Earthquake Ready Burnside Bridge Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Multnomah County is taking the lead on making at least one crossing earthquake ready

EARTHQUAKE
READY

earthquake ready burnside bridge logo

BURNSIDE BRIDGE

BETTER – SAFER – CONNECTED

Supplemental Draft EIS
Public Comment Period: April 29 – June 13, 2022

Overview

The public comment period for the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Multnomah County’s Earthquake Ready Burnside Bridge Project has now closed. This site is available for viewing purposes only and contains information and related documents pertaining to the Supplemental Draft EIS.

The Burnside Bridge is nearly 100 years old and is a major connection between the east and west sides of the Portland-metro area. County engineers say the current bridge would not withstand a magnitude 8+ Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake that could hit the Pacific Northwest region at any time. Portland’s aging downtown bridges are not expected to withstand a major earthquake. The Earthquake Ready Burnside Bridge Project will replace the existing bridge with a new seismically-resilient crossing, so that it can be immediately used after a major earthquake. Located in the heart of downtown and on a regionally established emergency transportation route, it is critical that the Burnside Bridge be standing after a major earthquake. A resilient Burnside Bridge will help our community recover and provide a long-term river crossing that supports our transportation needs for the next century.

Since 2016, Multnomah County and its partners have been studying options to address this crucial need for the region. As part of the federally required National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA process, which looks at the environmental impacts of large infrastructure projects, the project team prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Statement, or EIS. This document was published in February 2021 and made available for public comment. Since that time, project leaders analyzed several refinements to the Preferred Alternative considered in the Draft EIS to reduce costs to make the project more likely to be funded and built. In November and December 2021, the project team shared the key cost saving refinements to gather initial feedback from the community.

The project team published a Supplemental Draft EIS April 29, 2022 documenting the changes to the original Preferred Alternative from the Draft EIS. The public was invited to review and comment on the analysis through this online open house during the 45-day comment period, from April 29 through June 13, 2022.

Southwest view of the Burnside Bridge over the Willamette River
The current Burnside Bridge in downtown Portland was completed in 1926.

What is being proposed and why?

The primary purpose of the EQRB Project is to create a seismically resilient Burnside Street lifeline crossing of the Willamette River that would remain fully operational and accessible for emergency responders, cars, trucks, buses, bikes and pedestrians immediately following the next Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ) earthquake. None of the current bridges in downtown Portland are expected to be usable after this type of seismic event.

There are five specific needs the project would address.

The need for:

  • A Seismically Resilient Willamette River Crossing in Downtown Portland and on a Regional Lifeline Route
  • Post-Earthquake Emergency Response
  • Post-Earthquake Recovery
  • Seismic Resiliency of Important Infrastructure and Emergency Transportation Routes as Stated in State and Regional Plan and Policy Directives
  • Long-Term Multimodal Travel Across the Willamette River
A map of the city of Portland with Regional Emergency Transportation Routes with indications of high to low-risk collapse in the event of a major earthquake. For more information, please call 503-988-5970.
Potential for Bridge and Road Structure Collapse/Failure | Click to enlarge
A rendering of the Burnside Bridge collapsing into the Willamette River during a magnitude 8+ earthquake.
Image depicting what would happen to the current Burnside Bridge during a magnitude 8+ earthquake
Why are we publishing a Supplemental DEIS?

The goal of the EIS is to understand the impacts of a range of bridge alternatives, including a no-build option, in order to inform a decision on a Preferred Alternative. The Draft EIS published in 2021 identified the Replacement Long-Span, along with no temporary bridge for traffic during construction, as the Preferred Alternative for the project because it is best for seismic resiliency, has the least overall impacts and least cost.

Cost and funding considerations for the project changed in the time since the Draft EIS was prepared. These changes included cost increases for labor and materials, failure of the 2020 Regional Transportation Bond Measure, which would have provided $150 million to help fund the project, and high competition for funding large infrastructure projects.

In response, the project team identified and studied a range of cost saving refinements to the original Preferred Alternative, the Replacement Long-Span, to make the project more likely to be funded and built. Input from key stakeholders and the public on these cost saving measures resulted in County leaders adopting the refinements to the Preferred Alternative. The Supplemental Draft EIS, published now, expands on the analysis presented in the Draft EIS to include these cost saving refinements and provides the public another opportunity to provide comments before a Final EIS and Record of Decision are issued.

Alternatives analyzed in the Draft EIS, published in February 2021

A rendering of the Burnside Bridge highlights piers and columns, the right of way impacts, and new bike/ped ramp and stair access to the east and west approaches. A picture inlay shows example movable span types: lift and bascule.
The Replacement Long-Span Alternative was the Preferred Alternative in the 2021 Draft EIS | Click to enlarge
A rendering highlights piers and columns, the right of way impacts, and new bike/ped ramp and stair access to the east and west approaches. A picture inlay shows example movable span types: lift and bascule
The Replacement Short-Span Alternative was not chosen as the Preferred Alternative in the 2021 Draft EIS. | Click to enlarge
A rendering of the Burnside Bridge highlights piers and columns, the right of way impacts, and new bike/ped ramp and stair access to the east and west approaches. A picture inlay shows a detail view of the east approach including right-of-way impacts below the Couch Street extension. A second picture inlay shows example movable span types: lift and bascule.
The Replacement Alternative with Couch Extension was not chosen as the Preferred Alternative in the 2021 Draft EIS. | Click to enlarge
Rendering showing the right of way impacts, piers (numbered 1-4) and columns, new bike/ped ramp and stair access on the east and west approaches, parts replaced including the bridge deck and piers in the river, and parts repaired including the support columns.
The Enhanced Seismic Retrofit Alternative was not chosen as the Preferred Alternative in the 2021 Draft EIS | Click to enlarge
Bridge refinements considered in the Supplemental Draft EIS
Bridge Width

Narrowing the bridge provides the greatest potential to reduce project costs, with an estimated savings of $140-$165 million. The narrower bridge studied in the Supplemental Draft EIS would be 82 to 93 feet wide over the river and would have one less traffic lane and narrower bicycle and pedestrian facilities compared to the Draft EIS Preferred Alternative (which is wider than the existing bridge). The Refined Preferred Alternative would include 44 to 50 feet for four vehicle lanes as well as 14 to 17 feet bike lanes and sidewalks in each direction (wider than existing).

Key Changes:

  • Lane Configuration:
    • The Draft EIS Preferred Alternative had a five-lane traffic configuration for the bridge.
    • The Supplemental Draft EIS evaluates four different lane configuration options for a four-lane bridge.
  • Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities:
    • The Draft EIS Preferred Alternative included 20 feet dedicated to bicycles and pedestrians on each side of the bridge.
    • The Supplemental Draft EIS studies bicycle and pedestrian facilities ranging from 14 to 17 feet on both sides of the bridge; narrower than the Draft EIS alternative but still wider than the existing bridge which has pedestrian and bike facilities that total to about 12 feet wide on each side.

Initial Preferred Alternative, Revised Preferred Alternative, and Existing Bridge Widths

Initial Preferred Alternative | Click to enlarge
Revised Preferred Alternative | Click to enlarge
Existing bridge width | Click to enlarge
Bridge Type

The Draft EIS Preferred Alternative included a wide range of bridge types for 1) the west approach over the west channel of the Willamette River, Tom McCall Waterfront Park, and Naito Parkway; 2) the movable span over the middle of the Willamette River; and 3) the east approach over I-5, the Union Pacific Railroad and East 2nd and 3rd Avenues.

West Approach: The Supplemental Draft EIS evaluates a refined girder bridge type. This low-cost option was preferred in the last round of public outreach, and supported by the project’s Community Task Force and Policy Group. It would have lower impacts to historic resources and views compared to the other bridge types for the west approach.

A rendering of the west approach of the Burnside Bridge showing a refined girder bridge type from Waterfront Park.
Rendering of the refined girder bridge type for the west approach | Click to enlarge

Movable Span: The Draft EIS Preferred Alternative included bascule and vertical lift options for the movable span.

The Supplemental Draft EIS further studied both options and found the bascule bridge to be the lowest cost and to have the least impact on historic and visual resources, though with larger in-water piers than other options studied. The bascule option was also preferred in the last round of public outreach, and supported by the project’s Community Task Force and Policy Group.

A rendering of the Burnside Bridge showing a bascule lift option for the movable span of the bridge.
Rendering of the bascule lift option for the movable portion of the bridge | Click to enlarge

East Approach: The Draft EIS Preferred Alternative included three different bridge types for the east approach including cable-stayed, tied-arch, and through-truss.

The Supplemental Draft EIS removed the through-truss structure type from further consideration. The Supplemental Draft EIS does not recommend the east approach structure type as this will be determined during the project’s final design phase.

A rendering of a future Burnside Bridge shows a refined girder bridge type on the west approach, a bascule bridge type for the middle movable span, and a cable-stayed bridge type on the east approach.
New rendering of the cable-stayed bridge type for the east approach | Click to enlarge
A rendering of the Burnside Bridge shows a refined girder bridge type on the west approach, a bascule bridge type for the middle movable span, and a tied-arch bridge type on the east approach.
New rendering of the tied-arch bridge type for the east approach | Click to enlarge
Ancillary Elements

The Draft EIS Preferred Alternative did not include decisions regarding potential ADA, bicycle, and pedestrian connections to the Vera Katz Eastbank Esplanade or to SW/NW 1st Avenue.

The connection to the Vera Katz Eastbank Esplanade is not part of the project’s purpose and need. Providing no connection, or reconnecting the existing City-owned stairs, would allow the City of Portland or others to pursue a new connection as a separate project. The County will continue to coordinate with the City to ensure that the new bridge will be designed and built to meet ADA requirements and to not preclude future connections to the Vera Katz Eastbank Esplanade.

Refined Preferred Alternative

The Refined Long-span Alternative incorporates the cost-saving refinements described in the section above. The Supplemental Draft EIS compares the performance and impacts of the original Preferred Alternative and the Refined Long-span Alternative.

Overall, the Refined Long-span would perform very similarly to the Draft EIS Long-span, including for seismic resiliency, the core purpose of the project. Because it would have one less motor vehicle lane, it would not perform as well for peak period traffic or transit. However, the narrower bridge and refined bridge designs would substantially reduce project costs and would reduce impacts to historic, natural, and visual resources.

More information about the transportation analysis is found in the summary and technical report for transportation, in the Document Library.

A rendering of the Burnside Bridge showing a potential cable-stayed bridge type for the east approach
Conceptual rendering of the future Burnside Bridge with the cable-stayed option. | Click to enlarge
A rendering of the Burnside Bridge showing a potential tied-arch bridge type for the east approach
Conceptual rendering of the future Burnside Bridge with the tied-arch option. | Click to enlarge
Seismic Resiliency

All the build alternatives would be seismically resilient, but the Long-span Alternative (Draft EIS and Refined versions) would carry the least seismic risk.

The Long-span Alternative would place the fewest piers in the geologic hazard zones. A large earthquake is expected to liquify the entire eastern slope along the river and a small portion of the western slope, which would cause a land/mudslide that would exert massive forces on any bridge piers in those zones.

The Long-span Alternative (Draft EIS and Refined versions) would largely avoid these unstable soils by installing a very long approach span on the east side.

Parks and Recreation

The Refined Long-span would need two sets of columns in Waterfront Park (the second fewest of any build alternative and three fewer than existing). It would create more open views from the bridge deck, reduce historic impacts and be more permittable than other Draft EIS bridge types for the west approach.

Both the Draft EIS Preferred Alternative and the Refined Preferred Alternative would avoid permanent impacts to the Burnside Skatepark and would have the shortest-duration closure of the Eastbank Esplanade during construction. Maintaining the existing stairs, would avoid 2 to 3 years of added Esplanade closure that would be needed for the ramp options evaluated in the Draft EIS.

Historic Resources

The Refined Long-span Alternative, with its girder bridge type for the west approach, avoids causing an adverse effect on the Skidmore/Old Town Historic District, which is a National Historic Landmark.

Analysis and agency input received since the Draft EIS indicates that the other bridge types (cable-stayed, tied-arch, or through-truss) that were considered for the Draft EIS Long-span on the west approach, would have an adverse effect on the historic district due to the impacts these taller structures would have on views.

Only the Retrofit Alternative would avoid removing the historic Burnside Bridge, although all build alternatives would have an adverse effect on that resource. However, the Retrofit Alternative is also the only alternative that would remove the Burnside Skatepark, which is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.

The Long-span Alternative (both the Refined and the Draft EIS versions) would require less ground disturbance in archaeologically sensitive areas.

Social Services and Equity

Like the other replacement alternatives, both the Draft EIS and Refined versions of the Long-span Alternative would maintain the operations of the Portland Rescue Mission during construction.

As with all the build alternatives, after the next major CSZ earthquake, it would provide the only usable river crossing in downtown Portland – a significant resource for post-disaster emergency aid and services to clients of the Portland Rescue Mission and other social service providers nearby.

Both the Draft EIS and Refined versions of the Long-span Alternative would improve comfort and safety for bicyclists, pedestrians, and ADA users compared to the existing bridge by adding more space and physical separation with a crash-worthy barrier.

Visual Resources

Because the Refined Long-span is proposed to have a girder structure on the west approach, it avoids the adverse visual impacts associated with the tall, above-deck structures which would be used in the tied-arch, cable-stayed or through-truss options for the west approach. The movable section using the bascule option, would avoid the tall towers needed for a vertical lift.

The girder and bascule bridge type options for these segments would maintain many of the existing, important views of the west side for travelers and park users, including the iconic view of the historic White Stag sign. Also, by avoiding any large above-deck structures for the movable span and west approach, both the girder and bascule span options better maintain the open character of the existing bridge that has been identified as an important visual as well as social amenity.

View looking west from the Burnside Bridge shows views of Downtown Portland and the Portland Oregon White Stag Sign.
A view of the iconic White Stag sign from the current Burnside Bridge looking west
Cost

The Draft EIS Long-span Alternative was the lowest-cost of the build alternatives studied in the Draft EIS. The cost of the Refined Long-span Alternative would be substantially lower, roughly $200 million less than the Draft EIS Long-Span, thus reducing the risk that the project could not be adequately funded.

While the Refined Preferred Alternative has received agency and public support, the decision is not final until the Record of Decision is signed by the Federal Highway Administration at the end of the NEPA process. The public and agencies were invited to again provide input on the Preferred Alternative recommendation and the project’s impacts during the Supplemental Draft EIS comment period.

More information on the Draft EIS evaluation and recommendation can be found in the Preferred Alternative Technical Memo.

More information on the proposed refinements to the Preferred Alternative (i.e., the Refined Long-span Alternative) are included in Chapters 2 and 3 of the Supplemental Draft EIS .

Supplemental Draft EIS

Links to the complete executive summary and Supplemental Draft EIS chapters and attachments are below.

Executive Summary

The executive summary presents the purpose and findings of the environmental review. It discusses these topics:

  • What is being proposed and why?
  • What are the possible solutions to meet the project purpose?
  • What would be the consequences of the different alternatives?
  • What is the Preferred Alternative?
  • What are the unresolved issues?
  • How is the Supplemental Draft EIS organized?
Download executive summary (11 MB) 
Supplemental Draft EIS Chapters

You may download and view Supplemental Draft EIS chapters using the buttons below, or view the Table of Contents (148.6 MB) and Cover Sheet (508.1 MB).

Chapter 1, Purpose and Need for the Project: This chapter explains the problems that the project is addressing and the intended outcomes from project implementation.

Download chapter 1 (1.2 MB) 

Chapter 2, Project Alternatives: This describes the alternatives that are studied in the Supplemental Draft EIS and identifies the alternative that has been recommended as the revised Preferred Alternative.

Download chapter 2 (6.4 MB) 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences: This chapter summarizes the relevant natural and built environment along with the social and cultural resources in the potentially affected area, and outlines and compares the impacts and benefits that would be expected from the different alternatives and options. It also identifies potential measures that could help to avoid, reduce or mitigate the impacts.

Download chapter 3 (6.4 MB) 
Supplemental Draft EIS Attachments

Document Library

Technical Reports

The Supplemental Draft EIS summarizes the relevant natural, built, social and cultural environment and resources that would be potentially affected by the project and outlines and compares the impacts that would be expected from the different alternatives and options.

A list of all the technical report topics used to write the Supplemental Draft EIS is in the table below. Technical report topics that had significant changes compared to the Draft EIS were revised and listed as “Revised Technical Report” in the table. Supplemental memos were created for topics with less significant changes and are listed as “Supplemental Memo” in the table.

You can access the level of detail that is right for you by following the links to a brief summary, the full technical report, or by referencing the chapter and page number in the Supplemental DEIS.

tree branch icon
Topic Supplemental memo or revised technical report Location in Supplemental DEIS (6.4 MB)
Acquisitions and Relocations Supplemental Memo (1.4 MB) EIS Ch. 3 page number 17
Air Quality Supplemental Memo (948.5 KB) EIS Ch. 3 page number 120
Climate Change Supplemental Memo (1.4 MB) EIS Ch. 3 page number 126
Cultural Resources Supplemental Memo (31 MB) EIS Ch. 3 page number 67
Economic Impacts Supplemental Memo (1.1 MB) EIS Ch. 3 page number 34
Environmental Justice Supplemental Memo (2.9 MB) EIS Ch. 3 page number 52
Hazardous Materials Supplemental Memo (2.3 MB) EIS Ch. 3 page number 122
Hydraulic Impact Analysis Supplemental Memo (6.1 MB) EIS Ch. 3 page number 90
Land Use Supplemental Memo (3.7 MB) EIS Ch. 3 page number 32
Noise and Vibration Supplemental Memo (1.9 MB) EIS Ch. 3 page number 118
Parks and Recreation Supplemental Memo (2.4 MB) EIS Ch. 3 page number 62
Public Services Supplemental Memo (1.4 MB) EIS Ch. 3 page number 40
Right-of-Way Supplemental Memo (2.4 MB) EIS Ch. 3 page number 17
Social/Neighborhood Supplemental Memo (2 MB) EIS Ch. 3 page number 49
Soils and Geology Supplemental Memo (890.8 KB) EIS Ch. 3 page number 83
Stormwater Supplemental Memo (913.1 KB) EIS Ch. 3 page number 87
Transportation Supplemental Memo (8 MB) EIS Ch. 3 page number 1
Utilities Revised Technical Report (3.2 MB) EIS Ch. 3 page number 44
Vegetation, Wildlife, and Aquatic Species Supplemental Memo (3.8 MB) EIS Ch. 3 page number 95
Visual Resources Revised Technical Report (11.9 MB) EIS Ch. 3 page number 78
Wetlands and Waters Supplemental Memo (2.6 MB) EIS Ch. 3 page number 108

Additional Reports and Memos

Supplemental Environmental Technical Report Supporting Documents

Design Technical Reports

Design Technical Reports Supporting Document

The February 2021 Draft EIS and its supporting documents are available for download on the project website.

Comment

Public comment period: April 29 – June 13, 2022

The comment period is now closed. The project team will review all comments submitted during the public comment period and respond to substantive comments in the Final EIS, expected at the end of 2022.

Thank you and next steps

Thank you for engaging with the EQRB project and the Supplemental Draft EIS! Public input is vital to developing a project that serves the needs of the community.

Schedule

 Environmental Review Phase: 2019-2022

Key milestones

Summer/Fall 2019 

Share information and get input on items to consider in the Environmental Review Phase

Spring 2020 

Issue formal Notice of Intent and get further input on items to consider in the study

Summer 2020 

Publish the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and get community input

February 2021 

County leadership directs project team to identify ways to reduce the overall project cost

Nov./Dec. 2021 

Receive input on cost-saving measures

April/May 2022 

Publish Supplemental Draft EIS

Winter 2022

Publish Final Environmental Impact and Record of Decision (ROD)

 Design Phase: 2022-2024

 Construction Phase: 2025-2030

Contact

Sarah Hurwitz
Multnomah County Communication Office

EMAIL: sarah.hurwitz@multco.us
WEB: www.BurnsideBridge.org

Mutnomah County

Share this site with others