riparian 

impacts along designated critical 

fish habitat b, c

0 0 

(0) 

Amounts within parentheses refer to the Alternative 2 with Central Albany Option.

a Does not include Urban and Agricultural Habitat types.

b Occurrence of listed and proposed fish species was found to coincide with critical habitat.

C Riparian impacts: locations at which new construction could encroach within 100 feet of a stream, but would not involve a stream 

crossing. For example, areas where a wetland or waterway approaches but is not crossed by the alignment.

Indirect impacts would be similar for both build alternatives. Increased passenger train frequency, as well 

as reduced travel times for passenger trains between urban areas, could accelerate current and planned 

transportation and development patterns around stations, which could in turn accelerate impacts to 

biological resources through potential increased impervious surfaces, stormwater contaminants, and 

habitat disturbance.

For new stations, parking lots with impervious pavement would likely be constructed. The impervious 

surface could introduce automotive-related pollutants (including oil and copper) into downstream aquatic 

habitat. Runoff from impervious pavement could also contribute to channel erosion and streamflow 

fluctuation.
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4 - 122 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

If unsealed, treated wood were to be used for railroad ties near surface waters and/or on new bridges, 

wood-treatment chemicals could leach into the streams at those stream crossings. There could also be a 

minor increased risk of material spills from freight trains, because freight train traffic would increase under 

either of the build alternatives.

Changes to the frequency of passenger train traffic could increase noise levels, which could in turn impact 

wildlife species. For the most part, the new passenger rail alignments would be constructed through 

developed areas and/or along existing rail lines or highways. Resident wildlife occurring along these 

developed transportation corridors are more likely to be accustomed to elevated noise levels. However, 

less tolerant species could abandon habitat.

Special Status Terrestrial Species and Critical Habitats

Alternative 1 has a higher potential to impact special status species than Alternative 2, because the 

Alternative 1 direct impacts study area contains the greatest number of known occurrences of special 

status species (13 compared to 7 for Alternative 2, or 5 for Alternative 2 with the Central Albany option). 

However, potential for impact varies greatly by species. Plants are represented almost equally between 

alternatives, but occurrences of reptiles are greater under Alternative 1, and two bald eagle nests occur 

near Alternative 1, while none are known to occur near Alternative 2. The location of the rail improvements

within the study area will dictate the actual impact potential for special status species.

General Wildlife Habitat

The vast majority of potential impacts would be to agricultural and urban land (more urban land for 

Alternative 1, three times more agricultural land for Alternative 2). Thus, general wildlife habitat that could 

be impacted is almost three times as high for Alternative 2 compared to Alternative 1 (284 acres compared 

to 95 acres). Although species are able to use Urban and Agricultural Habitat types at times for feeding and 

breeding, those that use it regularly are adapted to the recurring disturbances associated with these lands.

Potential direct impacts to acreage of Oregon white oak forest, an OCS habitat, and potential impacts on 

mixed Douglas fir/white oak forest are greater for Alternative 2 than for Alternative 1. Perhaps the most 

important difference in relative potential impacts could be on palustrine forest wetland – 36 acres for 

Alternative 1, 22 acres for Alternative 2, and 25 acres for Alternative 2 with Central Albany Option. 

However, all build alternatives could avoid portions of these habitats through sensitive design, e.g., by 

adjusting the location or scope of improvements to avoid specific habitats. 

Oregon Conservation Strategy Species and Habitat

Alternative 1 has less potential to impact OCS habitat than Alternative 2 (7.4 acres compared to 20.6 acres), 

because the Alternative 2 direct impacts study area contains the greatest total acreage of OCS habitats 

and the greatest amount of Oregon white oak forest, which provides habitat for many OCS species. The 

Alternative 2 direct impacts study area also contains the greatest acreage of natural habitats and the only 

acreage of alder/cottonwood riparian gallery.

Limited information is available for mapping OCS habitats due to the scale and accuracy at which they are 

currently mapped. Both oak woodland/savannah habitat and the prairie habitat have been reduced to small 

remnant patches that are not evident on larger-scale maps. Mapping of resources and assessment of 

potential impacts will increase in accuracy as the project progresses to separate, identifiable projects with 

associated specific Tier 2 environmental analyses. 

Wildlife Linkages

The build alternative alignments would be adjacent to existing rail lines or high capacity roadways. New rail 

lines could create additional barriers wildlife would need to negotiate, and the build alternatives would 

increase train volumes from three round trips per day to seven round trips per day. Alternative 1 would 

likely result in the least impact to wildlife linkages because it crosses less than one quarter of the linkages 

crossed by Alternative 2 (14 crossings compared to 64 or 65 crossings for Alternative 2 and the Alternative 
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4 - 123

OCTOBER 2018

2 with Central Albany Option, respectively). However, Alternative 2 would generally cross roadways on 

elevated structures, so would possibly avoid some of the impacts via design of those structures.

Conservation Opportunity Areas (COAs)

Alternatives 1 and 2 would cross four COAs, with both alternatives crossing the Calapooia, Willamette, 

and Lower and North Santiam Rivers. Alternative 1 would also cross the Lower Pudding River COA, and 

Alternative 2 would cross the McKenzie River COA. Both build alternatives would cross the Willamette River 

Floodplain COA multiple times. The Alternative 1 potential impacts on the Willamette River Floodplain COA 

would be to urban habitat, with lower conservation opportunities. Alternative 2 and the Alternative 2 with 

Central Albany Option would have a lower potential acreage impact on the Willamette River Floodplain 

COA, but Alternative 2 would cross the Willamette River three times. An additional passenger rail track in 

this area would reduce conservation opportunities. A portion of Alternative 2 would impact the McKenzie 

River COA, which has floodplain areas with high value for fish and wildlife. Potential impacts would be 

predominantly to agriculture with palustrine forest along the river. There are 260 acres of COAs in the 

Alternative 1 direct impacts study area, as compared to 175 acres for Alternative 2.

Conservation Easements

Alternative 1 would be expected to result in the least impact to conservation easements, because it would 

cross less acreage than Alternative 2 (1.8 acres compared to 2.8 acres). Although conservation easements 

may have the greatest potential to be impacted under Alternative 2, there is the potential for mitigation 

within the easements. There is some flexibility with conservation easements; some might allow land use 

activities such as farming and the addition of structures, while others with rare wildlife habitat might 

prohibit any development. The allowable activities within the conservation easements will need to be 

determined in the Tier 2 analysis.

Aquatic Resources

As noted above, eight different Federal- and state-listed fish species are known to occur within the direct 

impacts aquatic areas for the build alternatives. Additional listed stocks of Snake River and Columbia River 

salmon and steelhead trout not included those totals may also require consideration because of 

downstream project effects. Specifically, the stocks of Snake River and Columbia River salmon and 

steelhead trout downstream of the direct impact areas defined in this document would likely fall within 

potential consultation and review processes by the jurisdictional regulatory/resource agency (NMFS).

The number of new stream crossings proposed in association with the two build alternatives represent 

potential for direct impacts on aquatic resources because of culverts or bridge abutments or pilings 

placement in waterways. Stream crossing construction impacts could also occur from hazardous material 

spills and sediment discharge to waters, for example. The amount of potential riparian impacts (i.e., 

locations at which new construction could encroach within 100 feet of a stream, but would not involve a 

stream crossing) represents the relative potential for effects on riparian functions as described under 

“Methods.”

Table 4.12-6 identifies the number of proposed new or modified stream crossing structures, and those 

crossing critical habitat for listed fish. It also presents the number of locations and measures of riparian 

impacts and riparian areas that are adjoining critical fish habitat. (Note that the occurrences of listed and 

proposed fish species were found to coincide with critical habitat.)

Overall, Alternative 1 has fewer and lesser impacts than Alternative 2, and impacts associated with 

Alternative 1 are in areas that are already affected by railroad infrastructure and use. Alternative 2 would 

introduce nearly three times as many stream crossings than Alternative 1, with twice as many in designated 

critical fish habitat. However, some of the potential impacts associated with Alternative 2 could be avoided 

or mitigated through design and application of best management practices.
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4 - 124 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

As shown in the table, Alternative 2 could have a substantially greater potential impact on streams than 

Alternative 1, with 75 more locations for stream-crossing construction, including 12 more on critical habitat 

for listed fish species. Alternative 1 would have fewer new culverts or bridges at stream crossings than 

Alternative 2, and all of the crossings for Alternative 1 already have rail infrastructure across them. The 

majority of the stream or river crossings associated with Alternative 2 would be new crossings in the 

greenfield alignment; these would create new impacts to aquatic species.

The measures for potential riparian area impacts not included in the stream crossing analysis are similar to 

the results of the stream crossing analysis; Alternative 2 would potentially affect more riparian areas than 

Alternative 1, both in number and potential acreage. Alternative 1 would have more potential stream-bank 

riparian impacts than Alternative 2 because more streams run parallel to the proposed new track, which 

follows the existing UPRR mainline. Alternative 2 would have more wetland-related riparian impacts. Since

Alternative 2 would primarily be a new passenger rail alignment and separated from existing freight rail 

alignments, riparian impacts could be more easily avoided by shifting the proposed alignment in sensitive 

sections. For either alternative, depending on the actual location of the rail infrastructure improvements, 

these riparian impacts could be avoided or minimized by making improvements away from sensitive areas.

All proposed crossings and all riparian impacts caused by either build alternative could also potentially 

impact populations of unlisted, but native, fish species. All riparian and in-stream impacts could also have a 

cumulative impact on water quality within each watershed and subbasin in which they occur. Alternative 2 

would be likely to result in more temporary and long-term impacts on waterways and aquatic resources 

than Alternative 1, including native and introduced fish populations in the affected waterways.

4.12.5.2 Construction Impacts

Build Alternatives

Potential construction impacts were largely addressed in the direct impacts sections above. In addition to 

the construction of the rail infrastructure itself, construction staging areas and possible transportation 

detours could result in additional environmental impacts. Staging areas could cause disturbance, 

displacement, or injury to species as a result of changes to habitats, grading, vegetation, hydrology, 

water quality, noise levels, or visual characteristics. Construction could disrupt natural processes and 

habitat elements within the impacted area on a permanent basis at new track locations or on a temporary 

basis at staging areas. The duration and types of impacts would vary, depending on the construction 

activities, the best management practices implemented, and the species and habitats occurring at each 

area. Both Build Alternatives would be adjacent to existing transportation corridors (rail or road), which 

would help minimize construction impacts. Based on the proposed improvements, construction of 

Alternative 1 would be less intensive and lengthy than Alternative 2, because it would be a smaller-scale 

effort than Alternative 2, which would require construction along the entire route. 

Impacts to biological resources could be avoided or minimized through design by effective placement of 

facilities and staging areas away from sensitive and protected resources. Best management practices would 

be implemented to minimize short-term construction impacts. The build alternatives would be constructed 

in accordance with Federal and state regulations, and would include federally approved conservation 

measures. 

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:
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4 - 125

OCTOBER 2018

– 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).

• 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).

4.13 Floodplains

This section discusses legal requirements, methods of analysis, study area, affected environment, potential 

environmental consequences, and mitigation strategies related to floodplains for each of the OPR Project 

alternatives.

4.13.1 Legal Requirements

In addition to NEPA and the CEQ’s NEPA implementing regulations, Federal and state laws, regulations, and 

orders related to floodplains and applicable to this Tier 1 analysis include the following:

4.13.1.1 Federal

• FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts. Section 14(n)(8) states that each project 

shall determine whether any proposed alternatives would affect a base floodplain. If one or more 

alternatives will affect a base floodplain, the draft EIS shall discuss any risk associated with each such 

alternative, the impacts on natural and beneficial floodplain values, the degree to which the alternative 

supports incompatible development in the base floodplain, and the adequacy of the methods proposed 

to minimize harm.

• The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) was established pursuant to the National Flood 

Insurance Act of 1968 (as amended) and the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (as amended). 

Generally, NFIP regulations are enforced at the local level through municipal codes. It is anticipated that 
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4 - 126 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

counties and major cities have floodplain regulations within their local codes. Typically, these are 

consistent with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Model Floodplain Code.

• FEMA regulations (EO 11988, Floodplain Management [Carter, 1977]). Under these regulations, no 

alteration of flood zones shall result in an increase in the base flood elevation (BFE) or an increase in 

the velocity of floodwaters without FEMA approval. The BFE is defined in the FEMA regulations as “the 

area subject to flooding by the flood or tide having a one percent chance of being exceeded in any 

given year,” which is also referred to as the 100-year flood. EO 11988 directs all Federal agencies to 

refrain from conducting, supporting, or allowing actions in floodplains unless it is the only practicable 

alternative.

• Order DOT 5650.2, Floodplain Management and Protection (USDOT, 1979) describes policies and 

procedures for “ensuring that proper consideration is given to avoidance and mitigation of adverse 

floodplain impacts in agency actions, planning programs and budget requests.”

• U.S. Coast Guard Navigational Clearance Permit. This permit is required for bridge development. 

Clearances are defined as the navigational clearances established by the U.S. Coast Guard for a 

particular navigable water of the United States.

4.13.1.2 State

• The Oregon Fish Passage Law (ORS 509.585) requires that the ODFW approve actions that could 

potentially affect fish passage. Any obstructions, such as bridge piers placed in fish-bearing streams, 

would require ODFW review and approval for hydraulic fish passage conditions.

4.13.2 Methods

Potential effects would result from construction of new rail infrastructure (such as bridges, culverts, 

mainline track, sidings, and stations) within the area of the 1 percent (100-year) floodplain. Existing 

floodplains were identified through the use of FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) (FEMA, 1987–

2010) for the majority of the build alternative alignments. The Oregon National Flood Zone Hazard Layer 

geodatabase was also used to identify the affected environment.

Areas where the build alternative alignments would intersect with the floodplain boundaries were 

considered areas of potential direct impact. Any areas where the proposed rail alignments would cross 

floodplains or areas where embankments could be constructed within the floodplain were identified as a 

potential direct impact. Temporary construction measures could also cause direct impacts to floodplains. 

Construction activities could involve temporary in-water work bridges and other temporary structures in 

the floodplain that could impact the BFE. Changes in floodplain elevations were not computed for this 

Tier 1 analysis. 

A high-level qualitative analysis of indirect impacts was conducted, including an analysis of potential 

impacts to properties adjacent to the floodplain that could affect potential use.

4.13.2.1 Tier 2 Analysis

Future Tier 2 environmental studies for individual rail improvement projects included in the OPR Project 

would consider:

• Preparation of project-level quantitative analysis of direct impacts in specific floodplains, including 

potential flood elevation map changes.

• Further evaluation regarding indirect impacts. Indirect impacts include potential impacts on adjacent 

property near the rail alignments and potential new stations; any rise in the floodplain caused by rail 

infrastructure improvements could affect local property uses and values.
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4 - 127

OCTOBER 2018

• Evaluation of potential construction impacts. During any subsequent Tier 2 floodplain analyses, 

construction impacts could be balanced against the length of the potential impact period and the 

corresponding statistical risk.

4.13.3 Study Area

The study area for potential floodplain impacts includes all major drainage ways within 200 feet on either 

side of the proposed rail centerlines, existing station areas, and a 20-acre area surrounding each potential 

new station.

4.13.4 Affected Environment

FEMA regulates proposed actions with the potential to adversely impact floodplains as mapped on FEMA 

FIRMs. These maps were analyzed to determine potential impacts to floodplains. Appendix D, Figure D-5 

shows mapped floodplains. The build alternatives would cross a substantial portion of high-risk floodplain 

areas (see Table 4.13-1). Placement of fill below the BFE to construct the rail bed for new track and 

potential new rail stations could affect these high-risk floodplain areas. Table 4.13-1 identifies the affected 

environment by alternative, flood zone, and amount of acreage in each zone (determined by using a 

200-foot-wide buffer on either side of the proposed rail alignment centerline).

Each flood zone designation (defined below Table 4.13-1) reflects the severity or type of flooding in an area. 

Zones A, AE, AH, and AO are all high-risk flood zones. These areas have a 1 percent (100-year) annual 

chance of flooding and a 26 percent chance of flooding over the life of a 30-year mortgage.

New stations could adversely impact floodplain BFEs because of their size of obstruction and the amount of 

fill material. The proposed Woodburn station (for Alternative 1 only) would be partially located in high-risk 

Flood Zone AE. All other proposed stations would be located in areas of low flood risk.

Table 4.13-1. 100-year Floodplain Area within the Study Area by Alternative 

High-Risk Flood Zone Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Flood Zone A 95 acres 325 acres

Flood Zone AE 137 acres 929 acres

Flood Zone AO 6 acres 12 acres

Flood Zone AH – 45 acres

Total Amount of Floodplain in Study Area 238 acres 1,311 acres

Flood Zone A = area where BFEs have not been determined

Flood Zone AE = area where BFEs have been determined

Flood Zone AH = area where BFEs have been determined, usually in the form of a pond, with an average depth of 1 to 3 feet

Flood Zone AO = area where BFEs have been determined, usually in the form of sheet flow, with an average depth of 1 to 3 feet

4.13.5 Environmental Consequences

Direct impacts to floodplains are defined in this analysis as potential incidences of any new rail alignment 

crossing perpendicular to, or coinciding parallel with, major drainage ways (areas with a high risk of 

flooding). In some areas, these impacts would include placement of fill material for additional track and 

sidings, culvert replacements or extensions, and new bridge or rail station facilities. For the purposes of this 

Tier 1 EIS analysis, the direct impacts could occur within a buffer zone of 200 feet to either side of proposed 

rail centerlines. It is assumed that all potential construction, rail operations, and facilities would be located 

within this buffer zone. The lineal feet (lf) measurement used is intended to represent relative potential 

direct impact.
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4 - 128 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

Indirect impacts to floodplains are defined in this analysis as changes the proposed alternatives could cause 

that are later in time or farther removed in distance, but still reasonably foreseeable. These effects could 

include changes in land use patterns, such as transportation improvements near station areas, and the 

potential effects these could have on floodplains.

Construction impacts to floodplains are defined in this analysis as temporary impacts during any 

construction phase of the build alternatives.

4.13.5.1 Direct and Indirect Impacts

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, intercity passenger rail service would continue to operate on the existing 

UPRR tracks, and no new structures or fill would be placed in floodplains. There is the potential for 

increased traffic on the existing UPRR tracks; however, the increase in traffic would not constitute an 

impact to floodplains, since such impacts to floodplains are associated with structures, fill or construction 

activities.

There are no direct or indirect impacts to floodplains associated with the No Action Alternative.

Build Alternatives

Table 4.13-2 summarizes the affected environment and potential direct impacts to the 100-year floodplain 

for each of the proposed build alternatives. Overall, of the two build alternatives, Alternative 1 would have 

the least impacts to the high-risk floodplain area. The Alternative 2 with Central Albany Option would have 

slightly higher potential floodplain impacts than Alternative 2.

Each build alternative would intersect with at least one high-risk flood zone (Flood Zones A, AE, AH, and 

AO). Rail alignments, as well as potential new stations, located in areas of high-risk flood zones are 

reflected in the lineal-foot measurement of floodplain intersection shown in Table 4.13-2.

The use of lineal feet is an effective measurement tool for direct impacts because it implies that a width is 

associated with the linear quantity. In the case of rail alignment, this is true. (Examples of widths are rail 

lines, rail beds, embankments, and facilities.)

Alternative 1 would have the potential to directly impact approximately 100,087 lf total of high-risk 

floodplain, which comprises approximately 25 percent of the total proposed length of rail facility 

improvements (75 miles) for Alternative 1. Alternative 2 would have the potential to directly impact 

approximately 113,440 lf of high-risk floodplain, which comprises approximately 16 percent of the total 

proposed length of rail facility improvements (131 miles) of Alternative 2. Each of the potential new 

stations under Alternative 2 is located in areas of low flood risk.

The Alternative 2 with Central Albany Option would have the potential to directly impact 113,450 lf of highrisk floodplain, which comprises approximately 16 percent of the total proposed alignment length 

(134 miles) of the Alternative 2 with Central Albany Option.

Table 4.13-2. Summary of Affected Environment and Potential Direct Impacts on the 100-year Floodplain 

Parameter Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Alternative 2 with

Central Albany Option

High-risk floodplain area within study areaa 287 acres 1,110 acres 1,114 acres

Rail alignment coincidence with high-risk floodplain 100,087 lf 113,440 lf 113,450 lf

a Within 200 feet of proposed rail centerlines, existing station areas, and a 20-acre area surrounding potential new stations.

lf = lineal feet

Indirect impacts could include potential impacts to adjacent property near the proposed rail alignments and 

potential new stations. Any rise in the BFE caused by rail infrastructure improvements could affect local 
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4 - 129

OCTOBER 2018

property uses and values. Concerning potential new rail stations, any new impervious surface and fill 

material placed in high-risk flood zones could increase the risk of raising BFEs, which could in turn 

negatively affect existing adjacent properties.

4.13.5.2 Construction Impacts

Temporary impacts to floodplains could result from construction of the build alternatives. In-water work 

structures could be required for construction of the permanent bridges. Soil erosion and sedimentation 

could occur in association with cut-and-fill operations. Construction equipment and site materials present 

in high-risk flood zones could also pose a risk to floodplains.

4.13.6 Potential Mitigation

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

floodplains, as appropriate. Future project-level mitigation measures could include, but would not be 

limited to, the following actions:

• Potential long-term and construction-period floodplain impacts could be avoided or minimized by use 

of appropriate best management practices during any future design and construction phases. Examples 

of potential best management practices that may be explored include: locating the station facility 

outside of a flood zone, elevating structures and utilities, and providing flood openings in new 

construction. Where no reasonable alternative location outside of flood zone may be available for a 

new station, designing the facilities to be flood-resistant may be an option.

• Prior to construction, as specific unavoidable impacts are recognized, preferential mitigation measures 

and potential FEMA map revisions could be identified as project commitments.

Other potential construction BMPs applicable to water quality/surface water/stormwater, and wetlands 

and waterways, and including such resources within floodplains are listed below in Section 4.14.6.

4.14 Water Quality/Surface Water/Stormwater

This section discusses legal requirements, methods of analysis, study area, affected environment, potential 

environmental consequences, and mitigation strategies related to water quality, surface water, and 

stormwater for each of the OPR Project alternatives.

4.14.1 Legal Requirements

In addition to NEPA and the CEQ’s NEPA implementing regulations, Federal and state laws and regulations 

related to water quality, surface water, and stormwater and applicable to this Tier 1 analysis include the 

following:

4.14.1.1 Federal

• FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts. Section 14(n)(2) states that the consistency 

of project alternatives be assessed with respect to Federal and state standards concerning drinking 

water, storm sewer drainage, sedimentation control, and nonpoint source discharges (such as runoff

from construction operations).

• Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 USC 1342, 1344), commonly referred to as the Clean Water 

Act (CWA). The CWA is the primary law governing water quality. The intent of the CWA is to restore 

and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters by preventing point 

and nonpoint pollution sources; provide assistance to publicly owned treatment works for the 

improvement of wastewater treatment; and maintain the integrity of wetlands. If an ODOT project 

requires a CWA Section 404 permit, then Section 401 of the CWA requires water quality certification 

from the Oregon DEQ.
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4 - 130 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

• CWA Sections 401 and 402 establish the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

permit for the discharge of any pollutant into waters of the United States.

4.14.1.2 State

• ORS Chapter 468B and OAR Chapter 340 Division 041. The ORS and OAR refer to the beneficial uses, 

policies, standards, and treatment criteria in the statewide water quality maintenance plan. ODOT 

construction projects that disturb more than 1 acre are regulated under the NPDES 1200-CA permit, 

and are required to develop and implement an erosion prevention and sediment control plan to 

address potential water quality impacts that could occur during construction prior to groundbreaking. 

If ODOT is not the agency directing the work, a 1200-C permit approved by Oregon DEQ could be 

required.

• Discharge of stormwater through a public system is regulated through Oregon DEQ’s Municipal 

Stormwater Program. Municipalities are required to obtain an NPDES permit for their Municipal 

Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4). The NPDES MS4 permit requires communities to implement 

measures to reduce the impacts of stormwater pollution discharged through their MS4, resulting in 

reductions in pollutants being discharged to rivers and streams. The ultimate ownership of the OPR 

Project facilities and infrastructure would determine whose MS4 permit would regulate stormwater for 

the project. If ODOT were the ultimate owner, ODOT’s MS4 permit would require that discharge of 

post-construction stormwater comply with ODOT’s stormwater management plan to provide water 

quality treatment at the project level.

4.14.2 Methods

Areas where the build alternatives would intersect with CWA Section 303(d)-listed waterbodies (impaired 

waterbodies) were considered areas of potential direct impacts to water quality, surface water or 

stormwater. Direct impacts are defined as impacts that are caused by the action, and occur at the same 

time and place. No computations of quantitative changes in water quality, surface water or stormwater 

were calculated in this Tier 1 EIS analysis. Encroachments on 303(d)-listed water quality parameters were 

identified and presented in tabular format as the affected environment, and impacts resulting from the 

No Action Alternative and build alternatives were identified and discussed as environmental consequences.

Potential construction impacts to water quality, surface water, and stormwater impacts were identified at a 

conceptual level. Construction impacts are typically temporary in nature and are the primary short-term 

impacts detailed, by alternative, in this analysis.

Indirect impacts are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still

reasonably foreseeable. Indirect impacts to water quality, surface water, and stormwater are qualitatively 

assessed for this Tier 1 EIS analysis. Long-term indirect impacts of the build alternatives are not anticipated. 

Any new development that is induced by the OPR Project, including wetland fill and removal of riparian 

vegetation, would require water quality and stormwater mitigation.

Tier 2 Analysis

Future Tier 2 environmental studies for individual rail improvement projects proposed as part of the OPR 

Project would consider:

• Detailed, project-level analysis of water pollutants specifically associated with the OPR Project.

• Assessment of additional specific temporary impacts and the extent of temporary impacts.

4.14.3 Study Area

The OPR Project study area includes the areas through which the proposed rail alignments would be 

constructed in Lane, Linn, Marion, Clackamas, and Multnomah counties in Oregon. The proposed rail 
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4 - 131

OCTOBER 2018

alignments pass through metropolitan areas in Eugene-Springfield, Albany, Salem, and Portland, OR, 

paralleling existing transportation infrastructure.

The major U.S. watershed in which the proposed rail alignments are located is the Columbia Watershed, in 

the Willamette Basin. This watershed covers many subbasins, including the Upper and Middle Willamette, 

Molalla-Pudding, and Columbia Slough subbasins, among others. Land use surrounding the proposed rail 

alignments is primarily cropland and pasture, although a significant area is also urban. Forest and 

water/wetlands are also present in smaller quantities surrounding the proposed build alternatives.

The area studied for water quality, surface water, and stormwater impacts included lands within 100 feet of 

proposed rail centerlines of the alternatives and a 20-acre area surrounding each potential new station, 

and the built facilities at existing stations. 

4.14.4 Affected Environment

Mapping available through the USGS (USGS, 2004 and 2013) indicates that the proposed rail alignments do 

not pass through any karst areas in Oregon. The OPR Project is located over two types of aquifers:

Willamette Lowland basin-fill aquifers (unconsolidated sand and gravel aquifers) and Pacific Northwest 

basaltic-rock aquifers (igneous and metamorphic-rock aquifers). The DEQ Groundwater Protection Program 

indicates that the build alternatives coincide with one of the designated Groundwater Management Areas 

(ODEQ, 2014). Groundwater in the Southern Willamette Valley Groundwater Management Area has 

elevated nitrate concentrations that primarily result from nonpoint sources unrelated to transportation 

activities. Passenger rail activity does not contribute to nitrate concentration.

This Tier 1 EIS section identifies the affected environment as any impaired waterbody within 100 feet of the 

centerline of the proposed rail alignments and a 20-acre area surrounding each potential new station. The 

study area contains perennial and intermittent waterbodies, and other surface water resources that could 

be affected by runoff of pollutants from the build alternatives. CWA Section 303(d) requires each state to 

identify those waters that have issues (that is, are impaired by pollutants) and therefore are not meeting 

the state’s water quality standards. This list of impaired (water quality-limited) surface waters is referred to 

as the 303(d) list. The data in the following tables was acquired from Oregon DEQ publicly available sources 

(ODEQ, 2012).

Tables 4.14-1 and 4.14-2 enumerate the 303(d)-listed waterbodies associated with each of the two build 

alternatives, along with their respective numbers of associated pollutants (as defined by the Oregon DEQ).

Table 4.14-1. Impaired Waterbodies within Alternative 1 Study Area 

Waterbody Name Number of Listed Pollutants

Flat Creek 7 

Willamette River 62 

Camous Creek 7 

Muddy Creek 39 

Little Muddy Creek 8 

Unnamed 7 

Calapooia River 58 

Lake Creek 6 

Unnamed 7 

Oak Creek 11 

Periwinkle Creek 1 
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4 - 132 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

Waterbody Name Number of Listed Pollutants

Truax Creek 22 

Murder Creek 15 

Santiam River 34 

Marion Creek 3 

Perrin Lateral 1 

Mill Creek 59 

Pringle Creek Tributary 26 

Pringle Creek 52 

Shelton Ditch 4 

Clagget Creek 17 

Lake Labish Ditch 1 

Mill Creek 15 

Pudding River 48 

Molalla River 40 

Beaver Creek 5 

Abernethy Creek 5 

Clackamas River 57 

Cow Creek 8 

Mount Scott Creek 6 

Johnson Creek 98 

Crystal Springs Creek 2 

Saltzman Creek 7 

Willamette River 56 

Columbia Slough 70 

Columbia River 53 

Beaver Creek 5 

Table 4.14-2. Impaired Waterbodies within Alternative 2 Study Area 

Waterbody Name Number of Listed Pollutants

Willamette River 28 

McKenzie River 56 

Muddy Creek Tributary 19 

Muddy Creek 54 

Little Muddy Creek 8 

Courtney Creek 9 

Calapooia River 58 
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4 - 133

OCTOBER 2018

Waterbody Name Number of Listed Pollutants

Sodom Ditch 2 

Lake Creek 6 

Unnamed 7 

Oak Creek 11 

Periwinkle Creek 3 

Truax Creek 22 

Murder Creek 15 

Santiam River 34 

Chehulpum Creek 6 

Battle Creek 10 

Mill Creek 59 

Clagget Creek 17 

Lake Labish Ditch 1 

Patterson Creek 7 

Periwinkle Creek 3 

Willamette River 55 

Tualatin River 87 

Abernethy Creek 5 

Clackamas River 57 

Cow Creek 8 

Mount Scott Creek 6 

Johnson Creek 98 

Crystal Springs Creek 2 

Saltzman Creek 7 

Willamette River 56 

Columbia Slough 70 

Columbia River 53 

a The Alternative 2 with Central Albany Option would affect the same impaired waterbodies as 

Alternative 2, although the locations of the impacted waterbodies are slightly different.

4.14.5 Environmental Consequences

4.14.5.1 Direct and Indirect Impacts

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no project-related construction and, therefore, no new 

project-related impacts on water quality, surface water or stormwater. However, the potential for minor 

impacts from the continued existing operations and maintenance activities of intercity passenger rail and 

buses would still exist.
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4 - 134 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

The No Action Alternative would have no new direct water quality, surface water or stormwater impacts. 

The current railway and road infrastructure would continue to be used to handle increasing activity, 

resulting in continued potential minor impacts on water quality, surface water, and stormwater. Erosion 

and sedimentation from existing railroads and roadways next to water resources, as well as potential 

pollutant runoff and spills from operation and maintenance activities, could potentially reach adjacent 

water resources.

The increasing activity of existing transportation services could lead to land use changes, such as the 

addition of highway lanes to ease vehicle congestion. Other indirect impacts are not anticipated, because 

the No Action Alternative would maintain the existing Amtrak Cascades service.

Alternative 1

Table 4.14-3 summarizes the potential impacts to water quality, surface water, and stormwater for 

Alternative 1. Long-term direct impacts would come from operations and maintenance activities associated 

with new rail track, as well as from one potential new passenger rail station.

Common types of pollutants expected from rail activity, facilities, and stations (including park-and-ride 

areas and vehicles accessing rail via park-and-ride lots) consist of machine lubricants (grease and oils), 

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (whether leaked directly or through the deposition of air emissions), 

heavy metals (such as lead, iron, chromium, and zinc), suspended solids, and herbicides (applied to the rail 

bed to prevent unwanted vegetation growth). These pollutants have the potential to be carried by runoff, 

especially during large storm events, and could be directed into nearby streams. This polluted runoff would 

negatively impact water quality in those streams, and would pose a risk to the environment and aquatic 

organisms. Alternative 1 would cross 43 Section 303(d)-listed impaired waterbodies that would have the 

potential for additional impacts from pollutants related to Alternative 1.

Indirect impacts to water quality, surface water, and stormwater were not quantitatively assessed for this 

Tier 1 EIS analysis. However, long-term indirect negative impacts of Alternative 1 are not currently 

anticipated, because any new development induced by Alternative 1 would require water quality and 

stormwater mitigation.

While not included in Alternative 1, the potential new station in Woodburn (located close to the impaired 

Mill Creek) would include the addition of impervious surface in the form of parking lots (which would 

increase runoff) and would induce vehicular traffic to and from the station. If the station were constructed, 

stormwater runoff retention and treatment would be implemented to minimize potential long-term direct 

impact to water quality, surface water, and stormwater.

Alternative 2

Table 4.14-3 summarizes the potential impacts to water quality, surface water, and stormwater for 

Alternative 2. Long-term direct impacts would come from operations and maintenance activities associated 

with the new passenger rail lines, as well as installation of up to five new passenger rail stations. The 

potential new stations in Springfield, Albany, Salem or Keizer, and Wilsonville or Tualatin could have longterm direct impacts to water quality, surface water, and stormwater. These stations would include the 

addition of impervious surface in the form of facilities and parking lots (which would increase runoff) and 

would induce vehicular traffic to and from the stations, and stormwater runoff retention and treatment 

would be implemented to minimize potential long-term direct impact to water quality, surface water, and 

stormwater. 

As mentioned previously, common types of pollutants expected from rail activity, facilities, and stations 

(including park-and-ride areas and vehicles accessing rail via park-and-ride areas) consist of machine 

lubricants (grease and oils), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (whether leaked directly or through the 

deposition of air emissions), heavy metals (such as lead, iron, chromium, copper, and zinc), suspended 

solids, and herbicides (applied to the rail bed to prevent unwanted vegetation growth). These pollutants 
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4 - 135

OCTOBER 2018

have the potential to be carried by runoff, especially during large storm events, and could be directed into 

nearby streams. This polluted runoff would negatively impact water quality in those streams, and would 

pose a risk to the environment and aquatic organisms. Alternative 2 would cross 40 Section 303(d)-listed 

impaired waterbodies that would have the potential for additional impacts from project pollutants.

Alternative 2 also has the potential to diminish existing stormwater treatment for highway infrastructure 

along I-5, which would impact water quality. Alternative 2 would convert existing vegetation along I-5 used 

as informal stormwater treatment best management practices to hard surface, which could require a 

substantial amount of additional treatment infrastructure. Stormwater inlets and culverts along I-5 would 

need to be re-evaluated and designed to function with the new rail system. Inspection and maintenance of 

highway drainage features would be more difficult and costly, because the new rail alignment would be 

close to or within the highway ROW.

Indirect impacts on water quality, surface water, and stormwater were not quantitatively assessed for this 

Tier 1 EIS analysis. Long-term indirect negative impacts of Alternative 2 currently are not anticipated, 

because any new development induced by Alternative 2 would require water quality and stormwater 

mitigation.

While not included in Alternative 2, the potential new station in Woodburn (located close to the impaired 

Mill Creek) would include the addition of impervious surface in the form of parking lots (which would 

increase runoff) and would induce vehicular traffic to and from the station. If the station were constructed, 

stormwater runoff retention and treatment would be implemented to minimize to minimize potential longterm direct impact to water quality, surface water, and stormwater.

Alternative 2 with Central Albany Option

Outside of the Albany area, Alternative 2 with Central Albany Option would cross the same impaired 

waterbodies as Alternative 2. However, as it passes through Albany, the Central Albany Option alignment 

would require two additional modified stream crossings (over Santiam-Albany Canal and Periwinkle Creek) 

and require building and operating more track than Alternative 2. The Central Albany Option would use the 

existing Amtrak station in central Albany rather than a new station near I-5. Therefore, the direct impacts 

would be similar to those of Alternative 2. Such impacts would be slightly reduced compared to those of 

Alternative 2, because this option would construct one less new station. However, the existing Albany 

Station could experience more vehicular traffic than under the No Action Alternative.

Table 4.14-3. Summary of Potential Water Quality, Surface Water, and Stormwater Impacts 

Source of Potential Impact Alternative 1

Alternative 2

(Alternative 2 with 

Central Albany Option)

Modified or new crossings of impaired waterbodiesa 36 40 

(42) 

Total existingb passenger rail stations 5c 1d

(2) 

Total potential new passenger rail stations 1e 5f

(4) 

a Includes crossings of the same waterbody more than once.

b Potential improvements to existing passenger rail stations are related to ancillary infrastructure that could increase impervious 

surfaces, such as expanded parking areas.

c The five existing passenger rail stations are in Eugene, Albany, Salem, Oregon City, and Portland.

d Alternative 2 and Alternative 2 with Central Albany Option would use the existing Union Station in Portland. In addition, 

Alternative 2 with Central Albany Option would use the existing Albany Station.

e Alternative 1 analysis includes a potential new station in Woodburn.
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4 - 136 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

f The potential new passenger rail stations for Alternative 2 are in Springfield, Albany, Salem or Keizer, and Wilsonville or Tualatin. 

The impacts also include a potential new passenger rail station in Woodburn.

4.14.5.2 Construction Impacts

Build Alternatives

Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 direct impacts would be primarily construction-related. For Alternative 1, 

runoff and sedimentation from grading and filling operations, clearing activities, culvert work, and spills of 

fuel or other chemicals are typical examples of potential construction impacts that would be temporary in 

nature, and would cease upon completion of the project’s construction. In addition to these types of 

impacts, Alternative 2 would involve pier and abutment construction associated with bridges. Construction 

activities have the potential to release sediment into nearby waterbodies as the result of ground 

disturbance. Of particular concern would be ground disturbance on steep slopes near waterbodies. Spills of 

hydraulic fluids and other construction-related materials would also be possible. Any in-water work for the 

placement of piers, abutments or in-water falsework within waterbodies could result in potential adverse 

impacts to water quality.

4.14.6 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. Future project-level mitigation 

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

• Mitigation would be required for treatment of stormwater from all new and redeveloped impervious 

surfaces within the specific project. Stormwater runoff from new impervious areas would require 

permits from local jurisdictions in addition to Oregon DEQ. Stormwater management would be required 

to meet all Federal and state requirements at the time of construction, including conditions from the 

Biological Opinion.

• Erosion prevention and sediment control (EPSC) would be implemented prior to construction. The 

project would need to have approved erosion and sediment control plans before the start of any 

construction. EPSC measures could include sediment fences and wattles for disturbed areas, inlet 

protection for storm systems, prevention of construction equipment leakage, gravel construction 

entrances, wheel washes, and vegetative cover of disturbed areas. An in-water work plan would be 

required, where appropriate. The contractor would also be required to maintain a spill control kit to be 

used in case of a material spill.

• Although construction impacts to water quality could occur as a result of soil erosion, sedimentation, 

and potential construction pollutant loading of stormwater runoff, they would be temporary. Such 

impacts would cease after construction was completed. However, the prevention or minimization of 

construction and long-term pollution would be accomplished by use of appropriate stormwater BMPs, 

in accordance with state and Federal water quality runoff treatment and flow control requirements.

Potential BMPs could include the following:

• Prepare and follow a Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control (TESC) Plan to minimize potential 

erosion, surface water runoff, and dust generation.

• Prepare and implement an approved Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Plan (SPCC) during 

construction. The SPCC would address construction activities related to equipment fueling and 

maintenance, including types of hydraulic fluids used, emergency spill containment procedures, and 

spill containment materials.

• Prepare and implement a construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to minimize 

sediment, spills, and dust from escaping the site.
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4 - 137

OCTOBER 2018

• Remove sediment prior to any stormwater runoff leaving the site using appropriate BMPs.

• Handle and dispose of all on-site pollutants, including waste materials and demolition debris in 

accordance with sound practice to avoid contamination of stormwater.

• Remove all waste oils and machinery fluids off-site when they are generated, and store no waste oils or 

fluids on site.

• Apply chemicals such as fertilizers and pesticides in accordance with sound practices to avoid loss of 

chemicals to stormwater runoff.

• Provide separate handling of highly turbid stormwater and contaminated wastewater.

• Maintain proper surface drainage to unnecessary avoid ponding.

• Discharge drain flow back into affected areas, including wetlands, if it is necessary to install seepage 

drains for fill embankments.

• Stabilize disturbed areas with native grass and plant species following construction.

• Prior to the start of construction, identify on-track vehicle machinery/maintenance, fueling locations, 

work staging and construction material stockpile areas and develop in upland locations.

• Provide secondary containment equal to 150 percent of storage capacity for any on-site fuel storage.

• Cover and stabilize disturbed soil areas so they would not remain open to become a possible source of 

offsite sediment pollution (i.e., storm water runoff or construction dust) for more than 7 days.

• Clearly mark clearing/grading limits with stakes/flagging or high visibility orange sediment fencing.

• Contain and regularly manage construction waste.

• Place and regularly maintain portable toilet facilities in the construction areas.

• Provide and implement wheel washing to remove particulate matter that vehicles would otherwise 

carry offsite.

• Remove particulate matter (mud and windblown dust) deposited on paved roadways.

4.15 Wetlands and Waterways

This section discusses legal requirements, methods of analysis, study area, affected environment, potential 

environmental consequences, and mitigation strategies related to wetlands and waterways for each of the 

OPR Project alternatives.

4.15.1 Legal Requirements

In addition to NEPA and the CEQ’s NEPA implementing regulations, Federal and state laws and regulations 

related to wetlands and waterways and applicable to this Tier 1 analysis include the following:

4.15.1.1 Federal

• FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts. Section 14(n)(6) of FRA’s environmental 

procedures require that a determination be made as to whether any of the alternatives will be located 

in a wetland area, and notes procedures to follow in accordance with USDOT Order 5660.1A.

• Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 USC 1342, 1344), commonly referred to as the Clean Water 

Act, or CWA. Establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of 

the United States and regulating quality standards for surface waters.
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4 - 138 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. Requires authorization from 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the construction of any structure in or over any navigable waters 

of the United States, the excavation and dredging or deposition of material, or any obstruction or 

alteration to a navigable water. Work outside the limits of navigable waters may require a Section 10 

permit if the structure or work affects the course, location, condition, or capacity of the waterbody. 

• Executive Order 11990: Protection of Wetlands, was issued in 1977. The Executive Order directs 

Federal agencies to avoid to the extent possible the long and short term adverse impacts associated 

with the destruction or modification of wetlands and to avoid direct or indirect support of new 

construction in wetlands wherever there is a practicable alternative.

4.15.1.2 State

• Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL), Oregon State Removal-Fill Law. Oregon's Removal-Fill Law 

(ORS 196.795-990) requires a permit from the Department of State Lands when a project will remove or 

place fill material in wetlands or waterways.

4.15.2 Methods

Applicable guiding documents and plans were reviewed and readily available GIS data was used to 

document the quantity and type of wetlands and waterways within the study area. The primary source of 

wetland GIS data was the Oregon Wetland Coverage shapefile from the Oregon Wetlands Geodatabase.

Potential direct impacts were evaluated quantitatively by overlaying the existing conditions mapping of all 

wetlands and high-value wetlands with the direct impact study area to derive estimates of maximum total 

wetland impact and high-value wetland impact acreage. High-value wetlands were considered to be 

wetlands that met any of the following criteria:

• Overlap with critical habitat for endangered species

• Are located in a protected area (such as a city park or USFWS refuge)

• Are locally significant wetlands (as determined by local planning code Local Wetland Inventory designations)

• Are wetlands that occur within areas designated as “wetland priority sites”

• Are in areas mapped as wetland mitigation banks and areas enrolled in the Wetland Reserve Program

Because the wetlands and waterways analysis was based on a conceptual level of design (i.e., the precise 

locations of proposed rail infrastructure improvements are unknown at this time), the potential direct 

impact acreages reported include all identified wetlands and waters within the direct impacts study area. 

Actual impacts would likely be smaller than the totals presented in this Tier 1 EIS. A brief qualitative review 

was also conducted to identify potential risks to high-value wetlands. Mitigation requirements that could 

be triggered as a result of total direct impact acreage were also reviewed, using typical Oregon DSL 

mitigation ratios. Based on typical Oregon DSL mitigation ratios, mitigation in the form of restoration occurs 

at a one-to-one mitigation ratio; mitigation in the form of enhancement occurs at a three-to-one ratio 

(that is, 3 acres of mitigation for each acre of impact).

The indirect impacts analysis assessed the acreage of high-value wetlands that occur within the wetland 

evaluation indirect impacts study area (that is, a 500-foot buffer from the edge of the direct impacts project 

area). A brief qualitative review of project impacts to high-value wetlands was also conducted and focused 

on the potential for hydrologic impacts of the OPR Project on neighboring wetlands. Indirect effects on 

wildlife are addressed within the biological resources technical analysis (Section 4.13). 

Tier 2 Analysis
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4 - 139

OCTOBER 2018

Future Tier 2 environmental studies for individual rail improvement projects proposed as part of the OPR 

Project would entail detailed project-level analysis of potential impacts to wetlands based on advanced 

design.

4.15.3 Study Area

The study area for direct impacts to wetlands and waterways used in the analysis included existing stations, 

20-acre areas representing potential new station impact areas, and the area within 100 feet of proposed 

rail centerlines. The study area for indirect impacts on wetlands and waterways was a 500-foot-wide buffer 

beyond the 100-foot direct impact study area. The intent of the 500-foot-wide buffer for indirect impacts 

was to identify nearby high-value wetlands that could potentially experience hydrologic impacts/alterations 

as a result of new rail-related infrastructure. The study area for the affected environment was the sum of 

the direct and indirect impact study areas (that is, within 600 feet of proposed rail centerlines).

4.15.4 Affected Environment

The Willamette Valley contains considerable acreage of wetlands, from high-value/functioning wetlands to 

farmed wetlands that typically provide lower ecological function. Appendix D, Figure D-5 shows wetlands 

and high value wetlands and Table 4.15-1 shows wetland and waterway acreage within the study area for 

the build alternatives (covering both the direct impact and indirect impact study areas), including the 

acreage of high-value wetlands and waterways. It should be noted that farmed wetlands typically do not 

show up in National Wetland Inventory or similar GIS mapping sources, and therefore, the acreage of 

wetlands may be higher than noted in Table 4.15-1. The Environmental Consequences subsection accounts 

for this difference by including the area of hydric soils not mapped as wetland.

The affected environment study area includes similar dimensions for the build alternatives: 19,139 acres 

for Alternative 2, 19,500 acres for Alternative 2 with the Central Albany Option, and 19,710 acres for 

Alternative 1. However, the actual impact areas would differ substantially, because Alternative 1 entails 

improvements at select locations along an existing rail line, while Alternative 2 entails constructing

primarily a new rail line.

Total wetland acreages within the affected environment study area are similar for the build alternatives: 

1,273 acres (Alternative 1), 1,286 acres (Alternative 2), and 1,304 acres (Alternative 2 with Central Albany 

Option), representing a difference of only 31 acres among the alternatives (see Table 4.15-1). However, this 

is not the case for high-value wetlands. Alternative 1 has considerably greater acreage (674 acres) within 

the affected environment study area than both the Alternative 2 study area (443 acres) and the Alternative 

2 with the Central Albany Option (426 acres). It is important to note that these amounts represent the total 

acreage of wetlands within the study areas of each alternative, but do not reflect potentially impacted 

areas, which are described in the Environmental Consequences subsection, below. 

Table 4.15-1. Acreage of Wetlands and Waterways in the Affected Environment Study Area 

Resource Indicator, Topic, or Measurement

Alternative 1

(acres)

Alternative 2

[Alternative 2 with

Central Albany Option]

(acres)

Study Area Size 19,710 19,139 

[19,500] 

Total Acreage of All Wetlands and Waterways 1,273 1,286 

[1,304] 

Total Acreage of High-Value Wetlands and Waterways 674 426 

[443] 
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4 - 140 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

Resource Indicator, Topic, or Measurement

Alternative 1

(acres)

Alternative 2

[Alternative 2 with

Central Albany Option]

(acres)

Total Acreage of Hydric Soils Not Mapped as Wetlands 4,548 4,627 

[4,959] 

Note: Acreages based on affected environment study area (within 600 feet of proposed rail centerlines and a 20-acre area around 

each potential new station).

Table 4.15-2 summarizes key wetland and waterway areas of interest within the affected environment 

study area. These are defined as high-value wetland areas where additional design review might be 

warranted to avoid or minimize impacts. Some high-value wetlands are identified where no work is 

currently proposed in the Alternative 1 study area. However, these locations are still located within the 

affected environment study area, and as such, are noted in Table 4.15-2 below.

Table 4.15-2. Key Wetland and Waterway Areas of Interest within the Affected Environment Study Area 

Area of Interest Alternative Description

Log Pond Wetland Restoration Site 2 Wetland restoration or mitigation site along south side 

of existing tracks.

Alton Baker Park/Patterson Slough 2 Forested wetlands/riparian area in park adjacent to 

Willamette River and east side of I-5. 

Armitage County Park/McKenzie River 2 McKenzie River crossing with forested 

wetlands/riparian areas in a park.

Coburg Hills Wetlands 2 High concentration of wetlands and drainages defined 

as high value.

Willamette River/Curtis Slough 1 Crossing of Willamette River and Curtis Slough; 

potential sensitive habitats. (No improvements 

proposed in this section.)

Courtney Creek/Calapooia River/Sodom Ditch 

Systems

2 Series of drainages and some forested wetlands 

defined as high value.

Calapooia River Floodplain 1 Crossing of Calapooia River and floodplain containing 

forested wetland/riparian habitats. (No improvements 

proposed in this section.)

Oak Creek/Freeway Lakes County Park 2 Crossing of Oak Creek and floodplain. Forested 

wetland/riparian habitats and lakes within park.

Oak Creek Floodplain 1 Crossing of Oak Creek and floodplain. Forested 

wetland/riparian habitats, particularly on east side of 

OR 99W. 

Second Lake 1 Large oxbow lake and forested wetland/riparian area in 

Willamette River floodplain along west side of Alt. 1 

corridor.

Santiam River 1 Crossing of Santiam River. Forested wetland/riparian 

habitats, particularly along west bank. (No 

improvements proposed in this section.)

ODOT Santiam River Mitigation Bank 2 Crossing of Santiam River at ODOT mitigation bank. 

Willow/sandbar island and side channel habitats.
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4 - 141

OCTOBER 2018

Area of Interest Alternative Description

Wetland Reserve Program – A 1 Large multiparcel Wetland Reserve Program area 

within study area.

Wetland Reserve Program – B 1 Wetland Reserve Program area within study area. 

(No improvements proposed in this section.)

Mill Creek/Walter Wirth Lake 2 Mill Creek riparian corridor runs parallel to west side of 

study area.

Claggett Creek 1 Creek restoration/mitigation wetlands occur along west 

side of existing rail corridor. (No improvements 

proposed in this section.)

Pudding River 1 Crossing of Pudding River and floodplain with forested 

wetland/riparian habitats. (No improvements proposed 

in this section.)

Willamette River 1 Willamette River and adjacent riparian habitat runs for 

several miles along the west side of the study area.

Willamette Crossing 1 and 2 Crossing of Willamette River in area defined as high 

value. (No improvements proposed for Alternative 1 in 

this section.)

Saum Creek and Park 2 Forested upland and wetland habitats along Saum 

Creek situated along north side of I-205. 

Clackamas Crossing 1 and 2 Crossing of Clackamas River in area defined as high 

value.

Crystal Springs Creek 1 and 2 Crossing of creek with narrow fringe of wetlands. 

However, this is an important link for salmon migrating

to upstream spawning habitats.

Smith and Bybee Wetlands 1 and 2 Large wetland and riparian habitat natural area along 

west edge of study area. (No improvements proposed 

in this section.)

4.15.5 Environmental Consequences

4.15.5.1 Direct and Indirect Impacts

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no project-related construction and, therefore, no new 

project-related wetland and waterway impacts. However, the potential for indirect impacts from the 

continuation of existing Amtrak Cascades operations and maintenance activities would still exist.

Build Alternatives

Potential direct wetland and waterway impacts from the proposed build alternative alignments are 

summarized in Table 4.15-3. Potential station-area impacts are listed in Table 4.15-4. 

Comparing Alternatives 1 and 2, Alternative 1 would have the lowest potential direct impacts, both in terms 

of overall wetland acreage and acres of high-value wetlands (32 acres and 7 acres, respectively, for 

Alternative 1, compared to 144 acres and 49 acres, respectively, for Alternative 2). The amount of hydric 

soils (excluding areas mapped as wetland) within the Alternative 1 direct impact study area is a little less 

than half that of Alternative 2 (378 and 818 acres, respectively). Therefore, it appears that Alternative 2 

would have a notably larger potential direct impact on wetland and waterway resources.
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4 - 142 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

Although the Alternative 2 with Central Albany Option would add 1 acre of potential direct impacts to 

Alternative 2, no additional acreage of high-value wetlands would be added. The Alternative 2 with Central 

Albany Option would add 70 acres of potential hydric soil impacts to Alternative 2. Therefore, the 

Alternative 2 with Central Albany Option would likely have the largest potential for direct impacts of any 

build alternative.

Indirect impacts to wetlands, particularly hydrologic connection of wetlands from one side of the rail line to 

the other, would likely be minor and mostly avoidable through appropriate design (that is, culvert and 

bridge sizing and spacing). Although all wetland and waterway crossings would need to be reviewed and 

designed to maintain hydrologic connections and, likely, fish and wildlife movement, additional scrutiny 

might be warranted in areas identified as key wetland and waterway areas of interest (see Table 4.15-2).

Table 4.15-3. Summary of Potential Direct Impacts to Wetlands and Waterways from Proposed Rail Alignments 

Resource Indicator Alternative 1

Alternative 2

[Alternative 2 with

Central Albany Option]

Total Acreage of All Wetlands and Waterways 32 144 

[145] 

Total Acreage of High-Value Wetlands and Waterways 7 49 

[49] 

Total Acreage of Hydric Soils Not Mapped as Wetlands 378 818 

[888] 

Note: Acreages are based on rail alignment direct impacts study area (within 100 feet of proposed rail alignment centerlines). 

Table 4.15-4. Potential Direct Impacts to Wetlands and Waterways near Station Areas 

Station Area Alternative

Study Area

(acres)

All Wetlands

(acres)

High-Value 

Wetlands 

(acres)

Hydric Soils

Not Mapped as 

Wetlands 

(acres)

Eugene – Existing 1 4.5 0 0 0 

Springfield – Potential 2 20.0 0.6 0.6 0 

Albany – Existing 1 and 2 

(Central Albany 

Option)

9.63 0 0 6.8 

Albany – Potential 2 20.0 0.3 0 0.9 

Salem – Existing 1 4.6 <0.1 0 0 

Salem – Potential 2 20.0 0 0 0 

Keizer – Potential 2 20.0 0 0 0 

Woodburn – Potentiala 1 20.0 0.9 0.9 0 

Woodburn – Potentiala 2 20.0 0 0 1.2 

Wilsonville – Potential 2 20.0 0.7 0 0 

Tualatin – Potential 2 20.0 0.2 0 0.8 

Oregon City – Existing 1 2.0 0 0 0 

Portland – Existing 1 and 2 6.2 0 0 0 

a Potential new Woodburn station impacts are provided for reference, but would not be constructed under either 

proposed build alternative
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4 - 143

OCTOBER 2018

4.15.5.2 Construction Impacts

Build Alternatives

Potential construction-related impacts, other than within the direct impact area, would likely be temporary. 

These impacts would include vegetation removal, soil compaction, erosion control, and water quality 

issues. These temporary impacts could be avoided or minimized by applying best management practices, 

locating staging areas outside of sensitive areas, and performing site restoration activities (for example, 

revegetation) after construction.

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. Typically, based on 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.

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

4.15.6.2 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 
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4 - 144 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

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.

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.

4.16 Air Quality

This section discusses legal requirements, methods of analysis, affected environment, potential 

environmental consequences, and mitigation strategies related to air quality for each of the OPR Project 

alternatives.

4.16.1 Legal Requirements

In addition to NEPA and CEQ’s NEPA implementing regulations, Federal laws and regulations related to air 

quality and applicable to this Tier 1 analysis include the following:

• FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts. Section 14(n)(1) of FRA’s environmental 

procedures requires that there be an assessment of the consistency of the alternatives with Federal 

and state plans for the attainment and maintenance of air quality standards.

• Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. §7401 et seq.). As required by the Clean Air Act (CAA), the EPA has 

promulgated National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to protect human health and welfare. 

The NAAQS include primary standards designed to protect human health and secondary standards to 

protect public welfare and concerns not directly related to human health. Oregon has adopted State 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (SAAQS) largely identical to the NAAQS with some exceptions. Table 

4.16-1 summarizes the applicable NAAQS and the Oregon SAAQS in the study area.

Regulatory agencies compare measured ambient air concentrations to the applicable NAAQS and 

Oregon SAAQS to evaluate ambient air quality and determine the attainment status of designated 

geographic areas. Nonattainment areas are those where measured background concentrations for air 

pollutants are greater than the maximum allowable ambient concentrations defined in the NAAQS or 

SAAQS. Maintenance areas are those that were once nonattainment areas, but now meet the 

applicable ambient air quality standards.

When the EPA designates an area as nonattainment, the state is required to develop and implement a 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) to meet standards. When proposed within nonattainment and 

maintenance area boundaries, transportation and Federal plans, programs, and projects must conform 

to the purpose and intent of the SIP to attain and maintain air quality standards.
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4 - 145

OCTOBER 2018

• General Conformity Regulations (40 CFR 51). General conformity regulations prohibit Federal agencies 

(including the FRA) from adopting, accepting, approving, permitting, or funding activities that are 

inconsistent with the air quality goals in the approved SIP. Under the general conformity rule, Federal

actions must meet the requirements of the CAA and applicable SIP by ensuring that air emissions 

related to the action do not:

– Cause or contribute to new violations of a NAAQS,

– Increase the frequency or severity of any existing violation of a NAAQS, or

– Delay timely attainment of a NAAQS or interim emissions reductions.

A formal general conformity demonstration is required if the Federal action would occur in a 

nonattainment or maintenance area, is not exempted under the regulations, and would result in total 

direct and indirect emissions that are at or above the applicable de minimis levels established in 40 CFR 

93.158 (b). Further, per OAR 340-250-0020, when the total of direct and indirect emissions of any 

pollutant from a federal action does not equal or exceed the SAAQS rates, but represents 10 percent or 

more of a non-attainment or maintenance area’s total emissions of that pollutant, the action is defined 

as a regionally significant action and subject to the State’s general conformity rule. This is an Oregon 

requirement, not a requirement of the USEPA.

• Toxic Pollutant Regulations (40 CFR 80). In addition to the criteria air pollutants for which there are 

NAAQS, the EPA regulates air toxics, also known as hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). Mobile Source Air 

Toxics (MSATs) are those pollutants from mobile sources (such as locomotive engines) that are known 

or suspected to cause cancer, or other serious chronic or acute health effects.

Table 4.16-1. Criteria Pollutant Standards 

Pollutant Averaging Time Violation Determination

Federal

(NAAQS)

Oregon

(SAAQS)

Carbon 

Monoxide (CO)

8-hour Not to be exceeded more than once per year 9 ppm 9 ppm

1-hour Not to be exceeded more than once per year 35 ppm 35 ppm

Lead (Pb) Rolling 3-month Average Not to be exceeded 0.15 μg/m3 0.15 μg/m3

Quarterly Not to be exceeded 1.5 μg/m3 1.5 μg/m3

Ozonea 8-hour 3-year average of the annual 4th highest 

daily maximum 8-hour average 

concentration

70 ppb 75 ppb

Nitrogen Dioxide 

(NO2) 

Annual Arithmetic Mean Annual arithmetic mean 53 ppb 53 ppb

1-hour 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the 

daily maximum 1-hour average

100 ppb 100 ppb

Sulfur Dioxide 

(SO2) 

Annual Arithmetic Mean Not to be exceeded more than once per year – 0.02 ppm

24-hour Not to be exceeded more than once per year – 0.10 ppm

3-hour Not to be exceeded more than once per year 0.50 ppm 0.50 ppm

1-hour 3-year average of the 99th percentile of the 

daily maximum 1-hour average

75 ppb 75 ppb

PM10 24-hour The expected number of days per calendar 

year with a 24-hour average concentration 

above 150 μg/m3 is equal to or less than 

1 over a 3-year period

150 μg/m3 150 μg/m3
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4 - 146 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

Pollutant Averaging Time Violation Determination

Federal

(NAAQS)

Oregon

(SAAQS)

PM2.5 Annual Average (primary) 3-year average of the annual arithmetic 

mean

12 μg/m3 – 

Annual Average 

(secondary)

3-year average of the annual arithmetic 

mean

15 μg/m3 15 μg/m3

24-hour 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 

24-hour concentrations

35 μg/m3 35 μg/m3

a U.S. EPA revised the Federal 8-hour ozone standard from 80 ppb to 75 ppb in 2008, and from 75 ppb to 70 ppb on October 1, 2015 

(USEPA, 2015).

Notes:

μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter

PM10 = particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of less than or equal to 10 micrometers

PM2.5 = particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers

ppb = parts per billion

ppm = parts per million

Sources: USEPA, National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards, 40 CFR 50; Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 

340-202-0050 through -0130 (http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/pages/rules/oars_300/oar_340/340_tofc.html#202).

4.16.2 Methods

Based on monitored concentrations of various pollutants in ambient air, the EPA assigns attainment, 

maintenance, and nonattainment designations to geographic areas (such as counties or air basins) for the 

NAAQS. The evaluation of the affected environment for the OPR Project uses the NAAQS designations for 

each county within the study area. To indicate current ambient air quality conditions, data on the most 

recent measured concentrations of relevant pollutants has been collected, using air quality information 

provided by the Oregon DEQ (2015).

In this Tier 1 EIS analysis, a preliminary evaluation of general conformity applicability has been conducted 

for areas designated as nonattainment or maintenance for any of the NAAQS. Based on project-related 

emissions increases (and decreases) of the relevant pollutants and their precursors, this preliminary 

evaluation provides an indication of the potential impacts associated with each alternative.

For locomotives, annual emissions of NOx, CO, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), particulate matter with 

an aerodynamic diameter of less than or equal to 10 micrometers (PM10), and particulate matter with an 

aerodynamic diameter of less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5) have been calculated by multiplying 

estimated daily fuel use (in gallons) by emission factors from Emission Factors for Locomotives (USEPA, 

2009) for an average fleet of diesel-fueled locomotives in year 2035. Daily fuel use estimates for all 

alternatives assume a fuel efficiency of 0.8 mile per gallon for passenger rail (WSDOT, 2009).

The following emission factors were used:

• PM2.5 emissions – estimated as 0.97 times the PM10 emissions, meaning that nearly all of the PM10 is

less than 2.5 microns in diameter

• Nitrogen oxides (NOx) – 33 grams per gallon (g/gal)

• Carbon monoxide (CO) – 27 g/gal

• Hydrocarbons – 0.7 g/gal (multiplied by 1.053 to obtain VOCs)

• PM10 – 0.5 g/gal

For Thruway buses, annual emissions of NOx, CO, VOCs, PM10, and PM2.5 have been calculated using 

estimated vehicle miles and emissions factors from the latest version of the USEPA Motor Vehicle Emission 
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4 - 147

OCTOBER 2018

Simulator (this model is referred to as “MOVES2014”). These calculations use default project-level values 

for the planning horizon year (2035), except for the following assumptions:

• Thruway buses are diesel-fueled

• Buses travel at an average speed of 55 mph.

• Emission factors are based on meteorological conditions for Multnomah County, OR, during winter 

peak morning hours and summer peak afternoon hours for each of the road types.

• The age distribution of buses is as provided by ODOT (Liljenwall, 2015).

The emission factors used are as follows:

• PM2.5 – 0.02 grams per vehicle-mile (g/veh-mile)

• PM10 – 0.05 g/veh-mile

• NOx – 1.2 g/veh-mile

• CO – 0.3 g/veh-mile

• VOCs – 0.03 g/veh-mile

In addition to emissions evaluations, this Tier 1 analysis reviews the relevant transportation plans (RTPs and 

TIPs) to assess whether the OPR Project is consistent with the applicable plans.

Sulfur dioxide (SO2) and lead (Pb) emissions are not included as part of this Tier 1 EIS analysis, because they 

were not considered to be pollutants of concern. Sulfur contents in diesel fuels are being drastically 

reduced for all uses, and SO2 emissions are not anticipated to be an issue of concern for passenger rail 

operations. Similarly, because Pb is not emitted from any transportation operation other than general 

aviation, it was not anticipated to be of concern for passenger rail operations.

The Interim Guidance Update on Mobile Source Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA (FHWA, 2012) defines the 

following three categories for analyzing MSATs:

• No analysis for projects that have no potential for meaningful MSAT effects;

• Qualitative analysis for projects with low potential MSAT effects; or

• Quantitative analysis to differentiate alternatives for projects with higher potential MSAT effects.

According to the Interim Guidance Update on Mobile Source Air Toxics in NEPA, Federal Highway 

Administration engineers predict that EPA regulations for on-road motor-vehicle engines and fuels will 

cause overall MSAT emissions to decline significantly over the next several decades. Based on regulations 

now in effect, an analysis of national trends with the EPA’s MOVES2014 model forecasts a combined 

reduction of over 80 percent in the total annual emission rate for the priority MSAT emissions from 2010 to 

2050, while vehicle-miles of travel are projected to increase by over 100 percent. Accordingly, the EPA 

regulations would reduce the background levels of MSAT emissions and would likewise reduce the MSAT 

emissions from Thruway bus vehicles that would result from this project.

Further, the EPA has developed emission standards, codified at 40 CFR 1033, applicable to locomotive 

engines manufactured or remanufactured after 1972. These standards would increasingly reduce emissions 

of hydrocarbons as locomotive engines are replaced over time. To the extent that air-toxic emissions are 

proportional to hydrocarbon emissions, toxic emissions would also be reduced. Because it is common for 

locomotives to remain in service for as long as 50 years, the EPA has designed the standards to achieve 

more immediate reductions, such as the requirement that older locomotives be retrofitted with emission 

controls when they are remanufactured.
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4 - 148 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

This analysis includes a qualitative evaluation of the potential temporary air quality impacts, specifically 

related to construction.

4.16.2.1 Tier 2 Analysis

Future Tier 2 environmental studies for individual projects proposed subsequent to the OPR Project would 

consider:

• Analysis of localized pollutant concentrations or “hot spots” and addressing of relevant requirements.

• Calculation of the net emissions increases associated with the project for the analysis of general 

conformity applicability and requirements. If required at the time of the Tier 2 analysis, the net 

emissions increase for each pollutant would be calculated for the proposed alternative. These 

emissions would be estimated in tons per year for the peak construction year and for the planning 

horizon year (2035), and for each year between these two milestone years. The net increase in 

emissions for each pollutant would be compared to the applicable general conformity de minimis

threshold levels. If the estimated net emissions increases exceed the applicable de minimis threshold 

levels, a formal general conformity demonstration, including public notice and review, would be 

required. If the estimated emissions increases are less than the de minimis threshold levels, the project 

would be assumed to conform, and no further general conformity analysis would be required.

• Quantitative analysis of the details and relative magnitude of the shift from motor vehicle travel to rail 

travel.

• Analysis of the details and relative magnitude of increased vehicle trips to and from local rail stations, 

including any new stations identified in the Preferred Alternative (no new stations for Alternative 1 and 

up to four new stations for Alternative 2).

• Analysis of the construction of new sections of rail line and operation of passenger locomotives on the 

new sections.

• Qualitative analysis of MSATs.

4.16.3 Study Area

For this air quality analysis, the study area was limited to the air quality management areas that are subject 

to general conformity requirements and their respective local governmental planning entities.

4.16.4 Affected Environment

Table 4.16-2 lists the counties and air basins in the study area that the EPA has designated as maintenance 

areas for the NAAQS. Appendix D, Figure D-3 shows air quality maintenance areas for Ozone and CO that 

are described below.
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4 - 149

OCTOBER 2018

Table 4.16-2. Air Quality Maintenance Areas in the Study Area 

County Pollutant Designation

Lane PM10 Limited Maintenance

Polk, Marion CO Limited Maintenance

Polk, Marion 8-hour ozone Attainment/Maintenancea 

Multnomah, Clackamas CO Maintenance

Multnomah, Clackamas 8-hour ozone Attainment/Maintenancea 

a Due to regulatory changes in 2005, these areas have maintenance plans for ozone that demonstrate 

achievement of standards through 2015.

An air quality maintenance area for PM10 is located in the Eugene-Springfield area. On April 11, 2013, the 

EPA took direct final action to approve the Eugene-Springfield PM10 Limited Maintenance Plan and 

redesignate the area to attainment for PM10. The Lane Regional Air Protection Agency continues to 

implement the control strategies outlined in the SIP, and the area has not exceeded the NAAQS since 1987.

Oregon DEQ does not currently monitor for CO in the Eugene-Springfield area.

A designated air quality maintenance area for CO is centered on the city of Salem, in the counties of Polk 

and Marion. The Salem-Keizer Area Transportation Study (SKATS) air quality area achieved the NAAQS for 

CO in 1987 (Oregon DEQ, 2007a), and was classified as a maintenance area in 2009 (USEPA, 2014) with the 

approval of the submitted Limited Maintenance Plan. The SKATS area became an attainment/maintenance 

area for ozone with the revocation of the Federal 1-hour ozone standard in June 2005. Because this area is 

subject to the anti-backsliding provisions of the revised standard, the Oregon SIP section for the PortlandVancouver Air Quality Maintenance Area (Oregon Portion) and Salem-Keizer Area 8-hour Ozone 

Maintenance Plan (Oregon DEQ, 2007b) was required to demonstrate continued compliance with the 1997 

8-hour ozone standard through at least 2015.

Oregon DEQ does not currently monitor for CO in the Salem area.

The Portland area is a designated air quality maintenance area for CO, and the Portland area became an 

attainment/maintenance area for ozone with the revocation of the Federal 1-hour ozone standard in June 

2005. Because this area is subject to the anti-backsliding provisions of the revised standard, the Oregon SIP 

section for the Portland-Vancouver Air Quality Maintenance Area (Oregon Portion) and Salem-Keizer Area 

8-hour Ozone Maintenance Plan (Oregon DEQ, 2007b) was required to demonstrate continued compliance 

with the 1997 8-hour ozone standard through at least 2015. No violations of the 1-hour ozone standard 

have been recorded in Portland since 1998, and no violations of the 8-hour ozone standard have ever been 

recorded (Oregon DEQ, 2007b and Oregon DEQ, 2015). The last exceedance of the CO standard occurred in 

1991 (Oregon DEQ, 2007b and Oregon DEQ, 2015). 

4.16.5 Environmental Consequences

4.16.5.1 Direct and Indirect Impacts

Direct impacts to air quality from the OPR Project would occur from the increased use of diesel-powered 

passenger trains with locomotive engines or DMUs within the study area and the increase or reduction in 

the frequency of Thruway bus service. Table 4.16-3 presents the estimated annual locomotive engine and 

bus emissions in 2035 for each of the alternatives considered in this Tier 1 EIS analysis. This analysis reflects 

the shift, for the build alternatives, from Thruway Bus service to rail, but it does not reflect other potential 

modal shifts (i.e., the emissions shown here do not reflect the project-related emissions benefits that could 

be associated with rail service replacing passenger-vehicle, bus (other than Thruway bus), and plane trips 

along the route). As shown in Table 4.16-3, compared to the No Action Alternative, locomotive engine 

emissions would increase for all pollutants for both build alternatives, while Thruway-bus-service emissions 
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4 - 150 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

would decrease for all pollutants for both build alternatives. Because they are estimated to be a fraction of 

the locomotive emissions, the emissions associated with Thruway bus service do not add to the total 

emissions beyond one significant digit and therefore are not considered further in this analysis.

No Action Alternative

Table 4.16-3 provides a summary of estimated direct impacts to air quality associated with the No Action 

Alternative from locomotive and Thruway bus emissions. Comparisons between air quality conditions 

under the No Action Alternative and the two build alternatives is provided in the discussion of the build 

alternatives below. There would be a low potential for project-related MSAT impacts from Thruway buses 

due to existing regulations that are reducing emissions from the sources over time. Additionally, 

Washington State purchased eight next generation locomotives with greater fuel efficiency and lower 

emissions and put them into passenger rail service through the PNWRC.

Build Alternatives

The estimated OPR Project impacts to air quality would be limited to increases in locomotive engine 

emissions, and decreases of emissions from Thruway buses compared to the No Action Alternative. The 

estimated direct impacts, summarized in Table 4.16-3, suggest that increased Thruway bus service for the 

No Action Alternative and increased locomotive engine operations for both of the build alternatives would 

have low potential to result in any meaningful impact on air quality. Additionally, results indicate that the 

build alternatives would conform to the purpose and intent of the SIPs and Maintenance Plans for achieving 

the NAAQS. Because both build alternatives would pass through designated air quality maintenance areas, 

a general conformity applicability analysis would be required in subsequent Tier 2 environmental reviews 

and documentation. There would be a low potential for project-related MSAT impacts from locomotive 

engines due to existing regulations that are reducing emissions from these sources over time.

The OPR Project would generate indirect impacts related to changes in roadway traffic flow because of 

increased frequency of passenger train service. Under Alternative 2, passenger rail trains would travel on a 

predominantly new alignment containing many grade-separated crossings. While the existing at-grade 

crossings on the current UPRR alignment would remain open, they would be used by freight trains only. 

Although this change in track usage would reduce the amount of idling emissions from vehicles waiting for 

existing passenger rail traffic to pass on the current alignment, the potential increased freight rail traffic on 

the current UPRR alignment would result in increased idling emissions at existing at-grade crossings. Where 

increased frequency of passenger train service would be added without grade separations (i.e., the Oregon 

Electric Railway portion of Alternative 2), slight increases in air emissions associated with idling vehicles 

could occur.
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4 - 151

OCTOBER 2018

Table 4.16-3. Summary of Estimated Direct Impacts from Locomotive and Thruway Bus Emissions to Air Quality (2035) 

Pollutant No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Impacts from Locomotive Emissions

Track miles (one way)

135.7 135.7 130.7 

Number of locomotive round trips/day 3 7 7 

Miles traveled (one way), bus 122 122 122 

NOx (tons per year), locomotive 14 32 30 

CO (tons per year), locomotive 11 25 24 

PM10/PM2.5 (tons per year), locomotive 0.2 0.5 0.5 

VOCs (tons per year), locomotive 0.3 0.7 0.7 

Impacts from Bus Emissions

Round trips per day, bus

7 2 2 

NOx (tons per year), bus 0.80 0.23 0.23 

CO (tons per year), bus 0.21 0.06 0.06 

PM10 (tons per year), bus 0.04 0.01 0.01 

PM2.5 (tons per year), bus 0.01 0.004 0.004 

VOCs (tons per year), bus 0.02 0.01 0.01 

Note: The No Action alternative would result in 1 additional Thruway bus round trip over current conditions; Thruway-bus-service 

emissions do not add to the total emissions beyond one significant digit and are not considered further in this analysis.

4.16.5.2 Construction Impacts

During construction, emissions of CO, VOCs, NOx, and particulate matter would temporarily increase 

because of dust emissions from land disturbance and construction vehicle travel, and from exhaust from 

fuel combustion in construction vehicles and equipment.

All construction work must comply with Federal, state, and local air quality regulations regarding temporary 

emissions. Transportation conformity demonstrations are not required to address construction emissions if 

they last less than five years at any individual site. No construction-emission component of either build 

alternative would exceed five years at any single location. Project-specific investigations would determine 

whether future passenger rail projects would impact air quality.

Alternative 2 would have greater construction impacts than Alternative 1, because more new rail stations 

are proposed for construction (potentially in Springfield, Albany, Salem or Keizer, Woodburn, and 

Wilsonville or Tualatin) and because Alternative 2 would require more infrastructure to be constructed 

along the Oregon segment of the Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor.

4.16.6 Potential Mitigation

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

air quality, as appropriate. Construction contractors would have to meet applicable standards and BMPs, 

such as those listed in Section 4.14.6 and potential additional BMPs for air quality including: 

• Spraying haul roads with water to reduce dust and particulate matter emissions.

• Maintaining construction equipment with required pollution-control devices. 
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4 - 152 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

• Limit equipment idling to the extent practicable.

• Restricting burning.

4.17 Energy/Climate Change

This section discusses legal requirements, methods of analysis, the energy/climate change study area, 

affected environment, potential environmental consequences, and mitigation strategies related to energy 

and climate change for each of the OPR Project alternatives.

4.17.1 Legal Requirements

In addition to NEPA and CEQ’s NEPA implementing regulations, Federal regulations and state laws related 

to energy and climate change and applicable to this Tier 1 analysis include the following:

4.17.1.1 Federal

• FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts. Section 14(n)(10) of FRA’s environmental 

procedures requires an EIS to assess any irreversible or irretrievable commitments of energy resources 

likely to be involved in each alternative and any potential energy conservation.

4.17.1.2 State

• Oregon House Bill 2001. Passed in 2009, this legislation contains requirements aimed at reducing 

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the state transportation system.

• Oregon Senate Bill 1059. Passed in 2010, this legislation contains requirements aimed at reducing GHG 

emissions from the state transportation system.

4.17.2 Methods

4.17.2.1 Affected Environment

This analysis assessed the relative efficiencies of the primary transportation modes (light-duty vehicle, 

plane, bus, passenger rail) used between Eugene-Springfield, OR, and Vancouver, WA, with respect to 

energy consumption and GHG emissions. The amount of fuel currently used by the Amtrak Cascades route 

between Eugene, OR, and Vancouver, WA, was calculated. This information was used for comparisons 

between the No Action Alternative and the build alternatives in the analysis of environmental 

consequences.

4.17.2.2 Direct Impacts

Direct impacts were assessed using both quantitative and qualitative methods. Specifically, quantitative 

methods were used for estimates of operational use and construction, while a qualitative approach was 

used to estimate potential shifts in travel mode that would affect energy use and GHG emissions.

Operational impacts were calculated based on the number of passenger rail trips planned for the Amtrak 

Cascades alignment between Eugene-Springfield, OR, and Vancouver, WA, and for the Thruway bus trips 

between Eugene, OR, and Portland, OR (see Table 3-6 for a summary of the bus and train trips under each 

alternative). Projected fuel usage was calculated for the full buildout year (2035) and was converted to 

carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions (CO2e represents the equivalent amount of CO2 emissions 

created by all greenhouse gasses emitted). The fuel usage estimate was adjusted to account for the 

improved efficiency of trainsets in operation, based on the same assumptions the Washington Department 

of Transportation made in the Program Environmental Assessment for the Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor 

Washington State Segment – Columbia River to the Canadian Border (WSDOT, 2009). These assumptions 

include the following:
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4 - 153

OCTOBER 2018

• The build alternatives would potentially enhance fuel efficiency for passenger and freight trains by 

increasing the number of usable sidings and creating other capacity and efficiency improvements. 

Currently, at a few locations, some trains must wait for opposing traffic to pass. By decreasing the 

amount of time the trains sit idling on a siding, the OPR Project should improve energy efficiency 

through reduced fuel consumption.

• The build alternatives and the No Action Alternative would have future fuel efficiency gains with the 

use of the new models of locomotives being built for this route. Because locomotives being introduced 

today are 10 to 12 percent more energy efficient than locomotives built in the mid-1990s, it is assumed 

that new passenger locomotives purchased to operate on the route in the future will be at least 

12 percent more fuel efficient than the existing locomotives currently in use. Because at least one 

additional locomotive will be needed to operate six daily round trips, the future overall average fuel 

economy is estimated to increase by 4 percent (one of the three trains in operation).

• Bus fuel economy is projected to increase from 6 miles per gallon in 2014 to 7 miles per gallon by 2035.

Energy use was calculated for 2014 (the most recent year data was available at the time of analysis) as well 

as for the future (2035) year under the No Action Alternative and build alternative scenarios. These 

estimates were converted into CO2e emissions (as proxy for GHG emissions) using industry-accepted 

conversion factors from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans, 1983) and the EPA (USEPA, 

2009). Metric tons (MT) of CO2e emissions were used to compare GHG emission levels among alternatives. 

CO2e emissions take into account not only the carbon dioxide emitted but also other GHGs (for example, 

nitrous oxide and methane associated with fuel use). 

In addition to the operational energy locomotives use, improved passenger rail service has the potential to 

displace automobile, bus, and airplane trips in the project study area, as well as to generate demand for 

new rail trips. An evaluation of the estimated displacement of other modes of travel and changes in traffic 

congestion patterns identified a portion of the potential energy impacts and GHG emission impacts 

associated with the OPR Project.

Planning-level cost estimates were used to estimate the energy consumed during the construction of each 

build alternative, which is summarized as a direct impact. Different elements in the cost estimates were 

categorized using a Caltrans methodology for estimating energy consumption during construction based on 

construction costs (Caltrans, 1983; Caltrans, 2014). A conversion factor was applied to the energy use to 

calculate CO2e emissions associated with construction.

This Tier 1 analysis did not estimate energy use during maintenance. Based on the defined operating 

scenarios, the energy that would be used in maintaining the operations of the passenger rail service for the 

two build alternatives is assumed to be similar.

Indirect Impacts

Indirect impacts were addressed qualitatively by estimating changes in roadway traffic flow because of the 

greater service frequency of passenger trains, the potential for mode shift between roadway and rail, and 

the potential for shifting passenger trains from a route with many at-grade crossings to one with more 

grade-separated crossings.

The OPR Project would generate indirect impacts related to changes in roadway traffic flow because of the 

greater service frequency of passenger trains within the transportation system, the incremental 

replacement of the Thruway bus mode by passenger trains, and the potential for trips diverted from the 

roadway system.

4.17.3 Study Area

The study area for the energy and climate change analysis includes the primary transportation system 

between Eugene-Springfield and Vancouver (WA), specifically the road or rail routes traversed by trains or 
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4 - 154 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

buses in the No Action Alternative and build alternative scenarios. The analysis of energy and climate 

change relied on the potential use of fuel for operations and construction, and the relative energy use for 

passenger rail and passenger bus modes of transportation.

4.17.4 Affected Environment

Currently, passenger trains make three round trips daily between Eugene-Springfield and Portland, OR —

two Amtrak Cascades round trips and one Coast Starlight round trip. There are currently five round trips 

between Portland and Seattle (four Amtrak Cascades and one Coast Starlight). Thruway buses currently 

make six daily round trips between Eugene-Springfield and Portland (Thruway buses do not travel north of 

Portland). Table 4.17-1 presents route information, fuel use, and annual GHG emissions (identified as MT 

CO2e emissions). For a detailed listing of the number of trains and buses in the existing conditions, see 

Table 3-6.

Table 4.17-1. Existing Conditions: Passenger Train and Thruway Bus Energy Use Affected Environment (2014) 

Item 

Eugene to

Portland 

Portland to

Vancouver (WA) Totala

Daily Round trip Amtrak Cascades Trips 2 4 2/4 

Daily Round trip Amtrak Coast Starlight Trips 1 1 1 

Daily Round trip Thruway Bus Trips 6b 0 6b

One-way Trip Track Miles

(Bus Miles)

125.8 

(122.3) 

9.9 

(0) 

135.7 

(122.3) 

Daily Fuel Use from Train and Bus Operations 

(gallons)c

1,481 

Annual GHG Emissions from Train and Bus 

Operations (MT CO2e)d

5,460 

a Numbers may not sum because of rounding.

b In addition to these six round trips, there is a Thruway bus running between Salem-Portland daily; fuel use by that route is 

included in the calculation.

c Daily fuel use assumes 0.7 mile per gallon (mpg) for existing fuel efficiency for passenger trains (WSDOT, 2009) and 6 mpg for 

Thruway buses (American Bus Association, 2014).

d MT CO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (1 gallon diesel contains 22.2 pounds carbon dioxide equivalent 

[USEPA, 2009, with additional resources at USEPA, 2014]).

4.17.5 Environmental Consequences

The potential effect of the OPR Project on energy and climate change would be limited to increases in 

energy use from locomotives and buses, increases and decreases in on-road energy use from shifting 

transportation patterns, and increases in energy use from construction.

4.17.5.1 Direct and Indirect Impacts

No Action Alternative

Overall, it is anticipated that, by 2035, the No Action Alternative would result in a 9.5 percent decrease in 

fuel use (and GHG emissions) compared to existing conditions. This decrease is based in part on expected 

improvement in fuel efficiency from new locomotives.

Alternative 1

Table 4.17-2 provides a summary of direct impacts from energy expenditure and GHG emissions (2035) for 

Alternative 1.
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4 - 155

OCTOBER 2018

Fuel Use and GHG Emissions

Fuel use under Alternative 1 would increase compared to the No Action Alternative because of the increase 

in the number of daily passenger rail round trips (although there would be a small compensating reduction 

because of the decrease in bus trips). Compared to existing conditions, Alternative 1 would benefit from 

the same fuel efficiency gains as the No Action Alternative, and those are accounted for in this analysis. 

Overall, Alternative 1 would increase fuel use (and GHG) emissions by approximately 80 percent compared 

to the No Action Alternative because of the changes in bus and rail service frequencies.

In addition to the operational energy locomotives use, improved passenger rail service has the potential to 

displace automobile, bus, and airplane trips along the length of the study area, as well as to generate 

demand for new rail trips. Ridership is projected to increase under Alternative 1 compared to existing 

conditions and the No Action Alternative. Based on ridership modeling completed in 2015, Oregonsupported Amtrak Thruway bus and rail ridership in 2013 of approximately 700 riders a day would increase 

35 percent by 2035 under the No Action Alternative and 155 percent under Alternative 1. Alternative 1 

ridership would be 89 percent higher than that of the No Action Alternative. A portion of this increase 

would be attributed to mode shift, including replacing Thruway bus trips with passenger rail trips.

Alternative 1 would generate indirect impacts related to changes in roadway traffic flow because of the 

increase in passenger train service within the transportation system. To allow increased frequency of 

passenger trains, improve reliability, and potentially decrease overall travel time, an increase in the number 

of usable sidings and the creation of other capacity and efficiency improvements would be implemented. 

These improvements would help reduce the existing bottlenecks along the existing Amtrak service 

alignment and allow freight and passenger trains to pass each other while they are in motion. These 

improvements to the existing UPRR alignment would allow more efficient and uninterrupted flow of both 

freight and passenger rail, thus reducing train stoppages and delays, but increasing the number of stops 

and associated travel delays for roadway traffic at railroad crossings. These changes would reduce the fuel 

that roadway vehicles use while waiting for existing passenger rail traffic to pass and would marginally 

reduce GHG emissions.

Alternative 2 and Alternative 2 with Central Albany Option

Table 4.17-2 provides a summary of direct impacts from energy expenditure and GHG emissions (2035) for 

Alternative 2 and Alternative 2 with Central Albany Option.

Fuel Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Compared to existing conditions, Alternative 2 would benefit from the same fuel efficiency gains as the 

No Action Alternative and Alternative 1, and those are accounted for in this analysis.

As with Alternative 1, fuel use under Alternative 2 would increase compared to the No Action Alternative 

because of the increase in the number of daily round trips. The increase would be less for Alternative 2 than 

for Alternative 1, because the total trip distance is shorter. In addition, if passenger trains are shifted to 

Alternative 2 from the existing route, some efficiency gains could be associated with reducing conflicts at 

at-grade crossings between passenger trains and freight trains, or between passenger trains and motor 

vehicle traffic. Overall, Alternative 2 would increase fuel use (and GHG emissions) by approximately 75 

percent compared to the No Action Alternative because of the increase from three to seven daily passenger 

rail round trips and the change in bus frequencies. However, fuel use related to Alternative 2 would be 

4 percent lower than with Alternative 1, because Alternative 2 would have fewer track miles.

In addition to the operational energy locomotives use, improved passenger rail service has the potential to 

replace automobile, bus, and airplane trips along the length of the study area, as well as to generate 

demand for new rail trips. Ridership is projected to increase under Alternative 1 compared to existing 

conditions and the No Action Alternative. Based on ridership modeling completed in 2015, Oregonsupported Amtrak Thruway bus and passenger rail ridership in 2013 of approximately 700 riders a day 
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

4 - 156 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

would increase 35 percent by 2035 under the No Action Alternative and 151 percent under Alternative 2. 

Alternative 2 ridership would be 85 percent higher than that of the No Action Alternative. A portion of this 

increase would be attributed to mode shift, including replacing Thruway bus trips with passenger rail trips.

In addition to the indirect impacts noted for Alternative 1, Alternative 2 would provide additional benefits 

to the transportation system. Overall, along the Oregon segment of the Amtrak Cascades alignment, 

Alternative 2 would have fewer at-grade crossings (49) than Alternative 1 (138). The substantially reduced 

passenger rail traffic at at-grade crossings would reduce the fuel used by roadway vehicles waiting for 

passenger trains to pass. It would also marginally reduce GHG emissions because of the reduced fuel 

consumption of roadway vehicles no longer delayed by passenger trains at railroad crossings.

4.17.5.2 Construction Impacts

Construction of the build alternatives would require energy for the manufacture and installation of 

materials (including the operation of construction equipment). Construction energy is the summation of the 

energy used for each type of construction activity, which is a function of the cost of construction.

Alternative 1

Table 4.17-2 shows the estimated construction energy use and GHG emissions associated with Alternative 

1. Alternative 1 would require less than half the energy for construction than would Alternative 2.

Alternative 2

Table 4.17-2 shows the estimated construction energy use and GHG emissions associated with Alternative 2 

and Alternative 2 with Central Albany Option. Alternative 2 is expected to cost more to construct than 

Alternative 1 largely because of the greater extent of new infrastructure and structural work required, 

which translates to higher construction energy and GHG emissions.

Table 4.17-2. Summary of Direct Impacts from Energy Expenditure and GHG Emissions (2035) 

Resource Indicator, Topic, or 

Measurement No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2a

Number of Train Trips/Day (Eugene – 

Portland / Portland – Vancouver)

3/7 7/7 7/7 

Number of Bus Trips/Day

(Eugene – Portland)

7 1b 1b

One-way Trip Track Miles

(Bus Miles)

135.7 

(122.3) 

135.7 

(122.3) 

130.7 

(122.3) 

Daily Fuel Use from Train and Bus 

Operations (gallons)c

1,361 2,424 2,337 

Annual GHG Emissions from Train and 

Bus Operations (MT CO2e)d

5,017 8,936 8,614 

Total GHG Emissions from Construction 

(Materials and Operations) (MT CO2e)d

0 178,500 1,253,600 

a The Alternative 2 with Central Albany Option differs from Alternative 2 as follows: trains would travel an additional 2.5 track miles 

for each trip, resulting in additional 44 gallons of diesel used daily and emission of 161 additional MT CO2e annually; construction 

would generate 5,300 less MT CO2e than Alternative 2. Although operational energy use would be higher because of longer 

distance traveled for the option, the construction energy use would be lower, because fewer construction materials would be 

required (for example, no new station in Albany would mean fewer new grade-separated crossings).

b Alternatives 1 and 2 would also include a daily supplemental Thruway bus route between Salem and Portland. The energy use 

from that service is included in this analysis. However, there were no plans to extend this Salem to Portland route south to Eugene 

when this analysis was done and energy use for that extension is not included. 

c Daily fuel use assumes 0.8 mile per gallon (mpg) for passenger train trips and 7 mpg for bus trips for all alternatives. Both modes 

use diesel fuel. Train mpg reflect future anticipated improvements in fuel efficiency. Source: WSDOT, 2009. Fuel use calculations 
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4 - 157

OCTOBER 2018

were based on total daily distances (track or roadway miles for train and bus calculations, respectively). If DMU technology was 

used for the corridor, fuel use would be less (1% to 10% less, according to the estimate published by the International Union of 

Railways [UIC, 2003]). 

d MT CO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (1 gallon diesel contains 22.2 pounds carbon dioxide equivalent 

[USEPA, 2009, with additional resources at USEPA, 2014]).

4.17.6 Potential Mitigation

No mitigation for operational energy use is currently proposed. Both build alternatives would shift some 

trips from less fuel-efficient trips (automobile, airplane, bus) to the more efficient trains. Thus, some 

energy-related benefits would likely be associated with the mode shift, in the form of reduced vehicle miles

traveled and fuel consumption.

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 

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.

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.
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4 - 158 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

4.18.2.1 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.

4.18.4 Past, Present, and Reasonably 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.

4.18.4.1 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 June 4, 1859. Immigration over these 
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4 - 159

OCTOBER 2018

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

railroad was completed in 1869.

In the late 1800’s, 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).

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 segments 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 in 1867, both called 

the Oregon Central Railroad. 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 the first to establish a link between Portland and California 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 

managed 122 miles of 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 1910, allowed increased 

freight and passenger transport and increased 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 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 northsouth from Tualatin, OR, to Vancouver, WA (constructed between 1968 and 1983).

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 

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 Seattle-Portland 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 ten nationwide “High-Speed Rail” 

corridors. In that same year, Oregon completed the Oregon Rail Passenger Policy and Plan, as the 

legislature required.
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4 - 160 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions

Current conditions for land use and urbanization were largely established beginning in the 1970’s 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 1980’s, 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, 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.

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.
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4 - 161

OCTOBER 2018

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 

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.

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
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4 - 162 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

• 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/Penn 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 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/Penn 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 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. 
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4 - 163

OCTOBER 2018

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 

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.
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4 - 164 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

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.

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.
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4 - 165

OCTOBER 2018

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 Act funds 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 

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.
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4 - 166 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

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 

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.
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4 - 167

OCTOBER 2018

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.

4.19 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources

An assessment of the potential irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources resulting from OPR 

Project implementation was conducted in accordance with the NEPA statute (42 USC 4332(C)(v)), CEQ’s 

NEPA implementing procedures (40 CFR 1502.16), and FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental 

Impacts (64 Federal Register 28585, Section 14, (n)(11) and (o)26).

Irreversible effects result primarily from the use or destruction of nonrenewable resources (e.g., fossil fuels, 

minerals) that cannot be replaced within a reasonable time frame. Irretrievable resource commitments 

typically involve the loss in availability or value of an affected resource that cannot be restored as a result 

of the action (e.g., use of renewable construction materials, expense of human labor).

4.19.1 Methods

Data gathered from the review of all applicable resources analyzed in this Tier 1 EIS were reviewed, notably 

the consumption of energy and construction materials, and disturbance of resources (including cultural 

 

26 Due to the conceptual design basis of this Tier 1 EIS, a summary of specific unavoidable adverse impacts and associated mitigation measures 

cannot be determined at this time and would be addressed in subsequent Tier 2 environmental studies.
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4 - 168 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

resources, water resources, geology and soils, natural habitats and wildlife, wetlands, and threatened and 

endangered species). In addition, land uses anticipated to be converted to transportation improvements 

(i.e., railroad track and stations) were reviewed.

4.19.2 Affected Environment

Chapter 4 provides information on the built and natural elements within the respective study areas that 

the OPR Project could impact, temporarily and permanently, including farmland, commercial property, 

air quality and noise levels, parks, cultural resources, and biological resources such as wetlands and wildlife 

habitat. Materials and resources required for construction (for example, petroleum, concrete, ballast rock, 

and steel rails) are currently not in short supply and would likely be acquired from outside the OPR Project 

study area. The precise locations of these resources are not ascertainable at this time, but would be 

considered during subsequent Tier 2 environmental studies.

4.19.3 Impacts of No Action Alternative

No improvements would occur, and any new commitments of resources would not occur beyond those 

related to operation and maintenance of the Amtrak Cascades service and other planned transportation 

projects in the Willamette Valley. If passengers using the expanded rail service are using rail as a substitute 

for travel with other modes, future energy usage for automobiles, buses, and airplanes traveling between 

Eugene and Vancouver, WA, would be consumed at a slightly higher rate under the No Action Alternative 

relative to the build alternatives.

4.19.4 Impacts of Build Alternatives

4.19.4.1 Impacts Common to Build Alternatives

Construction of the build alternatives would result in the irretrievable commitment of land where new 

passenger rail infrastructure would convert existing land uses (including some agricultural lands, parklands, 

wetlands, and wildlife habitat) to a transportation-related use. The use of construction materials 

(for example, concrete, ballast rock, and wood) would constitute another irretrievable use of resources. 

Construction, operation, and maintenance of new passenger rail infrastructure would result in the 

irretrievable use of human labor as well as the irreversible commitment of mineral and energy resources 

(such as steel, fossil fuel, and electricity).

4.19.4.2 Alternative 1 

No additional impacts are anticipated beyond those described above under “Impacts Common to All Build 

Alternatives.” The construction of Alternative 1 would be accomplished in incremental phases, therefore

irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources would occur more gradually than for Alternative 2.

4.19.4.3 Alternative 2 

In addition to the “common impacts” described above, construction of Alternative 2 would involve a 

greater amount of passenger rail infrastructure (such as new stations, elevated structures, and bridges) and 

more lengthy sections of new railroad track outside of existing railroad rights-of-way than for Alternative 1. 

In addition, the improvements associated with Alternative 2 would present fewer opportunities for 

construction phasing and would require substantially more Federal and state funding as compared to 

Alternative 1. For these reasons, implementation of Alternative 2 would result in a considerably greater 

commitment of irreversible and irretrievable resources than would Alternative 1.
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4 - 169

OCTOBER 2018

4.20 Short-Term Use vs. Long-Term Productivity of the 

Environment

An assessment of short-term uses of the environment versus maintenance and enhancement of long-term 

environmental productivity was conducted in accordance with the NEPA statute (42 USC 4332(C)(iv)), CEQ’s 

NEPA implementing procedures (40 CFR 1502.16), and FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental 

Impacts (64 Federal Register 28585, Section 14, (p)).

4.20.1 Methods

Short-term uses of the environment are generally associated with the construction phase(s) of a project, 

and could include local disturbances to the human and natural environment. Potential OPR Project 

construction impacts were reviewed for all applicable resources analyzed in this Tier 1 EIS. The short-term 

environmental uses were qualitatively assessed relative to long-term environmental productivity and 

transportation system benefits.

4.20.2 Affected Environment

The affected environment for this assessment is the same as described in section 4.20.2, above.

4.20.3 Impacts of No Action Alternative

The No Action Alternative would not increase short-term uses of the environment associated with the 

existing operation and maintenance of the Amtrak Cascades service. However, the No Action Alternative 

could have long-term adverse effects to the Willamette Valley transportation system because the forecast 

passenger rail travel demand would not be met. Fuel for transportation modes between Eugene and 

Portland would be consumed at a slightly higher rate than with implementation of the OPR Project, and 

there would be less transportation resiliency along this travel corridor.

4.20.4 Impacts of Build Alternatives

4.20.4.1 Impacts Common to Build Alternatives

Implementation of either build alternative would contribute to the attainment of long-term transportation 

and safety objectives at the expense of some short- and long-term environmental uses.

Short-term environmental uses would vary in degree and severity for each build alternative, but would 

generally be similar. These short-term impacts would include access and travel inconveniences, as well as 

temporary adverse construction impacts related to water and air quality, noise levels, visual quality, land 

use changes, and temporary disturbance of biological resources. 

Short-term benefits to the human environment could include temporary local jobs and increased local 

revenue generated during construction activities.

The two build alternatives would be likely to adversely affect long-term environmental productivity as a 

result of wetland and floodplain impacts, increased noise and vibration levels, reduction of useable 

farmland and open spaces, cultural resources impacts, permanent visual effects, and the irrevocable use of 

concrete, steel, and energy.

The OPR Project is based in part on state and local comprehensive transportation planning efforts, which 

consider the need for near- and long-term mobility requirements within the context of present and future 

land use development. Accordingly, the two build alternatives would result in long-term benefits to the 

human environment by providing more frequent and reliable passenger rail service for the Oregon segment 
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4 - 170 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

of the Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor as well as increased transportation system resiliency and safety for 

the Willamette Valley transportation system.

4.20.4.2 Alternative 1 

No additional short-term environmental uses or impacts to long-term environmental productivity are 

anticipated beyond those described above under “Impacts Common to All Build Alternatives.” Alternative 1 

construction activities would be conducted on a smaller overall scale and more incrementally with smaller 

and shorter-term durations than Alternative 2. Compared to Alternative 2, Alternative 1 would result in 

reduced short-term use vs. long-term effects for usable farmlands and open space, community and cultural 

resources, noise and vibration levels, visual effects, and impacts to floodplains, water quality/stormwater, 

and wetlands. Therefore, short-term environmental uses and adverse impacts to long-term environmental 

productivity would generally be less severe and would occur more gradually than for Alternative 2.

4.20.4.3 Alternative 2 

Alternative 2 would involve a greater amount of passenger rail infrastructure (such as new stations, 

elevated structures, and bridges) and more lengthy sections of new railroad track outside of existing 

railroad rights-of-way than for Alternative 1. As a result, construction of Alternative 2 would create more 

short-term uses of the natural environment and more short-term benefits to the human environment 

compared to Alternative 1. Limited construction phasing opportunities for Alternative 2 would intensify 

these short-term effects. Implementation of Alternative 2 would also cause more severe adverse impacts to 

long-term environmental productivity relative to Alternative 1.

Compared to Alternative 1, Alternative 2 would provide a greater long-term transportation benefit in the 

context of progress towards a future dedicated passenger rail alignment that could potentially 

accommodate higher train speeds and more frequent trips.

4.21 Permits and Approvals

Transportation projects must comply with Federal, state, and local environmental laws and regulations, 

permits, reviews, notifications, consultation, and other approvals. Table 4.21-1 lists the permits that may be 

required for the Oregon Passenger Rail Project, based on the Tier 1 EIS conceptual level of design. A refined 

list of permits and approvals would need to be developed for any Tier 2 NEPA processes to implement 

design-level projects that may emerge subsequent to completion of Tier 1 NEPA.

Table 4.21-1. Permits Potentially Required for Construction of the Oregon Passenger Rail Project 

Agency Permit

FEDERAL

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Conditional Letter of Map Revision or Letter of Map Revision for 

changes in flood elevation

National Marine Fisheries Service ESA Section 7 Consultation

National Surface Transportation Board NEPA Consultation

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers • Clean Water Act, Section 401 Water Quality Certification

• Clean Water Act, Section 402 Water Quality Certification

• Clean Water Act, Section 404

• Rivers and Harbors Act, Section 10

U.S. Coast Guard General Bridge Act Section 9 permit 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency • Review of environmental justice conclusions

• General air quality conformity conclusions

U.S. Department of Transportation/Federal Railroad 

Administration

U.S. Department of Transportation Act Section 4(f) evaluation and 

approval
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4 - 171

OCTOBER 2018

Agency Permit

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services ESA Section 7 Consultation

STATE

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality NPDES 1200-C / 1200-CA; a CWA 401 Certification

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife ODFW Fish Passage Permit.

Oregon Department of State Lands Oregon Department of State Lands Removal/Fill Permit.

ODOT Motor Carrier Division Oversize/overweight vehicle authorization

Oregon State Historic Preservation Office • National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 Consultation

• Archeological excavation approval

LOCAL

Lane County Indirect Source Construction Permit (ISCP)

Various Affected Local Agencies • NPDES MS4 permits

• Rights of Entry to private property

• Statewide Planning Goal Exceptions (Goal 3; Goal 5, Goal 15)

• Floodplain permits

• Stormwater permits

• Historic review approvals

4.22 Preferred Alternative

During the OPR Project scoping process, ODOT conducted an open, interactive process (see Chapter 5) to 

develop the Project Purpose and Need as well as high-level goals and objectives (see Chapter 2). The OPR 

Project goals and objectives were then used to develop an evaluation framework, which served as the basis 

for the analysis of corridor concepts and preliminary alternatives, as well as the identification of the 

Preferred Alternative. Based on the analysis conducted to date, ODOT has identified Alternative 1 as the 

Preferred Alternative. The key differentiating factors for this recommendation are listed below.

Chapter 4, sections 4.1 through 4.22, describes the potential environmental consequences of the No Action 

Alternative and the build alternatives. Based on analysis of the performance of the build alternatives for 

each of the goals and objectives established for the OPR Project and the potential environmental 

consequences, ODOT found the following differentiators between the alternatives for each relevant 

evaluation criteria:

• Provide a viable alternative to auto, air and bus travel between Eugene, OR, and Vancouver, WA:

Alternative 2 would provide an 18-minute travel time savings compared to Alternative 1 and a 

33-minute travel time savings compared to the No Action Alternative. However, as noted below, this 

travel time savings does not result in higher ridership for Alternative 2. Reliability would substantially 

increase from current conditions under both build alternatives. Both build alternatives would align 

schedules with the state of Washington passenger rail.

• Provide reliable and frequent passenger rail service: The build alternatives greatly outperform the 

No Action Alternative in terms of ridership, and Alternative 1 shows slightly higher projected ridership 

than Alternative 2 (approximately 6.25 percent), despite slower anticipated travel times. 2035 annual 

ridership is projected at 390,000 for the No Action Alternative, 739,000 for Alternative 1, and 723,000 

for Alternative 2. Both build alternatives provide the capacity to serve six round trip trains per day 

between Eugene and Portland.

• Support multimodal integration at each potential passenger rail station: More people and jobs are 

potentially served with Alternative 1, because the existing stations are located in existing urban and 

employment centers. These station locations are currently connected to the community via pedestrian 
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4 - 172 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

and bike facilities, and existing transit services. Alternative 2 stations near I-5 would exhibit lower 

ridership due to lack of development at the station areas and a reliance on park-and-ride trips. In 

addition, new pedestrian and bike facilities, and new transit services would presumably be required to 

be extended to these new stations to increase multimodal integration. The Central Albany Option 

would increase the potential of Alternative 2 potential to support multimodal integration.

• Allow for future passenger rail improvements, including higher speeds: Alternative 2 (120 mph 

maximum) could support higher maximum speeds than Alternative 1 (79 mph maximum) on portions of 

the new alignment. Both build alternatives allow for future passenger rail improvements.

• Do not increase conflicts between passenger rail and/or freight rail and vehicles: Neither build 

alternative increases conflicts between passenger/freight rail and vehicles. However, Alternative 2 

would have far fewer existing at-grade crossings (up to 33 existing crossings) than Alternative 1 

(148 existing crossings). ODOT and UPRR plan to close two of the 148 existing at-grade crossings for 

Alternative 1.

• Phasing of improvements: Alternative 1 could be built in phases, potentially in reasonably fundable 

segments. Alternative 2 would have to be built in large sections. In addition, Alternative 2 

improvements would have to be made on the current No Action Alternative/Alternative 1 alignment to 

allow additional round trips if the full Alternative 2 alignment was not ready for operation. Those 

improvements would benefit freight rail, but would not benefit passenger service after Alternative 2 is 

completed.

• Construction costs: The cost of Alternative 2 is estimated to be more than four times higher than 

Alternative 1. Capital costs for Alternative 1 would be $870 million to $1,025 million, and capital costs 

for Alternative 2 would be $3.622 billion to $4.442 billion.

• Serve the maximum number of people with every dollar invested: The capital cost per new rider 

would be five times higher for Alternative 2 than for Alternative 1. The annual O&M costs would be 

$48 million for Alternative 1 and $51.5 million for Alternative 2.

• Environmental Justice (EJ) impacts: Alternative 2 could have greater impacts to EJ populations than 

Alternative 1. With Alternative 2, much of the new railroad alignment would be constructed through 

rural agricultural areas with lower overall populations, but containing EJ populations, and in a few 

urban areas along I-5. Although much of Alternative 2 would be built next to existing transportation 

corridors that already are barriers in the respective communities, it could further impact social 

cohesion through the addition of a new barrier in the community. Construction of proposed new 

stations in Alternative 2 could have negative EJ impacts related to potential business and residential 

displacements, and reduced mobility around proposed station areas that exhibit higher concentrations 

of minority and low-income groups. Because the double-track portions of Alternative 1 would be 

constructed adjacent to an existing railroad alignment, social cohesion issues related to community 

resources used by EJ or LEP populations are not anticipated, because the communities have historically 

adapted and built around the existing UPRR and BNSF rail lines. However, these rail lines would 

continue to be a barrier in communities along the alignment.

• Benefit communities within the corridor: Alternative 1 would have more employment density and 

development near the station locations. Alternative 1 would use existing Amtrak stations, which 

generally are located in or near downtown areas. With the exception of Portland and Albany in the 

Alternative 2 with Central Albany Option, Alternative 2 would include new stations that are located 

outside downtown areas. Alternative 1 would provide access to 180,905 jobs and 74,385 people living 

near the station areas, while Alternative 2 would provide access to 123,145 jobs and 65,215 people

living near the station areas.

• Impacts to sensitive noise receptors along the corridor: Overall, more potentially sensitive noise and 

vibration land uses are located within incorporated areas than within unincorporated areas. Because 
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 4 - 173

OCTOBER 2018

the Alternative 1 noise study area contains more incorporated areas than Alternative 2, Alternative 1 

would have a higher relative potential to impact noise and vibration sensitive land uses. A slightly 

higher proportion of lands in the Alternative 1 noise study area are designated for residential uses than 

in Alternative 2. Therefore, Alternative 1 would have a higher potential for residential noise impacts. 

Finally, substantially more institutional land uses (parks/open spaces, schools, libraries, places of 

worship, cemeteries, museums, hospitals, and community centers) were identified within the 

Alternative 1 noise study area than within the Alternative 2 noise study area.

• Farmland impacts: Alternative 1 would have less potential overall impact on farmland because of its 

reliance on existing right-of-way (ROW). Alternative 2 would have greater potential impact farmland, 

because it would create new rail ROW on farmland.

• Impacts to the Willamette River Greenway: Alternative 1 would not require new Willamette River 

crossings, while Alternative 2 would result in three new crossings of the Willamette River. Goal 15 of 

the Oregon Statewide Planning Goals aims to protect, conserve, enhance, and maintain the quality of 

land along the Willamette River. The Alternative 2 crossings would likely require an exception through a 

local plan amendment process.

• Threatened and Endangered species impacts: Overall, Alternative 1 would be expected to have less of 

an impact on threatened and endangered species than Alternative 2. Alternative 1 would have a 

smaller construction footprint and shorter construction duration than Alternative 2. The Alternative 1 

study area has the highest number of known locations of special status species. There is, however, only 

one known location of a Federally listed species, Nelson’s sidalcea (Sidalcea nelsoniana) within the 

direct impacts study area. Alternative 1 has less potential than Alternative 2 to directly impact natural 

wildlife habitats generally and Oregon Conservation Strategy (OCS) habitats specifically. Alternative 1 

has less potential to directly impact wildlife linkages than Alternative 2. Alternative 1 has approximately 

1.8 acres of conservation easements, while Alternative 2 has approximately 2.8 acres, and Alternative 2 

with Central Albany Option has no conservation easements. Using new stream crossings as an indicator

for potential impacts to aquatic resources, Alternative 1 has less potential than Alternative 2 to directly 

impact streams, because Alternative 1 could impact 10 streams with protected fish and Alternative 2 

could impact 22 streams.

• Wetland impacts: Alternative 1 would likely have considerably fewer impacts on wetlands and 

waterways than Alternative 2. Alternative 1 would have the lowest potential direct impacts, both in 

terms of overall wetland acreage and acres of high-value wetlands (32 acres and 7 acres, respectively, 

for Alternative 1, compared with 144 acres and 49 acres, respectively, for Alternative 2). The amount of 

hydric soils (excluding areas mapped as wetland) within the Alternative 1 direct impact study area is a 

little less than half that of Alternative 2 (378 and 818 acres, respectively). Therefore, Alternative 2 

would have a notably larger potential direct impact on wetland and waterway resources.

• Geology impacts: Alternative 1 would have fewer geology-related impacts than Alternative 2.

Alternative 1 would be constructed within and parallel to an existing rail alignment; therefore, limited 

earthwork is anticipated. No large fills would be required, so settlement because of compressible soil is 

expected to be minimal. Alternative 2 would require considerably more earthwork than Alternative 1. 

Fills placed in areas with compressible soil, historic landfills, or unconsolidated debris flow fans would 

need to be evaluated for settlement; mitigation could be required if the anticipated settlement could 

not be accommodated. Several rock cuts would be required along the alignment, and multiple cuts 

alternating with viaduct structures would be required between Turner and Salem.

• Section 4(f) impacts: Alternative 1 would likely have fewer impacts to Section 4(f) resources than 

Alternative 2. Alternative 1 would result in potential direct impacts on 10 Section 4(f) parks/recreation 

resources, whereas Alternative 2 would result in potential direct impacts on 18 (19) Section 4(f) 

parks/recreation resources. According to this high-level assessment, neither build alternative would 
CHAPTER 4 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4 - 174 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

result in an impact upon a Section 4(f) park/recreation resource that would be greater than de minimis

in nature.

– Alternative 1 has more historic properties (48 NRHP-listed or NRHP-eligible historic [built] 

properties adjacent to proposed new track than Alternative 2, which has 33 [37 for Alternative 2 

with Central Albany Option] properties). However, with Alternative 1, most ROW acquisition from 

historic properties would consist of linear strips of unimproved property, although removal of 

historic properties is possible. Alternative 2 has a greater potential for demolition of historic (built) 

properties, particularly near proposed new stations and the cut-and-cover tunnel. Alternative 2 

would also result in existing historic passenger rail stations (in Eugene, Albany [except the Central 

Albany Option], Salem, and Oregon City) being taken out of their historic and current use, and 

replaced with new stations in other locations.

• Archaeological resources impacts: Alternative 1 would likely have a slightly lesser impact related to 

archaeological resources. Eight known archaeological sites are within the No Action Alternative/

Alternative 1 APE, and 10 known sites are within the Alternative 2 APE.
CHAPTER 5 

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 5 - 1

OCTOBER 2018

Public Involvement, Outreach, and 

Coordination

This chapter summarizes the public and agency involvement, outreach, and coordination that occurred for 

the Oregon Passenger Rail (OPR) Project (Project). Stakeholder outreach and input were key components of 

the Project. The Project included an extensive public involvement component to ensure that needs and 

concerns of interested parties and stakeholders informed project decisions. For more information on the 

public involvement program, see the Oregon Passenger Rail Project Public Involvement and Communication 

Plan (Oregon Department of Transportation [ODOT], 2016e). 

5.1 Public Outreach Overview

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) public involvement process for the Project was designed to 

solicit early and frequent coordination with interested parties, stakeholders, government agencies, and 

Tribes to facilitate their input on Project purpose and scope; alternatives development; screening, key 

issues, and concerns; and criteria for the decision-making process. Input received during the public 

involvement process helped to shape the development of the Project’s purpose and need; goals and 

objectives; screening and evaluation framework; and alternatives development and screening process.

The purpose of the public involvement, outreach, and coordination component of the decision-making 

process was to share information and gather input on the needs and issues of the communities and 

stakeholders in the Project corridor. The public involvement process included the following goals: 

• Communicate complete, accurate, understandable, and timely information to the public throughout 

the Project

• Actively seek public input throughout the Project

• Provide meaningful public involvement opportunities and demonstrate how input has influenced the 

process

• Seek participation of all potentially affected and/or interested individuals, communities, and 

organizations

• Seek participation of Civil Rights Act of 1964 Title VI/Environmental Justice groups, including disabled, 

low-income, limited English proficiency, minority or other underserved groups in the Project area.

• Ensure that the public involvement process is consistent with applicable state and Federal laws and 

requirements, and is sensitive to local policies, goals, and objectives

The public and agency involvement process for the Project has occurred in multiple phases, including 

scoping; alternatives development and screening; and the preferred alternative identification. Public 

involvement will continue through the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process and 

the Record of Decision. In addition, public meetings and an online open house associated with the 

publication of the Draft EIS will be held. Dates for the public meetings can be found on the project website, 

http://www.oregonpassengerrail.org. 

5.2 Outreach Activities and Tools

The ODOT public involvement team implemented a number of communication tools and materials to make 

the information widely available to attain high levels of public participation and input during the planning 

process. The team updated the information regularly to ensure provision of the latest information on the 
CHAPTER 5 – PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT, OUTREACH, AND COORDINATION

5 - 2 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

Project. ODOT ensured targeted outreach efforts to minority populations by providing key project

information in Spanish, reaching out to community-based organizations, using ethnic news media sources, 

and having interpreters at meetings.

The public involvement team used the following activities and tools: 

• Stakeholder Database. The stakeholder database included potentially impacted parties, interested 

parties, and past meeting attendees. The team regularly updated the database, and it served as the 

main contact list for all mailings and outreach materials.

• Comment Database. ODOT’s public involvement team logged and analyzed all public comments and 

coordinated responses to comments using a comment collection database.

• Community and Jurisdictional Briefings. ODOT met with local jurisdictions and community groups to 

discuss the Project and collect input. These briefings provided an opportunity to meet with 

stakeholders and discuss issues specific to a region or community. ODOT has a list of these 

organizations and a summary of key outcomes from these briefings that are available upon request.

• Individual Communications. ODOT held briefings with stakeholders and officials upon request to share 

information and collect input. Examples of these communications included attending neighborhood 

association meetings and City Council meetings.

• Fact Sheets/Newsletters. To date, six fact sheets were prepared to support open houses, committee 

meetings, and community briefings in Summer 2012, Fall 2012, Summer 2013, Fall 2013, Summer 2014, 

and Summer 2015. The team produced and distributed a newsletter before each round of open houses 

to share information and invite participation. To date, the team developed and distributed four 

newsletters including in Summer 2012, Winter 2012, Fall 2013, and Fall 2015. 

• News Media. ODOT sent out news releases before open houses and committee meetings and at other 

key milestones. ODOT purchased print and radio advertisements with English and Spanish language 

media outlets to promote open houses.

• Open Houses/Online Open Houses. ODOT used open houses to share information with the public in 

the Project corridor, and to gather feedback and opinions. ODOT posted materials and displays from 

the open houses on the Project website. Additionally, during each public open house, ODOT conducted 

an online open house to engage individuals who might not attend in-person open houses. The online 

open houses included Project information and videos, and provided the same opportunities for 

comment as the in-person open houses. ODOT held one online open house that was not associated 

with an in-person open house from November 2 – 22, 2015 as additional public outreach.

• Community Events. ODOT hosted information booths at community events (such as farmers’ markets, 

athletic events, and seasonal festivals) to provide one-on-one opportunities to talk about the Project 

and get feedback from the public. ODOT has a list of these community events that is available upon 

request.

• Project Website/Social Media. The Project website, www.OregonPassengerRail.org, was the primary 

portal for public information. The site included a Project description, copies of Project materials, and 

contact information for Project staff. ODOT announced upcoming meetings on the Project website, and

posted materials in advance of each meeting. The Project website contained an online comment form 

where the public could share thoughts and ideas at any time. The Project used the ODOT Facebook 

page and Twitter feed. In addition, ODOT encouraged jurisdictions and community organizations in the 

Project area to post information about the Project on their own social media pages at key outreach 

points. ODOT produced a Project overview video in the early stages of the Project raised awareness of 

the Project. The video was featured on the Project website and was integrated into online open houses. 

Additional shorter videos were created to support the online open houses. In addition, some key 

Project committee meetings have been video-recorded.
CHAPTER 5 – PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT, OUTREACH, AND COORDINATION

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 5 - 3

OCTOBER 2018

5.3 Stakeholder Coordination Overview

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and ODOT have coordinated interagency meetings and other 

activities to collect input from interested agencies. These meetings and activities have helped to inform the 

development of Project alternatives. Agency involvement was also encouraged during the scoping process. 

At the beginning of the environmental review process prior to scoping, FRA and ODOT invited agencies to 

participate, where appropriate, in the Project.

5.3.1 Cooperating Agencies

FRA and ODOT assessed agency interest in the Project through comments submitted to ODOT during the 

scoping period. They used the information to identify potential cooperating agencies, but no agencies 

participated as cooperating agencies for the OPR Project. The roles and responsibilities of cooperating 

agencies include, but are not limited to:

• Identifying, as early as practicable, any issues of concerns regarding the Project’s potential 

environmental or socioeconomic impacts

• Providing contemporary information relevant to the analysis of potential impacts on the built and 

natural environments

• Providing meaningful and timely input on unresolved issues

• Reviewing and providing comments on the Tier 1 Draft EIS and the preferred alternative

5.3.2 Regulatory Agencies

In the interest of efficiencies in Project development and coordination with regulatory agencies, in 2001 

ODOT established a collaborative process and structure to work with state and Federal regulatory agencies. 

The Collaborative Environmental and Transportation Agreement for Streamlining (CETAS) established a 

working relationship between ODOT and 10 Federal and state transportation, natural resource, cultural 

resource, and land use planning agencies for Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) projects.

5.3.2.1 State Agencies

• Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD)

• Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)

• Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW)

• Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL)

• Oregon Parks and Recreation Department’s State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)

5.3.2.2 Federal Agencies

• Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)

• National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)

• United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)

• United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

• United States Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS)

Although FRA did not participate in the CETAS agreement, and the CETAS process has not applied to FRAsupported projects in Oregon, ODOT chose to use the CETAS meeting on October 12, 2012, to inform and 

seek OPR Project scoping comments from these Federal and state resource agency representatives. 
CHAPTER 5 – PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT, OUTREACH, AND COORDINATION

5 - 4 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

After the meeting, CETAS representatives invited ODOT to continue to attend CETAS meetings periodically 

to inform and update Federal and state agencies related to the OPR Project.

5.3.2.3 Tribal Outreach and Coordination

At the beginning of the scoping process, ODOT identified the following Tribes with potential interest in the 

Project because of historic presence or treaty interest in the Project area:

• Cowlitz Indian Tribe

• Nez Perce Tribe

• Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation

• Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation

• Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community

• Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation

• Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians

FRA sent letters to the Tribes initiating the government-to-government consultation. FRA and ODOT 

continue to consult with the Tribes throughout the Project to provide information related to any potential 

impacts that could affect the Tribes.

5.3.3 Committees

ODOT formed three committees that advised, and will continue to advise, ODOT throughout the Project. 

These committees played an important part in project development and included a Leadership Council, a 

Corridor Forum, and Community Advisory Groups.

5.3.3.1 Leadership Council

Governor John Kitzhaber established the Leadership Council to guide the Project and develop 

recommendations for ODOT to submit to FRA for FRA’s consideration. The Leadership Council is a core 

advisory group composed mostly of elected officials from the Willamette Valley. ODOT requested this 

group’s recommendations and input throughout the process. 

5.3.3.2 Corridor Forum

ODOT created a Corridor Forum group to engage potentially affected jurisdictions within the Project. The 

Corridor Forum included 49 members composed of directors and elected representatives from 21 cities, 

5 counties, 6 regional governments, 4 transit agencies, and representatives of other state and Federal

agencies and statewide interest groups. The Corridor Forum identified and explored broad-level issues, 

opportunities, and viable options for balancing the broad range of interests in the corridor. This group 

provided input to the Leadership Council.

5.3.3.3 Community Advisory Groups

Community Advisory Groups considered local issues and provided input to the Corridor Forum and 

Leadership Council. The purpose of these geographically-based groups was to provide local stakeholders 

with an opportunity to identify issues that helped shape alignment options in their area of the Project. 

Community Advisory Groups were active in the six major communities in the Project study area:

• Portland metro

• South Portland metro

• Salem-Keizer
CHAPTER 5 – PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT, OUTREACH, AND COORDINATION

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 5 - 5

OCTOBER 2018

• Albany-Corvallis

• Eugene-Springfield

• Rural Project area 

5.3.4 Title VI and Environmental Justice

Title VI and environmental justice populations include minority populations, low-income populations, 

elderly populations, persons with disabilities, and limited English proficiency (LEP) populations. Chapter 4, 

Section 4.5 provides information on Title VI and environmental justice populations.

Outreach has included means to ensure effective communication with LEP, minority, and low-income 

populations. These means included providing translated materials online, and at community meetings and 

gatherings; having interpreters available upon request at public meetings; advertising in ethnic media; 

relaying information through agencies; and hosting project information booths in the community at a 

variety of locations (including one that had a Spanish-language Interpreter). These methods allowed better 

reach within the different communities in the Project corridor to involve people. In addition, public 

meetings were noticed with standard Federal language regarding accommodations and access for people 

with disabilities, and were held in Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)-accessible locations and, to the 

extent possible, transit-accessible locations. 

5.3.5 Section 106 Coordination

Chapter 4, Section 4.11, discusses the Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966

(Section 106) process for reviewing and protecting historic and archaeological resources. The process 

requires the identification of “consulting parties.” FRA and ODOT were required to reach out to and involve 

these consulting parties in the program development process. Consulting parties often include SHPOs, 

Tribal historic preservation officers (THPOs), Native American Tribes, representatives of local governments, 

and individuals and organizations with a demonstrated interest in the Project’s effects on historic 

properties.

FRA invited Tribes with potential interest in the Project because of historic presence or treaty interest in 

the Project area to participate in government-to-government consultation, pursuant to Section 106. 

On September 20, 2012, FRA sent a letter to these Tribes that:

• Offered FRA and ODOT resources for formal government-to-government consultation at the request of 

the Tribes to ensure that Tribes are kept informed as the Project progresses and new information 

becomes available

• Requested concerns for locations of traditional or cultural significance to incorporate into the cultural 

resources survey work

• Provided an opportunity for participation in the process to identify cultural resources, effects of the 

Project on significant resources, and resolution of any adverse effects that might result from the 

proposed action

• Requested the primary contact information for Tribal consultation and the method of consultation with 

each Tribe for this Project 

Tribal outreach will continue throughout the duration of the Project. As appropriate, ODOT will arrange 

meetings to discuss the Project with Tribal representatives and/or provide Project documentation 

pertaining to Tribal interests for review. 
CHAPTER 5 – PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT, OUTREACH, AND COORDINATION

5 - 6 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

5.4 Agency and Public Scoping Process

The agency and public scoping process for the Project was initiated on August 17, 2012, with the 

publication of a Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS in the Federal Register. Agency outreach and 

coordination occurred throughout the development of this Draft EIS, beginning with agency scoping and 

followed by additional meetings with local and regulatory agencies. These activities are described in the 

following subsections. The scoping process followed for the project is detailed in the project’s Scoping 

Report (ODOT and FRA, 2013).

5.4.1 Agency Scoping Meetings

ODOT and FRA held three agency scoping meetings in September 2012 (Table 5-1) for Federal and state 

regulation agencies, metropolitan planning organizations, counties, cities, transit districts, school districts, 

and police and fire districts. ODOT sent invitation letters by email. These email messages also included an 

attachment and links to the Project website with information related to the Project. A reminder email was 

sent about 2 weeks after the initial invitation. In addition to the agencies noted, ODOT sent a Tribal scoping 

invitation letter by email inviting the Tribes to one of the three agency scoping meetings or one of the 

six public scoping meetings. That invitation letter also invited the Tribes to request their own meeting with 

the ODOT Project team.

Table 5-1. Agency Scoping Meetings 

Date/Time Location

Tuesday, September 18, 2012

2:30 to 4:00 p.m.

Basement Training Room, Multnomah County Building

501 SE Hawthorne Boulevard

Portland, Oregon

Wednesday, September 19, 2012

2:30 to 4:00 p.m.

McLane Conference Room, ODOT Springfield Office

644 A Street

Springfield, Oregon

Wednesday, September 26, 2012

2:30 to 4:00 p.m.

Gail L. Achterman Commission Room, ODOT Transportation Building

355 Capitol Street NE

Salem, Oregon

Twenty-eight agency representatives attended the meetings. No Tribal representatives attended the 

meetings. Attendees received a handout with materials related to the Project, and there were stations 

where attendees could provide input related to the Project. Each meeting had a 30-minute presentation 

about the Project that included information on the purpose and need, the Project overview and context, 

the Tier 1 EIS process and what was to be studied, and the next steps. A 60-minute session of questions, 

answers, and discussion followed the presentation. ODOT encouraged comments and suggestions at the 

meetings to ensure that key issues and concerns related to the proposed action were identified.

5.4.2 Other Stakeholder Scoping Meetings

ODOT conducted a number of other meetings during the scoping period to introduce agencies to the 

Project, receive input related to the scope of the Project, and answer questions.

5.4.2.1 CETAS Meetings

In addition to the agency meetings listed in Section 6.4.1, ODOT presented Project scoping information to 

seven Federal and state resource agency representatives at a CETAS meeting on October 16, 2012. The 

presentation was consistent with the material presented at the three previous agency scoping meetings.
CHAPTER 5 – PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT, OUTREACH, AND COORDINATION

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 5 - 7

OCTOBER 2018

5.4.2.2 Railroad Coordination

ODOT met with railroad stakeholders in the study area during the scoping period to inform these 

stakeholders of the process, key elements, schedule, and data input needed for the Project. These meetings 

also provided an opportunity for the railroad stakeholders to comment on the Project to assist in the 

development of the scope of the Project. The ODOT project team met with the following railroad 

stakeholders during the scoping period:

• Union Pacific Railroad (September 4, 2012);

• Port of Portland (September 11, 2012);

• BNSF Railway (September 12, 2012);

• Portland & Western Railroad (September 12, 2012);

• Albany & Eastern Railroad (October 1, 2012);

• Portland Terminal Railroad (October 2, 2012);

• Port of Coos Bay, owner of Coos Bay Rail Link (October 9, 2012);

• Port of Vancouver (October 12, 2012); and

• Amtrak (October 19, 2012). meetings

During the meetings, the railroad stakeholders identified the following:

• Issues, questions, and concerns about the Project related to their facilities or interests

• Railroad engineering and operation constraints that could affect the development of concepts and 

alternatives

• Limits on the type or amount of railroad information and data that can be shared

• Other railroad stakeholders, including existing shippers

• The decision-making process within their organizations and the process to request data

• Other existing or future planned major projects within the study area

• The potential need for operating agreements with ODOT in future phases of the Project

• The level of Project engagement and the primary contact for each railroad or railroad stakeholder for 

future Project coordination

Meeting minutes from the coordination meetings are included in the Scoping Report (ODOT and FRA, 

2013). ODOT coordination with railroad stakeholders continued throughout the Project to assist in the 

development and screening of Project concepts and alternatives.

5.4.2.3 Eugene-Springfield Area Meeting

Local jurisdictions in the Eugene-Springfield area requested that ODOT conduct a second agency scoping 

meeting in the Eugene-Springfield area for the Project. At the request of these agencies, ODOT attended a 

regularly scheduled Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) 

Transportation Advisory Subcommittee on October 18, 2012. Approximately eight agency representatives 

from the Eugene-Springfield area attended this meeting.

5.4.2.4 Corridor Forum

On September 25, 2012, ODOT held a Corridor Forum meeting at the Oregon State Fairgrounds. The 

Corridor Forum was composed of directors and elected representatives from cities, counties, and other 
CHAPTER 5 – PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT, OUTREACH, AND COORDINATION

5 - 8 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

key agencies and stakeholders in the Project study area. At this meeting, members provided feedback on 

the Draft Purpose and Need statement, and provided ideas on alignment alternatives.

5.4.2.5 Presentations

ODOT presented information about the Project to various organizations and jurisdictions during the scoping 

phase in Fall 2012, and provided these groups with an opportunity to ask questions and make comments 

about the Project. The groups included the following:

• Clackamas County Coordination Committee (September 6, 2012)

• Tigard Chamber of Commerce (September 6, 2012)

• Mid-Willamette Valley Area Commission on Transportation (October 4, 2012)

• Corvallis Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Policy Board (October 10, 2012)

• Eugene Chamber of Commerce, Local Government Affairs Council (October 19, 2012)

• Cascade West Area Commission on Transportation (October 25, 2012)

• Springfield Chamber of Commerce Gateway Development Committee (October 26, 2012)

• Portland Metro Transportation Policy Alternatives Committee (October 26, 2012)

5.4.3 Public Scoping Meetings, Outreach, and Coordination

ODOT sought input from stakeholders and the public related to the scoping process using open houses, an 

online open house, and community advisory group meetings. ODOT held six public scoping meetings for the 

Project (Table 5-2). The purpose of these scoping meetings was to:

• Introduce the Project and the Project development process

• Review preliminary Project information, including the Draft Purpose and Need statement

• Seek input on the scope of the Project, including potential rail alignment alternatives

• Solicit stakeholder issues, and ask for their input to assist with developing the Project goals and 

objectives

Table 5-2. Public Scoping Meetings 

Date Location

Approximate Number of 

Attendees

September 6, 2012

5:00 to 7:00 p.m.

ODOT Transportation Building

355 Capitol Street NE, Salem 55 

September 11, 2012

5:00 to 7:00 p.m.

Clackamas Community College

19600 Molalla Avenue, Oregon City 35 

September 12, 2012

5:00 to 7:00 p.m.

Albany Public Library

2450 14th Avenue SE, Albany 45 

September 13, 2012

5:00 to 7:00 p.m.

Phoenix Inn

14905 Bangy Road, Lake Oswego 55 

September 18, 2012

5:00 to 7:00 p.m.

Metro Council Chambers

600 NE Grand Avenue, Portland 60 

September 19, 2012

5:00 to 7:00 p.m.

Atrium Building

99 West 10th Avenue, Eugene 75 
CHAPTER 5 – PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT, OUTREACH, AND COORDINATION

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 5 - 9

OCTOBER 2018

The public scoping meetings were held in cities located throughout the study area and lasted 2 hours. 

Approximately 325 people attended the scoping meetings. Spanish-language interpretation services were 

available at each public scoping meeting; however, there were no requests for interpretation.

The public scoping meetings were drop-in-style open houses that included six stations to offer information 

on specific topics and provide opportunities for the public to get involved. Those who attended were 

provided with Project handouts and a comment form. The public was encouraged to participate by 

providing comments on the purpose and need and routes.

The public was notified about the meetings through various means: email messages and newsletters to 

those in the stakeholder database, information posted on the Project website, news releases and 

interviews with various newspapers and radio stations in the Project area, postings in the newsletters and 

online calendars of cities and jurisdictions, and newspaper advertisements.

During the scoping process, ODOT participated in eight community events during the summer and fall of 

2012 as listed in Table 5-3. At these events, ODOT provided information about the Project, collected 

comments and concerns in the early scoping phase, and invited people to the open houses.

5.4.3.1 Online Scoping Meeting

In addition to the in-person public scoping meetings described above, ODOT hosted an online public 

scoping meeting, which allowed people to learn about the Project and provide their comments online at 

their convenience. Eighty-four members of the public visited the online public scoping meeting that ran 

from September 6 to 23, 2012. The online meeting included several videos that provided Project 

background and context, and that helped guide participants through the online open house tools. The 

meeting used the same stations and display board language as the in-person scoping meetings, and 

provided additional features to solicit feedback from participants, including the following:

• Online sticky wall. Participants were able to post short messages. This section received 64 comments.

• Online comment map. An interactive map featured Project options being considered at the time. 

Participants could use the map to provide location-specific comments and suggestions for additional 

concepts, to which other users could respond. This section received 49 comments.

• Online comment form. The online public scoping meeting used the same comment form that was 

available at the in-person public scoping meetings that could be completed and submitted online. 

Twenty-three comments were submitted using the online form.

5.4.4 Scoping Comment Summary

During the scoping phase, ODOT received approximately 800 public comments from outreach at 

community events, public scoping meetings, online public scoping meetings, email messages, and phone 

calls. One-hundred-fifty-nine (159) comment forms were completed and submitted at the public scoping 

meetings. See the OPR Project web site www.oregonpassengerrail.org for information on the public and 

agency comments received during Project scoping.

5.5 Alternatives Analysis Outreach and Coordination

The public involvement team has conducted public outreach and coordination for the public and 

stakeholders since the completion of the scoping process to collect input on the preliminary alternatives 

evaluation results. The outreach included a series of public open houses, stakeholder group meetings 

(including the Corridor Forum and Community Advisory Groups), and Leadership Council meetings. As listed 

in Table 5-3, ODOT held five open houses in November 2013, as well as an online open house that ran from 

November 5 to November 18, 2013. Three-hundred-ninety-four people attended the open houses, and 

802 people visited the online open house.
CHAPTER 5 – PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT, OUTREACH, AND COORDINATION

5 - 1 0 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

Three-hundred-thirty-five comment forms were submitted (132 at the public open houses and 203 through 

the online open house). In addition, more than 100 comments were submitted via the comment form on 

the Project website, by email messages, by letters, and by phone calls.

Many of the comments received were detailed and specific to the various preliminary alternatives and to 

the communities in the Project corridor. However, the public comments did reveal some overall themes 

with respect to the preliminary alternatives and passenger rail in Oregon. For example:

• Most people expressed general support for improved passenger rail in Oregon, regardless of which 

alternative is selected.

• Many people suggested mixing and matching preliminary alternatives within the geographic sections.

• People indicated divided support for higher speeds versus serving more communities; although, 

generally, frequency and reliability appeared to be more important to people than high speeds.

• Many commenters stated that more frequent service will be key to increasing the demand for 

ridership.

• Some would like to see a vision for true high-speed rail, while others felt Oregon does not have the 

ridership or population to support such a substantial public expenditure.

• A number of people were concerned about freight and passenger rail conflicts along the corridor and 

would like to see more double-tracking or dedicated passenger rail tracks.

• Several people also commented on the need to serve existing stations to reduce costs, and stated that 

passenger rail must connect well to local transit to improve service and increase ridership.

• Finally, many participants in the Albany-Corvallis area open house expressed a desire for a station in 

Corvallis, while acknowledging that the technical evaluation did not support such a recommendation.

5.6 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

NEPA and FRA requirements were followed to provide notice regarding the circulation and availability of 

the Draft EIS. The Draft EIS was distributed, both electronically and in hard copies (as required), to agencies 

and stakeholders, and has been made available to the public for comment. With the release of the Draft 

EIS, ODOT notified the public about the availability and the public process, including information on how to 

submit comments—by email to the stakeholder database and through notification on the Project website. 

The Project website also included links to the Draft EIS for viewing and downloading.

FRA and ODOT will hold public meetings to provide information on the findings in the Draft EIS and to allow 

for public review and comment. The Draft EIS will be available to the public for at least 30 days prior to any 

public meetings, and it will be available for public review and comment for 60 days. In addition to providing 

information and answering questions, the public meetings include a public hearing. At the meetings, ODOT 

and FRA will accept comments in writing, transcribed by a court reporter, or received via email.

5.7 Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of 

Decision

After ODOT and FRA review and consider all comments related to the Draft EIS, they will amend and revise 

the text of the document in the Final EIS. The Final EIS will analyze the impacts associated with the 

Preferred Alternative and the other alternatives, including the No Action Alternative. It will also respond to 

comments on the Draft EIS. FRA and ODOT intends to issue the Final EIS (FEIS) concurrent with a Federal 

Record of Decision (ROD) along with notices in local newspapers and on the Project website. In addition, 

ODOT and FRA will distribute the FEIS/ROD as required by NEPA. The combined FEIS/ROD will document 
CHAPTER 5 – PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT, OUTREACH, AND COORDINATION

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 5 - 1 1

OCTOBER 2018

the decision on the Project, discuss the Preferred Alternative and other alternatives, and explain the 

mitigation measures, if required. FRA and ODOT will make the FEIS/ROD available to the public and will 

publish it on the FRA and Project websites.

5.8 Coordination and Outreach Meetings

Outreach and coordination in the development of the Draft EIS has resulted in numerous agency, 

stakeholder, and public outreach meetings. Table 5-3 lists the meetings that have been held to date.

Table 5-3. Public, Agency, and Stakeholder Outreach Meetings Held to Date 

Event/Meeting Date 

Leadership Council 2011 – October 21, November 29

2012 – March 15, June 6, October 30, December 11

2013 – January 31, March (email communication), October 29, December 17

2014 – December 15

2015 – December 8

Corridor Forum 2012 – September 25

2013 – January 24, April 16, October 8 (Online Briefing), December 3

2015 – November 17 (Online Briefing)

Community Advisory Groups1 2013 – April 24 (Albany-Corvallis), April 25 (Salem-Keizer), May 1 (Eugene-Springfield), 

May 2 (SW Metro), May 8 (Portland), October 14 (Portland), October 15 (AlbanyCorvallis), October 16 (Salem-Keizer), October 23 (Eugene-Springfield), October 24 

(South Portland Metro), October 29 (Jefferson - rural interests)

2015 – November 4 (Online Briefing)

Public Open Houses 2011 – 11 open houses between December 2010 and April 2011 at various locations

2012 – September 6 (Salem), September 11 (Oregon City), September 12 (Albany), 

September 13 (Lake Oswego-Tualatin), September 18 (Portland), September 19 

(Eugene-Springfield)

2013 – January 8 (Eugene-Springfield), January 9 (Portland), January 10 (Tualatin), 

January 15 (Oregon City), January 16 (Albany-Corvallis), January 17 (Salem), January 23 

(Milwaukie), October 30 (Milwaukie), November 5 (Salem-Keizer), November 6 

(Eugene-Springfield), November 7 (Albany-Corvallis), November 12 (Oregon City), 

November 14 (Portland)

Online Open House 2012 – September 6 – 23 (Online open houses associated with in-person scoping 

meetings)

2013 – January 1-31 (Online open houses that ran concurrently with in-person open 

houses in January), November 5 – 18 (Online open houses to complement in-person 

open houses in October and November) 

2015 – November 2 to 22 (Project update)
CHAPTER 5 – PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT, OUTREACH, AND COORDINATION

5 - 1 2 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

Event/Meeting Date 

Community Events/Information 

Booths

2012 – July 28 (Springfield Fiesta Latina), August 8 (Woodburn Fiesta Mexicana), 

August 25 to 26 (Eugene Celebration), August 25 (Salem Saturday Market), September 

15 (Albany Farmers Market), September 15 (Eugene Farmers Market), October 12 

(Springfield Farmers Market), October 26 (Portland Union Station

2013 – July 1 (Keizer Transit Center Grand Opening), July 17 (Corvallis Farmers 

Market), July 26 (Eugene Inaugural Event – New Talgo Train and New Northbound 

Amtrak trips), July 27 (Jefferson Mint Festival and Frog Jump), August 3 (Woodburn 

Fiesta Mexicana), August 10 (Keizer River Fair), August 17 (Eugene Saturday Market), 

August 25 (Portland Sunday Parkways), August 31 (Salem Saturday Market), August 31 

(Albany Farmers Market)

2014 – July 25 (Springfield Sprout! Marketplace), July 27 (Portland Sunday Parkways – 

Northeast Portland), August 2 (Salem Farmers Market), August 2 (Woodburn Fiesta 

Mexicana), August 17 (Eugene Saturday Market), August 23 (Albany Farmers Market), 

August 24 (Portland Sunday Parkways – Southeast Portland)

2015 – June 20 (Albany Farmers Market), July 10 to 11 (Springfield Summer Fair), 

July 17 (Eugene Station), July 18 (Eugene Saturday Market), August 1 (Salem Saturday 

Market), August 6 (Portland Union Station), August 23 (Sunday Parkways)

University and College Outreach and 

Information Booths

2013 – June 10 (University of Oregon)

2015 – November 3 (Willamette University), November 4 (Linn Benton Community 

College), November 10 (University of Oregon, Portland Union Station)

Railroad Coordination 2012 – September 4 (Union Pacific Railroad), September 11 (Port of Portland), 

September 12 (BNSF Railway), September 12 (Portland & Western Railroad), 

October 1 (Albany & Eastern Railroad), October 2 (Portland Terminal Railroad), 

October 9 (Port of Coos Bay), October 12 (Port of Vancouver), October 19 (Amtrak)

Scoping Presentations 2012 – September 6 (Clackamas County Coordination Committee), September 6 

(Tigard Chamber of Commerce Good Morning Tigard Networking Event), October 4 

(Mid-Willamette Valley Area Commission on Transportation), October 10 (Corvallis 

Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Policy Board), October 19 (Eugene Chamber 

of Commerce, Local Government Affairs Council), October 25 (Cascade West Area 

Commission on Transportation), October 26 (Springfield Chamber of Commerce 

Gateway Development Committee), October 26 (Portland Metro Transportation Policy 

Alternatives Committee)

Tribal Meetings 2012 – April 17 (Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon)
CHAPTER 6 

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 6 - 1

OCTOBER 2018

Next Steps

Public, resource agency, stakeholder, interested party and Native American Tribal input was considered in 

completing this Tier 1 process. This chapter describes the process, additional analysis required for Tier 2 

studies, NEPA documentation, and design needed to advance to the project level. 

6.1 Identification of a Preferred Alternative

During the OPR Project scoping process, ODOT conducted an open, interactive process (see Chapter 5) 

to develop the project Purpose and Need as well as high-level goals and objectives (see Chapter 2). 

In association with the technical analyses conducted for this Draft EIS, the performance attributes from the 

evaluation framework were used for a second time as a basis for comparing Alternative 1 and Alternative 2. 

Performance attributes for the No Action Alternative were also assessed, where relevant, to provide a 

baseline context. Based on this relative comparison of build alternatives, 12 performance attributes favored 

Alternative 1, 3 performance attributes favored Alternative 2, and 14 performance attributes were deemed 

to favor neither build alternative. Based on the comparison of performance attributes, ODOT and FRA 

identified Alternative 1 as the Preferred Alternative in this Draft EIS. As listed in Table 5-3, outreach 

activities including an online open house and online meetings with Community Advisory Group and Corridor 

Forum representatives were conducted during November 2015 to share this recommendation with 

stakeholders and interested parties. Feedback received during the outreach period was largely in support of 

the recommendation, and the Leadership Council supported the recommendation at their meeting held 

December 8, 2015. 

6.2 Tier 1 Final EIS and ROD

This DEIS has been issued to solicit input on the alternatives from the public, stakeholders, interested 

parties, resource agencies, and Tribes. Comments received on this DEIS during the comment period will be 

addressed and used to prepare a Final Tier 1 EIS. FRA intends to issue a single document that consists of the 

Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Record of Decision (ROD) pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 304a. The 

FEIS and ROD will document the agency’s decision and identify the FRA selected alternative, the rationale 

for its selection, and potential mitigation measures that would be further studied in subsequent phases. 

Because this is a Tier 1 NEPA document, most mitigation measures represent commitments to further 

assess and refine mitigation requirements and coordinate with the public, resource and regulatory 

agencies, stakeholders and Tribes during Tier 2 analysis as a rail improvement project-level design is 

developed.

6.3 Tier 2 NEPA Process

The OPR Project Tier 1 EIS is the first of two potential environmental review tiers. If a build alternative is 

selected in the Tier 1 Record of Decision (ROD), subsequent Tier 2 environmental reviews would evaluate 

more detailed, site-specific proposals implementing the alternative selected in the Tier 1 ROD. The Tier 2 

NEPA documents would address standalone projects with logical termini and independent utility. In other 

words, one or more corridor sections that together make up the complete passenger rail system could be 

developed as individual projects. Depending on the scope and potential environmental impacts of Tier 2 

projects, the appropriate level of Tier 2 NEPA analyses may be an EIS, Environmental Assessment, and/or 

Categorical Exclusion. The specific class of NEPA document for more detailed analysis of any Tier 2 section 

has not yet been defined. Preliminary design and environmental studies would be conducted in support of 

a Tier 2 analysis. Finally, coordination and outreach would occur as appropriate during any Tier 2 analysis to 
CHAPTER 6 – NEXT STEPS

6 - 2 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

engage the public and other stakeholders. Input from the outreach effort would be incorporated into the 

NEPA analysis and into the project design if warranted.

6.3.1 Additional Studies

Tier 2 NEPA analyses would focus on the preferred alternative or alternative section being implemented. 

The study area for each resource would be refined based on more detailed design. While this Tier 1 DEIS 

assesses potential impacts based on previously identified resources, Tier 2 analysis would also include field 

investigations to identify currently unknown resources. Detailed design developed for Tier 2 would support 

better definition of project impacts and the development of specific mitigation measures. The analyses 

would consider avoidance and minimization of impacts on sensitive environmental resources. For each 

Tier 2 NEPA analysis, the following project-level analyses may be required:

• Special status species surveys and wildlife movement studies

• Wetland delineations and identification of Section 404 permitting requirements;

• Cultural resource surveys and Section 106 consultation;

• Threatened and endangered species surveys and Section 7 consultation; 

• Noise and vibration analysis;

• Section 4(f) evaluation;

• Section 6(f) analysis;

• Phase I Environmental Site Assessments;

• Air emissions analysis in nonattainment areas;

• Station-area traffic studies; and

• Engineering surveys.

6.4 Phased Implementation

ODOT and FRA anticipate that the project would be implemented in phases in response to growing demand 

and available funding. The two build alternatives have very different opportunities to phase their 

implementation over time. For either alternative, phasing could be structured to add one round trip in each 

phase. ODOT would replace Thruway bus trips with additional Amtrak Cascade train trips. Implementing 

either build alternative would require close coordination with the host railroads.

• Alternative 1 has a wide variety of phasing options. Because Alternative 1 follows the existing UPRR rail 

line, infrastructure investments could be broken up into relative small, lower-cost elements, so that 

ODOT could implement Alternative 1 incrementally as funding becomes available. ODOT could also 

implement the elements deemed most valuable to support expanded service, and expand service 

incrementally from two round trips to the six round trips that are considered full build-out for this 

alternative. This approach would allow ODOT to add round trips over time as the demand for additional 

passenger service grows.

• Phasing for Alternative 2 would need to be implemented in a few large phases in order to connect 

sections of new alignment to the existing UPRR rail line. Potential phases could be Springfield to Albany, 

Albany to Salem, Salem to Oregon City, and north of Oregon City. Even if implementation of 

Alternative 2 was broken into sections between these cities, each of the large phases could cost more 

than $1 billion. The most recent Federal transportation funding programs have required at least a 

20 percent state and local match, so Oregon‘s local share would be at least $200 million per phase. 

In addition, adding round trips to the Amtrak Cascades service in Oregon before Alternative 2 is be 
CHAPTER 6 – NEXT STEPS

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 6 - 3

OCTOBER 2018

fully built out would require improvements to the UPRR line that would later be abandoned for 

passenger rail use. These improvements would incur environmental impacts in addition to those 

outlined in Chapter 4 of this document. These improvements would provide a lasting benefit to 

freight rail.
CHAPTER 6 – NEXT STEPS

6 - 4 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

This page intentionally left blank.
CHAPTER 7 

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 7 - 1

OCTOBER 2018

List of Preparers

Numerous professionals comprising the OPR Project team prepared and reviewed this Tier 1 EIS.

Name, Registration Project Role Years of Experience; Qualifications

Oregon Department of Transportation

Jim Cox Project Manager; Draft EIS reviewer 40 years of experience; B.S. Anthropology

Michael Holthoff NEPA Lead; Draft EIS preparation and 

review

24 years of experience; M.S. Environmental 

Science, B.S. Geology

Jennie Armstrong (no longer 

works for ODOT)

Hazardous Materials reviewer 21 years of experience; M.S. Quaternary 

Geology, B.A. Geography & Geology

Chris Bell Historic Resources, Section 4(f) reviewer 15 years of experience; M.S. Historic 

Preservation, B.A. Architectural History

Geoff Crook Climate Change reviewer 20 years of experience; M.C.R.P. Community 

and Regional Planning, B.A. Environmental 

Studies

William Fletcher Water Quality reviewer 31 years of experience; Cand. Real. Physical 

Geography; B.S. Geology

Becky Knudson Ridership modeling reviewer 14 years of transportation modeling 

experience; M.S. Economics, B.S. Economics

Natalie Liljenwall, P.E. Air Quality, GHG, Energy reviewer 18 years of experience; M.S Environmental 

Engineering, B.S Environmental Engineering

Brad Livingston Wetlands reviewer 18 years of experience; B.S. Environmental 

Resource Management

Chris Maguire Biological Resources reviewer 30 years of experience; Ph.D. Zoology, M.S. 

Zoology, B.A. Biology

Bob Melbo Transportation reviewer 33 years of railroad operations management 

experience; B.A. Secondary Education

Curran Mohney, R.G., C.E.G. Geology and Soils reviewer 26 years of experience, B.S., Geology

Carole Newvine Noise and Vibration reviewer 32 years of experience; M.S. Environmental 

Science, B.A. Arts and Letters

Jill Pearson Public Involvement 15 years of experience, B.A. Psychology, 

minor in Communications

Michael Rock Land Use reviewer 15 years of experience; B.S. Geography

Kurt Roedel Archaeological Resources reviewer; Tribal 

coordination

16 years of experience; M.A. Anthropology, 

B.A. Anthropology

Jessica Santiago (no longer 

works for ODOT)

Environmental Justice reviewer 2 years of experience; J.D., B.B.A International 

Business

John Schnaderbeck, P.E. Conceptual Engineering, Operations 

reviewer

25 years of transportation engineering 

experience; B.S. Engineering

Alvin Shoblom, P.E. Floodplains reviewer 21 years of experience; B.S. Civil Engineering

Mike Shippey (no longer works 

for ODOT)

Visual Quality reviewer 23 years of experience; M.A. Landscape 

Architecture, B.A. Landscape Architecture
CHAPTER 7 – LIST OF PREPARERS

7 - 2 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

Name, Registration Project Role Years of Experience; Qualifications

Jyll Smith Public Involvement 20 years of experience; M.B.A./M.P.A. 

Marketing, Nonprofit & Public Sector 

Management, B.A. Marketing

Philip Smith GIS mapping 21 years of experience; M.S. Geography, 

B.S. Environmental Studies

Dillon Tannler Air Quality, Noise and Vibration reviewer 3 years of experience; B.S. Economics, 

Environmental Policy and Management

Melanie Ware Draft EIS preparation and review 10 years of experience; B.A. English

Susan White Socioeconomic Resources, Environmental 

Justice, Sections 4(f) and 6(f) reviewer

27 years of experience; B.S. Ecology

Denise Whitney-Dahlke Economics reviewer 18 years of experience; B.S., Economics

Consultants

Angelo Planning Group

Frank Angelo Reviewer, Land Use 36 years of experience; B.A., Urban Policy 

Studies

Darci Rudzinski, AICP Land Use 19 years of experience; Masters of Urban 

Planning

Andrew Parish, AICP Land Use 5 years of experience; Masters in Urban and 

Regional Planning

Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

Paula Dowell Reviewer, Economic Impacts 20 years of experience; B.B.A, Economics; 

M.S., Economics; Ph.D., Economics

Joshua Hoodin (no longer with 

Cambridge Systematics)

Economic Impacts 8 years of experience; B.A., Business 

Administration; M.A., Applied Economics

CH2M

Richard Attanasio, PE Reviewer, Water Quality/Surface 

Water/Stormwater; Reviewer, Floodplains

34 years of experience; M.S. Environmental 

Engineering, B.S. Civil Engineering

Louise Brown Air Quality 17 years of experience; B.A., Liberal Arts, 

M.S., Environmental Science and Engineering

Scott Bucklin (no longer with 

CH2M) 

DEIS contributing author 4 years of experience; B.A. Sustainable Urban 

Development, Certificate, Geographic 

Information Systems

Theresa Carr (no longer with 

CH2M) 

NEPA Task Lead (prior to May 2016) 20 years of experience; B.A., Economics, 

Master of Urban and Regional Planning

Marisa DeMull (no longer with 

CH2M) 

Environmental Justice 6 years of experience; B.A., Political Science, 

BS, Civil Engineering

Karin Fusetti (no longer with 

CH2M) 

Noise and Vibration 15 years of experience; B.A., Planning and 

Design

Michael Hoffmann Special Lands and DEIS contributing author 16 years of experience; M.U.R.P. Urban and 

Regional Planning; B.A., Geography and B.A., 

English

Jennifer John Transportation 24 years of experience; B.S., Economics

Josephine Lee Air Quality 22 years of experience; B.S., Chemistry
CHAPTER 7 – LIST OF PREPARERS

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 7 - 3

OCTOBER 2018

Name, Registration Project Role Years of Experience; Qualifications

Brenda Martin (no longer with 

CH2M) 

Social Resources 7 years of experience; B.A., Political Science 

and Communications; M.U.R.P. Urban and 

Regional Planning

Robin McClintock Archaeological Resources 27 years of experience; B.S. Anthropology

Darren Muldoon (no longer 

with CH2M)

NEPA Task Lead (prior to January 2016) 15 years of experience; B.S., Environmental 

Science and Geosciences, Master of Urban 

and Regional Planning

MaryNell Nolan-Wheatley Historic (Built Environment) Properties 5 years of experience; B.A., Anthropology, 

M.P.S., Master of Preservation Studies

Kirsten Pennington (no longer 

with CH2M)

Environmental Justice; Social Resources; 

Reviewer, Special Lands

17 years of experience; M.P.P., Public Policy, 

M.E.M., Environmental Management, B.A., 

English

Lori Price Reviewer, Historic (Built Environment) 

Properties

19 years of experience; B.A., English and 

Political Science, M.F.A., Historic Preservation 

and Architectural History

Scott Richman Project Manager (prior to May 2016); NEPA 

Task Lead (May 2016 - present)

25 years of experience; B.A., Environmental 

Design, American Institute of Certified 

Planners, Project Management Professional

Rob Rodland Reviewer, Environmental Justice; Reviewer, 

Social Resources

16 years of experience; B.A., Geography, 

American Institute of Certified Planners

Rachel Saunders Noise and Vibration 4 years of experience; B.A. Environmental 

Design; Masters of Urban Planning

Jeffery Stallard, PE (no longer 

with CH2M)

Water Quality/Surface Water/Stormwater, 

Floodplains

13 years of experience; M.S. Environmental 

Engineering, B.S. Civil Engineering

Brandy Steffen (no longer with 

CH2M) 

Environmental Justice 10 years of experience; B.A., Geography

Pamela Vanderbilt Reviewer, Air Quality 30 years of experience; B.S., Biology; M.S.

Chemistry

Anneke Van Der Mast (no 

longer with CH2M)

Contributing author for multiple reports 

and DEIS

10 years of experience; B.A., History and 

Sociology, Certificate in Environmental 

Permitting and Compliance

Brett Weiland Reviewer, Noise and Vibration 16 years of experience; B.S., Environmental 

Science

David Evans and Associates, Inc.

Jim Ellerbroek Engineering: Alternatives Development 25 years of experience; M.S., Civil Engineering 

(Hydrology and Hydraulics); B.S., Civil 

Engineering

Melissa Foltz GIS and Graphics 17 years of experience; B.S., Horticulture 

Science/Landscape Design

Sara Gilbert GIS Analyst 20 years of experience; M.S., Earth Sciences 

(GIS); B.S., Geography

Jon Gage, PLA Reviewer, Visual Resources 17 years of experience, MLA, Landscape 

Architecture; B.S. Environmental Policy & 

Assessment

Brynn Guthrie, PLA Visual Resources 14 years of experience; B.L.A., Landscape 

Architecture
CHAPTER 7 – LIST OF PREPARERS

7 - 4 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

Name, Registration Project Role Years of Experience; Qualifications

Mara Krinke Project Manager; EIS author; Energy and 

Climate Change

20 years of experience; B.A. Botany, B.A. 

Economics; M.A., Public Affairs (Policy 

Analysis Focus)

John Macklin Biological Resources - Aquatic 24 years of experience; M.S., Forestry

Kristine Marshall Biological Resources 27 years of experience; B.S., Biology

Mary Moran Engineering: Alternatives Development 30 years of experience; B.A., Resource 

Management, Environmental Science and 

Forestry

Andrew Mortensen Reviewer, Transportation 33 years of experience; M.A., Geography 

(Focus on Transportation Planning); B.A., 

Geography

Phil Rickus Biological Resources – Terrestrial; 

Reviewer, Wetlands

24 years of experience; B.S., Biology

Angela Rogge Energy and Climate Change 9 years of experience; H.B.S. in Civil 

Engineering

Ethan Rosenthal Wetlands 19 years of experience; M.S., Environmental 

Science (Water Resources Emphasis); B.S., 

Agricultural Economics (Business 

Management and Marketing Emphasis)

Howell Consulting

Leslie Howell, AICP Senior Advisor 40 years of experience, B.A. Environmental 

Studies; B.A. Geography

Shannon & Wilson

Adrian A. J. Holmes, CEG Reviewer, Geology and Soils 12 years of experience; M.S., Geology; B.S., 

Marine Science

Aimee E. Holmes, PE, CEG Geology and Soils 12 years of experience; M.S., Geological 

Sciences; B.S., Civil Engineering; B.A., Geology

Gary Peterson, CEG Reviewer, Hazardous Materials and Waste 

Disposal

40 years of experience; B.S., Geology

Michael S. Reynolds, PE (no 

longer with S&W)

Hazardous Materials and Waste Disposal 8 years of experience; M.S., Civil & 

Environmental Engineering; B.S., Civil & 

Environmental Engineering; B.S., Business 

Administration

Peter J. Shingledecker, PE Hazardous Materials and Waste Disposal 27 years of experience; B.S., Chemical 

Engineering
CHAPTER 8 

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 8 - 1

OCTOBER 2018

Distribution List

The distribution of the Oregon Passenger Rail Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) 

emphasizes the use of electronic media to provide cost-effective access to the public and interested parties. 

This Tier 1 DEIS is available on the internet on the ODOT Oregon Passenger Rail Project web site 

(http://www.oregonpassengerrail.org) and on the FRA website (http://www.fra.dot.gov/).

All persons, agencies, and organizations listed in this chapter have been informed of the availability of, and 

locations to obtain, the DEIS, as well as the timing of the 60-day formal comment period. A Notice 

of Availability of the DEIS has been included in the Federal Register.

Federal agencies, Native American tribes, state agencies, regional and local agencies, and the other 

selected interested parties and organizations listed below were sent a link to the electronic copy of the DEIS

via e-mail. Additional local elected officials and agency representatives, along with others on the mailing list

(approximately 3,000 contacts), have been mailed a notification that includes information about how to 

access the DEIS, timing for the formal DEIS comment period, and public hearing dates, times, and locations.

8.1 Federal Agencies • Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers

• Federal Aviation Administration

• Federal Emergency Management Agency

• Federal Highway Administration

• Federal Railroad Administration

• Federal Transit Administration

• Interstate Commerce Commission

• NOAA Fisheries

• US Coast Guard

• US Department of Agriculture

• US Department of Commerce

• US Department of Energy

• US Department of Interior

• US Environmental Protection Agency

• US Fish and Wildlife Service

8.2 Native American Tribes • Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation

• Confederated Tribes of the Grande Ronde Community of Oregon

• Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians

• Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation
CHAPTER 8 – DISTRIBUTION LIST

8 - 2 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

• Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon

• Cowlitz Indian Tribe

8.3 Oregon State Agencies • Business Oregon

• Office of the Governor

• Oregon Department of Administrative Services

• Oregon Department of Agriculture

• Oregon Department of Energy

• Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

• Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

• Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries

• Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development

• Oregon Department of State Lands

• Oregon Department of Transportation

• Oregon Parks and Recreation Department

• Oregon State Historic Preservation Office

• Oregon Transportation Commission

• Oregon Water Resources Department

• Public Utilities Commission

• Travel Oregon

8.4 Regional and Local Agencies

Metropolitan Planning Organizations and Area Commissions on Transportation:

• Albany Area MPO

• Cascades West ACT

• Central Lane MPO

• Corvallis Area MPO

• Lane ACT

• Metro

• Mid-Willamette Valley ACT and COG

Counties/Cities:

• Benton County/Adair Village, Corvallis, Monroe

• Clackamas County/Canby, Gladstone, Johnson City, Lake Oswego, Milwaukie, Oregon City, Rivergrove, 

West Linn, Wilsonville
CHAPTER 8 – DISTRIBUTION LIST

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 8 - 3

OCTOBER 2018

• Lane County/Coburg, Eugene, Junction City, Springfield

• Linn County/Albany, Brownsville, Halsey, Harrisburg, Lebanon, Millersburg, Tangent

• Marion County/Aumsville, Aurora, Donald, Gervais, Hubbard, Jefferson, Keizer, Mt. Angel, St. Paul, 

Salem, Silverton, Stayton, Sublimity, Turner, Woodburn

• Multnomah County/Fairview, Gresham, Maywood Park, Portland, Troutdale

• Polk County/Dallas, Independence, Monmouth

• Washington County/Durham, Hillsboro, King City, Sherwood, Tigard, Tualatin

• Yamhill County/Amity, Dayton, Dundee, Lafayette, McMinnville, Newberg

Other Agencies:

• Lane Transit District

• Northwest Oregon Transit Alliance

• Port of Portland

• Salem-Keizer Transit

• SMART Transit

• South Clackamas Transportation District

• TriMet

• Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue

8.5 Railroad Owners/Operators • Albany & Eastern Railroad Company

• Amtrak

• BNSF Railway

• Portland & Western Railroad

• Portland Terminal Railroad Company

• Union Pacific Railroad

8.6 Project Committees • Community Advisory Groups: 

– Albany/Corvallis

– Eugene/Springfield

– Portland metro

– Rural project area focus group

– South Portland metro

• Corridor Forum

• Oregon Passenger Rail Leadership Council
CHAPTER 8 – DISTRIBUTION LIST

8 - 4 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

8.7 School Districts

County/School Districts:

• Benton/Linn-Benton-Lincoln Education Service District, Corvallis, Monroe

• Clackamas/Canby, Clackamas Education Service District, Gladstone, Lake Oswego, North Clackamas, 

Oregon City, West Linn-Wilsonville

• Lane/Bethel, Crow-Applegate-Lorane, Eugene, Fern Ridge, Junction City, Lane Education Service 

District, Springfield

• Linn/Central Linn, Linn-Benton-Lincoln Education Service District, Greater Albany, Harrisburg, Lebanon, 

Millersburg, Tangent

• Marion/Cascade, Gervais, Jefferson, Mt. Angel, North Marion, North Santiam, St. Paul, Salem-Keizer, 

Silver Falls, Willamette Education Service District, Woodburn

• Multnomah/David Douglas, Multnomah Education Service District, Parkrose, Portland, RIverdale

• Polk/Central, Dallas, Perrydale, Willamette Education Service District

• Washington/ Northwest Regional Education Service District, Sherwood, Tigard-Tualatin

• Yamhill/Amity, Dayton, McMinnville, Newberg, Willamette Education Service District

8.8 Environmental Justice and Title VI Outreach • Adelante Empresas/Adelante Mujeres (based out of Forest Grove)

• Alternative Work Concepts

• Amigos MSC

• Beaverton Family Resource Center

• Bienestar

• Big Brothers Big Sisters of Lane County

• CAUSA

• Center for Community Counseling

• Center for Intercultural Organizing

• Centro Cultural

• Centro Latino Americano

• Coalition for a Livable Future

• Coalition of Communities of Color

• Community Alliance of Lane County (CALC)

• Community Relations & Communications (Salem-Keizer Public Schools)

• Community Services Consortium

• El Hispanic News

• El Latino de Hoy
CHAPTER 8 – DISTRIBUTION LIST

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 8 - 5

OCTOBER 2018

• Environmental Professionals of Color and Center for Diversity and the Environment

• Food for Lane County

• Housing and Community Services Agency of Lane County

• Immigrant and Refugee Community Organization (IRCO)

• Latino Network

• LCOG Senior & Disabled Services

• Linn-Benton Housing Authority

• Mano a Mano Family Center

• Marion County Housing Authority

• Metropolitan Affordable Housing Corporation

• Northwest Human Services

• Oregon Opportunity Network

• Salem Housing Authority

• Salem/Keizer Coalition for Equality

• ShelterCare

• Tigard-Tualatin Family Resource Center

• United Way of Lane County

• Virginia Garcia Clinic

8.9 Business Associations • Albany Area Chamber of Commerce

• Corvallis Chamber of Commerce

• Eugene Chamber of Commerce

• Hillsboro Chamber of Commerce – Latino Business 

• Hispanic Metropolitan Chamber (Portland)

• Keizer Chamber of Commerce and Visitor Center

• Lake Oswego Chamber of Commerce

• Oregon Business Council

• Oregon City Chamber of Commerce

• Oregon State Chamber of Commerce

• Portland Business Alliance

• Salem Area Chamber of Commerce

• Salem Latino Business Alliance

• Springfield Chamber of Commerce
CHAPTER 8 – DISTRIBUTION LIST

8 - 6 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

• Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce

• Tri-County Chamber of Commerce (Junction City, Harrisburg, Monroe)

• Tualatin Chamber of Commerce

• West Linn Chamber of Commerce

• Wilsonville Area Chamber of Commerce

• Woodburn Chamber of Commerce

8.10 Other Interested Parties and Organizations • Association of Oregon Rail and Transit Advocates (AORTA)

• Cascadia Center

• National Association of Railroad Passengers

• Oregon Farm Bureau

• Oregon Rail Heritage Center

• Oregon Travel Experience

• ORULE

• OSPIRG

• Travel Lane County
CHAPTER 9 

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 9 - 1

OCTOBER 2018

References

American Public Transportation Association. 2013. Millennial Generation Desires Multi-Modal 

Transportation System. http://www.apta.com/mediacenter/pressreleases/2013/Pages

/131001_Millennials.aspx. 

Beckham, Stephen Dow. 2014. Oregon History. Oregon Blue Book. Oregon Secretary of State. Accessed July 

3, 2014. http://www.bluebook.state.or.us/cultural/history/history.htm. 

Bettinardi, Alex. 2013. Email message to Jennifer John/John Parker Consulting, LLC from ODOT 

Transportation Planning and Analysis Unit with spreadsheet of growth rates to apply to existing 

district level person trips on November 20, 2013.

Burns, W.J., and R.J. Watzig. 2014. Statewide Landslide Information Database for Oregon, release 3 

(SLIDO-3). Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI).

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 1983 (revised from 1978). Energy and Transportation 

Systems.

Caltrans. 2014. Historical Highway Construction Price Index Reports. Accessed 2014.

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/hist_price_index.html. 

Carter, Jimmy. 1977. Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management. http://www.archives.gov/federal

-register/codification/executive-order/11988.html. 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997. Environmental Justice Guidance Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act. 

City of Albany, Oregon. 2014. History. The City of Albany, Oregon Website. Accessed July 8, 2014. 

http://www.cityofalbany.net/visitors/history. 

City of Springfield. 2010. Downtown District Urban Design Plan and Implementation Strategy. 

City of Woodburn. 2015. Woodburn Development Ordinance. 

Davis, Benjamin, Tony Dutzik, and Phineas Baxandall. 2012. Transportation and the New Generation: 

Why Young People Are Driving Less and What it Means for Transportation Policy. April 2012.

DHM Research and Policy Interactive. 2013. Oregon Values and Beliefs Project. Sponsored by Oregon 

Health & Science University, The Oregon Community Foundation, Oregon Public Broadcasting, and 

Oregon State University.

Economic Development Research Group, Inc. 2014. Economic Impacts of Congestion on the Portland-Metro 

and Oregon Economy. 

Ellis, David Maldwyn. 1948. “The Oregon and California Railroad Land Grant, 1866-1945.” The Pacific 

Northwest Quarterly. Vol. 39, No. 4. October 1948, pp. 253-283.

English Nature. 2002. Rail construction and operational effects on biodiversity and geological interests. 

English Nature Research Reports Number 473B. Accessed August 14, 2014. Available at 

http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/file/78016. 

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 1987-2010. Flood Map Service Center. 

https://msc.fema.gov/portal/. 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2009. National Household Travel Survey. 

http://nhts.ornl.gov/publications.shtml. 
CHAPTER 9 – REFERENCES

9 - 2 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

FHWA, Office of Natural Environment. 2012. Interim Guidance Update on Mobile Source Air Toxic Analysis 

in NEPA. December 2012.

FHWA. 2013. “Incidents, Fatalities, and Injuries.” 2013 Status of the Nation’s Highways, Bridges, and 

Transit: Conditions & Performance. Report to Congress. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/2013cpr

/chap4.htm#10. 

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). 1999. Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts. 

64 FR 28545.

FRA. 2006. Report on the Impact of Blocked Highway-Railroad Grade Crossings on Emergency Response 

Services. 

FRA. 2009. Handbook for Railroad Noise Measurement and Analysis. 

FRA. 2010. “Notice of Funding Availability for the High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Program.” 

Federal Register. April 1, 2010.

FRA. 2012. High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. 

FRA. 2015. Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor. 

FRA. 2016. Quarterly Report of the Performance and Service Quality of Intercity Passenger Train Operations. 

FRA and Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). 2012. “Notice of Intent.” Federal Register. 

August 17, 2012.

Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. 

Ganoe, John Tilson. 1924. “The History of the Oregon and California Railroad.” The Quarterly of the Oregon 

Historical Society. Vol. 25, No. 3. September 1924, pp. 236-283.

Heath, Erle. 1944. Seventy-Five Years of Progress. An Historical Sketch of the Southern Pacific 1869-1944.

(Transcribed and annotated by Bruce C. Cooper, Central Pacific Railroad Photographic History 

Museum). Accessed July 9, 2014. http://cprr.org/Museum/SP_1869-1944/index.html. 

Holmes. 2016. Email. Email message to Jim Cox/ODOT Project Manager from ODOT Rail Division with 

Amtrak Cascade and Thruway bus ridership for calendar year 2015 on September 28, 2016.

Land Trust Alliance. 2014. Conservation Easements. Accessed August 7, 2014. Available at 

http://www.landtrustalliance.org/conservation/landowners/conservation-easements. 

Liljenwall, Natalie/Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). 2015. E-mail communication with CH2M 

on September 16, 2015.

Ma, Lina, I.P. Madin, K.V. Olson, et al. 2009. Oregon Geologic Data Compilation, Release 5 (OGDC-5). 

Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI).

Madin, I.P., and W.J. Burns. 2013. Ground Motion, Ground Deformation, Tsunami Inundation, Coseismic 

Subsidence, and Damage Potential Maps for the 2012 Oregon Resilience Plan for Cascadia Subduction 

Zone Earthquakes. Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI). Open-File 

Report O-13-06.

Melbo, R., personal communication. 2017. Email correspondence with Robert Melbo, State Rail Planner, 

ODOT Rail and Public Transit Division. November 30, 2017.

National Conservation Easement Database (NCED). 2014. Accessed August 7, 2014. Available at 

http://conservationeasement.us/. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA NMFS). 2014a. 

Endangered Species Act Critical Habitat. Accessed August 7, 2014. Available at 

http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/maps_data/endangered_species_act_critical_habitat.html. 
CHAPTER 9 – REFERENCES

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 9 - 3

OCTOBER 2018

NOAA NMFS. 2014b. Critical Habitat. Accessed August 7, 2014. Available at 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/criticalhabitat.htm. 

Niewendorp, C.A., and R.P. Geitgey. 2010. Mineral information layer for Oregon release 2 (MILO-2). 

Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI).

Northwest Habitat Institute (NWHI). 2000. Oregon Current Vegetation Land Cover Types. Accessed August 

7, 2014. Available at http://www.nwhi.org/index/gisdata#Oregon%20Specific%20GIS%20Data. 

NuStats. 2014. Oregon Passenger Rail Revealed Preference Survey Report. 

Oregon Biodiversity Information Center (ORBIC). 2015. Species location dataset created for the Oregon 

Passenger Rail Biological Resource Study Area was provided by Oregon Department of Transportation 

on September 16, 2015.

Oregon Department of Administrative Services (DAS), Office of Economic Analysis. 2013. Forecasts of 

Oregon’s County Populations and Components of Change, 2010-2050. 

Oregon DAS, Office of Economic Analysis. 2015.

Oregon Department of Agriculture. 2016. ODA Plant Division, Plant Conservation plant profiles. Available at 

http://www.oregon.gov/ODA/PLANT/CONSERVATION/profile.shtml. 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (Oregon DEQ), Air Quality Division. 2007a. Salem-Keizer Area

Carbon Monoxide Limited Maintenance Plan, State Implementation Plan, Volume 2, Section 4.57. 

June 2007.

Oregon DEQ, Air Quality Division. 2007b. Oregon State Implementation Plan, Section 4.50. PortlandVancouver AQMA (Oregon Portion) and Salem-Keizer Area 8-hour Ozone Maintenance Plan. 

February 2007.

Oregon DEQ. 2012. CWA Section 303(d) List of Impaired Waters (303[d] List). http://www.deq.state.or.us

/wq/assessment/assessment.htm. 

Oregon DEQ. 2014. Oregon’s Groundwater Protection Program. http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq

/groundwater/agencies.htm. 

Oregon DEQ. 2015. 2014 Oregon Air Quality Data Summaries. July 2015.

Oregon DEQ. 2016. Databases, GIS and Mapping Applications, Online Reporting. 

http://www.deq.state.or.us/news/databases.htm. 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2005. ODFW Conservation Opportunity Areas. Accessed 

August 7, 2014. Available at https://nrimp.dfw.state.or.us/DataClearinghouse/default.aspx

?p=202&XMLname=897.xml. 

ODFW. 2006. The Oregon Conservation Strategy. Accessed August 7, 2014. Available at 

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/conservationstrategy/contents.asp#a. 

ODFW. 2007. Final report on Oregon Wildlife Linkage workshops hosted by ODFW in 2007. Available at

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/conservationstrategy/wildlife_connectivity.asp 

ODFW. 2008. Sensitive Species List, organized by category. Accessed August 7, 2014. Available at 

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/wildlife/diversity/species/docs/SSL_by_category.pdf. 

ODFW. 2010. Oregon Priority Wildlife Linkages. June 21, 2010. Accessed August 7, 2014. Available at 

\\fwhqd\home\Woodm\My Documents\Wildlife_Linkages\linkages_revamp2010\linkage_data.mdb. 

ODFW. 2012. Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Fish and Wildlife Species. Accessed August 7, 2014.

Available at http://www.dfw.state.or.us/wildlife/diversity/species/threatened_endangered

_candidate_list.asp. 
CHAPTER 9 – REFERENCES

9 - 4 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

ODFW. 2013. Fish Passage. Accessed August 7, 2014. Available at 

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/fish/passage/. 

ODFW. 2014a. Compass Maps for Oregon’s Wildlife Habitats. Accessed August 7, 2014. Available at 

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/maps/compass/. 

ODFW. 2014b. Species Fact Sheet: Streaked horned lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata). Accessed August 7, 

2014. Available at http://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/Species/Data/StreakedHornedLark/. 

Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL). 2017. Mitigation Banks Map. Accessed May 18, 2017. Available at 

http://www.oregon.gov/dsl/WW/Pages/MitigationMap.aspx. 

Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). 2001. Oregon State Rail Plan. Adopted by the Oregon 

Transportation Commission on November 8, 2001.

ODOT. 2006. Oregon Transportation Plan. Adopted by the Oregon Transportation Commission on 

September 20, 2006.

ODOT. 2009. Intercity Passenger Rail Plan. 

ODOT. 2011. Oregon Freight Plan. Adopted by the Oregon Transportation Commission on June 15, 2011.

ODOT. December 2013. Public Outreach and Comments: Fall 2013 Public Open Houses and Outreach. 

ODOT. 2014a. 2015-2018 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program. 

ODOT. 2014b. Looking Forward: High Speed Rail Concept Vision Report. November 2014.

ODOT. 2014c. Oregon Passenger Rail Alternatives Selection Report.

ODOT. 2014d. Oregon Passenger Rail Analysis of Travel Markets Technical Report.

ODOT. 2014e. Oregon Passenger Rail Station Area Assessments.

ODOT. 2014f. Oregon State Rail Plan. Adopted by the Oregon Transportation Commission on September 18, 

2014.

ODOT. 2015a. 2015 Report on Rail Passenger Agreements, Service Performance and Finance. Accessed 

October 27, 2015. Available at http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/RAIL/docs/Passenger/HB2918-

LegislativeReport-Final.pdf. 

ODOT. 2015b. Oregon Passenger Rail Project Land Use Technical Memorandum.

ODOT. 2016a. Oregon Passenger Rail Economics Technical Memorandum.

ODOT. 2016b. Oregon Passenger Rail Environmental Justice Technical Memorandum.

ODOT. 2016c. Oregon Passenger Rail Hazardous Materials and Waste Disposal Technical Memorandum.

ODOT. 2016d. Oregon Passenger Rail Noise and Vibration Technical Memorandum.

ODOT. 2016e. Oregon Passenger Rail Project Public Involvement and Communication Plan.

ODOT. 2016f. Oregon Passenger Rail Project Transportation Technical Memorandum.

ODOT. 2016g. Oregon Passenger Rail Social Resources Technical Memorandum.

ODOT. 2016h. Oregon Passenger Rail Special Lands Technical Memorandum.

ODOT. 2016i. Oregon Passenger Rail Visual Resources Technical Memorandum.

ODOT. 2017. 2015-2018 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (Amended as of February 23, 

2017).
CHAPTER 9 – REFERENCES

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 9 - 5

OCTOBER 2018

ODOT. 2018. June 2018 Revenue Forecast, ODOT Transportation Development Division. June 2018. Available 

at https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Data/Pages/Revenue-Forecasts.aspx

Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) Highway Division. 2014. Hydraulics Design Manual. 

Prepared by Engineering and Asset Management Unit, Geo-Environmental Section. August 2014. 

http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/GEOENVIRONMENTAL/pages/hyd_manual_info.aspx#Hydraulic

s_Manual. 

Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). 2013. Oregon 

Passenger Rail Project Scoping Report. January 23.

Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and Washington State Department of Transportation 

(WSDOT). 2012. Memorandum of Understanding. March 7, 2012.

ODOT and WSDOT. 2013. Cascades Rail Corridor Management Plan. January 31, 2013.

Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) Rail Division and Washington State Department of 

Transportation Rail Division. 2015. Amtrak Cascades: 2014 Performance Data Report. March 2015.

ODOT and WSDOT. 2016. Station Stop Policy Guidance Document.

Oregon Explorer. 2014. The Oregon Wildlife Explorer. Accessed August 7, 2014. Available at 

http://oregonexplorer.info/wildlife. 

Oregon Modeling Steering Committee. 2011. Oregon Travel and Activity Survey. 

http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TP/pages/travelsurvey.aspx. 

Portland State University. 2015. Willamette Valley, Region 2 – An Overview of the Willamette Valley. 

Accessed August 27, 2015. Available at https://www.pdx.edu/geography/willamette-valley-region-2. 

StreamNet. 2014. StreamNet Mapper. Accessed August 7, 2014. Available at 

http://www.streamnet.org/mapping_apps.cfm. 

U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 and 2010. QuickFacts. Available at http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html. 

U.S. Census Bureau (U.S. Census). 2009–2013. American Community Survey. Available at 

http://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/news/data-releases.2013.html. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2016. U.S. Census Bureau 2010 Geographic Terms and Concepts. 

https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/terms.html. 

U.S. Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 2015. Tiering. 40 CFR 1508.28. Accessed September 2, 2015.

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=f494d897d2ef7ea5621b238a34f7580d&mc=true&node

=se40.33.1508_128&rgn=div8. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS). 2011. 

Restoring America’s Wetlands: A Private Lands Conservation Success Story. Accessed August 7, 2014.

Available at http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1045079.pdf. 

USDA-NRCS. 2016. Farmland Protection Policy Act. 

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/?cid=nrcs143_008275. 

U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). 1979. Order DOT 5650.2, Floodplain Management and 

Protection. http://isddc.dot.gov/OLPFiles/DOT/007652.pdf. April 23, 1979.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2009. Emission Factors for Locomotives. EPA-420-F-09-025. 

April 2009.

USEPA. 2014. The Green Book Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants. Last updated on July 2, 2014.

http://www.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/anayo_or.html. 
CHAPTER 9 – REFERENCES

9 - 6 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

USEPA. 2015. National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone. Final Rule. 40 CFR Parts 50, 51, 52, 53 and 

58 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0699; FRL-9913-18-OAR]. RIN 2060-AP38. http://www3.epa.gov

/ozonepollution/pdfs/20151001fr.pdf. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2014a. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed 

Threatened Status for the Western Distinct Population Segment of the Yellow-Billed Cuckoo 

(Coccyzus americanus). Accessed August 7, 2014. Available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR2014-04-10/pdf/2014-07986.pdf. 

USFWS. 2014b. Critical Habitat Portal. Accessed August 7, 2014. Available at http://ecos.fws.gov/crithab/. 

USFWS. 2015. Endangered Species Database. Accessed September 10, 2015. Available at 

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2004. Digital Engineering Aspects of Karst Map: A GIS Version of Davies, 

W.E., Simpson, J.H., Ohlmacher, G.C., Kirk, W.S., and Newton, E.G., 1984, Engineering Aspects of 

Karst: U.S. Geological Survey, National Atlas of the United States of America, Scale 1:7,500,000. 

Prepared by B.D. Tobin and D.J. Weary. Available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2004/1352. 

USGS. 2006. Quaternary Fault and Fold Database of the United States. GIS data downloaded April 23, 2014. 

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/qfaults. 

USGS. 2013. Principal Aquifers of the 48 Conterminous United States, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the 

U.S. Virgin Islands. Available at http://nationalatlas.gov/mld/aquifrp.html. 

Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). 2009. Program Environmental Assessment for 

the Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor Washington State Segment – Columbia River to the Canadian 

Border. September 2009.

WSDOT Rail Division. 2015. Amtrak Cascades: 2014 Performance Data Report. March 2015.

Williams, Bruce. 2015. Email message to Jim Cox/ODOT from Amtrak with forecasted passenger rail 

ridership spreadsheet from the Amtrak Cascades Incremental Model on October 12, 2015.
CHAPTER 10

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1 0- 1

OCTOBER 2018

Glossary of Terms

303(d) listed waterbodies – as defined by the Clean Water Act, Section 303(d), these are waterbodies that 

are impaired by pollutants and that are therefore not meeting the state’s water quality standards; the list 

of these impaired waterbodies is referred to as the 303(d) list

Active crossing – an at-grade crossing of a railroad by a highway that has “active” warning and control 

devices, such as wayside bells or horns, flashing lights and crossing gates

Alighting – descending or disembarking from a train, bus, or other form of transport (in this document, 

ending a trip, or trip segment)

Airspace – in general terms, the air available to aircraft to fly in, especially the part subject to the 

jurisdiction of a particular country; specifically, as defined by the Federal Aviation Administration, “The two 

categories of airspace are: regulatory and nonregulatory. Within these two categories, there are four types: 

controlled, uncontrolled, special use, and other airspace.” 

Amenity value – the value associated with the existence of passenger rail

APE, or Area of Potential Effect – for cultural and historic resources, the APE is the area within which the 

undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties, if such 

properties exist

Aquatic trophic system – All organisms in the aquatic ecosystem can be placed in trophic levels depending 

on what energy source they rely upon and how they provide energy for other organisms in the food web

Aquifer – subsurface geologic unit (rock or sediment) that contains and transmits groundwater

At-grade – at ground surface level; used to describe the intersection of railroad track and a roadway at the 

same elevation

Attractors – destinations that draw visitors/travelers, such as residential and employment areas, schools, 

medical facilities and other services

Block group – block groups are statistical divisions of census tracts that generally cover a contiguous area, 

contain between 600 and 3,000 people, and are used to present data and control block numbering

(U.S. Census Bureau, 2016)

BMPs, or Best Management Practices – methods designed to minimize adverse effects on the environment

Bottleneck – a localized constriction of traffic flow, specifically a section of roadway that experiences 

reduced speeds and inherent delays

BRT, or Bus Rapid Transit – a high-quality bus-based transit system that delivers fast and cost-effective 

service by using dedicated lanes, usually with stations aligned to the center of the road, off-board fare 

collection, and fast and frequent operations

Census tract – census tracts are small, relatively permanent statistical subdivisions of a county or 

equivalent entity that generally cover a contiguous area, follow visible and identifiable features, and have a 

population size between 1,200 and 8,000 people (U.S. Census Bureau, 2016)

Centralized Traffic Control – a form of railway signaling that consolidates train routing decisions, so that 

traffic is controlled and managed remotely by dispatchers in centralized locations; CTCs increase safety and 

capacity by allowing monitoring of multiple rail routes simultaneously
CHAPTER 10 – GLOSSARY OF TERMS 

1 0- 2 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

CO2e, or carbon dioxide equivalent, emissions – represents the equivalent amount of CO2 emissions 

created by all greenhouse gasses emitted (for example, nitrous oxide and methane associated with 

fuel use)

Committed improvements – transportation projects with committed funding

Community cohesion – the degree to which residents have a sense of belonging to their neighborhood, a 

level of commitment to the community, or an association with neighbors, groups and institutions, usually as 

a result of continued association over time

Commuter rail – passenger rail service in metropolitan and suburban areas usually having reduced fare, 

multiple ride, and commuter tickets and morning and evening peak period operations

Compressibility of soil – the property of soil due to which a decrease in volume occurs under compressive 

force is known as the compressibility of soiliv

Connectivity – the degree of “connectedness” of a transportation system, such as a transit network, and

the ease with which passengers can move from one point to another within the network or points outside

the network

Conservation easement – a legal agreement between a landowner and a land trust or governmental 

agency that permanently limits the uses of the land to protect its conservation values (Land Trust Alliance, 

2014)

Crossover – track equipment that facilitates the movement of rail equipment onto parallel tracks via paired 

back-to-back switchesi

Cumulative impact – 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) 

Cut-and-cover tunnel – in a cut-and-cover tunnel, the structure is built inside an excavation and covered 

over with backfill material when construction of the structure is completeiii

Cut and fill – construction technique involving excavation or grading followed by placement and 

compaction of fill material

De minimis (impact) – impact that, after taking into account avoidance, minimization, mitigation, and 

enhancement measures, results in no adverse effect to the activities, features, or attributes qualifying a 

park, recreation area, or refuge for protection under Section 4(f)

Design speed – maximum safe operational speed along a segment of an alignment based on the design 

specification of the track infrastructure, the characteristics of the signaling system, and the maintenance 

specifications for that class of track

Dewatering – the process of removing water from an area or material, such as fill material

Diesel locomotive hauled train technology – train propulsion from one or more diesel-powered locomotive 

units

Diesel multiple unit (DMU) train technology – train technology that uses a set of diesel-powered selfpropelling passenger rail vehicles that can be operated in multiple with other such sets

Displacement – the result of being required to vacate a place of residence or business because of an action 

taken by a Federal, state, or local government

Double track – two sets of main line track located side by side, most often used for travel in opposite 

directions
CHAPTER 10 – GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1 0- 3

OCTOBER 2018

Dual Mode/Dual Power – locomotives that are able to operate under both diesel-electric and all-electric 

power; if electrification is provided on any portion of passenger rail right-of-way, dual power locomotives 

could be utilized

Enhanced bus service – for the OPR Project, enhanced bus service relates to improvements to existing 

intercity passenger bus service (e.g., existing Thruway motor coaches) 

Environmental Justice – the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, 

color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation and enforcement of 

environmental laws, regulations and policies

Freight rail carrying capability – the cargo load that can be transported by freight rail

GIS, or geographic information system – a computer system for capturing, storing, checking and displaying 

data related to positions on the earth’s surface; GIS can show many different kinds of data on one map and 

can illustrate patterns and relationships

Grade-separated – at different elevations; on separate levels

Greenfield alignment – constructed in new alignments outside of existing rail corridors

Greenhouse gas emissions – emissions of gases that trap heat in the atmosphere, specifically carbon 

dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and fluorinated gases; the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions from 

human activities in the United States is from burning fossil fuels for electricity, heat and transportation

Guideway – a track or riding surface that supports and physically guides transit vehicles specially designed 

to travel exclusively on it

High-value wetlands – wetlands that meet any of the following criteria: (1) overlap with critical habitat for 

endangered species; (2) are located in a protected area (such as a city park or USFWS refuge); (3) are locally 

significant wetlands (as determined by local planning code Local Wetland Inventory designations); (4) are 

wetlands that occur within areas designated as “wetland priority sites”; or (5) are in areas mapped as 

wetland mitigation banks and areas enrolled in the Wetland Reserve Program

Highway capacity improvements – infrastructure investments to expand motorized vehicle capacity on the 

highway system

Host railroad – a railroad that has effective operating control over a segment of track

Host-related delays – operating delays not attributable to the passenger rail service provider when 

operating on tracks of a host railroad, such as track- and signal-related delays, power failures, freight and 

commuter train interference, routing delays, etc.

Hydric soil – a soil that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the 

growing season to develop anaerobic conditions (i.e., conditions under which molecular oxygen is virtually 

absent) in the upper partv

Hydrologic regime – the changes over time in the rates of flow of rivers and in the levels and volumes of 

water in water bodies that are regularly repeated, and that pass through phases (e.g., seasonal)

Independent utility – a project is considered to have independent utility if it would be constructed whether 

or not other projects in the area are constructed

Intelligent transportation systems – technology tools aimed at managing and improving the movement of 

people and freight, safely and economically, through diverse modes of travel

Intercity Passenger Rail – passenger rail service between cities; FRA defines intercity passenger rail service 

in the Federal Register (Vol 74, No 119) as: “a group of one or more scheduled trains (roundtrips) that 

provide Intercity Passenger Rail transportation between bona fide travel markets (not constrained by 
CHAPTER 10 – GLOSSARY OF TERMS

1 0- 4 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

State or jurisdictional boundaries), generally with similar quality and level-of-service specifications, within a 

common (but not necessarily exclusive or identical) set of identifiable geographic markets”

Isolates – isolated archaeological finds

Karst areas – areas of irregular limestone formations characterized by fissures, sinkholes, underground 

streams and caverns

LEP, or limited English proficiency, population – the number of people who have limited ability to speak 

English

Liquefiable soil – a soil that is saturated or partially saturated so that it loses its strength and stiffness in 

response to an applied stress, usually the shaking from an earthquake, that causes the soil to behave like a 

liquid

LQ, or location quotient – quantifies which industries in a region are unique or concentrated when 

compared to the nation; this comparison is made by dividing a region’s employment share within a 

particular industry by the nation’s employment share within the same industry

Magnetic levitation (Maglev) – an advanced transportation technology in which magnetic forces lift, propel 

and guide a vehicle over a specially designed guideway

Mainline – the principal railroad track that connects two pointsi

Maintenance areas – areas that were once nonattainment areas for air quality, but now meet the 

applicable ambient air quality standards

Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) – those pollutants from mobile sources (such as locomotive engines) 

that are known or suspected to cause cancer, or other serious chronic or acute health effects 

Mode share – the percentage of travelers using a particular type of transportation or number of trips using 

that particular type (or mode) of transportation

Multimodal – having the characteristics that provide for various modes of travel, such as walking, biking, 

driving and public transit

Nonattainment areas – areas where measured background concentrations for air pollutants are greater 

than the maximum allowable ambient concentrations defined in the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) or State Ambient Air Quality Standards (SAAQS) 

Passive crossing – an at-grade crossing of a railroad by a highway that has only “passive” warning devices, 

such as crossbucks, yield or stop signs, and pavement markings, rather than “active” warning and control 

devices

Positive Train Control (PTC) – a system for monitoring and controlling train movements with the goal of 

increasing operational safetyii

Propulsion – the action of driving or pushing forward; for rail locomotives, several different means of 

propulsion are available

Queue – a line of stopped vehicles waiting their turn to proceed

Quiet Zone – a segment of a rail line, within which is situated one or a number of consecutive public 

highway-rail crossings at which locomotive horns are not routinely sounded (23 CFR 222.9) 

Ridership – the number of people who ride a transportation system

Right-of-Way – a legal right of passage over a defined area of real property. In transit usage, the corridor 

along a roadway or railway alignment that is controlled by a transit or transportation agency/authority

Riparian – relating to, living, or located on the bank of a natural water course, lake, or tidewater
CHAPTER 10 – GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1 0- 5

OCTOBER 2018

Rail corridor – for the OPR Project, the rail corridor is the reasonable and feasible rail alignment 

improvement alternatives from Eugene/Springfield, Oregon, to Vancouver, Washington

Rail Traffic Controller (RTC) – a computer program that simulates rail line operations

Recovery time – time built into the train service schedule to account for potential delays found along the 

route

Resiliency (of transportation system) – the ability of the transportation system to mitigate or recover from 

natural disasters and human-caused disruptions

Scarp – a line of cliffs produced by faulting or erosion

Scoping – an early and open process for identifying significant issues related to a proposed action and part 

of which is inviting agencies and the public to participate and provide comments

Screening – the evaluation of something as part of a methodical process to assess its suitability for a 

particular purpose

Sensitive noise receptor – an area where human activity could be adversely affected when noise levels 

exceed predefined levels of acceptability; can be indoors or outdoors

Short-haul travel – involving the transport of people or goods over relatively short distance

Siding – an additional track found adjacent to the mainline that allows for trains to “pull over” in order to 

allow another train to passi

Special status species – for this Tier 1 EIS, these species include Federal and state listed, proposed and 

candidate species

Switch – (noun) track equipment that allows for rail cars to cross from one track to anotheri

Teleworking – using computers, telephones, etc. to work from home while maintaining contact with 

coworkers, clients and customers; telecommuting

Train interference – conflicts between trains operating over the same line

Train set – a group of rolling stock that is permanently or semipermanently coupled together to form a 

unified set of equipment, most often used in passenger train configurationsii

Turnout – another term for a railroad track switchi

Urban Growth Boundary – under Oregon law, a line that demarcates where urban and rural land uses are 

expected

Viewshed – the total area visible from a single observer position, or the total area visible from multiple

observer positions; viewsheds include scenes from highways, trails, campgrounds, towns, cities, or other

viewer locations

Wayside horn – a stationary horn located at a highway rail grade crossing, designed to provide, upon the 

approach of a locomotive or train, audible warning to oncoming motorists of the approach of a train 

(49 CFR 222.9) 

Wildlife linkages – a belt of habitat that is essentially free of physical barriers such as fences, walls and

development, and connects two or more larger areas of habitat, creating key movement areas for wildlife

i Source: www.americanrails.com
Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

OCTOBER 2018

This page intentionally left blank.