Salmonberry Trail Coast Segment ... - Port of...

Port of Garibaldi Phase III ADA/Pedestrian/ Connectivity/Infrastructure Improvements

Appendix F Salmonberry Trail Coast Segment Planning Study

Final Plan Report

Salmonberry Trail Coast Segment Planning Study Final Plan Report

Prepared for Oregon Parks and Recreation Department

February 2017

Prepared by

February 2017 │ 273-4011-008


Prepared for

Oregon Parks and Recreation Department 725 Summer Street, N.E., Suite C Salem, Oregon 97301

Prepared by

Parametrix 700 NE Multnomah, Suite 1000 Portland, OR 97232-4110 T. 503.233.2400 T. 360.694.5020 F. 1.855.542.6353 www.parametrix.com

CITATION

Parametrix. 2017. Salmonberry Trail Coast Segment Planning Study

Final Plan Report. Prepared by Parametrix, Portland, OR. February 2017.

All photographs courtesy of Jim Rapp, Michael Pyszka, Chad Tinsley, and Gregg Everhart.

Salmonberry Trail Coast Segment Planning Study

Final Plan Report

February 2017 │ 273-4011-008 i

TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................................... VI

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................. ES-1

1. PLAN REVIEW PROCESS ....................................................................................................... 1-1

2. SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO TECHNICAL REPORTS ................................................................ 2-1 2.1 Trail Width ....................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Phasing Concepts ............................................................................................................. 2-1 2.3 Rail-Trail Separations ....................................................................................................... 2-1 2.4 Platforms-on-Piers Cross Section ..................................................................................... 2-2 2.5 Climate Change Impacts .................................................................................................. 2-2 2.6 Environmental Mitigation Requirements ........................................................................ 2-2 2.7 Estuary Impacts ................................................................................................................ 2-3 2.8 Land Acquisition ............................................................................................................... 2-3 2.9 Cost Mitigation................................................................................................................. 2-4

3. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Other Planning Efforts ..................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1.1 Salmonberry Corridor Preliminary Feasibility Study ........................................... 3-1 3.1.2 Salmonberry Trail Concept Plan and Atlas.......................................................... 3-1 3.1.3 Future Plans South of Latimer Road North ......................................................... 3-1

3.2 Coast Segment Study Area ............................................................................................... 3-3 3.3 Coast Segment Scope....................................................................................................... 3-3

3.3.1 Coast Plan Subareas ............................................................................................ 3-4 3.4 Base Conditions ............................................................................................................... 3-6

3.4.1 Rail Right-of-Way ................................................................................................ 3-6 3.4.2 Rail Right-of-Way Encroachments ...................................................................... 3-7 3.4.3 Rail Crossings ...................................................................................................... 3-9 3.4.4 Existing Rail Berm and Rail Infrastructure ........................................................ 3-10

4. BRIDGE AND TRESTLE EVALUATIONS ................................................................................... 4-1 4.1.1 Existing Bridges and Trestles .............................................................................. 4-1 4.1.2 New Bridges ........................................................................................................ 4-3 4.1.3 Physical and Regulatory Constraints ................................................................... 4-4

5. TRAIL TYPES ........................................................................................................................ 5-1 5.1 Rail-With-Trail .................................................................................................................. 5-1 5.2 Rail-To-Trail ...................................................................................................................... 5-5 5.3 Shared-Use/Bypass .......................................................................................................... 5-6

5.3.1 Shared-Use .......................................................................................................... 5-6 5.3.2 Local Road Bypass ............................................................................................... 5-7


TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)

ii February 2017 │ 273-4011-008

5.3.3 US 101 ................................................................................................................. 5-7 5.3.4 Boardwalks .......................................................................................................... 5-8 5.3.5 Trailheads ............................................................................................................ 5-8 5.3.6 Connector Trails .................................................................................................. 5-8

6. TRAIL SOLUTIONS ............................................................................................................... 6-1 6.1 Subarea 1 – Mohler to Paradise Cove .............................................................................. 6-4

6.1.1 Rail-With-Trail ..................................................................................................... 6-4 6.1.2 Rail-To-Trail ......................................................................................................... 6-7

6.2 Subarea 2 – Paradise Cove to Jetty Creek...................................................................... 6-13 6.2.1 Rail-With-Trail ................................................................................................... 6-13 6.2.2 Rail-To-Trail ....................................................................................................... 6-15

6.3 Subarea 3 – Jetty Creek to Twin Rocks .......................................................................... 6-21 6.3.1 Rail-With-Trail ................................................................................................... 6-21 6.3.2 Rail-To-Trail ....................................................................................................... 6-23

6.4 Subarea 4 – Twin Rocks to Garibaldi West End ............................................................. 6-27 6.4.1 Rail-With-Trail ................................................................................................... 6-27 6.4.2 Rail-To-Trail ....................................................................................................... 6-30

6.5 Subarea 5 – Garibaldi West End to Larson Cove South End .......................................... 6-37 6.5.1 Rail-With-Trail ................................................................................................... 6-37 6.5.2 Rail-To-Trail ....................................................................................................... 6-39

6.6 Subarea 6 – South End Larson Cove to Tillamook Creamery ......................................... 6-43 6.6.1 Rail-With-Trail ................................................................................................... 6-43 6.6.2 Rail-To-Trail ....................................................................................................... 6-46

7. COAST SEGMENT COST ESTIMATES ...................................................................................... 7-1 7.1 Cost Estimate Assumptions ............................................................................................. 7-1

7.1.1 Features Not Estimated and Special Features .................................................... 7-1 7.1.2 Construction ....................................................................................................... 7-3 7.1.3 Other Cost Elements ........................................................................................... 7-5 7.1.4 Permitting ........................................................................................................... 7-5 7.1.5 Design and Engineering ...................................................................................... 7-9

7.2 Cost Mitigation Measures ................................................................................................ 7-9 7.2.1 Key Cost Parameters ........................................................................................... 7-9 7.2.2 Cost Mitigation Possibilities .............................................................................. 7-11

8. TRAIL PHASING CONCEPTS ................................................................................................ 8-15 8.1 Phasing Criteria .............................................................................................................. 8-15 8.2 Phasing Intervals ............................................................................................................ 8-15 8.3 Phasing Concepts ........................................................................................................... 8-15


Final Plan Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)

February 2017 │ 273-4011-008 iii

LIST OF FIGURES 3-1 Salmonberry Trail Coast Segment Study Area – Mohler to Tillamook Creamery ......................... 3-5 5-1 Rail-With-Trail | Widened Berm ................................................................................................... 5-2 5-2 Rail-With-Trail | Retaining Wall .................................................................................................... 5-2 5-3 Rail-With-Trail | Platforms-on-Piers ............................................................................................. 5-3 5-4 Rail-To-Trail | Widened Berm ....................................................................................................... 5-6 5-5 Rail-To-Trail | Retaining Wall ........................................................................................................ 5-6 5-6 Shared-Use Roadway .................................................................................................................... 5-7 5-7 Multiuse Boardwalk ...................................................................................................................... 5-8 6-1 Subarea 1 Map .............................................................................................................................. 6-9 6-2 Subarea 1A Map .......................................................................................................................... 6-10 6-3 Subarea 1B Map .......................................................................................................................... 6-11 6-4 Subarea 2 Map ............................................................................................................................ 6-19 6-5 Subarea 2A Map .......................................................................................................................... 6-20 6-6 Subarea 3 Map ............................................................................................................................ 6-25 6-7 Subarea 3A Map .......................................................................................................................... 6-26 6-8 Subarea 4 Map ............................................................................................................................ 6-33 6-9 Subarea 4A Map – Solution 1 ...................................................................................................... 6-34 6-10 Subarea 4A Map – Solution 2 ...................................................................................................... 6-35 6-11 Subarea 5 Map ............................................................................................................................ 6-41 6-12 Subarea 6 Map ............................................................................................................................ 6-51 8-1 Phasing Concepts ........................................................................................................................ 8-19

LIST OF TABLES 4-1 Existing Rail Bridge and Trestle Summary ..................................................................................... 4-2 4-2 Modified and New Bridge/Trestle Costs ....................................................................................... 4-3 5-1 Retaining Wall and Platforms-on-Piers Solutions ......................................................................... 5-3 6-1 Comparative Key Trail Type Features ........................................................................................... 6-2 7-1 Trail Cost Summary ....................................................................................................................... 7-1 7-2 Probable Environmental Permitting ............................................................................................. 7-6 7-3 ODOT Trail Width Standards ....................................................................................................... 7-10 7-4 Key Trail Construction Cost Differences ..................................................................................... 7-11 8-1 Phasing Concepts ........................................................................................................................ 8-16

APPENDICES A Cost Estimating Details


iv February 2017 │ 273-4011-008

This page intentionally left blank.


Final Plan Report

February 2017 │ 273-4011-008 v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Many heads and hearts have gone into the re-imagining of the Port of Tillamook Bay’s historic Pacific Rail and Navigation (PR&N) rail line corridor to add a multiuse regional trail connecting the corridor from Banks, Oregon in the Tualatin Valley near Portland to the Oregon Coast in Tillamook County, Oregon.

The makers of this Salmonberry Trail Coast Plan would first like to acknowledge the early and ongoing efforts by the Salmonberry Coalition and Walker Macy, the principal consultant for the 2013 Salmonberry Corridor Feasibility Study and the 2015 Salmonberry Trail Concept Plan, upon which this Coast Plan is built.

For the Coast Plan itself, the following individuals and organizations have contributed.

Salmonberry Trail Intergovernmental Agency (STIA) The STIA is the successor to the Salmonberry Coalition and is now the managing agency of the Salmonberry Trail.

Mark Ellsworth, Oregon Governor’s Office – Regional Solutions

Peter Daugherty, State Forester, Oregon Department of Forestry

Ross Holloway, Executive Director, Tillamook Forest Heritage Trust

Betsy Johnson, Oregon State Senator, District 16

Mark Labhart, Tillamook County Commissioner

Bob Terry, Washington County Commissioner

Tonya Gleason-Shepek, Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde

Carolyn McCormick, Washington County Visitors Association

Jack Mulder, Port of Tillamook Bay Commissioner

Lisa Sumpton, Director, Oregon Parks and Recreation Department

Dennis Wiley, Oregon Parks and Recreation, is the STIA-appointed Salmonberry Trail Project Manager.

Coastal Segment Planning Advisory Committee (CSPAC) The CSPAC is appointed by the STIA to provide input and advice on this Coast Plan and on future phases of Trail development on the Oregon Coast.

Bill Baertlein, Tillamook County Commissioner (CSPAC co-convenor)

Jack Mulder, Port of Tillamook Bay Commissioner/Tillamook Creamery (CSPAC co-convenor)

Stevie Burden, Mayor, City of Wheeler

Joanne Aagard, Mayor, City of Rockaway Beach

John O’Leary, City Manager, City of Garibaldi

Shaena Peterson, Mayor, City of Bay City

Suzanne Weber, Mayor, City of Tillamook


vi February 2017 │ 273-4011-008

Terry Fullan, Port of Nehalem Commissioner

Val Folkema, Port of Garibaldi Commissioner

Jessica Jung, Business Manager, Oregon Coast Scenic Railroad

Justin Aufdemauer, Executive Director, Tillamook Chamber of Commerce

Nan Devlin, Tourism Director, Visit Tillamook Coast

Dave Kunert, Division Forester, Hampton Lumber

Jennifer Purcell, North Coast Regional Solutions Coordinator, Oregon DEQ

Kate Skinner, District Forester, Oregon Department of Forestry

Dean Burdick, Deputy Sheriff, County Sheriff’s Department

Lisa Phipps, Executive Director, Tillamook Bay National Estuary Project

Agencies and Organizations The following individuals provided formal input on the Coast Plan, some on an ongoing basis, others for specific issues.

Michele Bradley, Port of Tillamook Bay

Richard Shankle, ODOT Rail

Jim Johnson, Oregon Solutions

Julie Sepanik, Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development

Geoff Wullschlager, City Manager, City of Wheeler

Lars Gare, City Manager, City of Rockaway Beach

Ken Pirie, Walker Macy

Bob Hirte, Hamilton Construction

Scott Wickert, Oregon Coast Scenic Railroad

Kim Metlen, Oregon Coast Railriders

Alix Lee, Lower Nehalem Watershed Council

Derek Johnson and Jena Carter, The Nature Conservancy of Oregon

John Wickersham, North Coast Land Trust

Conrad Gowell, Native Fish Society


Final Plan Report

February 2017 │ 273-4011-008 vii

Consultant Team (Parametrix) James Rapp, Project Manager

Gregg Everhart, Lead Trail Planner

Michael Pyszka, Lead Trail Engineer and Cost Estimating

Chad Tinsley, GIS and Mapping Lead

William Hall, Environmental Permitting

Becky Mellinger, Publication Services

Sarah Miller, Planning and Logistics

Additional Contributors In what has been a challenging and in some cases surprising Coast Plan project, the greater Tillamook community has been notable for providing candid input while maintaining a proactive approach, even with respect to Trail planning issues and recommendations that weren’t necessarily as they might have otherwise desired or anticipated. The Coast Segment planning team greatly appreciates this assistance.

We would like to thank the many residents, businesses, elected and appointed municipal officials and staff, and property owners that directly provided insight and comment on the Coast Plan. Other input to the Coast Plan came as part as part of the Salmonberry Corridor Brownfields Assessment and Salmonberry Trail Code Adoption projects, which were underway concurrently.


viii February 2017 │ 273-4011-008



Final Plan Report

February 2017 │ 273-4011-008 ES-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Study Area The Salmonberry Trail (Trail) Coast Planning Study (Coast Plan) includes almost 23 miles of the Port of Tillamook Bay (POTB)-owned rail right-of-way corridor from the rail’s crossing of Old Wheeler-Mohler Road in the unincorporated community of Mohler (MP 831.29) to Tillamook Creamery/Latimer Road North (MP 853.90) just north of the Tillamook city limits. The Coast Plan:

Includes the cities of Wheeler, Rockaway Beach, Garibaldi, and Bay City.

Anticipates future Trail connections to the City of Tillamook’s bicycle/pedestrian system.

Includes the unincorporated communities of Mohler and Barview-Watseco-Twin Rocks.

Identifies Trail alignments through Tillamook County between these cities and communities.

Some areas outside of the immediate rail corridor were also included in the Coast Plan to evaluate possible bypass alternatives that could potentially solve specific technical alignment challenges.

Mile post (MP) markers delineate subarea boundaries.


ES-2 February 2017 │ 273-4011-008

The Coast Segment is part of a larger Salmonberry Trail project which will eventually follow the POTB rail right-of-way or nearby roads and properties for a total of 86 miles from the City of Banks in Washington County to the POTB-owned Tillamook Airport/Industrial Park just south of Tillamook City. Between Banks and Tillamook, the Trail will pass through the productive farm lands of the Tualatin Valley and the spectacular Salmonberry River Canyon, along the scenic banks of the Nehalem River, and finally along the Oregon Coast and almost 11 miles of coastal marine estuaries.

The 86 miles will be master planned in detail by this current Coast Plan and through three other Trail segment efforts: Valley, Canyon, and River. These three future master plans are presently scheduled to be developed in 2017 and 2018.

Coast Plan Objectives The Coast Plan provides the following information and analysis and recommendations as applicable:

Impacts and constraints associated with Rail-with-Trail or Rail-to-Trail options.

Design and alignment measures that mitigate or eliminate various Trail-building constraints.

Pre-engineering evaluations of 20 existing rail bridges/trestles and any new bridges.

Boardwalk or platforms-on-piers solutions for Rail-with-Trail and Rail-to-Trail alternatives.

Need or usefulness of alternative bypass options (such as US 101 or shared-use of local streets).

Plan-level cost estimates (construction, permitting, design/engineering).

Probable environmental and other permitting requirements.

Phasing concepts.

Trail Types and Standards The Salmonberry Trail Coast Segment is planned as a multiuse pathway accommodating two-way bicycle and pedestrian travel within and between the eight coastal communities listed in the Study Area section above. The basic standard for Trail development for the Coast Segment is a 10- or 12-foot-wide asphalt paved surface, with 2-foot-wide shoulders. This is consistent with State of Oregon standards for regional multiuse trails. The Trail also conforms to Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards for surfaces and grades. With limited exceptions, the Trail must meet these state and federal standards to be eligible for state and federal construction funding.

The Coast Plan evaluated two possible Trail options as described below.

Rail-WITH-Trail – This option retains the existing rail line, allowing continued operation of the Oregon Coast Scenic Railroad and other rail-based recreational services, and/or resumption of limited freight rail services. The Trail would parallel the rail line, and a safety separation of

This Coast Plan does not make recommendations as to the preferred final Trail option (Rail-with-Trail or Rail-to-Trail). The Coast Plan provides the Salmonberry Trail Intergovernmental Agency (STIA) and the leaders and citizens of Tillamook County with the essential technical and cost information needed to make informed future decisions as to preferred alignments and design solutions; and in proceeding with initiatives to fund and undertake Trail engineering and construction.


Final Plan Report

February 2017 │ 273-4011-008 ES-3

approximately 6 to 8 feet between rail and trail would be needed. The surface of the rail berm would have to be approximately tripled in width to accommodate Rail-with-Trail. Many special structures, such as marine platforms-on-piers, would be required, particularly along estuaries. Rail service would continue across the 20 existing bridges and trestles in the study area. The Trail would need at least 18 new bicycle/pedestrian bridges.

Standard Rail-with-Trail Rail-with-Trail with Platform

Rail-TO-Trail – This option would remove all rail lines and other rail infrastructure. The rail berm surface width would have to be approximately doubled. Fewer or lower (for retaining walls) special structures would be required than for Rail-with-Trail. Platforms-on-piers along the estuaries would not be required at all. All existing rail bridges and trestles would be modified to accommodate the Trail.

Standard Rail-to-Trail

As noted, the preceding two Trail options require, to varying degrees, some special structures or solutions in order to accommodate Trail development. These include but are not limited to:

Marine platforms-on-piers (Rail-with-Trail only for approximately 6 miles of estuary shoreline)

Retaining walls (varying heights, locations, and distances)

New or modified bridges (18 to 20 bridges)

Freshwater boardwalks (Nedonna Beach and Hathaway Slough for Rail-with-Trail only)

Shared-use streets (S American Way in Garibaldi for Rail-with-Trail only)

New signalization across US 101 at Hobsonville Point Road and at South Barview (Rail-with-Trail only)


ES-4 February 2017 │ 273-4011-008

Plan Review The Coast Plan effort was initiated in June 2016. In addition to the three reviews by the Coast Segment Planning Advisory Committee (CSPAC) summarized below, the Coast Plan was the subject of presentations, reviews, and discussions with a variety of individuals and organizations. These parties are listed in the Acknowledgments section of this Coast Plan Final Plan Report. The Salmonberry Trail Intergovernmental Agency (STIA) appointed the CSPAC.

September 2016 – The CSPAC reviewed Technical Report No. 1, Trail Type and Alignment Analysis which evaluated and mapped a wide range of Trail alignments and types for the 23-mile-long Coast Segment.

November 2016 – The CSPAC reviewed Technical Report No. 2, Bridge and Trestle Evaluations and Cost Estimates which assessed rail bridges and trestles for replacement or re-use for the Trail, and provided overall cost estimates. The CSPAC also reviewed 13 possible cost reduction measures, some being potentially more feasible or desirable than others.

January 2017 – The CSPAC reviewed the Coast Segment Planning Study Final Plan Report, which in addition to summarizing and updating the prior two technical reports, provided cost estimates for both 10-foot-wide and 12-foot-wide versions of the paved trail surface, an analysis of probable environmental permitting issues, and a set of phasing concepts.

All three of these Coast Plan reports are available online at www.salmonberrytrail.org.

Key Coast Plan Findings Addressing the Coast Plan Objectives, the following findings and recommendations are detailed in the Final Plan Report.

1. Trail Type Options – Both Rail-with-Trail and Rail-to-Trail options are technically feasible. The Rail-with-Trail option is, however, technically more challenging and will come at a considerably higher cost (see Cost Summary that follows) than Rail-to-Trail.

2. Design and Alignment Measures – To build the Rail-with-Trail option, approximately 5 miles of retaining walls and 6 miles of platforms-on-piers may be required, primarily to avoid prohibited forms of development in the Tillamook Bay and Nehalem River estuaries. The platforms-on-piers solution is the only structural solution permitted in the estuary by state, county, and city estuary zoning regulations. Rail-to-Trail will require fewer and lower retaining walls, and no platforms-on-piers are needed.

3. Bridges and Trestles – For Rail-with-Trail, all 20 existing bridges and trestles will be preserved exclusively for rail service. Eighteen new bicycle/pedestrian bridges will parallel the rail bridges/trestles. Two rail bridges – Kilchis River and Miami River – can potentially be cantilevered to accommodate bicycle/pedestrian use. For Rail-to-Trail, bridge/trestle rail infrastructure will be removed and replaced with decking, railings, and other improvements for exclusive bicycle/pedestrian use.

4. Boardwalks and Similar Structures – For Rail-with-Trail, boardwalks are recommended to cross wetlands near the Nedonna Beach community (Rockaway Beach) and along the Hathaway Slough south of Bay City. Marine platforms-on-piers will be required along several extended sections (totaling approximately 6 miles) of estuary shoreline between the north end of Wheeler and the north end of Bay City. Boardwalks and platforms-on-piers are not required for Rail-to-Trail.


Final Plan Report

February 2017 │ 273-4011-008 ES-5

5. Bypass Options – Use of US 101 and some major city streets (Marine Drive in Wheeler and Miller Street in Rockaway Beach) were considered for the Trail. With one limited exception, use of the rail right-of-way proved more functional and cost effective. The one exception – S American Way in Garibaldi – is proposed for shared-use with the addition of a widened shoulder on one side.

6. Environmental Permitting – Permitting for multiple bridge crossings of streams and sloughs and for Trail improvements (retaining walls or platforms-on-piers) along and within estuaries will be complex. Upwards of 18 state or federal permits may be required, particularly for the Rail-with-Trail option. Coast Plan cost estimates include an added factor to account for the cost of environmental permitting.

7. Phasing – The Final Plan Report includes phasing concepts that identify sections of the Trail that are relatively less costly and complex to build and that would have a useful function independent of the entire Trail being completed. Trail sections identified for near-term priority include sections in downtown Wheeler, in commercial and some residential areas of Rockaway Beach, in downtown Garibaldi, and from downtown Bay City to Kilchis Reserve.

8. Other

Expanded evaluations were given to five sections of the study area due to unusual or complex constraints such as topography, prior development, etc. The Final Plan Report maps and details these constraints. The sections are Downtown Wheeler, Deslonna Resort, Jetty Marina, Rockaway State Beach Wayside (downtown Rockaway Beach), and south of the unincorporated community of Barview.

Two areas will require special trail pathway, crossing, and signalization treatments: South of Barview will require reduced paved trail widths, up to three new rail crossings, and signalization controlling a 300-foot-long section (Rail-with-Trail only); and the Trail section across US 101 near Miami Cove at Hobsonville Point Road will require rail and trail crossing realignments and new signalizations for both options.

Cost Summary Cost estimates include two options – Rail-with-Trail and Rail-to-Trail – and two different paved Trail surface widths – 10 feet and 12 feet. The width, height, and/or number of retaining walls, bridges, platforms-on-piers varies between the four alternatives, as does the necessary width of the rail berm. These factors contribute significantly to cost variations (see Trail Cost Summary table that follows).

Additional factors contributing to the cost differences between the options include environmental mitigation, removal of rail infrastructure (for Rail-to-Trail only), special crossing signalization, and associated rail and street crossing improvements.

The Final Plan Report describes a series of potential cost reduction measures that could further change the cost estimates shown in the following table.

Note: The cost of necessary rail berm widening is embedded in the basic cost of all trail types.


ES-6 February 2017 │ 273-4011-008

Trail Cost Summary

Rail-with-Trail Rail-to-Trail

Subarea 12-foot-width 10-foot-width 12-foot-width 10-foot-width

1 $ 17,550,000 $ 15,429,000 $ 6,262,000 $ 5,729,000

2 $ 36,013.000 $ 29,931,000 $ 7,882,000 $ 7,211,000

3 $ 17,331,000 $ 16,249,000 $ 10,113,000 $ 9,218,000

4 $ 22,846,000 $ 19,613,000 $ 7,426,000 $ 6,865,000

5 $ 20,293,000 $ 17,590,000 $ 8,501,000 $ 7,761,000

6 $ 25,500,000 $ 21,528,000 $ 11,491,000 $ 10,083,000

Total $ 139,133,000 $ 120,340,000 $ 51,725,000 $ 46,867,000


Final Plan Report

February 2017 │ 273-4011-008 1-1

1. PLAN REVIEW PROCESS As part of the development of this Salmonberry Trail (Trail) Coast Segment Plan (Coast Plan), a Trail alignment and type analysis was conducted between June and September 2016. This analysis (Technical Report No. 1, Trail Alignment and Type Analysis) was presented on September 1, 2016, to the Salmonberry Trail Intergovernmental Agency (STIA)-appointed Coast Segment Planning Advisory Committee (CSPAC). See the Acknowledgments section of this Final Plan Report for lists of STIA and CSPAC members.

The CSPAC asked for clarifications and minor amendments to Technical Report No. 1 at its September meeting. One suggestion was substantive. The CSPAC’s Oregon Coast Scenic Railroad (OCSR) representative suggested that the separation between the rail line and the proposed safety fence between the rail and Trail that was illustrated on Trail cross sections was too narrow. OCSR felt that the fence could interfere with rail equipment. Changes to the solutions described in Technical Report No. 1 to address OCSR concerns are discussed in Technical Report No. 2.

Technical Report No. 1 was also presented to the STIA Board on October 7, 2016. STIA suggested no changes to Technical Report No. 1 outcomes as presented.

On November 10, 2016, the CSPAC received Technical Report No. 2, Bridge and Trestle Evaluations and Cost Estimates. In addition to evaluations of all 20 rail bridges and trestles in the study area and overall cost estimates for both Rail-with-Trail and Rail-to-Trail options, the CSPAC was presented with a series of possible cost reduction measures, some being potentially more feasible or desirable than others. The most significant CSPAC-requested change to Technical Report No. 2 was to develop a second cost estimate for the Rail-with-Trail and Rail-to-Trail options to reflect a paved Trail width of 10 feet. The cost estimate in Technical Report No. 2, as originally published, is based on a 12-foot-wide paved Trail.

This Salmonberry Trail Coast Segment Final Plan Report was received by the CSPAC on January 26, 2017. At that time, the CSPAC also reviewed proposed phasing concepts for the Trail (see Chapter 8). The CSPAC made three modifications to the draft phasing concepts: two in the vicinity of Garibaldi and one for Wheeler.

The final Technical Report No. 1 reflecting September 1 CSPAC comments can be downloaded at www.salmonberrytrail.org. Changes resulting from the CSPAC review of Technical Report No. 2 were not incorporated into the second technical report. Any second-round changes are incorporated directly into this Final Plan Report. Technical Report No. 2, as presented to the CSPAC in November 2016, is available for download at www.salmonberrytrail.org. Chapter 2 of this Final Plan Report summarizes CSPAC changes and other modifications to both technical reports.


1-2 February 2017 │ 273-4011-008



Final Plan Report

February 2017 │ 273-4011-008 2-1

2. SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO TECHNICAL REPORTS As an outcome of CSPAC reviews of Technical Reports Nos. 1 and 2 and ongoing assessments and analysis in the course of developing this Final Plan Report, some changes or additions to the findings and recommendations in the technical reports were made. Also, Tillamook County and Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) interpretations regarding the allowance of fill in estuaries changed after Technical Report No. 1 was initially published. All these changes are reflected in this Final Plan Report. To assist the reader, especially where the technical reports are referenced, changes made in the course of the planning process are highlighted below.

2.1 Trail Width For alternative analysis and cost estimating purposes, Technical Reports Nos. 1 and 2 used the upper end of the State of Oregon width standard for multiuse high use trails – a paved trail surface of 12 feet, with 2-foot-wide shoulders. Technical Report No. 2 suggested reducing basic Trail width to the low end of the state standard (10 feet wide) as a way to lower construction costs. This change in Trail width would also involve reducing the width of platforms-on-piers, Trail bridges, and the extent and height of some retaining walls.

This Final Plan Report includes Trail alternatives and costs based on both 12-foot-wide and 10-foot-wide paved pathways, as well as associated platforms, bridges, and retaining walls.

2.2 Phasing Concepts In response to the Trail cost estimates published on November 10, 2016, the CSPAC requested that phasing concepts be developed. Two criteria are used, as are five phasing categories.

Complexity – Trail sections with lower per foot costs are preferred for near-term development. This criterion also effectively embeds Trail sections that entail simpler permitting or fewer special structures. For example, Trail sections requiring platforms-on-piers have a dramatically higher per foot cost estimate and permitting complexity over any other Trail treatment type, and thus would fall into the long-term development category.

Independent Utility – Trail sections that function effectively independent of completion of a full Trail are preferred for near-term development. For example, a Trail section that ties together a distinct neighborhood, such as a city downtown, or connects major destinations, such as a high school and a downtown, would be rated near-term.

The CSPAC also discussed the possibility of a criterion that applied to impacts on OCSR operations. However, since the route and frequency of the OCSR varies year-to-year and season-to-season, operational impacts on sections of the Trail would be too difficult to assess and rate accurately for this Coast Plan.

The phasing concepts are included in Chapter 8 of this Final Plan Report.

2.3 Rail-Trail Separations Trail cross sections in Technical Report No. 1 (pp. 2-2 to 2-3) illustrated a safety fence sited 2 feet from the edge of the standard rail tie on one side, and 2 feet from the edge of the Trail pavement on the other side. OCSR indicated that this separation could mean that scenic railroad rolling stock (engines and


2-2 February 2017 │ 273-4011-008

cars) could potentially hit the fence due to side-to-side sway in the moving engines and cars, or from appurtenances projecting off the sides of the rolling stock. Subsequently, OCSR indicated that rail maintenance equipment could also be interfered with by a safety fence that close to the rails.

OCSR stated that a 6-foot separation from centerline of the rail to the safety fence (8 feet from centerline to edge of Trail) would be needed for adequate clearance from all rail equipment. This widened separation will require an additional 2 feet of rail berm crown widening for the Rail-with-Trail solution.

The two cross sections in Technical Report No. 1 illustrating Rail-with-Trail berm widening (Widened Berm and Retaining Wall) were modified to show these changes in Technical Report No. 2 and in this Final Plan Report.

2.4 Platforms-on-Piers Cross Section The cost estimating undertaken as part of Technical Report No. 2 derived a more cost-effective design for platforms-on-piers. The platform decking is scoped as consisting of four prefabricated 4-foot-wide concrete hollow-core panels. The platforms-on-piers cross section was revised for Technical Report No. 2 and is included in this Final Plan Report.

In addition, the re-costing of Trail options to add a 10-foot-wide paved Trail standard also impacts platform width. If a 10-foot-wide paved Trail section intersects with a platform section, the platform width would be reduced to 12 feet (three prefabricated panels). This change is reflected in 10-foot-wide Trail cost estimates included in this Final Plan Report.

2.5 Climate Change Impacts Technical Report No. 1 briefly touched upon the possible impacts of climate change on the Trail, particularly where the Trail follows estuary shorelines. The rail berm may be subject to inundation from a combination of climate change–caused sea level rise and/or increases in the frequency and severity of major storms. For these reasons, Technical Report No. 1 did not recommend the lowering of the height of the existing rail berm to leave fill and ballast rock on-site for use in rail berm widening for Trail purposes (see Technical Report No. 1, p. 1-12 and p. 2-12).

Subsequent to publication of Technical Report No. 1, specific climate change studies were reviewed regarding probable impacts along the Oregon Coast. According to a report developed by the National Academy of Sciences, sea levels at Newport, Oregon, could be expected to rise 2 to 4 inches by 2030. This increases to a range of 5 to 9 inches by 2050. Different models and reports predict different levels, but all models reviewed or discussed with researchers were consistent that sea levels will rise.

This information is noted here as a guidance for future Trail builders.

2.6 Environmental Mitigation Requirements Technical Report No. 1 noted that permitting for many sections of the Trail would be complex, particularly environmental permitting along the estuary and other water bodies, and where the Trail will require new bridges across streams and sloughs. In addition, it is anticipated that a condition of permitting will be mitigation for the environmental resources harmed in the course of Trail construction, particularly along estuaries.


Final Plan Report

February 2017 │ 273-4011-008 2-3

For Trail subareas where a platforms-on-piers solution is proposed, estimates assume a mitigation cost of $100,000/acre. Impacted acreage along the estuaries is calculated as 16 feet of width (the area occupied by the four-panel platform) times the total length of the platform solution. This comes to just under $1.2 million. If a 12-foot-wide platform (three prefabricated panels) is used, mitigation requirements and costs will diminish accordingly. This is reflected in the cost estimates for the basic 12-foot-wide and 10-foot-wide paved Trails included in this Final Plan Report.

There may also be additional mitigation requirements for the impact of new bridges crossing streams, rivers, and sloughs.

This Final Plan Report also includes sections outlining environmental and other permitting (see Chapter 7). Cost estimating is applied to two differing percentages of construction cost as the basis for permitting costs – one for basic permitting and a second for estuary/water body permitting.

2.7 Estuary Impacts Tillamook County and DLCD staff initially indicated that fill was allowed in the Estuary Development (ED) zones adopted by the County and the Cities of Tillamook, Bay City, Garibaldi, and Wheeler. This determination was later reversed. As a result, about one mile of Trail initially identified for a widened berm had to be changed to the platforms-on-piers solution.

Therefore, the linear distances of Trail types in Technical Report No. 1 vary somewhat from those reported in this Final Plan Report.

2.8 Land Acquisition Technical Report No. 1 did not summarize the possible land acquisition impacts of preferred Trail alignments and types. The 23 miles of the Coast Segment included in the study area can be developed within the existing POTB rail right-of-way for both Rail-with-Trail and Rail-to-Trail options, with three possible exceptions.

Deslonna Resort (Subarea 1, MP 833.60) – Approximately 7 feet of extra right-or-way is required for the hybrid Rail-with-Trail/shared-use section through this area. Technical Report No. 1 suggested paving the private roadway through this section in exchange for a property easement.

S American Way (Subarea 4, MP 845.46) – This is the only recommended shared-street section of the Trail. This bypass was first suggested in the 2015 Concept Plan to avoid conflicts with rail movements in this area. Because this street is used by trucks and passenger vehicles, a 5-foot-wide paved shoulder is additionally recommended for bicycle and pedestrian safety.

Note: As best as can be determined at a plan level, Rail-TO-Trail options would not encroach into the estuaries. The combination of less berm widening, shifting widening to the inland side, and/or use of retaining walls above the estuary line eliminates encroachments.

Note: During the CSPAC review of Technical Report No. 2, OCSR representatives suggested that a Trail adjacent to the rail line in this location would NOT be an operational challenge for their service. Nonetheless, as the S American Way bypass is actually less expensive than the Rail-with-Trail option, the bypass is what is costed in this Final Plan Report.


2-4 February 2017 │ 273-4011-008

There are numerous apparent building and structure encroachments into the POTB right-of-way. Survey will be required in most cases to determine the extent of the encroachment, if any. Most encroachments appear to be minor, but there are at least three instances where an encroachment could have material impact on a preferred Trail alignment or type. In addition, the extent to which these encroachments were permitted by POTB needs to be determined, and future Trail builders may have to program for the costs of acquisition or relocation. See Technical Report No. 1 for more discussion.

These three possible exceptions aside, the otherwise virtual absence of land acquisition requirements is a substantial benefit to the Trail's construction cost bottom line. For example, the recent (2015) master plan for the Council Creek Regional Trail estimated acquisition of undeveloped (no buildings) rural land at $15,000/acre, and land with urbanization potential at $75,000/acre. This was for the Council Creek Trail segment that went through currently farmed lands between Forest Grove and Banks, Oregon.

2.9 Cost Mitigation The cost mitigation measures listed in Technical Report No. 2 (pp. 5-13 to 5-14) have been modified as an outcome of the November 2016 CSPAC meeting. Some measures, such as a reduced Trail width, are now included as full options. Other suggested measures have simply been modified to reflect CSPAC discussion. A revised list of measures is included in this Final Plan Report.


Final Plan Report

February 2017 │ 273-4011-008 3-1

3. BACKGROUND

3.1 Other Planning Efforts

3.1.1 Salmonberry Corridor Preliminary Feasibility Study The Salmonberry Corridor Preliminary Feasibility Study (Feasibility Study) was published in March 2013. The Feasibility Study considered a variety of re-use options for this rail corridor: Rail only, multiuse Rail-with-Trail, multiuse Rail-to-Trail, Horse-Hiking trail, and Hiking trail. The Feasibility Study divided the corridor into four segments. The most westward section of Segment C: Nehalem Confluence (MP 816) to Wheeler (MP 833), and most of Segment D: Wheeler (MP 833) to Tillamook Industrial Park (MP 859), are within the Coast Plan study area.

3.1.2 Salmonberry Trail Concept Plan and Atlas The Salmonberry Trail Concept Plan and Atlas (Concept Plan) was published in April 2015 and illustrates the entire 86-mile-long Salmonberry rail corridor between the City of Banks and the Tillamook Airport. The rail corridor is owned by the Port of Tillamook Bay (POTB). The Concept Plan divided the future Trail into four segments:

Tualatin Valley

Salmonberry Canyon

Nehalem River

Tillamook Coast

The Tillamook Coast segment as defined in the Concept Plan is similar but not identical to the Coast Segment as defined in this Coast Plan. The north end of the Coast Plan adds the rail corridor out to the unincorporated community of Mohler and excludes the rail corridor south of the Tillamook Creamery and Latimer Road North. Further information on Feasibility Study and Concept Plan contents and recommendations, and other published Trail assessments, can be found in Technical Report No. 1, Appendix A: Task 2A: Review of Prior Salmonberry Trail Plans and Studies. This appendix also provides a high-level overview of the evolution of the Salmonberry Trail over the last 4 to 5 years.

3.1.3 Future Plans South of Latimer Road North The Coast Plan study area does not include the Trail corridor south of Latimer Road North. See Sections 3.2 and 3.3 for details. A supplemental plan is currently being considered to fill this gap. Further information follows.

The Feasibility Study considered a Salmonberry Trail corridor from the City of Banks in Washington County to POTB's industrial park and airport south of the City of Tillamook. The Feasibility Study primarily evaluated the POTB-owned rail right-of-way for the entire distance.

The Concept Plan’s suggested Trail alignment also primarily used the POTB rail right-of-way from the City of Banks to Latimer Road North (Tillamook Creamery) but exited the rail right-of-way just short of the Tillamook city limits. The Concept Plan Map Atlas stated that the rail right-of-way route was not feasible for Rail-with-Trail south of Latimer Road. The Concept Plan also stated that a Rail-to-Trail solution south of Latimer Road would require further study.


3-2 February 2017 │ 273-4011-008

For alternatives to the rail right-of-way solution, the Concept Plan illustrated a shared-use roadway and/or bicycle lane/sidewalk route along Latimer Road and US 101, crossing the Wilson River/US 101 Bridge, and then continuing into Tillamook via:

Bicycle lanes/sidewalks along US 101, or

A Trail section first atop the Wilson River flood levee, and then following the east Tillamook city limits from Wilson River Loop Road to Hoquarten Slough.

Both these proposed Trail alternatives would connect to the City’s planned Hoquarten Slough Trail, and then cross OR 6 on the existing rail bridge (recently upgraded to accommodate bicycle/pedestrian traffic) to 3rd Street and Goodspeed Park.

The Concept Plan also illustrated a local street shared-use solution along 3rd Street to Miller Avenue, and Miller to 12th Street and Tillamook High School, then continuing on 12th to re-intersect with the rail right-of-way. This solution avoids going through the industrial Hampton Lumber property. Although the rail right-of-way passes straight through Hampton, there would be considerable bicycle/pedestrian safety and security issues in following the right-of-way. No Trail alignments south of the high school and 12th Street were illustrated in the Concept Plan.

Concept Plan Challenges The alternative Trail solutions illustrated south of Latimer Road in the Concept Plan have certain challenges:

Heavy passenger vehicle and truck traffic on Latimer Road makes the shared-use of this roadway problematic and unsafe. The same applies to US 101, especially across the Wilson River Bridge.

Use of a safer street-adjacent trail section along Latimer would interfere with Tillamook Creamery visitor and truck traffic on one side and golf course fairways on the other.

Widening the existing Wilson River/US 101 Bridge to safely accommodate bicycle/pedestrian traffic would be a technically complex and very costly endeavor.

The crown of the Wilson River flood levee is not wide enough for a state-standard multiuse trail, and bicycle/pedestrian ramps accessing the levee would have to be constructed to exacting standards to maintain the levee’s structural integrity.

Changing Circumstances Consistent with the Concept Plan recommendation to exit the rail right-of-way at Latimer Road, this Coast Plan does not address Trail alignments or types south of Latimer. Evolving circumstances that became apparent in finalizing the Concept Plan suggest, however, that revisiting Concept Plan solutions south of Latimer Road may now be in order.

The rail bridge over OR 6 has been upgraded to include bicycle/pedestrian ramps.

Plans are being discussed to replace the Wilson River/US 101 Bridge, an opportunity to include an adequate bicycle/pedestrian section.

The Hoquarten Slough Trail has been fully engineered and construction is planned.

The City of Tillamook has adopted a Parks and Recreation Master Plan, including a North Loop trail system that could become a functional part of the Salmonberry Trail.


Final Plan Report

February 2017 │ 273-4011-008 3-3

The golf course property has been purchased by the Tillamook Creamery. As a part of redevelopment, a multiuse Trail section off of Latimer Road and US 101 could be included.

Possible Initiatives In the course of developing the Coast Plan, the issue of extending the Trail further south of Latimer was discussed by CSPAC members, City and County officials, the Chamber of Commerce, and other stakeholders. At the time of publication of this Final Plan Report, an initiative was just getting underway to fund a multiuse Trail alignment assessment between Latimer Road and 3rd Street/Goodspeed Park. A 3rd Street to 12th Street Trail connection would still be provided by a shared-use solution. This added alignment assessment will be published as an addendum to this Coast Plan.

South of 12th, the POTB rail right-of-way is in a different form of ownership than is the right-of-way between Mohler and Tillamook. If the possibility of rail service was to cease and the rails were removed, the right-of-way would revert to abutting landowners. As such, planning for a Trail connection from 12th to the POTB industrial park has been deferred indefinitely. Absent use of the rail right-of-way, the most apparent remaining option would be a connector trail from the high school to US 101, and then bicycle lanes/sidewalks along US 101 to Long Prairie Road where the Salmonberry could follow several off-street multiuse Trail alignments through the POTB industrial site.

3.2 Coast Segment Study Area The Coast Plan study area includes the POTB-owned Salmonberry rail right-of-way from the rail’s crossing of Old Wheeler-Mohler Road in the unincorporated community of Mohler (MP 831.29) to Tillamook Creamery/Latimer Road North (MP 853.90) just north of the Tillamook city limits. The overall study area is illustrated on Figure 3-1.

The Concept Plan left several issues up for further evaluation and analysis in future planning efforts. For instance, a separate report, Adopting the Trail into Tillamook Area Comprehensive and Transportation Plans, further defined opportunities and constraints to building the Trail, particularly along the Tillamook Bay and Nehalem River estuaries. This report is available at www.potb.org, as is the Concept Plan.

3.3 Coast Segment Scope This Coast Plan is intended to resolve, at a plan-level, the following remaining issues related to the Trail’s Coast Segment; or identify where survey and/or Trail design/engineering may be needed for full resolution. This Coast Plan accomplishes the following:

Provides technical information and analysis with respect to the impacts and constraints of using Rail-with-Trail or Rail-to-Trail alternatives, including rail berm widening and other modifications.

Identifies potential design and alignment measures that may effectively and practically help to mitigate or eliminate various constraints to building the Trail, or that leverage the best solutions.

Note: Throughout this Final Plan Report most features and areas are identified by mile posts (MP). These are distances established by the railroad operator along the existing rail line right-of-way, not as-the-crow-flies or highway miles. The POTB railroad system is considerably longer than the 86-mile-long Trail corridor, thus the large MP numbers.


3-4 February 2017 │ 273-4011-008

Provides a pre-engineering evaluation of the 20 rail bridges and trestles that will have to be modified or replaced for the Coast Segment, and identifies any new bridges and trestles that may be required.

Suggests and costs possible marine or freshwater boardwalk or platforms-on-piers solutions with respect to Rail-with-Trail and Rail-to-Trail alternatives.

Identifies the need for or usefulness of alternative bypass options (such as US 101 or shared-use of local streets) to complete the Coast Segment.

Develops more detailed overall plan-level cost estimates (including permitting, design and engineering, and construction management factors) than those provided in the Concept Plan.

Provides phasing concepts and describes probable environmental and other permitting requirements.

3.3.1 Coast Plan Subareas This planning study divides the Coast Plan study area into six subareas. A map with Trail alignments, types, and other information, including multiple mile post (MP) annotations, is provided for each subarea. These subareas vary somewhat from those identified in the formal Coast Plan project scope.

Area 1 – Mohler to Paradise Cove – MP 831.29 to 834.12 (includes City of Wheeler)

Area 2 – Paradise Cove to Jetty Creek – MP 834.12 to 837.39

Area 3 – Jetty Creek to Twin Rocks – MP 837.39 to 842 (includes City of Rockaway Beach)

Area 4 – Twin Rocks to Garibaldi West End – MP 842 to 845.4

Area 5 – Garibaldi West End to Larson Cove South End – MP 845.4 to 849.27 (includes City of Garibaldi)

Area 6 – Larson Cove South End to Tillamook Creamery – MP 849.27 to 853.90 (includes City of Bay City)

Further information on the Coast Plan’s study area and scope can be found in Technical Report No. 1, Appendix B: Task 2C: Coast Plan Study Area Boundaries and Other Scope Modifications.

This Coast Plan does not make recommendations as to the preferred final Trail option (Rail-with-Trail or Rail-to-Trail). The Coast Plan provides the Salmonberry Trail Intergovernmental Agency (STIA) and the leaders and citizens of Tillamook County with the essential technical and cost information needed to make informed future decisions as to preferred alignments and design solutions; and in proceeding with initiatives to fund and undertake Trail engineering and construction.


Final Plan Report

February 2017 │ 273-4011-008 3-5

Figure 3-1. Salmonberry Trail Coast Segment Study Area – Mohler to Tillamook Creamery

Mile post (MP) markers delineate subarea boundaries.


3-6 February 2017 │ 273-4011-008

3.4 Base Conditions The following base conditions were identified from prior Salmonberry Trail reports and documentation, GIS and other records provided by POTB and the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department (OPRD), through interviews and discussions with the five coastal cities and the three coastal ports within the study area, as well as discussions with Tillamook County and state agencies such as the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), Oregon Department of Land Conservation (DLCD), and Oregon Regional Solutions. Local officials and citizens also provided input through two other Salmonberry projects – brownfield assessments and local plan amendments.

Entities such as the Oregon Coast Scenic Railroad (OCSR), the Tillamook Bay Estuaries Partnership (TBNEP) and other environmental groups, neighborhood associations, the local Chamber of Commerce, the Tillamook County Creamery Association, other businesses, and the public have been consulted during one or more of the several Salmonberry Trail studies undertaken over the last 5 years. This background informed development of this Final Plan Report.

The Coast Plan’s consulting team conducted a 3-day site visit in June 2016 that covered the entire 22.6-mile-long rail right-of-way within the study area. The team also toured another 1.1 miles south of Latimer Road North to an area south of the Wilson River. Site visit observations were documented and photographed; and uploaded to digital base maps. Other information – topographic contours, wetland delineations, tax lots, etc. – was then added. A second project consulting team site visit was conducted on August 25, 2016, to confirm findings. In addition, individual project team members visited study area sites several times in the course of other Salmonberry Trail related project trips. Given the extent of impacts on the estuaries, a meeting to review draft findings and recommendations was conducted with local estuary and watershed groups on December 19, 2016.

Except as otherwise noted, the following base conditions are all illustrated on the attached Trail subarea and supplemental maps or in other project documents.

3.4.1 Rail Right-of-Way Within the study area, the rail right-of-way is for the most part either 60 feet or 100 feet wide. There are a few right-of-way sections with differing widths, primarily associated with existing rail track sidings, or possibly related to prior industries along the rail line or former or once planned station stops. In addition, available data show the rail right-of-way and US 101 highway right-of-way as merged in several areas.

For building and structure encroachments that may impact Trail alignments or design, see Section 3.4.2, Rail Right-of-Way Encroachments, which follows. Also see Section 4.1.3, Physical and Regulatory Constraints, for other factors that may restrict use of the rail right-of-way.

Note: As the rail corridor follows a meandering river (Nehalem) and a meandering coast line (Nehalem and Tillamook estuaries and the Pacific Ocean) the actual compass direction varies. For clarity, use of west side in this report means the side of the rail line closest to the estuary or ocean. East side means the opposite or inland side of the rail line.


Final Plan Report

February 2017 │ 273-4011-008 3-7

The property within the rail right-of-way that is actually available for development of the Trail (and/or continuation of rail service) is further limited by several factors related to built transportation features and access.

1. Permitted and Private Rail Crossings

See Section 3.4.3, Rail Crossings, which follows.

2. Rail Line Location

In many sections, the rail line is not located down the centerline of the rail right-of-way. Most often, off-center rail lines are shifted toward the west side (bay side or ocean side) of the right-of-way. An example is the south end of Rockaway Beach.

3. Driveways/Accesses

See Section 3.4.3, Rail Crossings, which follows. There are numerous driveways and private lanes that extend along, into, or across the rail right-of-way. Some of these driveways/accesses crossing the rail line include retaining walls or other improvements.

4. Vehicle Parking

There are three areas on the east side of the rail line where the rail right-of-way is formally developed for motor vehicle parking: downtown Wheeler, downtown Rockaway Beach, and Jetty Marina. There is also public parking developed on the west side of the rail right-of-way in downtown Garibaldi, as well as near the Pacific Seafood jetty in Bay City.

5. City and County Roadways

Portions of two major city streets parallel and are partly or wholly within the rail right-of-way – Marine Drive in the City of Wheeler and Miller Street in the City of Rockaway Beach.

6. US 101

There are seven extended sections where US 101 is within the rail right-of-way, or at least within areas where rail and highway rights-of-way are merged. From north to south, the approximate sections are:

Botts Marsh thru downtown Wheeler (Subarea 1)

Fishery Point to Jetty Creek (Subarea 2)

Nedonna Creek through Rockaway Beach to Watseco Creek (Subareas 3 and 4)

Barview (Cedar Street) to 11th Street in Garibaldi (Subarea 4)

Old Mill site in Garibaldi to north end of Larson Cove (Subarea 5)

Through Bay City (Subarea 6)

Stasek Slough to Kilchis River (Subarea 6)

3.4.2 Rail Right-of-Way Encroachments There are a substantial number of physical aboveground encroachments or possible encroachments into the rail right-of-way. Some of these may be permitted by POTB, others may require survey to determine the extent of the encroachment, if any. While many of the following encroachments are minor, there


3-8 February 2017 │ 273-4011-008

are at least three areas where building encroachments may have a substantial impact on Trail alignment and design:

Downtown Wheeler (Subarea 1)

Jetty Marina (Subarea 2)

South of Barview (Subarea 4)

Possible encroachments are classified as follows.

1. Utilities

Most utility encroachments typically involve smaller or easy to relocate structures, or overhead or underground utility lines. The major exception is an aboveground utility building north of Rockaway Beach. There is enough space (16 feet) between the rail edge and this structure to fit a Rail-with-Trail solution.

There are also power poles within the rail right-of-way. A visual inspection during the June 2016 site visit found that none appear to be transmission-scale. The relocation of transmission-scale power poles and towers can cost up to $100,000/pole. Relocation is not included in the cost estimates.

2. Open Storage/Other Appurtenances

There appears to be temporary outdoor storage, or smaller buildings such as portable sheds, within the right-of-way in several locations. For planning purposes, these encroachments are assumed to be movable.

3. Recreational Vehicles (RV)

RVs and the like are present at several marinas, as well as at a few private residences. The only substantial RV encroachments are at the Paradise Cove Marina (Subarea 2, MP 834.12). Upwards of 15 to 20 RVs appear to be partly within the rail right-of-way. For planning purposes, these encroachments are assumed to be movable.

4. Private Buildings

Based on the June 2016 site visit, and an examination of tax lots superimposed over aerials, there are upwards of 20 private buildings encroaching into the rail right-of-way. Approximately another 25 residential structures (excluding Rockaway Beach) are very close to the right-of-way line. Approximately 16 of these possible building encroachments are just south of Barview. Survey may be required to determine the degree of encroachment, if any.

5. Public Buildings

The rail depot/public restroom in Wheeler and the rail depot/Chamber of Commerce building in Rockaway Beach are within the rail right-of-way.

6. Public Roadways

See Section 3.4.1, Rail Right-of-Way, and Section 3.4.3, Rail Crossings, of this Final Plan Report.

Note: In Rockaway Beach, dozens of residential and business buildings along almost 30 blocks of Miller Street are close to, or almost on top of, the right-of-way line. Some may be slightly encroaching. Survey would be necessary to make a final determination.


Final Plan Report

February 2017 │ 273-4011-008 3-9

3.4.3 Rail Crossings A planning principle applied to the development of this Coast Plan was to minimize the number of new rail crossings. That being said, other constraints – topography, estuarine and wetland waters, encroaching buildings – may necessitate some new crossings.

Modifications to existing crossings of public streets to accommodate Rail-WITH-Trail solutions will require permitting by ODOT Rail, and may require safety improvements as per ODOT Rail specifications at the time of construction.

If Rail-TO-Trail is established, ODOT Rail would have no ongoing jurisdiction. Under a Rail-to-Trail solution, ODOT Highways would, for instance, assume jurisdiction over the Trail’s probable at-grade crossing of US 101 at Hobsonville Point Road.

ODOT Rail Permitted At-Grade Rail Crossings The existing rail line crosses numerous public streets. In total, there are 37 ODOT Rail-permitted at-grade rail crossings. Rail-with-Trail options may require safety improvements at every one of these crossings. Permitted crossings are documented on subarea maps.

Rockaway Beach Twenty-one of the ODOT-permitted public street crossings are within the City of Rockaway Beach Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). For both Rail-with-Trail and Rail-to-Trail options north of the Rockaway State Beach Wayside, intersection improvements may be required in addition to safety improvements. Ten of the cross streets between N 21st Ave and N 3rd Ave intersect at steep grades with US 101. Trail development may mean even steeper grades. The same general issue may also apply to some of the steeper private access roads that cross the rail line in other areas.

Trail development should be used as an opportunity to CLOSE some of these Rockaway Beach intersecting streets. Current ODOT policy would never permit so many crossings or highway intersections. Miller Street blocks are short enough that intermittent street closures would not result in significantly greater drives for vehicles accessing properties along Miller. Closures would also improve safety and traffic movements on US 101. These possible closures and improvements are not included in Coast Plan cost estimates.

Private Road Rail Crossings There are many private road rail crossing, some accessing single dwellings. Only those private crossings used to access a major traffic generator (a resort or marina for instance) are documented for the purposes of this Final Plan Report:

Wheeler on the Bay Lodge (Subarea 1)

Deslonna Resort (Subarea 1)

Kelly’s Brighton Marina (Subarea 2)

Jetty Marina (Subarea 2)


3-10 February 2017 │ 273-4011-008

US 101/Rail Undercrossings The rail right-of-way crosses under US 101 in three locations:

North of the City of Wheeler near Oregon 53 (MP 832.33)

Near Larson Cove north of the City of Bay City (MP 849.27)

North of the Tillamook Creamery (MP 853.26)

US 101/Hobsonville Point Road The rail line crosses US 101 at-grade in one place – at the upper end of Miami Cove near the US 101/Hobsonville Point Road intersection (MP 847.4). ODOT Rail provided specific comment on the feasibility of permitting a Trail crossing in this location (see Technical Report No. 1, Appendix C).

Rail Bridges and Trestles ODOT Rail only has jurisdiction where rails cross public roadways, and thus has no ongoing jurisdiction over POTB rail bridges and trestles in the study area.

3.4.4 Existing Rail Berm and Rail Infrastructure The crown of the existing rail berm is primarily 8 feet wide, with a few sections approaching 9 feet wide. Width of side slopes vary based on height of the berm.

For some sections near Mohler, along Botts Marsh, and south of Larson Cove, the rail berm is actually below the elevation of immediately surrounding lands on both sides.

In more urbanized areas, the rail berm elevation is typically very low relative to surrounding lands, or essentially at the same grade. This includes Bay City, Garibaldi, and the south two-thirds of Rockaway Beach.

The highest elevation berms are found primarily where flood-prone dairy and agricultural lands have to be crossed (south of Bay City between the Kilchis and Wilson Rivers).

Along the Tillamook Bay and Nehalem estuaries, the berm height tends toward the middle, between urban and agricultural berm heights. The current berm height along estuaries may be a concern in the future as climate change impacts sea levels and continues to generate more frequent and more severe marine storms.

General Conditions The condition of the rail berm is highly variable, although the June 2016 site visit did not discover any clear evidence of major rail berm sections that were significantly failing. During the site visit, the project's consulting team noted erosion, failing or damaged culverts, landslides, storm water damage, storm water impoundments, and areas of encroaching vegetation and debris that may be reducing the integrity of the rail berm.

There were also some short sections where localized storm water impoundments and infiltration seemed to be softening the berm. For instance, one such area was found near Mohler.

Note: Observations herein are for reference only. If berm condition is an ongoing concern, assessments will have to be conducted by qualified geotechnical and rail engineers.


Final Plan Report

February 2017 │ 273-4011-008 3-11

Rail Infrastructure Conditions The condition of the railroad infrastructure itself (metal rails and wooden ties) is highly variable. Visual inspection found a considerable number of ties that were deteriorated and may merit near-term replacement. Perhaps the most striking observation is the number of rail sections where the rail is "kinked." This results from the rails shifting over failing wooden ties from the weight of passing trains.

Notwithstanding these specific observations, the Oregon Coast Scenic Railroad (OCSR) has the contractual obligation to maintain the rail infrastructure, and the June 2016 site visit revealed numerous sections where OCSR has made considerable ongoing efforts at major and minor repairs and improvements. The best measure of the rail’s current condition is that, at least between Garibaldi and Wheeler in most years, the OCSR continues to provide safe and enjoyable daily railroad excursions through the summer.


3-12 February 2017 │ 273-4011-008



Final Plan Report

February 2017 │ 273-4011-008 4-1

4. BRIDGE AND TRESTLE EVALUATIONS Existing bridges and trestles that may need to be converted or replaced for Trail purposes are evaluated below. More detail is provided in Technical Report No. 2. See Technical Report No. 1 for additional information on the Coast Segment subareas cited, as well as for the three other new Trail bridges that were initially considered but that are not currently part of a preferred Trail solution.

The rail line and the future Trail will also cross under US 101 highway bridges in three locations: north of Wheeler (Subarea 1), north of Bay City (Subarea 5), and north of the Tillamook Creamery (Subarea 6). Trail development will not require any alterations to these highway bridges, and thus these structures are not part of this bridge and trestle evaluation (or estimated costs).

For Rail-with-Trail, in general a new Trail bridge will have to be installed parallel to each existing rail bridge/trestle. Cantilevered Trail sections off of existing rail bridges are assumed for two spans: Miami (Subarea 3) and Kilchis (Subarea 6). Although existing wooden trestles were obviously designed and constructed to be sturdy enough to bear the loads of freight and passenger trains, a cantilever effectively triples the width of the trestle platform and would have complex design and structural challenges.

For Rail-to-Trail, the uniform solution is removal of rails and ties, and re-decking of the existing structure.

4.1.1 Existing Bridges and Trestles Recent structural assessments and other bridge and trestle records were provided by the POTB, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and Oregon Department of Parks and Recreation (OPRD) for all 20 bridges and trestles that were identified in the Coast Segment study area. References to bridges and trestles in the 2013 Salmonberry Corridor Preliminary Feasibility Study and 2015 Salmonberry Trail Concept Plan were also reviewed. See Table 4-1 for a summary of existing rail bridge/trestle conditions. These records were used as the baseline for determining whether and how existing bridges/trestles can be safely and cost-effectively modified for Trail solutions. Fuller assessments of the conditions of existing POTB bridges and trestles are provided in Technical Report No. 2.

Note: There are streams within the study area that flow into culverts under the rail berm. Trail development may be an opportunity to replace these culverts with bridges. For example, in October 2016, culverts carrying Nedonna Creek (Subarea 3) under US 101 and the rail berm were blocked by a landslide and then failed (see photograph).

Failed Nedonna Creek culvert


4-2 February 2017 │ 273-4011-008

Table 4-1. Existing Rail Bridge and Trestle Summary

Material

Mile Post

Length (ft)

No. of Spans

Sub-structure

Super-structure Crossing

ROW Width

Trail Side

832.10 45 3 Timber Piles Timber Stringers

Driveway 100 West


Vosburg Creek

60 West


Japanese Creek

60 West


Fishery Point

100 West


Messhouse Creek

100 West


Jetty Creek 100 West


Crescent Lake

100 East


Saltair Creek

60 East


Watseco Creek

60 East

846.84 161 2 Steel Pile PT conc box Miami River 100 East


Larson Creek

100 West


Patterson Creek

100 West


Doty Creek 100 West


Vaughn Creek

100 West


Hathaway Slough

100 West


Stasek Slough

100 West


Neilson Slough

100 West

852.73A 48 3 Timber Piles Timber Stringers

Driveway 100 West

852.73B 142 1 Conc pier Steel Pin Truss

Kilchis River 100 West

852.73C 88 6 Timber Piles Timber Stringers

Pasture Land

100 West

Most of these existing rail bridges and trestles cross a stream or a slough. The northernmost trestle (MP 832.1) spans a private farm access road. The Kilchis River “bridge” actually consists of three


Final Plan Report

February 2017 │ 273-4011-008 4-3

structures: a steel bridge with two wooden trestle approaches. The two approach trestles to the Kilchis River Bridge cross a private farm roadway and pasturelands.

The rail platform of the Miami River Bridge (MP 846.84) is approximately 10 feet wide and consists of precast concrete box girders on steel piles. The rail platform of the main span of the Kilchis River Bridge (MP 852.7) is approximately 8 feet wide and consists of a steel truss on timber piles with concrete pile caps.

All trestles are wood construction. The existing trestle platforms are approximately 8 feet wide, although some trestles have an additional 4-foot-wide metal grate or wooden plank maintenance catwalks on one or both sides.

To accommodate Rail-to-Trail, available structural information indicates that existing bridges/trestles would only have to be given minor repairs and modifications and re-decked with safety railings installed.

See Table 4-2 below for a summary of individual costs for both modified and new bridges.

Additional information on bridge and trestle conditions can be found in the FEMA, POTB, and OPRD reports, and in Technical Report No. 2. These agency reports can be obtained from the agencies cited.

4.1.2 New Bridges For Rail-with-Trail, the current rail bridge or trestle will be maintained for exclusive rail use. The possibility of cantilevers off of existing bridges and trestles that would accommodate Trail development were also considered and are reported in Technical Report No. 2 and in this Final Plan Report. A separate new bicycle/pedestrian bridge paralleling the existing rail bridge/trestle may be necessary in every instance.

Table 4-2. Modified and New Bridge/Trestle Costs

Rail-with-Trail

Preferred Alternative

Rail-with-Trail Cost Rail-to-Trail Cost

Subarea Mile post Crossing 12-foot-wide

Trail 10-foot-wide

Trail 12-foot-wide

Trail 10-foot-wide

Trail

1 832.10 Driveway New $ 200,000 $ 150,000 $ 54,000 $ 40,500

1 833.46 Vosburg Creek New $ 260,000 $ 195,000 $ 70,800 $ 53,100

Subarea 1 subtotal $ 460,000 $ 345,000 $ 124,800 $ 93,600

2 834.38 Japanese Creek New $380,000 $ 285,000 $121,800 $ 95,100

2 834.94 Slack Water Lake New $400,000 $ 300,000 $233,000 $ 204,500

2 836.75 Messhouse Creek New $ 360,000 $ 270,000 $ 115,000 $ 92,500

2 837.39 Jetty Creek New $ 280,000 $ 210,000 $ 72,000 $ 54,000

Subarea 2 subtotal $ 1,420,000 $ 1,065,000 $ 541,800 $ 446,100

3 839.07 Crescent Lake New $ 300,000 $ 225,000 $ 85,200 $ 63,900

3 841.17 Saltair Creek New $ 80,000 $ 60,000 $ 80,000 $ 60,000


4-4 February 2017 │ 273-4011-008

Rail-with-Trail

Preferred Alternative

Rail-with-Trail Cost Rail-to-Trail Cost

Subarea Mile post Crossing 12-foot-wide

Trail 10-foot-wide

Trail 12-foot-wide

Trail 10-foot-wide

Trail


4 842.33 Watseco Creek New $ 80,000 $ 60,000 $ 80,000 $ 60,000


5 846.84 Miami River Cantilevered $ 257,600 $ 193,200 $ 80,500 $ 80,500

5 849.14 Larson Creek New $ 280,000 $ 210,000 $ 87,000 $ 69,000


6 849.81 Patterson Creek New $ 500,000 $ 375,000 $ 144,000 $ 108,000

6 851.23 Doty Creek New $ 260,000 $ 195,000 $ 87,000 $ 69,000

6 851.76 Vaughn Creek New $ 440,000 $ 330,000 $ 139,800 $ 108,600

6 852.09 Hathaway Slough New $ 600,000 $ 450,000 $ 373,800 $ 284,100

6 852.43 Stasek Slough New $ 740,000 $ 555,000 $ 212,400 $ 159,300

6 852.61 Neilson Slough New $ 700,000 $ 525,000 $ 218,000 $ 168,500

6 852.73A Driveway New $ 200,000 $ 150,000 $ 72,600 $ 58,200

6 852.73B Kilchis River Cantilevered $ 227,200 $ 170,400 $ 170,400 $ 127,800

6 852.73C Pasture Land New $ 380,000 $ 285,000 $ 120,600 $ 94,200

Subarea 6 subtotal $ 4,047,200 $ 3,035,400 $ 1,538,600 $ 1,177,700

Total $ 6,924,800 $ 5,193,600 $ 2,617,900 $ 2,050,800

4.1.3 Physical and Regulatory Constraints Constraints related to built encroachments, and limitations arising from rail right-of-way width or rail berm condition, are summarized earlier. There are additional constraints relating to natural features and environmental issues. Some may trigger significant permitting requirements. Chapter 7 of this Final Plan Report includes a section addressing the range of environmental permitting that may arise from constructing preferred Trail design solutions and structures.

The rail right-of-way includes lands and features that are essentially unbuildable – steep abutting slopes, and wetlands and estuarine waters, in particular. Sixty or 100-foot rail right-of-way widths notwithstanding, the net effect of such lands and waters occurring within the rail right-of-way is that there is much less area actually available for rail or Trail infrastructure.


Final Plan Report

February 2017 │ 273-4011-008 4-5

Topography

Overall Grades Besides providing for an existing and essentially undeveloped corridor, a primary attribute of rail right-of-way for Trail development is that rail operational requirements dictate that grades not exceed 2 to 3 percent. In the almost 23 miles between Mohler and the Tillamook Creamery, the elevation of the rail berm only varies by 3 feet. This means the Trail’s Coast Segment will be accessible for people of all abilities. These grades are well under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) desirable maximum (5 percent). There are some localized sections with slightly steeper grades, but none approach this ADA maximum.

Steep or Unstable Slopes The future Trail’s most common topographic challenges are the frequent steep (and often very high) slopes on the inland side of the rail line. Some steep slopes are natural. Along the estuary, however, many steep slopes were created by excavation associated with the building of the railroad. The typical width of such excavations appear to have been the minimum needed to build the rail berm and provide safe rail equipment clearances. While the soils for many of these steep slopes appear to be relatively stable, evidence of prior and recent landslides suggest other steep areas are inherently unstable.

A separation of 6 to 8 feet between the face of the inland cut slope and the edge of the rail line appears to be the norm. Because of this close proximity, expansion of the rail berm on the inland side to accommodate the Trail would usually entail further excavation into the slope, and/or the use of high retaining walls. Further complicating any inland-side Trail is the presence US 101 at the top of many of these slopes. In some cases there is simply not enough area to excavate sufficiently for a wider Trail corridor without cutting into the existing highway. In other cases there is enough separation, but retaining walls, in addition having to be very high, would have to be structurally designed to bear both the new cut slope and the highway.

Wetlands There are frequent wetlands – both freshwater and marine – along or within the rail right-of-way. Some are the result of impoundments created by construction of the rail berm. These range from very small emergent wetlands and ditches between the rail berm and surrounding slopes or other development, to larger estuarine impoundments such as the Fishery Point marine wetland (see Subarea 2) and Larson Cove (Subarea 5). Inland from Botts Marsh (see Subarea 1), and at the south and north ends of Smith Lake (Subarea 4), there are also larger freshwater wetland impoundments. This description does not encompass all possible wetlands, as many smaller wetlands created by ditch or rail berm drainage impoundments fluctuate seasonally and have never been inventoried.

Estuaries The potential impacts on Trail development from the Nehalem and Tillamook Bay estuaries, based on county and local city estuary zoning regulations, were extensively evaluated as part of the 2015–2016 Salmonberry Trail Local Plan Adoption Project. The Adoption Project developed language for incorporating the Trail into the comprehensive and transportation plans of the county and the five cities within the Coast Segment study area. In addition, findings with respect to estuary zoning impacts were published in an appendix to the Adoption Project report. The central findings of the estuary zoning evaluation were:


4-6 February 2017 │ 273-4011-008

1. The overriding principle defining estuary zoning is straightforward – to be preserved or restored in a functioning natural state, estuaries can only be developed in certain highly proscribed and limited ways.

2. Relative to the estuary shoreline sections of the Salmonberry Trail, there may be only two means to permit Trail alignments that have to extend into the Estuary Development (ED), Estuary Conservation (EC), or Estuary Natural (EN) zones. a. Use of bridges and boardwalks (a.k.a. platforms-on-piers) b. Approval of State of Oregon Land Use Goal Exception(s)

3. Rail berm fill widening into the estuary in order to build the Trail would be outright prohibited by State Land Use Goal 16 and current county and city estuary zone regulations, even if within the existing POTB rail or US 101 rights-of-way.

4. For Trail sections using portions of the rail berm along the estuary, some Rail-TO-Trail solutions may require extension into the estuary; but virtually all Rail-WITH-Trail solutions will require significant extensions into the estuary.

5. There are no practical or effective means to alter local or state estuary regulations, either generally or on a case-by-case basis, to accommodate Trail development within estuary zones.

6. Alignment and/or design changes appear to be the only practical and consistent means to avoid estuary impacts. The primary design solution for extension into the estuary is to use a platforms-on-piers solution (see Figure 5-3, p. 5-3 of this Final Plan Report).

Estuary impacts, along with stream and slough crossings and some building encroachments, are the most significant constraints to development of the Trail’s Coast Segment between Botts Marsh north of Wheeler and downtown Bay City, particularly for the Rail-with-Trail option. Estuarine sloughs and tidally influenced freshwater rivers and streams south of Bay City may also generate significant challenges.

In most places, the rail line is 6 to 8 feet from the slope edge leading down to the estuaries. The photographs below show rails even closer. This separation is not uncommon.


Final Plan Report

February 2017 │ 273-4011-008 5-1

5. TRAIL TYPES Two basic Trail type options are analyzed, described, and mapped for this planning study – Rail-WITH-Trail and Rail-TO-Trail. The basic equation for building a multiuse Trail of either type on the POTB rail berm crown is relatively straightforward.

State standards specify a 10-foot to 12-foot-wide paved path, plus 2-foot-wide gravel shoulders for regional multiuse trails.

The existing POTB rail infrastructure consists of rail tracks laid slightly over 4 feet apart and typically, but not exclusively, anchored to 8-foot-long wooden ties. The typical width of the existing POTB rail berm crown is just over 8 feet, although there are some sections that are slightly wider (but no wider than 9 feet). The rail berm would have to be widened to accommodate either Trail type option.

If rail service is maintained, a safety zone separation from the closest edge of the paved Trail path is recommended. This safety zone could include one of the state standard 2-foot-wide trail shoulders. A 4-foot-high safety fence separating the rail from the Trail should also be installed, as well as safety railings along any Trail sections abutting the estuary.

5.1 Rail-With-Trail Rail-with-Trail solutions along the 23-mile Coast Segment study area are complex and may require new or extensively modified bridges and trestles, and extensive use of platforms-on-piers or retaining walls.

For a Rail-with-Trail solution, the addition of a 12-foot-wide paved Trail path alongside the rail, with the second shoulder plus the safety zone, would mean the typical 8-foot-wide rail berm crown would have to be widened by approximately 20 feet. Assuming 2:1 or 3:1 side slopes, the footprint of the basic Rail-with-Trail cross section would occupy approximately 42 feet. Use of a retaining wall on one side would reduce this footprint to approximately 35 feet. Use of a 10-foot-wide paved pathway standard would reduce these dimensions by approximately another 2 feet.

Where the widened rail berm would otherwise extend in estuarine waters (defined in local estuary zoning codes as mean highest high water or the highest line of marine vegetation), the basic cross section proposes a narrower filled area transitioning to platforms-on-piers over the estuary. Due to the development limitations embedded in local estuary zoning, platforms-on-piers is the only viable solution

Note: The Rail-with-Trail and Rail-to-Trail cross section illustrations that follow are cross referenced and applied to specific Trail sections in Chapter 6 of this Final Plan Report.

Note: There is flexibility under state standards to reduce the paved path width to 8 feet in rural areas or for trails with fewer users or space constraints. For a multiuse facility like the Salmonberry Trail that will presumably be heavily used in the tourist season by all levels of bicyclists and pedestrians traveling two ways (and other nonmotorized conveyances from baby strollers to skateboards), a width reduction to 8 feet is not recommended, except for short sections that pass through highly constrained areas.


5-2 February 2017 │ 273-4011-008

for extending the Trail into estuary zones, short of securing section-by-section State Land Use Goal Exceptions.

The Rail-with-Trail solutions using platforms-on-piers, including the bayside platform and an inland side slope, could occupy a footprint of 33 to 35 feet. See the width ranges on the cross sections below. The platforms-on-piers could extend anywhere from 8 to 18 feet into the estuary zone.

Figure 5-1. Rail-With-Trail | Widened Berm

Figure 5-2. Rail-With-Trail | Retaining Wall

Note: If a 10-foot-wide paved Trail is the selected standard, the footprints of each cross section would be reduced accordingly. The platforms-on-piers connecting to the 10-foot-wide trail would be 12 instead of 16 feet wide.


Final Plan Report

February 2017 │ 273-4011-008 5-3

Figure 5-3. Rail-With-Trail | Platforms-on-Piers

Table 5-1 documents the Trail sections by mile post (MP) where this study determined that retaining walls or platforms-on-piers may be required. All determinations and lengths are subject to survey and engineering. See Subarea Maps 1 to 6 for specific locations. These calculations are based on matching the platforms-on-piers or retaining walls to a 12-foot-wide paved pathway Rail-with-Trail alternative.

Table 5-1. Retaining Wall and Platforms-on-Piers Solutions (12-foot Trail only)

Mile post

Map Subarea Trail Side

Estuary Zone

Start End Retaining

Wall Length (ft) Elevated Platform Length (ft)

831.29 831.29

831.41 831.64 1 West N/A Wall 1,224 831.70 831.73 1 West N/A Wall 138 831.75 831.84 1 West N/A Wall 425 831.88 832.14 1 West N/A Wall 1,392 832.14 832.24 1 West N/A Wall 501 832.26 832.34 1 West N/A Wall 415 832.40 832.43 1 West EN Platform 156 832.43 832.47 1 West ED Platform 191 832.48 832.62 1 West ED Platform 778 832.66 832.85 1 West ED Platform 981 832.90 833.09 1 West N/A Wall 990 833.10 833.13 1 West N/A Wall 168 833.19 833.28 1 West ED Platform 476 833.28 833.34 1 West EN Platform 338 833.46 833.51 1 West EN Platform 240 833.52 833.60 1 West EN Platform 414


5-4 February 2017 │ 273-4011-008

Mile post


Estuary Zone

Start End Retaining


833.60 833.68 1 West ED Platform 416

Subarea 1 subtotals 5,253 3,989

834.17 834.42 2 West EC-1 Platform 1,308 834.44 834.99 2 West EC-1/EN Platform 2,918 835.00 835.25 2 West EC-1/EN Platform 1,323 835.33 835.74 2 West EN Platform 2,151 835.76 836.33 2 West EN Platform 2,977 836.37 836.45 2 West ED Platform 456 836.61 836.68 2 West N/A Wall 357 836.75 836.81 2 West ED Platform 315 836.82 836.95 2 West ED Platform 730 837.09 837.30 2 West ED Platform 1,138 837.40 837.43 2 West ED Platform 133

Subarea 2 subtotals 357 13,449

837.49 837.68 3 West N/A Wall 954 837.77 838.03 3 West N/A Wall 1,389 838.14 838.23 3 West N/A Wall 498 838.32 838.60 3 West N/A Boardwalk 1,465 839.12 839.21 3 East N/A Wall 457 839.22 839.30 3 East N/A Wall 438 839.31 839.39 3 East N/A Wall 447 839.40 839.63 3 East N/A Wall 1,221 839.64 839.72 3 East N/A Wall 442 839.73 839.91 3 East N/A Wall 962 839.73 840.03 3 East N/A Wall 1,599 840.04 840.16 3 East N/A Wall 607 840.16 840.28 3 East N/A Wall 604 840.28 840.36 3 East N/A Wall 400 840.37 840.54 3 East N/A Wall 905 840.55 840.62 3 East N/A Wall 410


842.43 843.52 4 East N/A Wall 5,740 844.17 844.23 4 East N/A Platform 325 844.23 845.31 4 West EN Platform 5,728


846.05 846.09 5 West EC-1 Platform 232 846.18 846.25 5 West EC-1 Platform 377


Final Plan Report

February 2017 │ 273-4011-008 5-5

Mile post


Estuary Zone

Start End Retaining


846.60 846.88 5 East N/A Wall 1,526 846.92 846.98 5 East N/A Wall 352 846.98 847.09 5 West N/A Wall 583 847.09 847.35 5 West EC-1/EN Platform 1,373 848.69 849.20 5 West EC-1 Platform 2,689 849.21 849.26 5 West EC-1 Platform 259


849.37 849.43 6 West EN Platform 344 849.45 849.63 6 West EN Platform 956 849.64 849.76 6 West EN Platform 601 849.76 849.85 6 West ED Platform 484 849.87 849.91 6 West ED Platform 172 850.04 850.29 6 West EN Platform 1,306 850.45 850.50 6 West N/A Wall 270 850.52 850.76 6 West N/A Wall 1,265 852.07 852.11 6 West EN Boardwalk 264 852.13 852.26 6 West EN Boardwalk 762


Notes: EN = Estuary Natural, ED = Estuary Development, EC-1 = Estuary Conservation 1

5.2 Rail-To-Trail In comparison to Rail-with-Trail solutions, Rail-to-Trail is relatively straightforward. Rails and ties would be removed, bridges and trestles refurbished with new decking and safety railings, the rail berm widened and refurbished, and asphalt or other paved surfaces poured.

If existing rail tracks were removed, a Rail-to-Trail solution using a state standard 12-foot-wide paved multiuse path with two shoulders means that the typical 8-foot-wide rail berm crown would need to be widened by approximately another 8 feet. The widening could be on the bay or inland side of the existing rail berm depending on local conditions, split evenly between each side, or applied variably to each side (for example, 2 feet on the bayside and 6 feet on the inland). The net goal is to create a 16-foot-wide rail berm crown.

Using between 2:1 to 3:1 side slopes, the footprint of a Rail-to-Trail berm would be 28 feet, or 22 feet with the use of a retaining wall. Platforms-on-piers should not be needed for any Rail-to-Trail sections along the estuary. Retaining walls should provide enough siting flexibility to avoid encroaching into the defined estuary, although some Trail sections may be close enough that survey and/or engineering may be required to make a final determination.

If a 10-foot-wide paved pathway is used, all the above Rail-to-Trail width ranges would be reduced by approximately another 2 feet.


5-6 February 2017 │ 273-4011-008

Figure 5-4. Rail-To-Trail | Widened Berm

Figure 5-5. Rail-To-Trail | Retaining Wall

5.3 Shared-Use/Bypass The 2015 Concept Plan suggested several roadways as shared-use routes, or for use as a Trail bypass, including five sections of US 101. With the exception of S American Way in Garibaldi, none of these prior shared-use or bypass options exhibit sufficient attributes to recommend them over an adjacent rail-trail solution.

5.3.1 Shared-Use Shared-use refers to low speed, low traffic volume roadways that can be safely shared by vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians by using signs and pavements markings.

Note: Subarea Maps for Rail-TO-Trail solutions are not provided in this Final Plan Report. The Trail follows the centerline of the widened rail berm in all instances.


Final Plan Report

February 2017 │ 273-4011-008 5-7

S American Way (downtown Garibaldi) – This short section of roadway would bypass a complex section of the rail corridor (multiple rail lines and spurs) through the City and the Port of Garibaldi between 3rd and 7th Streets. This roadway appears to be reasonably active with both visitor and commercial/industrial vehicular traffic, so simply using signing and pavement markings may not be sufficient. A widened shoulder on one side would be possible for most of its length and is included in cost estimates.

Figure 5-6. Shared-Use Roadway

5.3.2 Local Road Bypass Local road bypasses are those requiring improved paved shoulders or the addition of bicycle lanes and sidewalks for bicyclist and pedestrian safety. Existing roadways are generally exempted from ADA grade limitations, but usually have to have actual sidewalks and bicycle lanes in place to qualify for the exemption. None are recommended by this Final Plan Report.

5.3.3 US 101 US 101 is currently part of the Oregon Coast Bikeway. In the study area, only limited sections of striped US 101 shoulders are sufficiently wide to accommodate even single-file bicycle use or intrepid pedestrians. These few US 101 shoulder sections are variable in width, and typically short and non-continuous. Joint use by bicyclists and pedestrians and/or two-way or side-by-side one-way travel is extremely dangerous and uncomfortable for all highway users, including motorized vehicle passengers.

None of the Concept Plan’s suggested US 101 bypass sections are recommended.


5-8 February 2017 │ 273-4011-008

5.3.4 Boardwalks New multiuse boardwalks (see Figure 5-7) can be used to economically span short sections of wetlands. Three boardwalks – one marine and two freshwater wetland– are suggested as possibilities (see Chapter 6 of this Final Plan Report).

Figure 5-7. Multiuse Boardwalk

5.3.5 Trailheads In the course of field examinations along the rail corridor, several areas were noted that had physical and locational attributes suggesting trailhead feasibility. These areas are noted in Chapter 6 of this Final Plan Report. No analysis was conducted as to current trailhead ownership, other uses, development requirements, or costs – utilities, access, paving, or amenities. A full-featured trailhead should include an access roadway, parking lot, lighting, restrooms, picnic and assembly areas, and interpretive and way finding signage.

5.3.6 Connector Trails The identification of connecting trails, like trailheads, were not included in the Coast Plan scope. Nonetheless, in the course of field examinations of the rail corridor, several destinations were noted that had physical and locational attributes suggesting the desirability of secondary trails connecting to the Salmonberry Trail. Connector trails could be 6 to 8 feet wide and paved or gravel depending on usage. Possible connector trails are noted in Chapter 6. No analysis was conducted beyond identifying the possibility of a useful connector.


Final Plan Report

February 2017 │ 273-4011-008 6-1

6. TRAIL SOLUTIONS The Salmonberry Trail Coast Segment is divided into six subareas for the purposes of this planning study. Both Rail-with-Trail and Rail-to-Trail are described in the narrative summary for each subarea. The Trail alignment/type maps that follow each subarea description show only Rail-WITH-Trail solutions. The maps highlight the following as applicable:

Preferred and alternative Trail alignments, Trail types, or other solutions

Location of the proposed Trail relative to the rail line

Locations of bridges/trestles, highway undercrossings, and at-grade rail crossings

Areas where retaining walls, platforms-on-piers, or widened rail berms are required

Estuary zoning

Various features by place name or mile post (MP)

Rail-to-Trail maps are not included. Rail-to-Trail alignments will typically follow the centerline of the widened rail berm, and the scale of the maps used in this Final Plan Report would not illustrate any useful additional information.

There are five specific locations where Rail-with-Trail solutions were given an additional level of analysis. These locations are within city downtowns or associated with unincorporated area resort developments, plus the Barview area where a very complex set of multiple constraints had to be addressed. Each of these locations is illustrated on a separate map that follows the primary subarea map, and annotated with some of the considerations and details that went into finding a solution(s).

Downtown Wheeler waterfront (Subarea 1A)

Deslonna Resort (Subarea 1B)

Jetty Marina (Subarea 2A)

Downtown Rockaway Beach Oceanside (Subarea 3A)

Barview to West End Garibaldi (Subarea 4A) – Two distinct solutions are mapped. A third is described.

See the following Table 6-1 for a side-by-side comparison of Trail type solutions. Subarea-by-subarea descriptions of Rail-with-Trail and Rail-to-Trail with more specifics and details follow Table 6-1.

Note: Table 6-1 and the subarea-by-subarea specifics that follow use a basic multiuse paved trail width of 12 feet. A version of the Trail using 10 feet as the basic paved Trail width was also costed. Use of 10 feet as the standard allows reductions in bridge and platforms-on-piers widths, and reduced berm widening. A separate cost estimate for using the 10-foot standard is included in Chapter 7.


6-2 February 2017 │ 273-4011-008

Table 6-1. Comparative Key Trail Type Features

Rail-With-Trail (12-foot basic Trail width) Rail-To-Trail (12-foot basic Trail width)

Subarea

Primary cross sections

Solution Lengths

(LF)

Berm Crown

Widening (ft)

Bridges/ trestles


Solution Lengths

(LF)

Berm Crown

Widening (ft)

Bridges/ trestles

1 Widened berm Retaining wall Platforms-on-piers

4,391

5,253

5,298

18 3 Widened berm Retaining wall Platforms-on-piers

12,632

2,310

N/A

8 3


5,443

583

10,870


13,445

3,451

N/A

8 4

3 Widened berm Retaining wall Platforms-on-piers Boardwalk

11,542

4,333

N/A

1,465

18 3 Widened berm Retaining wall Platforms-on-piers Boardwalk

21,140

3,200

N/A

N/A

8 2

4 Widened berm Retaining wall Platforms-on-piers Other

6,159

5,740

6,053

See report


15,004

2,948

N/A

8 1


13,042

2,461

4,930


18,585

1,848

N/A

8 3


Final Plan Report

February 2017 │ 273-4011-008 6-3

Rail-With-Trail (12-foot basic Trail width) Rail-To-Trail (12-foot basic Trail width)

Subarea


Solution Lengths

(LF)

Berm Crown

Widening (ft)

Bridges/ trestles


Solution Lengths

(LF)

Berm Crown

Widening (ft)

Bridges/ trestles


18,022

1,535

3,863

18 8 Widened berm Retaining wall Platforms-on-piers Boardwalk

23,096

1,350

N/A

1,026

8 8

Subarea 1 – Downtown Wheeler Subarea 3 – View of ocean from rail corridor

Subarea 4 – Smith Lake Subarea 5 – Miami River bridge


6-4 February 2017 │ 273-4011-008

6.1 Subarea 1 – Mohler to Paradise Cove Mile post 831.29 to 834.12 – Unincorporated community of Mohler, Botts Marsh, City of Wheeler, Paradise Cove Marina.

6.1.1 Rail-With-Trail Trail Alignment West side (bayside) of rail on widened rail berm crown.

Primary Trail Cross Sections and Lengths See Subarea 1 Map for exact locations of different treatments.

Rail-with-Trail | Widened Berm 4,391 linear feet [LF]

Rail-with-Trail | Retaining Walls 5,253 LF

Rail-with-Trail | Platforms-on-Piers 5,298 LF

Total length 2.83 mi (14,942 LF)

Bypasses None recommended.

Concept Plan suggested Old Wheeler-Mohler Road and US 101 as bypasses. Neither was found to be a better option than the rail corridor.

Old Wheeler-Mohler Road has grades in excess of ADA requirements, as well as poor sight lines. There is no formal bicycle/pedestrian infrastructure (such as sidewalks), and limited or no shoulders.

US 101 has significant limitations in Subarea 1.

Other Trail Solutions Trail sections that pass by Wheeler by the Bay Lodge and the Deslonna Resort may have to be a shared-use/multiuse Rail-with-Trail hybrid. (See Maps 1A and 1B.)

Significant Changes from Concept Plan Concept Plan suggested shared-use of Marine Drive for primary Trail alignment. Rail corridor

was found to be the better option. Concept Plan does not contemplate platforms-on-piers anywhere in the study area. Fill is

suggested in the Concept Plan as the solution in areas where required rail berm widening would extend into estuarine or fresh waters. Fill may be an acceptable solution in freshwater wetlands or water bodies. Trail development in ED, EC and EN zones must be on platforms-on-piers, boardwalks, or bridges; no fill permitted.

Note: All the areas where the 2015 Concept Plan suggested US 101 as a Trail bypass alternative have limitations. These vary area to area but include high cost of widening the highway, narrow or absent shoulders, grades exceeding ADA requirements, poor sightlines, and the high speed of adjacent vehicular traffic.


Final Plan Report

February 2017 │ 273-4011-008 6-5

Rail Berm Widening Approximately 18- to 20-foot widening to rail berm crown. Footprint of new berm could be 40 to 42 feet wide. Use of retaining walls would reduce land needed for side slopes and would reduce the footprint.

Bridges/Trestles OR 53 near Gallagher Slough | MP 832.10

New Trail Bridge

Steel pile with precast concrete slab

Length – 50 feet, single span

Location – West side of rail trestle

Other Issues – Need to maintain/ improve overhead vehicle clearance.

Vosburg Creek | MP 833.46

New Trail Bridge


Length – 65 feet, single span


At-Grade Rail Crossings There are two public street crossings in Subarea 1. ODOT Rail has jurisdiction over such crossings. ODOT Rail may require rail-specific safety improvements. See Subarea 1 Map for locations.

There are three significant private roads crossing the rail:

Wheeler on the Bay Lodge (MP 833.15)

Deslonna Resort (MP 833.64)

Paradise Cove Marina (MP 831.19)

Possible Trailheads/Connector Trails Full-feature trailhead on undeveloped ODOT maintenance yard at US 101/OR 53. Trail will abut

maintenance yard on east side; vehicular access would be from OR 53 on west side. Short connector trail needed.

Parking-only trailhead on west side (bayside) of rail at Marine Drive/Hemlock Street (MP 832.79).

Special Features See Map 1A for Downtown Wheeler waterfront solution, and Map 1B for Deslonna Resort

solution.

Note: The rail berm footprint in all Coast Plan areas will vary depending on the width of the basic Trail cross section (10 or 12 feet), the height of the berm, and which Rail-with-Trail cross section (widened berm, retaining wall, and/or platform-on-piers) is used.

Note: See Technical Report No. 2 for more-detailed evaluations of the 20 bridges and trestles within the 23-mile-long study area.


6-6 February 2017 │ 273-4011-008

Marine Drive from MP 832.79 to MP 833.09 will have to be re-graded/re-paved after Trail construction.

Existing train depot shed on Wheeler waterfront will have to be moved slightly northwest to allow a through, state-standard multiuse Trail pathway.

At-grade bicycle/pedestrian crossings at Wheeler waterfront and Wheeler on the Bay Lodge access roads will need to be controlled by crosswalks, signing, and other pavement markings.

Most of Subarea 1 is zoned ED (primarily Botts Marsh). Vosburg Creek and north end of Botts Marsh zoned EC or EN; no fill allowed in any estuary zone.

Northernmost study area bridge Botts Marsh rail corridor showing inland slopes

Downtown Wheeler waterfront Estuary shoreline north of Wheeler


Final Plan Report

February 2017 │ 273-4011-008 6-7

6.1.2 Rail-To-Trail Trail Alignment Centerline of widened rail berm crown.

Primary Trail Cross Sections and Lengths Rail-with-Trail | Widened Berm 12,632 LF



Bypasses None recommended (see discussion under Rail-with-Trail).

Other Trail Solutions None recommended.

Significant Changes from Concept Plan Concept Plan suggested shared-use of Marine Drive for primary Trail alignment. Rail corridor

was found to be the better option.

Fill is suggested in the Concept Plan as the solution in areas where required rail berm widening would extend into estuarine or fresh waters. Fill may be an acceptable solution in fresh water wetlands or water bodies. Trail development in ED, EC and EN zones must be on platforms-on-piers, boardwalks, or bridges; no fill permitted.

Rail Berm Widening Six- to eight-foot widening to rail berm crown. Footprint of new berm could be 26 to 28 feet wide. Use of retaining walls would reduce land needed for side slopes and would reduce footprint.

Bridges/Trestles OR 53 near Gallagher Slough | MP 832.10

Modified Rail Trestle

Remove rails and crossties, re-deck with steel crossbeams, wood deck and handrail.

Needed Improvements – May need to replace damaged stringers.

OR 53/Gallagher


6-8 February 2017 │ 273-4011-008

Vosburg Creek | MP 833.46


Remove rails, crossties and steel walkway. Re-deck with steel crossbeams, wood deck and handrail.

Needed Improvements – Repair wing walls and bring rock back fill up to grade.

At-Grade Rail Crossings With Rail-to-Trail, ODOT Rail would no longer have jurisdiction over public street crossings. There are two public and three major private crossings in Subarea 1 (see Subarea 1 Map).

Possible Trailheads/Connector Trails Full-feature trailhead on undeveloped ODOT maintenance yard at US 101/OR 53. Trail will abut

maintenance yard on east side; vehicular access would be from OR 53 on west side. Short connector trail needed.

Parking-only trailhead on bayside of rail at Marine Drive/Hemlock Street (MP 832.79).

Special Features Marine Drive from MP 832.79 to MP 833 may have to be re-graded/re-paved after Trail

construction.

Existing train depot shed on Wheeler waterfront may have to be moved slightly northwest to allow through, state-standard multiuse Trail pathway.

At-grade bicycle/pedestrian crossings at the Wheeler waterfront and Wheeler on the Bay Lodge access roads should be controlled by crosswalks, signing, and other pavement markings.

Most of Subarea 1 is zoned ED (primarily Botts Marsh). Vosburg Creek and north end of Botts Marsh zoned EC or EN; no fill allowed in any estuary zone.

Vosburg Creek

Moh

ler

Bot

ts M

arsh

Para

dise

Cov

eM

arin

a

Old

Whe

eler

Moh

ler R

d

Des

lonn

a R

esor

t

See

Map

1A

See

Map

1B

Gal

lagh

er S

lou

gh

832.

79

833.

09

831.

29

Neh

alem

Whe

eler

Pye

Slo

ugh

832.

1

833.

46

832.

33

831

832

833

834

833.

64

834.

12

AREA

1 -

MP

831.

29 T

O 8

34.1

2M

OH

LER

TO P

ARAD

ISE

COVE

Salm

onbe

rry

Trai

l Coa

stal

Pla

nTi

llam

ook

Coun

ty, O

R

075

01,

500

375

Feet

Da

ta S

ourc

e: O

DO

T, T

illa

moo

k C

oun

ty, W

alk

er M

acy

Serv

ice

Laye

r: S

ourc

e: E

sri,

Dig

ita

lGlo

be, G

eoEy

e, E

art

hst

ar

Geo

gra

ph

ics,

CN

ES/A

irb

us

DS,

USD

A,

USG

S, A

EX,

Get

ma

pp

ing

, A

erog

rid

, IG

N,

IGP

,sw

isst

opo,

an

d t

he

GIS

Use

r C

om

mu

nit

y

Rai

lroad

Mile

post

At-

Gra

de

Rai

l Cro

ssin

g(O

DO

T P

erm

itte

d)

Rai

l Br

idge/

Tre

stle

Hig

hw

ay B

rid

ge

Un

der

cro

ssin

g

UG

B (2

01

4)

Estu

ary

Zo

nin

g

Estu

ary

Dev

elop

men

t (E

D)

Estu

ary

Conse

rvat

ion

2 (

EC-2

)

Estu

ary

Conse

rvat

ion

1 (

EC-1

)

Estu

ary

Conse

rvat

ion

Aq

uac

ult

ure

(EC

A)

Estu

ary

Nat

ura

l (E

N)

6

35

24

1B

ay C

ity

Gar

ibal

di

Man

zani

ta

Neh

alem

Roc

kaw

ayB

each

Tilla

moo

k

Whe

eler

1 in

ch =

750

feet

Rail

wit

h T

rail

Tra

il W

est

of

Rai

l

Tra

il E

ast

of

Rai

l

Sep

arat

e M

ult

i-U

se T

rail

Shar

ed U

se S

tree

t

Pro

pose

d W

all

Pro

pose

d P

latf

orm

CountyRd

GambleSt

Rector St

S 2nd StS Bay Vw

Alder St

1stS

t

2nd

St

Hall St

Mar

ine

Dr

DuboisSt

4th

St

Spruce St

Hemlock St

Rowe St

N Fi

rst S

t

Gregory St

3rd

St

Old Moh

ler

Rd

Jarris

Creek

Vo

sbu

rg

Creek

ZimmermanCreek

Fish

er C

reek

No

park

ing

this

sec

tion

Rel

ocat

ed s

tatio

n

Shar

ed u

sesi

gnin

g

Cro

ssin

g si

gnin

g

Re-

pave

Mar

ine

Driv

eas

par

t of p

roje

ct

Whe

eler

on

the

Bay

Lodg

e

Jarris

Cre

ekRector St

N Fi

rst S

t

Gregory St

Rorvik

St

Mar

ine

Dr

833.

09

833

Map

1A

Dow

ntow

n W

heel

erSa

lmon

berr

y Tr

ail C

oast

Pla

nRa

il W

ith T

rail

010

020

050

Feet

Tra

il W

est

of

Rai

l

Shar

ed U

se S

tree

t

Ret

ain

ing W

all

At-

Gra

de

Rai

l C

ross

ing

Mile

post

Whe

eler

on

the

Bay

Lodg

e ac

cess

Poss

ible

enc

roac

hmen

t sou

th o

f the

lodg

e

Nee

d 7

' wid

ead

ded

rail

RO

W

Sign

for

shar

ed u

se

20' w

ide

pave

dsh

ared

use

Rep

ave

for r

ight

angl

e ra

ilroa

d cr

ossi

ng

Depot St

Mar

ine

Dr

833.

64

Map

1B

Deslo

nna

Reso

rtSa

lmon

berr

y Tr

ail C

oast

Pla

nRa

il w

ith T

rail

015

030

075

Feet

Tra

il W

est

of

Rai

l

Shar

ed U

se S

tree

t

Ret

ain

ing W

all

Mile

post

Rail

cros

sing

Salm

onbe

rry

Trai

l Co

ast S

egm

ent P

lann

ing

Stud

y Fi

nal P

lan

Repo

rt

6-12

Fe

brua

ry 2

017 │

273-

4011

-008

Th

is pa

ge in

tent

iona

lly le

ft bl

ank.


Final Plan Report

February 2017 │ 273-4011-008 6-13

6.2 Subarea 2 – Paradise Cove to Jetty Creek Mile post 834.12 to 837.39 – Fishery Point, Kelly’s Brighton Marina, Jetty Marina.



Rail-with-Trail | Widened Berm 5,443 LF

Rail-with-Trail | Retaining Walls 583 LF




Concept Plan suggested US 101 as bypass around Fishery Point Causeway.

Other Trail Solutions Trail may switch briefly to inland (east side) of rail at Jetty Marina/Jetty Creek Trestle (see Subarea 2A Map).

Significant Changes from Concept Plan Concept Plan did not contemplate platforms-on-piers. Fill is suggested in the Concept Plan as the solution in areas where required rail berm widening would extend into estuarine or fresh waters. Fill may be an acceptable solution in freshwater wetlands or water bodies. Trail development in ED, EC and EN zones must be on platforms-on-piers, boardwalks, or bridges; no fill permitted.

Rail Berm Widening Approximately 18- to 20-foot widening to rail berm crown. Footprint of new berm could be 40 to 42 feet wide. Use of retaining walls would reduce land needed for side slopes and would reduce footprint.


6-14 February 2017 │ 273-4011-008

Bridges/Trestles Japanese Creek | MP 834.38

New Trail Bridge


Length – 95 feet, multiple-span structure


Fishery Point Causeway | MP 834.94

New Trail Bridge




Messhouse Creek | MP 836.75

New Trail Bridge




Jetty Creek | MP 837.39

New Trail Bridge


Length – 70 feet, single-span structure


At-Grade Rail Crossings There are two major private crossings:

Kelly’s Brighton Marina (MP 836.59)

Jetty Marina (MP 837.48)

Possible Trailhead Widened shoulder area on bayside of US 101 between Fishery Point and Cheviot Creek could be used for a parking-only trailhead.

Special Features Trail across Fishery Point Causeway should include safety railings, especially on estuary side.

See Map 2A for Jetty Marina solution.

Estuary between Paradise Cove Marina and Kelly’s Marina is zoned EN or EC, no fill permitted. Estuary between Kelly’s Marina and Jetty Marine zoned ED, no fill permitted.


Final Plan Report

February 2017 │ 273-4011-008 6-15



Rail-with-Trail | Retaining Walls* 3,451 LF


* GIS-based records show EN zoning as set back from the physical Fishery Point Causeway, potentially permitting use of the retaining walls. Survey may be required to determine final Trail type solution, including the possibility of platforms-on-piers.


Concept Plan suggested US 101 as an alternative partial bypass.


Significant Changes from Concept Plan None.

Rail Berm Widening Six- to eight-foot widening to rail berm crown. Footprint of new berm could be 26 to 28 feet wide. Use of retaining walls would reduce land needed for side slopes and would reduce footprint.

Bridges/Trestles Japanese Creek | MP 834.38


Remove rails and crossties. Re-deck with steel crossbeams, wood deck and handrail.

Needed Improvements – Check caps for dry rot, replace/ repair as needed. Install cross bracing on Bent 6. Repair wing walls and bring rock back fill up to grade.

Japanese Creek


6-16 February 2017 │ 273-4011-008

Fishery Point Causeway | MP 834.94


Rail-to-Trail – Remove rails and crossties. Re-deck with steel crossbeams, wood deck and handrail.

Needed Improvements – Replace, shore up rotten intermediate substructure. Shore up wing walls and place rip rap to prevent further erosion.

Fishery Point

Messhouse Creek | MP 836.75


Remove rails, crossties and wood walkway. Re-deck with steel crossbeams, wood deck and handrail.

Needed Improvements – Replace piles caps and stringers as needed where rotten.

Messhouse Creek

Jetty Creek | MP 837.39



Needed Improvements – Replace split cross bracing, install longitudinal bracing between pile bents.

Jetty Creek


Final Plan Report

February 2017 │ 273-4011-008 6-17

At-Grade Rail Crossings There are two major private crossings:

Kelly’s Brighton Marina (MP 836.59)

Jetty Marina (MP 837.45)

Possible Trailhead Widened shoulder area on bayside of US 101 between Fishery Point and Cheviot Creek.

Special Features Trail across Fishery Point Causeway should include safety railings, especially on estuary side.

Estuary between Paradise Cove Marina and Kelly’s Marina is zoned EN or EC, no fill permitted; estuary between Kelly’s Marina and Jetty Marine zoned ED. No fill permitted.

Fishery Point marine wetland Jetty Marina

View of estuary from rail corridor Trail corridor through woods


6-18 February 2017 │ 273-4011-008


PA

CIF

IC O

CE

AN

Fish

ery

Poin

t

Para

dise

Cov

eM

arin

a

Kel

lys

Brig

hton

M

arin

a

Jetty

Mar

ina

Nor

th C

oast

Land

Con

serv

ancy

Surv

ey E

N b

ound

arie

s -

reta

inin

g w

all m

ay s

uffic

e

See

Map

2A

Whe

eler

834.

94

837.

39

836.

75

834.

38

834

835

836

837

836.

59

837.

28

834.

12

AREA

2 -

MP

834.

12 T

O 8

37.3

9PA

RAD

ISE

COVE

TO

JETT

Y CR

EEK

Salm

onbe

rry

Trai

l Coa

stal

Pla

nTi

llam

ook

Coun

ty, O

R

01,

000

2,00

050

0Fe

et

Da

ta S

ourc

e: O

DO

T,

Til

lam

ook

Cou

nty

, W

alk

er M

acy

Serv

ice

Laye

r: S

ourc

e: E

sri,

Dig

ita

lGlo

be,

Geo

Eye,

Ea

rth

sta

r G

eog

rap

hic

s,C

NES

/Air

bu

s D

S, U

SDA

, U

SGS,

AEX

, G

etm

ap

pin

g,

Aer

ogri

d,

IGN

, IG

P,

swis

stop

o, a

nd

th

e G

IS U

ser

Com

mu

nit

y

Rai

lroad

Mile

post

At-

Gra

de

Ra

(OD

OT P

erm

itte

d)

il C

ross

ing

Rai

l Br

idge/

Tre

stle

Hig

hw

ay B

rid

ge

Un

der

cro

ssin

g

UG

B (2

01

4)

Estu

ary

Zo

nin

g

Estu

ary

Dev

elop

men

t (E

D)

Estu

ary

Conse

rvat

ion

2 (

EC-2

)

Estu

ary

Conse

rvat

ion

1 (

EC-1

)

Estu

ary

Conse

rvat

ion

Aq

uac

ult

ure

(EC

A)

Estu

ary

Nat

ura

l (E

N)

6

35

24

1B

ay C

ity

Gar

ibal

di

Man

zani

ta

Neh

alem

Roc

kaw

ayB

each

Tilla

moo

k

Whe

eler

1 in

ch =

1,0

00 fe

et

Rail

wit

h T

rail

Tra

il W

est

of

Rai

l

Tra

il E

ast

of

Rai

l

Sep

arat

e M

ult

i-U

se T

rail

Shar

ed U

se S

tree

t

Pro

pose

d W

all

Pro

pose

d P

latf

orm

Neh

ale

mR

iver

Japa

nes

eC

ree

k

Mes shou

seCre

ek

Cle

arC

reek

Jett

yC

reek

Ch

evio

tCreek

Glenn Ave

Clif

fDr

NBa

yview

Blvd

Brighton

Blvd

Build

ings

inra

il R

OW

Build

ing

inra

il R

OW

Inla

nd o

ptio

n lim

its

park

ing.

..

... b

ut a

void

s im

pact

sw

ith b

uild

ings

Cro

ssin

g si

gnin

g

Jett

y C

reek

837.

39

837.

28

Map

2A

Jett

y Fi

sher

y M

arin

aSa

lmon

berr

y Tr

ail C

oast

Pla

nRa

il w

ith T

rail

015

030

075

Feet

Tra

il W

est

of

Rai

l

Tra

il E

ast

of

Rai

l

Ret

ain

ing W

all

Brid

ge

Mile

post

Hig

hway

are

a –

Jett

y M

arin

e

Poss

ible

hou

se e

ncro

achm

ent


Final Plan Report

February 2017 │ 273-4011-008 6-21

6.3 Subarea 3 – Jetty Creek to Twin Rocks Mile post 837.39 to 842 – Unincorporated communities of Manhattan Beach and Nedonna Beach, City of Rockaway Beach.

6.3.1 Rail-With-Trail Trail Alignment Widened rail berm crown.

Trail on west side (ocean side) of rail from Jetty Creek (MP 837.39) to Crescent Lake Bridge (MP 839).

Trail on east side (inland) of rail from MP 839 to Twin Rocks (MP 842).




Wetland Boardwalk 1,465 LF


Bypasses None recommended, except for alternative solutions (see Map 3A) in vicinity of Rockaway State Beach State Wayside.

Concept Plan recommended shared-use of Miller Street through most of city.

Other Trail Solutions Recommended options between N 3rd Avenue and S 3rd Avenue use Rail-with-Trail solution

with some shared-use sections (see Map 3A).

A 1,465-linear-foot wetland boardwalk is suggested for some sections between MP 838 and MP 838.5 (Nedonna Beach).

Significant Changes from Concept Plan Miller Street not suggested as the primary Trail alignment through the City of Rockaway Beach.

Trail recommended to be on inland (east side) of rail between MP 839 and MP 842.

Rail Berm Widening Up to 18- to 20-foot widening to rail berm crown. Footprint of new berm could be 40 to 42 feet wide. Many sections of the rail through Rockaway Beach are at or nearly at-grade with surrounding lands, thus the required new rail berm footprint may be significantly narrower. Use of retaining walls could further reduce land needed for side slopes and would reduce footprint.


6-22 February 2017 │ 273-4011-008

Bridges/Trestles Crescent Lake | MP 839.07

New Trail Bridge



Location – East side of rail trestle

Saltair Creek | MP 841.17

New Trail Bridge

Remove existing structure and replace with steel pile and precast concrete slab



At-Grade Rail Crossings Twenty-one ODOT Rail permitted crossings within Rockaway Beach UGB. ODOT Rail has

jurisdiction over public street crossings. Safety improvements could be required at each rail crossing.

Ten of the local cross streets between N 21st Ave and N 3rd Ave intersect at steep grades with US 101. Trail development may mean even steeper grades.

Trail development could be used as an opportunity to close some of these steep intersecting streets. Current ODOT policy would never permit so many crossings. Miller Street blocks are short enough that intermittent street intersection closures would not result in significantly greater drives for vehicles accessing properties along Miller. Different rail and Trail berm heights could also help mitigate grade issues.

Cross-street closures would also improve safety on US 101.

Possible Trailheads/Connector Trails Manhattan Beach State Park – Short connector trail or shared-use signing.

Small parking-only trailhead at MP 839, only direct view of ocean from rail corridor in entire study area other than Rockaway State Beach Wayside.

Rockaway State Beach Wayside.

Special Features See Map 3A for Rockaway State Beach Wayside area solutions.

Subarea 3 has no estuary frontage, so no estuary solutions required.

Twin Rocks pedestrian overpass support column restricts use of west side of rail for Trail.


Final Plan Report

February 2017 │ 273-4011-008 6-23







Significant Changes from Concept Plan Miller Street not suggested as primary Trail alignment.

Rail Berm Widening Six- to eight-foot widening to rail berm crown. Footprint of new berm could be 26 to 28 feet wide. Many sections of the rail through Rockaway Beach are at or nearly at-grade with surrounding lands, thus the required new rail berm footprint may be significantly narrower. Use of retaining walls could further reduce land needed and would reduce footprint.

Bridges/Trestles Crescent Lake | MP 839.07

Modified Rail Bridge


Needed Improvements – Replace rotten cross bracing, bring approach fill to grade.

Improve/replace structures protecting trestle from ocean storm debris.

Storm debris at mouth of Crescent Lake Creek


6-24 February 2017 │ 273-4011-008

Saltair Creek | MP 841.17

New Trail Bridge

Remove existing structure and replace with steel pile and precast concrete slab.

Saltair Creek

At-Grade Rail Crossings Twenty-one ODOT Rail permitted crossings. With Rail-to-Trail solution, ODOT Rail would no longer have jurisdiction.

Possible Trailheads/Connector Trails Manhattan Beach State Park – Short connector trail or shared-use signing.

Small parking-only trailhead at MP 838.9, only direct view of ocean from rail corridor in entire study area other than Rockaway State Beach Wayside.

Rockaway State Beach Wayside.

Special Features No estuary frontage, so no estuary solutions required.

Miller Street one-way section Steep intersection with Miller Street

Man

hatta

nB

each

Roc

kaw

ayB

each

St

ate

Park

PA

CIF

IC O

CE

AN

See

Map

3A

Stan

d-al

one

Boa

rdw

alk

839

840

841

842

840.

66N

edon

na

Lak

e84

1.17

840.

284

1.29

839.

3484

0.7

Roc

kaw

ay B

eachLak

e L

ytle

Sea

view

Lak

eC

lear

Lak

eS

prin

gL

ake

Lak

eM

arie

Cre

scen

t L

ake

840.

983

9.4

839.

5984

084

0.09

840.

2984

0.79

841

841.

284

0.5

839.

29

839.

283

9.9

838.

5984

1.59

841.

784

1.84

839.

07

837.

3983

8

AREA

3 -

MP

837.

39 T

O 8

42JE

TTY

CREE

K TO

TW

IN R

OCK

SSa

lmon

berr

y Tr

ail C

oast

al P

lan

Tilla

moo

k Co

unty

, OR

01,

500

3,00

075

0Fe

et

Da

ta S

ourc

e: O

DO

T, T

illa

moo

k C

oun

ty, W

alk

er M

acy

Serv

ice

Laye

r: S

ourc

e: E

sri, D

igit

alG

lob

e, G

eoEy

e, E

art

hst

ar

Geo

gra

ph

ics,

CN

ES/A

irb

us

DS,

USD

A,

USG

S, A

EX,

Get

ma

pp

ing

, A

erog

rid

, IG

N,

IGP

,sw

isst

opo,

an

d t

he

GIS

Use

r C

omm

un

ity

Mile

post

A (OD

OT P

erm

itte

d)

t-G

rad

e Rai

l C

ross

ing

Rai

l Br

idge/

Tre

stle

Hig

hw

ay B

rid

ge

Un

der

cro

ssin

g

UG

B (2

01

4)

Estu

ary

Zo

nin

g

Estu

ary

Dev

elop

men

t (E

D)

Estu

ary

Conse

rvat

ion

2 (

EC-2

)

Estu

ary

Conse

rvat

ion

1 (

EC-1

)

Estu

ary

Conse

rvat

ion

Aq

uac

ult

ure

(EC

A)

Estu

ary

Nat

ura

l (E

N)

6

35

24

1B

ay C

ity

Gar

ibal

di

Man

zani

ta

Neh

alem

Roc

kaw

ayB

each

Tilla

moo

k

Whe

eler

1 in

ch =

1,5

00 fe

et

Rail

wit

h T

rail

Tra

il W

est

of

Rai

l

Tra

il E

ast

of

Rai

l

Sep

arat

e M

ult

i-U

se T

rail

Shar

ed U

se S

tree

t

Pro

pose

d W

all

Pro

pose

d P

latf

orm

Jetty

Creek

Saltair Creek

NedonnaCreek

Heitmiller Creek

McM

illa

nCre

ek

Sp

rin

gC

reek

NO

cean

St

The

Str

and

S 3rd Ave

t Sk r Pa

S M

arin

e St

S C

oral

St

S H

arbo

r St

S Is

land

St

S Pa

lisad

es S

t

N E

asy

StN

Dol

phin

St

N 1st Ave

N C

oral

St

NE 17th Ave

S D

olph

in S

t

S Ea

sy S

t

Kit t

i wak

eD

r

NE 19th Ave

S Q

uadr

ant S

t

N 6th Ave

S 6th Ave

Nec

arne

yA

ve

S Victoria Ave

SB

reak

erA

ve E Washington St

Dav

id A

veG

enev

a Av

e

S 2nd Ave

N 3rd Ave

Bea

ch D

rN

edon

na A

veN

Pac

ific

St

NE12thAve

NE

LakeBlvd

Rai

lroad

Paci

ficSt

Poss

ible

ne

w b

ridge

Way

side

SA

ncho

r St

SC

o ral

St

N P

acifi

c St

S3rdAve

N C

oral

St

S B

eaco

n St

N3rdAve

S2ndAve

S M

iller

St

SD

olph

inSt

N2ndAve

C

E

B

B

B

DC

C

A

A

B

C

A

A

A

Seav

iew

Lak

e

840.

9

840.

79

840.

5

840.

7

840.

66

Map

3A

Dow

ntow

n Ro

ckaw

ay B

each

Salm

onbe

rry

Trai

l Coa

st P

lan

Rail

with

Tra

il

015

030

075

Feet

Tra

il W

est

of

Rai

l

Tra

il E

ast

of

Rai

l

Sep

erat

e M

ult

i-U

se T

rail

Shar

ed U

se S

tree

t

Pref

erre

d op

tion

(req

uire

spa

rkin

g ch

ange

s - a

ngle

topa

ralle

l, bu

t add

s ad

ditio

nal

para

llel).

Use

s na

rrow

one

-way

stre

ets.

Pass

es b

ehin

d C

ham

ber o

fC

omm

erce

bui

ldin

g.

Use

s 2

bloc

k P

acifi

c S

treet

"byp

ass"

.

Req

uire

s w

aysi

de p

arki

ngch

ange

s.

Req

uire

s ne

w b

ridge

.

A B C D E

Brid

ge

At-

Gra

de

Rai

l C

ross

ing

Mile

post

––

A B D E

a

Mill

er S

tree

t nea

r Way

side


Final Plan Report

February 2017 │ 273-4011-008 6-27

6.4 Subarea 4 – Twin Rocks to Garibaldi West End Mile post 842 to 845.4 – Unincorporated communities Twin Rocks, Watseco, and Barview; Smith Lake.


East side (inland) of rail (Twin Rocks to Barview, MP 842 to 843.7).

Trail section from Barview (843.7) to approximately MP 844.27 requires complex special treatment (see Map 4A – Solutions 1 and 2).

West side (bayside) of rail (MP 844.27 to MP 845.4).

Primary Trail Cross Sections and Lengths See Subarea 4 and 4A maps for exact locations of different treatments.





Bypasses Concept Plan suggested US 101 as bypass from Twin Rocks to Barview, but not from Barview to

Garibaldi.

Given technical degree of difficulty with Rail-with-Trail south of Barview, US 101 bypass starting at MP 844.25 and ending at MP 845.4 was considered, but deemed technically impractical and prohibitively expensive.

Other Trail Solutions Three possible special solutions from Barview to approximately MP 844.27 (see Map 4A – Solutions 1 and 2).

Solution 1 (see Map 4A – Solution 1)

Two new at-grade rail crossings.

Reduced paved Trail widths (potentially down to 6 feet).

Reduced safety separations between rail and Trail.

One local roadway shared-use section.

Use of US 101 shoulders (across short section with sufficient room to widen shoulders).

New bicycle/pedestrian bridge overcrossing of the rail.

This solution is not recommended.


6-28 February 2017 │ 273-4011-008

Two 300-foot to 500-foot-long bridge approach ramps connecting to new bridge, including a potential ramp switchback for north side approach.

Solution 2 (see Map 4A – Solution 2)

Reduced Trail widths (mostly 8 to 10 feet; one 300-foot-long, 6-foot-wide section).

The 6-foot-wide section would require signing, lights, and/or gates to stop Trail traffic when train approaches.

One local roadway shared-use section.

Three new at-grade crossings.

Solution 3 (not mapped)

If the above-grade rip rap abutting the approximately 300-foot-long 6-foot-wide Trail section (see Solution 2) was cut down to grade, a standard-width platforms-on-piers solution could be constructed. The above-grade rip rap drops from head height to below waist level through this section. After 300 feet, the rip rap drops to at-grade and continues into Garibaldi. Rip rap modifications may be subject to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permitting and approval. There is conflicting information over agency jurisdiction, and future Trail builders will have to secure a definitive answer.

Significant Changes from Concept Plan Trail on east side (inland) of rail between MP 842 (Twin Rocks) and Barview rail crossing (Cedar

Street MP 843.7).

Fill solution south of Barview as proposed by Concept Plan not possible due to above-grade rip-rap and/or estuary zoning.

Rail Berm Widening Up to 18- to 20-foot widening to rail crown berm. Footprint of new berm could be 40 to 42 feet wide. Use of retaining walls could further reduce land needed for side slopes and would reduce footprint. Retaining walls required across Smith Lake, and platforms-on-piers required south of MP 844.27 into Garibaldi. Trail between Cedar Street (MP 843.7) and MP 844.25 requires complex combination of treatments (see Map 4A).

Bridges/Trestles Watseco Creek | MP 842.33

New Trail Bridge




At-Grade Rail Crossings Five ODOT Rail permitted crossings. ODOT Rail has jurisdiction over public street crossings. May require rail specific safety improvements.

This solution is recommended.


Final Plan Report

February 2017 │ 273-4011-008 6-29

Possible Trailheads/Connector Trails Barview Jetty County Park – Short connector trail or shared-use signing.

Existing trailhead parking lot at MP 844.15.

Widened gravel area for parking-only trailhead between rail and US 101 near 11th Street (MP 845.9) in Garibaldi.

Special Features Crosses Smith Lake on rail causeway, evidence of significant wind/water erosion on west side of

causeway.

See Map 4A for Barview solutions.

EC and EN zoning from Barview to 11th in Garibaldi, no estuary fill or alteration permitted.

Smith Lake causeway Oregon Coast Scenic Railroad

Rail corridor south of Barview Rail corridor approaching Garibaldi


6-30 February 2017 │ 273-4011-008






Concept Plan suggested US 101 as bypass from Twin Rocks to Barview, but not from Barview to Garibaldi.

Other Trail Solutions Reduced pathway width or split-mode may still be required for short Trail sections south of Barview.

Significant Changes from Concept Plan Fill solution proposed by Concept Plan not possible due to above-grade rip-rap and/or estuary

zoning.

Rail Berm Widening Six- to eight-foot widening to rail berm crown. Footprint of new berm could be 26 to 28 feet wide. Use of retaining walls could further reduce land needed for side slopes and would reduce footprint.

Bridges/Trestles Watseco Creek | MP 842.33

New Trail Bridge


At-Grade Rail Crossings Five ODOT Rail permitted crossings. With Rail-to-Trail, ODOT Rail would no longer have jurisdiction over public street crossings.

Possible Trailheads/Connector Trails Barview Jetty County Park, short connector

trail or shared-use signing.

Existing trailhead parking lot at MP 844.15.

Watseco Creek


Final Plan Report

February 2017 │ 273-4011-008 6-31

Widened gravel area for parking-only trailhead between rail and US 101 near 11th Street (MP 845.4) in Garibaldi.

Special Features Crosses Smith Lake on rail causeway, evidence of significant wind/water erosion on west side of

causeway.

EN and EC zoning from Barview to 11th in Garibaldi. No estuary fill or alteration permitted.


6-32 February 2017 │ 273-4011-008


Bar

view

Jet

tyC

ou

nty

Par

k

Twin

Ro

cks

Sta

te P

ark

11th

St

AmericanAve

See

Map

4A

842

843

845

844

844.

15

842.

33

845.

65

842.

09

843.

7

845.

46

842.

4

841.

84

845.

09

845.

4

844.

25

Gar

ibal

di

Roc

kaw

ay B

each

Til

lam

oo

k B

ayH

idd

en L

ake

Spri

ng

Lak

e

Sm

ith

Lak

e

AREA

4 -

MP

842

TO 8

45.4

TWIN

RO

CKS

TO G

ARIB

ALD

I WES

T EN

DSa

lmon

berr

y Tr

ail C

oast

al P

lan

Tilla

moo

k Co

unty

, OR

01,

000

2,00

050

0Fe

et

Da

ta S

ourc

e: O

DO

T,

Tilla

moo

k C

oun

ty,

Wa

lker

Ma

cySe

rvic

e La

yer:

Sou

rce:

Esr

i, D

igit

alG

lob

e, G

eoEy

e, E

art

hst

ar

Geo

gra

ph

ics,

CN

ES/A

irb

us

DS,

USD

A,

USG

S, A

EX,

Get

ma

pp

ing

, A

erog

rid

, IG

N,

IGP

,sw

isst

opo,

an

d t

he

GIS

Use

r C

omm

un

ity

Rail

road

Mile

post

A (OD

OT P

erm

itte

d)

t-G

rad

e R

ail C

ross

ing

Rai

l Br

idge/

Tre

stle

Hig

hw

ay B

rid

ge

Un

der

cro

ssin

g

UG

B (2

01

4)

Estu

ary

Zo

nin

g

Estu

ary

Dev

elop

men

t (E

D)

Estu

ary

Conse

rvat

ion

2 (

EC-2

)

Estu

ary

Conse

rvat

ion

1 (

EC-1

)

Estu

ary

Conse

rvat

ion

Aq

uac

ult

ure

(EC

A)

Estu

ary

Nat

ura

l (E

N)

6

35

24

1B

ay C

ity

Gar

ibal

di

Man

zani

ta

Neh

alem

Roc

kaw

ayB

each

Tilla

moo

k

Whe

eler

1 in

ch =

1,0

00 fe

et

Rail

wit

h T

rail

Tra

il W

est

of

Rai

l

Tra

il E

ast

of

Rai

l

Sep

arat

e M

ult

i-U

se T

rail

Shar

ed U

se S

tree

t

Pro

pose

d W

all

Pro

pose

d P

latf

orm

Brimmer Creek

Ro

ckC

reek

Lif

esav

ing

Cre

ek

HeitmillerCreek

Smit

hCr

eek

WatsecoCreek

Garibaldi Ave

Biak Ave

Oce

anvi

ewAv

e

4th

StS

3rd

St

8th

St7t

h St

6th

St

5th

St10th

St

Barview

Forest Rd

i

SPansySt

GingerAve

SVictoriaAve

S 7t

h St

Lake

side

DrFir Ave

Paci

fic S

t

Evergreen AveO

cean

Blv

d

Cypress Ave

3rd

St

Bayo

cean

Dike

Rd

Bay Ln

BirchAve

Driftwood Ave

Trai

lerP

ark

Rd

Old

Paci

ficHw

y

Barv

iew

Jetty

Park

Rd

Cedar St

Map

4A

1Ba

rvie

w To

Gar

ibal

di W

est E

dSa

lmo

berr

y Tr

ail C

oast

Pl

Rail

with

Tra

il

Tra

il W

est

of

Rai

l

Tra

il E

ast

of

Rai

l

Sep

arat

e M

ult

i-U

se T

rail

30

0 F

oot

Ram

p

50

0 F

oot

Ram

p

Shar

ed U

se S

tree

t

At-

Gra

de

Rai

l C

ross

ing

Mile

post

Cons

trai

ned

300-

foot

cor

ridor

Map

4A

2Ba

rvie

w To

Gar

ibal

di W

est E

dSa

lmo

berr

y Tr

ail C

oast

Pl

Rail

with

Tra

il

Tra

il W

est

of

Rai

l

Tra

il E

ast

of

Rai

l

30

0 F

oot

Spec

ial T

reat

men

t

Shar

ed U

se S

tree

t

Mile

post

At-

Gra

de

Rai

l C

ross

ing

Cons

trai

ned

right

-of-w

ay

Salm

onbe

rry

Trai

l Co

ast S

egm

ent P

lann

ing

Stud

y Fi

nal P

lan

Repo

rt

6-36

Fe

brua

ry 2

017 │

273-

4011

-008

Th

is pa

ge in

tent

iona

lly le

ft bl

ank.


Final Plan Report

February 2017 │ 273-4011-008 6-37

6.5 Subarea 5 – Garibaldi West End to Larson Cove South End Mile Post 845.4 to 849.27 – Downtown Garibaldi, Old Mill Site, Miami Cove, Larson Cove.


West side (bayside) of rail past Port of Garibaldi and Old Mill Site to Miami Cove (MP 845.4 to MP 846.32).

East side (inland) of rail to Miami River Bridge (MP 846.32 to MP 847).

West side (bayside/Miami Cove) of rail to Hobsonville Point Road (MP 847 to MP 847.4).

Crosses US 101 near Hobsonville Point Road and follows west side of rail to Larson Cove.





Widened Shoulder (S American Way) 1,065 LF


Bypasses Shared-use of S American Way between S 3rd Street and S 7th Street is recommended (as suggested in Concept Plan).

Hobsonville Point Road considered – too narrow and steep.

Concept Plan suggested using US 101 from Hobsonville Point Road to Larson Cove – widening requirements not feasible.

Other Trail Solutions Marine boardwalk and bridge crossing the upper end of Miami Cove between MP 846.31 and

847.13 (approximately 2,200 linear feet). This would be an alternative to following the Cove’s shoreline and would avoid highly constrained areas along US 101 and reduce tree removal.

Possible bridge flyover to cross US 101 at Hobsonville Point Road. Would be a challenging technical solution due to constrained space and private road access.

Significant Change from Concept Plan US 101 appears to be suggested as a primary solution in Concept Plan. Coast Plan recommends rail right-of-way as primary solution from Hobsonville Point Road to Larson Cove.


6-38 February 2017 │ 273-4011-008

Rail Berm Widening Up to 18 to 20 feet widening to rail berm crown. Footprint of new berm could be 40 to 42 feet wide. Use of retaining walls could further reduce land needed for side slopes and would reduce footprint.

Bridges/Trestles Miami River | MP 846.84


Steel cantilevered structure off of existing rail bridge using wood deck to support Trail pedestrian design load (no vehicle loading)

Length – 161 feet


Larson Creek | MP 849.14

New Trail Bridge

Steel pile and precast concrete slab



At-Grade Rail Crossings Four ODOT Rail permitted crossings. ODOT Rail has jurisdiction over public street crossings. May require rail specific safety improvements.

Possible Trailheads/Connector Trails None identified.

Special Features Rail crosses US 101 near Hobsonville Point Road. Trail crossing treatment will have to be decided in consultation with ODOT (see Technical Report No. 1, Appendix C).

Garibaldi fishing pier Hobsonville Point Road/US 101 Crossing


Final Plan Report

February 2017 │ 273-4011-008 6-39






Hobsonville Point Road considered – too narrow and steep.

Concept Plan appeared to suggest US 101 from Hobsonville Point Road to Larson Cove – widening requirements not feasible.


Significant Changes from Concept Plan Rail right-of-way suggested as primary solution (US 101 appears to be suggested as primary solution in Concept Plan).

Rail Berm Widening Six- to eight-foot widening to rail berm crown. Footprint of new berm could be 26 to 28 feet wide. Use of retaining walls could further reduce land needed for side slopes and would reduce footprint.

Bridges/Trestles Miami River | MP 846.84


Remove rails and crossties. Remove ballast, replace with aggregate base and asphalt paving. Upgrade safety railing on west side, install new matching metal rail on east side.

Needed Improvements – Midspan abutment should be investigated for scour from the river.

Miami River


6-40 February 2017 │ 273-4011-008

Larson Creek | MP 849.14


Remove rails and cross ties. Re-deck with steel crossbeams, wood deck and handrail.

Needed Improvements – Rip rap should be placed at end embankments to protect against scour and erosion.

At-Grade Rail Crossings Four ODOT Rail permitted crossings. With Rail-to-Trail, ODOT Rail would no longer have jurisdiction over public street crossings.

Possible Trailheads/Connector Trails None identified.

Special Features Rail crosses US 101 near Hobsonville Point Road. Trail crossing treatment will have to be decided in consultation with ODOT (see Technical Report No. 1, Appendix C). With Rail-to-Trail, there is the possibility of altering the angle and location of the crossing to intersect with Hobsonville Point Road with better sight lines.

South end of Larson Cove

Garibaldi Old Mill

Larson Creek

Hob

sonv

ille

Poin

t

Old

Mill

Lar

son

C

ove

Mia

mi C

ove

Poss

ible

B

oard

wal

k

Til

lam

ook

Bay

Bay

City

Gar

ibal

di

846.

84

849.

14

849.

27

846

847

848

849

846.

32

846.

3884

7.14

845.

65845.

46

845.

4

847.

4

AREA

5 -

MP

845.

4 TO

849

.27

GAR

IBAL

DI W

EST

END

TO

Salm

onbe

rry

Trai

l Coa

stal

Pla

nTi

llam

ook

Coun

ty, O

R

088

01,

760

440

Feet

Da

ta S

ourc

e: O

DO

T, T

illa

moo

k C

oun

ty, W

alk

er M

acy

Serv

ice

Laye

r: S

ourc

e: E

sri, D

igit

alG

lob

e, G

eoEy

e, E

art

hst

ar

Geo

gra

ph

ics,

CN

ES/A

irb

us

DS,

USD

A,

USG

S, A

EX,

Get

map

pin

g,

Aer

ogri

d,

IGN

, IG

P,

swis

stop

o, a

nd

th

e G

IS U

ser

Com

mu

nit

y

Rail

road

Mile

post

A (OD

OT P

erm

itte

d)

t-G

rad

e R

ail C

ross

ing

Rai

l Br

idge/

Tre

stle

Hig

hw

ay B

rid

ge

Un

der

cro

ssin

g

UG

B (2

01

4)

Estu

ary

Zo

nin

g

Estu

ary

Dev

elop

men

t (E

D)

Estu

ary

Conse

rvat

ion

2 (

EC-2

)

Estu

ary

Conse

rvat

ion

1 (

EC-1

)

Estu

ary

Conse

rvat

ion

Aq

uac

ult

ure

(EC

A)

Estu

ary

Nat

ura

l (E

N)

6

35

24

1B

ay C

ity

Gar

ibal

di

Man

zani

ta

Neh

alem

Roc

kaw

ayB

each

Tilla

moo

k

Whe

eler

1 in

ch =

875

feet

Rail

wit

h T

rail

Tra

il W

est

of

Rai

l

Tra

il E

ast

of

Rai

l

Sep

arat

e M

ult

i-U

se T

rail

Shar

ed U

se S

tree

t

Pro

pose

d W

all

Pro

pose

d P

latf

orm

11th

St

Biak Ave2n

d St

S 3r

d St

Mar

tin S

mith

Dr

8th

StM

oorin

g D

r

7th

St

6th

St

10th

St

Fran

klin

HollyAve

Miami River Rd

Hob

sonv

illePt Dr

GingerAve

FirAve

DriftwoodAve

Acacia Ave

Evergreen Ave

Fern St

S 7t

h St

1st

St

Cypress Ave

Hob

s on

Cre

ekRd

Hobs

onvi

llePo

intR

d

Pennsylvania St

BirchAve

Ariz

ona

Way

AmericanAve

EkrothRd

EGaribaldiAve

Garibaldi Ave

Miami River

Ele

ctri

cC

reek

Lar

son

Cre

ek

Salm

onbe

rry

Trai

l Co

ast S

egm

ent P

lann

ing

Stud

y Fi

nal P

lan

Repo

rt

6-42

Fe

brua

ry 2

017 │

273-

4011

-008

Th

is pa

ge in

tent

iona

lly le

ft bl

ank.


Final Plan Report

February 2017 │ 273-4011-008 6-43

6.6 Subarea 6 – South End Larson Cove to Tillamook Creamery Mile post 849.27 to 853.9 – South end of Larson Cove to Latimer Road North, includes all of Bay City. Coast Plan study area does not extend into the City of Tillamook.






Boardwalk/Bridge Approach 1,026 LF



Concept Plan suggested US 101 as partial bypass.

Other Trail Solutions A 1,026-linear-foot boardwalk connecting a possible new bridge across Hathaway Slough back to the rail right-of-way.

Significant Changes from Concept Plan None recommended.

Rail Berm Widening Up to 18 to 20 feet of widening to rail berm crown. Footprint of new berm could be 40 to 42 feet wide. Use of retaining walls could further reduce land needed for side slopes and would reduce footprint.

Bridges/Trestles Patterson Creek | MP 849.81

New Trail Bridge


Length – 125 feet, multispan structure



6-44 February 2017 │ 273-4011-008

Doty Creek | MP 851.23

New Trail Bridge




Vaughn Creek | MP 851.76

New Trail Bridge




Hathaway Slough | MP 852.09

New Trail Bridge

Steel pile and precast concrete slab. Relocate new bridge to the east of the existing rail trestle for a shorter crossing into the Nature Conservancy property. Will require wetland boardwalk for approach structure connecting back to rail right-of-way.



Stasek Slough | MP 852.43

New Trail Bridge

Steel pile and precast concrete slab.



Neilson Slough | MP 852.61

New Trail Bridge

Steel pile and precast concrete slab.



Kilchis River | MP 852.73


North approach trestle – Steel pile and precast concrete slab.




Final Plan Report

February 2017 │ 273-4011-008 6-45

Main span truss – Steel cantilevered structure off of existing rail bridge using wood deck to support Trail pedestrian design load (no vehicle loading).

Length – 142 feet


South approach trestle – Steel pile with precast concrete slab.



At-Grade Rail Crossings Five ODOT Rail permitted crossings. ODOT Rail has jurisdiction over public street crossings. May require rail specific safety improvements.

Possible Trailheads/Connector Trails Kilchis Park Reserve – short connector trail or shared-use signing leading from the Trail to

Reserve parking lots.

Kilchis Park Reserve – short connector trail to Reserve’s south end Trail/maintenance access roadway.

Special Features New bicycle/pedestrian bridge that crosses the west side of The Nature Conservancy–owned

Hathaway Slough (MP 852.09) at a right angle is a possibility. Would reduce Trail bridge length considerably; approach ramp/boardwalk along slough’s south edge required to return to rail right-of-way.

Trail under US 101 bridge (MP 853.26) north of Tillamook Creamery will have to briefly switch to east side (inland) to avoid highway bridge support column.

Pacific Seafood and Patterson Creek Bay City oyster shells


6-46 February 2017 │ 273-4011-008






2015 Concept Plan suggested US 101 as bypass.


Significant Changes from Concept Plan None recommended.

Rail Berm Widening Six to eight feet of widening to rail berm crown. Footprint of new berm could be 26 to 28 feet wide. Use of retaining walls could further reduce land needed for side slopes and would reduce footprint.

Bridges/Trestles

Patterson Creek | MP 849.81



Patterson Creek


Final Plan Report

February 2017 │ 273-4011-008 6-47

Doty Creek | MP 851.23



Rail-with-Trail – Steel pile with precast concrete slab.



Doty Creek

Vaughn Creek | MP 851.76



Needed Improvements – Replace rotten stringers as needed.

Vaughn Creek

Hathaway Slough | MP 852.09




Hathaway Slough


6-48 February 2017 │ 273-4011-008

Stasek Slough | MP 852.43




Stasek Slough

Neilson Slough | MP 852.61



Needed Improvements – Replace rotten stringers and caps as needed.

Neilson Slough

Kilchis River | MP 852.73



Needed Improvements – Replace rotten stringers and cross bracing as needed.

Kilchis River


Final Plan Report

February 2017 │ 273-4011-008 6-49

At-Grade Rail Crossings Five ODOT Rail permitted crossings. With Rail-to-Trail, ODOT Rail would no longer have jurisdiction over public street crossings.

Possible Trailheads/Connector Trails Kilchis Park Reserve – short connector trail or shared-use signing leading from Trail to Reserve

parking lots.

Kilchis Park Reserve – short connector trail to Reserve’s south end Trail/maintenance access roadway.

Special Features None.


6-50 February 2017 │ 273-4011-008


Kil

chis

P

oin

tR

ese

rve

Sew

age

Plan

tTi

llam

ook

Cre

amer

y

4th St

Paci

fic

Seaf

ood

Jetty

Wil

son

Riv

er

Kilchis

Riv

er

NeilsonSlough

Nat

ure

Con

serv

ancy

850

852

Bay

City

Tilla

moo

k

Bay

Cit

y R

eser

voir

Til

lam

ook

Bay

851

853

851.

5985

0.7

852.

7

853.

985

0.29

849.

984

9.81

849.

14

851.

23

851.

76

852.

09

852.

4385

2.73

852.

61

853.

26

849.

27

01,

500

3,00

075

0Fe

et

Da

ta S

ourc

e: O

DO

T,

Til

lam

ook

Cou

nty

, W

alk

er M

acy

Serv

ice

Laye

r: S

ourc

e: E

sri, D

igit

alG

lob

e, G

eoEy

e, E

art

hst

ar

Geo

gra

ph

ics,

CN

ES/A

irb

us

DS,

USD

A,

USG

S, A

EX,

Get

ma

pp

ing

, A

erog

rid

, IG

N,

IGP

,sw

isst

opo,

an

d t

he

GIS

Use

r C

omm

un

ity

Rail

road

Mile

post

A (OD

OT P

erm

itte

d)

t-G

rad

e R

ail C

ross

ing

Rai

l Br

idge/

Tre

stle

Hig

hw

ay B

rid

ge

Un

der

cro

ssin

g

UG

B (2

01

4)

Estu

ary

Zo

nin

g

Estu

ary

Dev

elop

men

t (E

D)

Estu

ary

Conse

rvat

ion

2 (

EC-2

)

Estu

ary

Conse

rvat

ion

1 (

EC-1

)

Estu

ary

Conse

rvat

ion

Aq

uac

ult

ure

(EC

A)

Estu

ary

Nat

ura

l (E

N)

6

35

24

1B

ay C

ity

Gar

ibal

di

Man

zani

ta

Neh

alem

Roc

kaw

ayB

each

Tilla

moo

k

Whe

eler

1 in

ch =

1,5

00 fe

et

Rail

wit

h T

rail

Tra

il W

est

of

Rai

l

Tra

il E

ast

of

Rai

l

Sep

arat

e M

ult

i-U

se T

rail

Shar

ed U

se S

tree

t

Pro

pose

d W

all

Pro

pose

d P

latf

orm

849.

14

849.

27

Doughty Rd

5th S

t

6th S

t9th

St

Pike Rd

Short St

WillowbrookDr

ASt

7th S

t

Sunset

Salmon St Warr

en S

t

13th St

15th

St

Pacific

St

SRidgeD

r

E St

14th

St

B St

SpruceSt

D St

Salem

St

Trade Ave

High St

Bewley

St

William

s St

Suppress Rd N

Hal

l Rd

Fern St

Walz Hill Rd

Ocean St

d N

Idav

ille

Rd

Latimer

Rd N

McCoy Ave

Seattle

Ave

Elec

tric

Creek

Rd

Main St

Baseli

ne RdTilla

mook Ave

Vaug

hn R

d

Alde

rbro

ok R

d

Ellen Ave

KilchisRiverRdHathaw

ay R

d

Patterson Creek Rd

Possett

iRd

Squeedunk R

d

Boquist Rd N

Makinster R

d

Hobso n ville

Poin

tRd

Doty

Cre

ek

Larson

Cre

ek

Stas

ekSl

ough

Patterso

nCreek

Hat

haw

aySlou

gh

VaughnCre

ek

AREA

-

MP

845.

4 TO

8 T

O

Salm

onbe

rry

Trai

l Coa

stal

Pla

nTi

llam

ook

Coun

ty, O

R

Salm

onbe

rry

Trai

l Co

ast S

egm

ent P

lann

ing

Stud

y Fi

nal P

lan

Repo

rt

6-52

Fe

brua

ry 2

017 │

273-

4011

-008

Th

is pa

ge in

tent

iona

lly le

ft bl

ank.


Final Plan Report

February 2017 │ 273-4011-008 7-1

7. COAST SEGMENT COST ESTIMATES Cost estimates provided in this Final Plan Report are plan level, but are considerably more detailed and comprehensive than what was possible in prior Salmonberry Trail reports (2013 Feasibility Study and 2015 Concept Plan).

Final engineered-level Trail alignments and associated construction costs will be determined by future preliminary and final design/engineering, actual permitting requirements, and construction factors and contingencies at the time of development. For details on the cost estimates included on the 2013 Feasibility Study and 2015 Concept Plan, see Technical Reports Nos. 1 and 2.

This chapter details the general assumptions underlying new plan-level cost estimates. Four distinct estimates were developed. Initially, Rail-with-Trail and Rail-to-Trail estimates were based on the State of Oregon standard paved multiuse Trail width of 12 feet. After review of these initial estimates by the CSPAC, a second state standard was also costed based on a paved Trail width of 10 feet. Costs of widening the rail berm associated with differing Trail types are embedded in the cost estimates.

Cost assumptions include percentage factors for design/engineering and permitting that vary by degree of difficulty. For example, Trail permitting and building will be more complex along the Nehalem and Tillamook Bay estuaries than through downtown Rockaway Beach or Garibaldi.

Table 7-1. Trail Cost Summary

Rail-with-Trail Rail-to-Trail

Subarea 12-foot-width 10-foot-width 12-foot-width 10-foot-width

1 $ 17,550,000 $ 15,429,000 $ 6,262,000 $ 5,729,000

2 $ 36,013.000 $ 29,931,000 $ 7,882,000 $ 7,211,000

3 $ 17,331,000 $ 16,249,000 $ 10,113,000 $ 9,218,000

4 $ 22,846,000 $ 19,613,000 $ 7,426,000 $ 6,865,000

5 $ 20,293,000 $ 17,590,000 $ 8,501,000 $ 7,761,000

6 $ 25,500,000 $ 21,528,000 $ 11,491,000 $ 10,083,000

Total $ 139,133,000 $ 120,340,000 $ 51,725,000 $ 46,867,000

See Appendix A for complete cost estimating details.

7.1 Cost Estimate Assumptions

7.1.1 Features Not Estimated and Special Features Technical Reports Nos. 1 and 2 left open the possibility for more than one Rail-WITH-Trail solution through some portions of the study area, as well as for some site-specific alternatives. By Coast Segment subarea, the options identified in these technical reports that are not included in the current cost estimates are identified on pp. 7-2 and 7-3. Other special cost considerations are also identified below.


7-2 February 2017 │ 273-4011-008

Subarea 1 – Mohler to Paradise Cove A general cost factor for repaving Marine Drive through the City of Wheeler as part of Rail-with-

Trail development is included for this subarea. The extent of road reconstruction/re-paving needed will be determined by final Trail design/engineering and may reflect other new development or redevelopment along Marine Drive at that time (see Map 1A).

Through the Deslonna Resort area just outside of Wheeler (see Map 1B), a hybrid shared-use solution is suggested. Seven feet of new rail right-of-way or easement would have to be acquired to construct a paved multiuse Trail surface wholly within public property due to the off-center location of the existing rail line within the right-of-way. In exchange, it is suggested that a 20-foot width of the resort’s private access road along the rail line be paved (the 20-foot width includes a Trail-designated portion).

Subarea 2 – Paradise Cove to Jetty Creek Trail option on east (inland) side of rail at Jetty Marina is not costed – this east option would add

two new rail crossings and reduce off-highway parking (see Map 2A).

Subarea 3 – Jetty Creek to Twin Rocks Technical Reports Nos. 1 and 2 identified the possibility of closing some local streets intersecting

with US 101 north of the Rockaway State Beach Wayside. Closures are suggested for highway safety purposes and to limit the probable increase in street grades where the Trail crosses local streets. The closures would be between N 21st Avenue and N 3rd Avenue. The actual number of closures, and the improvements needed or desirable, are beyond the scope of the Coast Plan, and are not costed.

Options B, C, D and E (see Map 3A) through downtown Rockaway Beach and the Rockaway State Beach Wayside are not costed. Option A is the most direct and least expensive Trail solution, as well as being most consistent with the adopted City Downtown Transportation Plan.

Subarea 4 – Twin Rocks to Garibaldi West End Solution 1 south of Barview (see Map 4A) requires a new rail overcrossing. This Solution 1 is not

recommended over an at-grade option (Solution 2), and therefore is not costed.

Solution 3 involves removal of rip rap along a 300-foot section of estuary shoreline and is not costed. Although this solution has some advantages in making the Rail-with-Trail option more feasible and less costly, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) permitting and management requirements may prove impossible to meet. Unverified information from OCSR, based on a field discussion with USACE staff, indicates that this rip rap may not be in USACE jurisdiction. If so, Solution 3 becomes more viable.

Subarea 5 – Garibaldi West End to Larson Cove South End A 2,200-linear-foot marine boardwalk across the upper end of Miami Cove, including a bridge

section over the main channel of the Miami River, is illustrated on the Subarea 5 map. This boardwalk solution would eliminate extensive tree cutting along the scenic and highly visible upper end of the Cove, and avoid Trail construction along a part of the most highly constrained


Final Plan Report

February 2017 │ 273-4011-008 7-3

section of the rail berm in Subarea 5. Nonetheless, the probable cost and permitting complexity of the marine boardwalk option would be high. This solution is not costed.

A bridge over US 101 near the Hobsonville Point Road intersection is not costed. Probable interference with access to abutting residential development and the close proximity of US 101 to the rail berm in this location would make a new bridge overcrossing very expensive relative to the at-grade signalization option.

Subarea 6 – Larson Cove South End to Tillamook Creamery None

Additional Features Not Costed Additional features described in the two Technical Reports Nos. 1 and 2, but not costed, are trailheads and connector trails. Such features are not part of the Coast Plan scope. Possible locations of these features are noted for informational purposes only.

Refer to mapping and text in these two technical reports for more information on the Trail types, structures, and features that are not costed.

7.1.2 Construction Trail type lengths, and a number of special features (such as lengths of platforms-on-piers and retaining walls), are based on the Trail alignments and types identified and mapped as part of Technical Reports Nos. 1 and 2. Trail linear foot distances and the need for special features and structures for various Trail types were first identified in the field and then measured using GIS-based technology.

Unit costs for different Trail types were developed based on prior experience with, and construction cost documentation for, similar structures. The direct experience of the Coast Plan consulting team in building trails, and the experience of government agencies that plan and build trails in the State of Oregon, were referenced. These include Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation, Metro, City of Portland, other local municipalities, Oregon Department of Transportation, and OPRD.

These unit costs were then multiplied by the estimated GIS-based linear distance or the number of each given type or feature. Costs associated for modifying or replacing rail bridges and trestles for Trail purposes are based on the individual assessments provided in Technical Report No. 2. All cost estimate factors and unit costs were given a peer review by a professional engineer not otherwise associated with the development this Coast Plan.

Rail Berms CAD cross sections were developed to help in estimating quantities. The starting point for rail berm widening requirements is based on a rail berm crown width of 8 feet. The rail berm crown width varies

Note: All costs are based on circa 2016 factors. Estimated costs should be fully reevaluated at the time of preliminary design/engineering. Since the timing and phasing of Trail construction remains an open question, and may extend out for 20 years or more, the application of a construction cost index is not a particularly valuable exercise. Cost estimates are also subject to full design and engineering.


7-4 February 2017 │ 273-4011-008

less than a foot across the entire study area. Widened berm side slopes are assumed at 2:1 or 3:1 depending on local conditions.

Rail berm height varies across the study area. Berms that cross agricultural areas and dairy lands are typically higher than the average. Berms through incorporated communities or rural commercial areas tend to be lower than average across the entire study area, or in some cases are effectively at-grade. At the time of full design/engineering costing, this may mean that the berm widening factor for some Trail sections may prove less (or more) expensive. Berm widening was estimated for the four Rail-with-Trail and Rail-to-Trail alternatives.

The cost of rail berm widening is included in all cross section unit costs.

Retaining Walls The cost differential between Rail-with-Trail and Rail-to-Trail solutions that require retaining walls is primarily a factor of the height of the retaining wall. Rail-with-Trail cost estimates assume a 5-foot average retaining wall height, always on the bayside of the berm. Rail-to-Trail cost estimates assume a 3-foot average wall height, plus flexibility in siting the berm widening as a result of rail removal (rail removal is costed separately).

Fewer retaining walls are required for the Rail-to-Trail solution. Given that along the estuaries there is typically only a 6- to 8-foot separation between the rail and edge of the slope into the estuary, some retaining walls will still be necessary.

Platforms-on-Piers To help contain costs, a 16-foot-wide platform system assembled with four prefabricated concrete hollow-core deck panels, each 4 feet wide, is specified for the 12-foot-wide Trail option. Safety railings would be attached to the outside edge of the structure. This maintains the full equivalent width of a multiuse Trail with shoulders. If a 10-foot-wide Trail surface standard is selected to contain costs, the platform would consist of three panels (12 feet wide).

Bridges/Trestles/Boardwalks New Trail Bridges – Primarily for Rail-with-Trail options. Costs are based on site-specific factors

such as bridge length, features crossed, and accessibility. All new bridges are assumed to be prefabricated and will carry the Trail only. Rail service would continue on the existing rail bridges and trestles. Cost estimates are for two versions of new bridges for each crossing: one version would connect to a 12-foot-wide paved Trail and the second to a 10-foot-wide paved Trail.

Modified Rail Bridges – For Rail-to-Trail options, costs are based on site-specific factors such as length and condition of bridge/trestle. Modifications typically include any needed structural repairs, removal of rail infrastructure, installation of new decking, and safety railings. Modification will vary slightly depending on whether the intersecting Trail is a 12-foot-wide paved surface or a 10-foot-wide paved surface.

New Boardwalk – Two new standalone wetland boardwalks are included in costed alternatives – near Nedonna Lake (Subarea 3, MP 838.59) and along Hathaway Slough (Subarea 6, MP 852.09).


Final Plan Report

February 2017 │ 273-4011-008 7-5

Streets/Rail Lines Existing Rail Infrastructure – Rail-to-Trail cost estimates include a factor for removing rail

infrastructure: rails, ties, switches, etc.

US 101 Crossing – Only applies to the crossing of US 101 near Hobsonville Point Road (Subarea 4, MP 847.4). Solution is site-specific and involves creating a right-angle, at-grade crossing of the highway for both Rail-with-Trail and Rail-to-Trail options. New signalization and warning beacons as specified by ODOT (see Technical Report No. 1, Appendix C) are included.

Railroad Crossing Improvements – Applies to new rail crossings by the Trail only. High-order estimate only ($20,000 per crossing), as ODOT Rail could not provide more specific information or advice.

Local Street Crossings (high visibility pavement markings and warning signage) – In some cases, minor re-grading and paving could be required. Such re-grading/paving is not estimated.

Widened Shoulder – The only shared-use street recommended is S American Way in Garibaldi (Subarea 5, MP 845.46 to MP 845.65). Because of the mix and volume of vehicular traffic on this roadway, this section is costed with a widened shoulder on one side of the street to improve safety. Shared-use pavement markings and signing are embedded in the shoulder widening cost. OCSR has indicated that they have no issue with Rail-with-Trail being used through this section, but as shared-use is less expensive than a new Trail pathway surface, the recommendation is to stay with the shared-use solution.

Marine Drive in Wheeler may have to be rebuilt after construction impacts from Rail-with-Trail development. This is assumed to be a Trail development cost.

7.1.3 Other Cost Elements Major retrofits to existing drainage systems, such as the open vegetated swale drainage through

most of Rockaway Beach that will have to be piped to accommodate a Rail-with-Trail solution, are embedded directly in estimated costs of Trail construction.

Trail Amenities – Wayfinding signs, benches, etc.: $5,000/every 1,000 linear feet.

Special Signalization – South of Barview (Subarea 4, MP 844.15) Solution 2 (Map 4A) – The 300-foot-long highly confined section of this Trail solution will require flashing warning beacons and other signalization and signing to assure rail-trail user safety. One new crossing of the rail by the Trail is embedded in this estimate.

7.1.4 Permitting Trail permitting is estimated as a percentage of the construction cost, with an additional calculation applied for areas where environmental permitting is anticipated to be especially complex, such as along estuaries and wetlands or across streams and sloughs. “Base permitting” is embedded in the preliminary engineering percentage (15 percent).

Note: If Rail-to-Trail is the selected option, ODOT Rail would no longer have jurisdiction, and ordinary local street crossing improvements would be used (see Local Street Crossings at left).


7-6 February 2017 │ 273-4011-008

Estuary/wetland permitting primarily applies to Rail-with-Trail solutions. There are, however, a few Trail sections where permitted fill and retaining walls may still be required for Rail-to-Trail, e.g., where the Trail uses the Smith Lake railroad causeway. Estuary/water body and other environmental permitting is assumed as a separate 10 percent of construction cost.

The Coast Plan only recommends trail types and treatments that comply with state and local land use and transportation plans, and local zoning regulations, particularly for the sections of the Trail along the Tillamook Bay and Nehalem River estuaries. This notwithstanding, Trail construction may require conditional use permits or other local land use or state approvals.

Finally, as noted and described elsewhere is this Final Plan Report and in Technical Reports Nos. 1 and 2, both ODOT Highway and ODOT Rail may have jurisdiction over Trail crossings, and local cities and the County may also require construction and other permits for building the Trail and/or altering roadways that are crossed or used by the Trail.

Environmental Permitting Although platforms-on-piers have been determined to be an acceptable solution to building a Trail within the estuary under local and state estuary codes, this does not mean that these structures will be automatically permitted. The same applies to the many new bridges that may cross streams and sloughs. Permitting will involve multiple agencies.

The proposed Trail will cross two rivers, numerous streams and sloughs, fresh water and marine wetlands, and extend into as much as 6 miles of estuarine resources. Crossing will be done using a variety of means – fill (freshwater only), culverts, new bridges, modified existing bridges, boardwalks, and platforms-on-piers. Alteration of existing rip rap is also a possibility in some limited areas.

Such water resources and crossing structures are regulated under state and federal laws. Upwards of 18 environmental permits, approvals, and other processes may be necessary to qualify for state or federal funding and/or prior to construction of the Trail. Federal funding may potentially require more detailed assessments for the built and natural environments.

The possible local, state, and federal environmental permits and approvals that are in effect or could be triggered by the Trail are listed below.

Table 7-2. Probable Environmental Permitting

Regulation or Permit Type Reviewing Agency Applicability

Waters and Wetlands

Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 Permit

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Required for fill within waters of the United States, including wetlands, streams, and estuaries.

Oregon Removal and Fill Permit Oregon Department of State Lands

Required for removal or fill within waters of the state, including wetlands, streams, and estuaries.

CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

Required for fill within waters of the United States and prior to issuance of Section 404 CWA permit from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 Waterway Structures Permit


Required for placement of structures within waters currently or historically used, or susceptible to use, in the interstate or foreign commerce, including waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide. These


Final Plan Report

February 2017 │ 273-4011-008 7-7

Regulation or Permit Type Reviewing Agency Applicability waterways likely include Nehalem Bay, Nehalem River, Tillamook Bay, and Tillamook River.

Section 408 CWA Review and Authorization of Alteration of Federal Projects (e.g., levees or navigation channels)


Required for alteration of any federal project overseen by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, including federally built or operated levees or navigation channels.

General Bridge Permit U.S. Coast Guard Required for construction or alteration of a bridge or other crossing of a Coast Guard navigable waterway. These waterways include Nehalem Bay and Nehalem River to river mile 7.3.

State Navigable Waters Lease or Easement

Oregon Department of State Lands

Required for placement of wharfs, bridges, utility lines, etc. over, on, or under state-owned submerged or submersible lands.

Oregon 1200-C Construction Permit

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

Required for construction sites disturbing one acre or more.

Local natural resources overlay zones for development in estuarine zones.

Various city and county development departments

Required for local development permits. Land use consistency statement is a necessary element for approvals from Department of Environmental Quality and Department of State Lands.

Fish and Wildlife

Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation

National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Required when a federal action (federal funding or a permit) may affect a species or its habitat listed under the federal Endangered Species Act. Listed species and habitats would likely include Oregon Coast coho salmon, northern spotted owl, marbled murrelet, western snowy plover, short-tailed albatross, Nelson’s checker-mallow, sea turtles, and whales.

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation Management Act

National Marine Fisheries Service

Required when federal actions may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat, defined as those waters and substrate necessary to specific fish for “spawning, breeding, and feeding, for growth to maturity.” This process is usually conducted in tandem with Endangered Species Act consultation.

Marine Mammal Protection Act National Marine Fisheries Service

Required when any action might kill or harass a marine mammal in a way that might injure an individual or disturb normal behavior. Substantial construction within coastal bays and rivers, particularly near breeding, rearing, or haul-out locations might require incidental harassment authorization for short-term harassment or a letter of authorization for serious injury or long-term harassment.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Requires that all entities refrain from actions to pursue, hunt, take, kill, sell, purchase, transport, or receive any migratory birds (including parts, nests,


7-8 February 2017 │ 273-4011-008

Regulation or Permit Type Reviewing Agency Applicability eggs, or other products, manufactured or not). This includes destruction of active nests during vegetation clearing or other construction activities. An incidental take permit process is being reviewed, but is not available at this time.

Oregon Fish Passage Act Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

Requires the owner of any artificial obstruction in waters in which native migratory fish are currently or were historically present to address fish passage during new construction, major replacement, or abandonment. Requires approval of fish passage plan for new or modified bridges and culverts.

Oregon State Endangered Species Act

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

Requires actions by Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife for conservation planning, but allows for issuance of an incidental take permit to individuals if “harm” or other “take” of species listed by the state but not the federal government is likely. The species covered under this provision within the project area is the brown pelican.

Archaeological and Historic Resources

Section 106 National Historic Preservation Act

Oregon State Historic Preservation Office

Requires federal agencies that fund or approve project to assess effects on historic properties, and includes coordination with tribes that may attach religious or cultural importance to them.

Other Processes

Coastal Zone Management Act Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development and local governments

Requires that any federal action occurring in or outside of a state’s coastal zone, which has a reasonably foreseeable effect on land uses, water uses, or natural resources of the coastal zone, must be consistent with enforceable policies contained in the state’s federally approved coastal management plan. A project must be consistent with enforceable policies contained within statewide planning goals, local comprehensive plans and land use regulations, and specific state agency authorities.

National Environmental Policy Act All federal agencies Required for federal agency actions to assess potential effects on the built and natural environment. Documentation ranges from a categorical exclusion checklist to a multi-year, multi-stakeholder environmental impact statement.

Environmental Mitigation As noted in Technical Report No. 2, environmental mitigation for the impacts of the platforms-on-piers solution on the estuaries will be required. A total of $1.2 million is included in cost estimates to account for this mitigation. Additional mitigation may be required for new Trail bridge crossings of streams, sloughs, and rivers. Other estuary restoration activities and projects, although highly desirable, are not a direct project activity and are not costed.


Final Plan Report

February 2017 │ 273-4011-008 7-9

The platforms-on-piers solution is the only permitted means to build the Rail-with-Trail option for approximately 6 miles of the Coast Segment. Widening the rail berm and constructing platforms will essentially result in the complete removal of adjacent upland trees and vegetation. Some of these cleared areas will be highly visible to US 101 and local communities (for example, the upper end of Miami Cove). Re-vegetation and tree planting should be included in addition to any estuary mitigation. The cost of upland re-vegetation is, however, not costed in this Final Plan Report.

Bridge Permitting Considerations Permitting for the re-decking of existing rail bridges/trestles for Rail-to-Trail solutions, even across estuary waters, is assumed to involve only “base permitting.” Estuary, estuarine slough, and freshwater stream or water body impacts from Rail-to-Trail bridge reconstruction activities should be limited. Such construction will nonetheless have to be managed to keep debris and other construction materials and wastes out of the water body.

Rail-with-Trail permitting for new Trail bridges may also only involve base permitting, if bridges are prefabricated off-site and/or can be installed by placing or constructing bridge support structures outside of ordinary high water or any other regulated water body boundaries. This would not apply to platforms-on-piers along the estuary. Platforms-on-piers are by definition and use within regulated estuary zones, and the 10 percent estuary permitting factor is applied uniformly.

7.1.5 Design and Engineering Trail design and engineering, and construction management and other contingencies, are estimated as percentages of construction cost.

Preliminary Engineering 15 percent

Construction Engineering 15 percent

Construction Contingencies 15 percent

7.2 Cost Mitigation Measures In response to the cost estimates first published in Technical Report No. 2, the CSPAC considered a range of cost mitigation possibilities listed in Technical Report No. 2. The CSPAC directed that one such measure – reducing the basic paved Trail width to 10 feet – be costed as an alternative to a 12-foot-wide paved Trail.

The following identifies some of the issues, means, and limitations around reducing costs.

7.2.1 Key Cost Parameters In considering cost mitigation possibilities, three key parameters must be kept in mind: funding sources for Trail construction, the types and volume of Trail users/conveyances, and specific structural and geographic limitations.

Funding Sources for Trail Construction The Salmonberry Trail is intended for use as a regional multiuse trail. The State of Oregon’s basic standard for such trails are a 10- to 12-foot-wide paved pathway with 2-foot-wide shoulders. A 10-foot width is categorized as the “typical minimum in rural area,” and 12 feet (or wider) for “high mixed use”


7-10 February 2017 │ 273-4011-008

trail. The potential for the Coast Segment in summer months is for high mixed use. Widths down to 8 feet are allowed for areas with “few users and/or space constraints.”

The practical reality is that building a trail of the magnitude of the Salmonberry will require state capital construction funding (which is typically, but not always, a federally sourced pass-through). To be eligible for state funding, the Trail must conform the following width standards (Table 7-3). This is analogous to the standards for Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility. To qualify for state/federal funding given ADA requirements, trails must not exceed 5 percent grade, except in constrained areas where up to 8 percent is allowed.

Table 7-3. ODOT Trail Width Standards

Two-Way Bike/Ped (unless otherwise noted)

Trail Width

One-way cyclist or pedestrian 6’

Few users and/or space constraints 8’

Typical minimum in rural area 10’

Urban and suburban mixed use 12’

High mixed use, faster/ commuting bicyclists 12’+

For allowed variances to standards for Trail width and ADA grades, “it’s too costly” is not a viable justification. It must be demonstrated that there are no practical alternatives. One such clearly constrained Coast Segment area with respect to width is the approximately 3,000 linear feet of rail corridor immediately south of Barview. This is the one area of the Coast Segment where Trail widths less than 10 feet may be necessary.

If Trail builders and managers find ways to fund the Trail without state/federal money, the width (and surface and grade) of the Trail can be varied as the future builder(s) and funder(s) see fit.

Types and Volumes of Trail Users/Conveyances An often-heard response, even absent cost considerations, is that 12 feet (or 10 feet) is “awfully wide just for bikes, you could drive a truck down something that big.” In answering this question, consider the types of users and vehicles that will travel the future Trail. Regional multiuse trails are two-way facilities used by widely varied skills based on age, physical condition, reason for being on the Trail, etc. There will also be a wide range of user types and speeds – touring bicycles, joggers, tricycles, baby strollers, wheelchairs and other mobility devices, local walkers, long-distance hikers, skateboards, etc. In some regions (Metro Portland for instance), 14-foot paved widths are now being considered, and even lane striping is used.

Success will be spelled by a busy Trail, and inadequate Trail width could contribute significantly to diminished user experience and Trail functionality over time.


Final Plan Report

February 2017 │ 273-4011-008 7-11

Specific Coast Segment Structural Features The biggest structural factors in Trail cost differences between the 12-foot-wide Rail-with-Trail and Rail-to-Trail options are listed below. In addition, permitting and environmental mitigation for platforms-on-piers will be more expensive.

Platforms-on-Piers – Platforms-on-piers along the estuaries are not required for Rail-to-Trail.

Retaining Walls – Fewer retaining wall are required for Rail-to-Trail.

New Bridges – Rail-to-Trail can re-use the existing rail bridges/trestles with straightforward modifications to the decking. Rail-with-Trail will require new bridges for both structural and functional reasons.

Table 7-4. Key Trail Construction Cost Differences

Platforms-on-piers + $30.67 million

More retaining walls + $9.74 million

More complex permitting + $5.64 million

New bridges + $4.31 million

Wetland boardwalks + $1.99 million

Estuary mitigation + $1.19 million

Note: Table 7-4 indicates net difference from Rail-to-Trail. For example, modified bridges/trestles are estimated at $2,617,000. New replacement bridges for Rail-with-Trail are estimated at $6,924,800. The net difference is $4,307,800.

7.2.2 Cost Mitigation Possibilities The following list is modified and expanded from the one published in Technical Report No. 2.

1. Trail Pathway Width – At the direction of the CSPAC, a full new cost estimate based on a 10-foot-wide paved Trail surface was produced and is included in this Final Plan Report. Below 10 feet, unless a case can be made that a particular section is physically confined (such as south of Barview), the Trail would no longer be classified as regional multiuse and would not be eligible for significant sources of state/federal construction funding. The Trail’s functionality for multiple user types and conveyances also diminishes as the pathway is narrowed.

2. Berm Widening – The width of the berm is also reduced in conjunction with a reduction in the width of the paved Trail pathway. However, additional widening in the future (say in response to increasing Trail usage) may be even more expensive, particularly where retaining walls or platforms-on-piers may have to be removed and rebuilt to accommodate the widening.

3. Platforms-on-Piers Width – Platforms-on-piers are the single most costly (and essentially unavoidable) solution for the Trail along the Tillamook Bay and Nehalem River estuaries. The platforms for a 12-foot-wide Trail are scoped using four 4-foot-wide prefabricated deck panels for a total width of 16 feet. With the use of a 10-foot-wide paved Trail as the standard, this could be reduced to three panels for a 12-foot-wide platform.

4. Retaining Walls – For the Rail-to-Trail solution, berm widening is considerably more flexible than for Rail-with-Trail. The rail line is a fixed point, meaning widening can occur only on one side of the rail


7-12 February 2017 │ 273-4011-008

for Rail-with-Trail. For Rail-to-Trail, widening can occur all on one side, on both sides equally, or partly on one side and a wider or narrower part on the other. Fewer retaining walls (and no platforms-on-piers) are required for Rail-to-Trail.

At design/engineering phases for Rail-to-Trail, it may be possible to place more of the widening on the inland side of the berm to reduce the total linear footage of retaining walls needed. One caution with widening and walls on the inland side is the evidence of frequent landslides throughout the Coast Segment. Moving the Trail closer to inland slopes could magnify the impacts of slides.

5. Width of Bridges – Reducing the width of new Trail bridges has essentially the same set of issues (and cost benefits) as reduced width of pathways, platforms, and/or berms. If a 10-foot-wide paved Trail standard is ultimately selected, new bridges could be narrowed accordingly.

6. Re-use of Existing Bridges/Trestles – The bridge/trestle analysis conducted as part of Technical Reports Nos. 1 and 2 did not favor re-using existing trestles for Rail-with-Trail solutions. There are practical structural limitations in widening the typical 8-foot-wide wooden trestle rail deck by 20 feet or more to convert to Rail-with-Trail. Only the two steel/concrete bridges in the study area – Kilchis River and Miami River – can be safely and cost-effectively widened with cantilevers.

7. Rail-Trail Separation – Technical Report No. 1 proposed a 6-foot-wide space between centerline of the rail and the nearest asphalt edge of Trail pathway. Within this safety separation, a safety fence was recommended 4 feet from rail centerline. OCSR requested that the overall separation be expanded to 8 feet from rail centerline to edge of Trail (thus 6 feet between rail centerline and the fence). Based on these requirements, there is no option to save money on the rail-trail separation, including by using modified trestles with cantilevers.

Using a reduced rail-trail separation makes re-use of the Miami River and Kilchis River bridges, and potentially some existing creek trestles by adding cantilevered sections, more feasible. But, as stated above, OCSR is currently requesting more, rather than less, of a separation.

8. Barview Trail Solution 2 (see Map 4A) – The solution south of Barview combines sections of narrowed Trail width, three new rail crossings, a shared-use section, and special safety and signal controls for a 300-foot section to provide an off-highway Trail that preserves rail service. OCSR examined this solution and indicated that, at the time of Trail construction, OCSR maintenance crews could physically move the rail line inland a few feet toward a line of homes along US 101. This would permit a wider Trail on the west (bayside) of the rail line and potentially eliminate two or even all three of the new rail crossings.

This idea is presented here for the purposes of memorializing the OCSR offer and as a reminder to future Trail engineers and builders, and OCSR and STIA officials, of this possibility. Solution 2 is still costed as originally presented in Technical Report No. 1.

9. Rail Relocation – The possibility of installing replacement rail lines shifted inland within the rail right-of-way is discussed briefly in Technical Report No. 1 (p. 2-12). A rail engineer used by POTB suggested a cost of $850,000 to $1 million/mile, plus permitting and design/engineering. Such a shift could be used to reduce the length of platforms-on-piers needed to avoid estuary impacts.

The effectiveness of this shift as a cost saving measure will however be practically limited by the proximity (typically 4 to 6 feet) of the rail line to inland slopes and water bodies, and well as any requirements to expand the rail berm inland to accommodate a shifted rail.


Final Plan Report

February 2017 │ 273-4011-008 7-13

10. Alternative Trail Pathway Surfaces – Soft surfaces could be used as staged or permanent solutions – gravel, compacted soil, wood chips, etc. These surfaces could, however, preclude or challenge use by narrow-tire road bikes and some mobility conveyances, and will also require more maintenance and more frequent replacement over time. Also, use of soft surfaces, even as an interim solution, may preclude state/federal multiuse trail construction funding.

11. Bypasses – The 2015 Concept Plan considered several bypass routes. Primarily these involved using the shoulders of US 101. Unfortunately, the US 101 sections identified in the Concept Plan almost uniformly have no or narrow shoulders. Nearly every suggested US 101 bypass alternative would have required shoulder widening in order to accommodate two-way Trail traffic and provide adequate safety. In some areas, south of Barview for instance, shoulder widening would essentially require re-building of the highway. In other sections, between Miami Cove and Larson Cove for example, widening would require building into the estuary.

12. Combined Rail-with-Trail and Rail-to-Trail Solution – This cost-saving option would require OCSR to give up any claim to tourist train service along selected Trail sections. For example, if OCSR maintained service, now and in the future, only between Garibaldi and Wheeler, approximately 10 miles of Trail could be built as less costly Rail-to-Trail.

13. Partnerships – There may be partnerships possible with study area local governments and other area interests (such as OCSR) to undertake Trail development responsibilities that can reduce direct costs. Local governments could for instance take responsibility for installing Trail traffic and way signing, and/or Trail furniture. OCSR has indicated verbally that the use of the railroad’s rolling stock would be possible in the off-season to haul Trail construction materials and equipment.

14. Value Engineering – At the time of final design and engineering, there may be ways to contain costs. For example, Trail construction-associated land survey may identify more space between the rail berm and the estuary line than was assumed in developing Final Plan Report cost estimates. More space potentially translates to reduced need for platforms-on-piers or retaining walls.

There may be additional ways to reduce costs as the Trail is actually constructed. Contracts for designing and building the Trail should provide sufficient flexibility and incentives to allow such changes.

Note: Sea-level rise will diminish the possibility that survey and final engineering at the time of construction would increase the assumed separation between the rail berm and estuary line used for this Final Plan Report.


7-14 February 2017 │ 273-4011-008



Final Plan Report

February 2017 │ 273-4011-008 8-15

8. TRAIL PHASING CONCEPTS The Salmonberry Trail is unlikely to be built as a single project. Limited and highly competitive sources of construction funding and the complexity and high cost of many sections of the Trail may extend full development over two decades or more. Adapting Trail types and structures to the Coast Segment’s 11 miles of estuary shoreline increase cost and complexity.

Constructing the Coast Segment in phases may help in securing funding. A phased build will also deliver Trail benefits at an earlier juncture by providing Trail sections that immediately serve local needs. The Trail phasing concepts outlined in Table 8-1 and the following phasing map are intended as a starting point for thinking about how such phasing might work.

Phasing will, as noted above, be influenced by the availability and timing of funding. Other factors will include changing jurisdictional authority and priorities, public and private development along the rail corridor or within the study area, and evolving regional and local plans. The building of specific Trail sections, types, and structures may also change phasing priorities over time. The phasing concepts included in this Final Plan Report should therefore be periodically reviewed and adjusted in light of such factors.

In matching specific Trail sections to the phasing criteria defined below, subarea planning boundaries were, to a certain extent, ignored. In other words, a given Trail section at the north end of one subarea when combined with one at the south end of an adjoining subarea may yield a near-term phasing unit.

8.1 Phasing Criteria Complexity – This criterion includes relative overall cost compared to other Trail sections, length of the section, probable complexity of permitting, and the need for multiple special structures.

Independent Functionality – Does the selected Trail section function adequately and meet a distinct transportation need independent of other sections of the Trail being built? Examples are a Trail section that ties both ends of a downtown together or a section that connects a major bicycle/pedestrian destination to another use, e.g., a high school to area neighborhoods.

8.2 Phasing Intervals The selected phasing interval is based on the strength of a section's rating against the two preceding criteria. Five phasing intervals are used:

Near-term

Near- to mid-term

Mid-term

Mid- to long-term

Long-term

8.3 Phasing Concepts The phasing concepts based on the preceding criteria and phasing intervals are summarized in Table 8-1 and are illustrated in Figure 8-1.


8-16 February 2017 │ 273-4011-008

Table 8-1. Phasing Concepts

Rank Section Mile Posts Independent Function Complexity

Long-term Mohler – RR Crossing

831.29–832.79 None until the River Segment is built

Expensive Complex permitting

Near- to mid-term

RR Crossing – Vosburg Creek

832.7–833.46 Connects downtown Requires Marine Dr rebuild

Mid-term Vosburg Creek – Paradise Cove

833.46–834.12 Connects downtown to 2 resorts/marinas

30% PoP 1 bridge Building encroachments

Long-term Paradise Cove – Jetty Creek

834.12–837.39 Connects Paradise Cove, Kelly, and Jetty Fishery Marinas

95% PoP 4 bridges Expensive Requires permitting

Mid-term Jetty Creek – High school

837.39–839.07 Connects high school to Manhattan Beach and Nedonna Beach neighborhoods

Many retaining walls Many street crossings

Near- to mid-term

High school – Wayside

839.07–840.66 Connects high school to downtown and neighborhoods

Simple permitting 100% retaining walls

Near-term Wayside – Smith Lake

840.66–842.40 Connects downtown to Twin Rocks

Simple permitting No retaining walls

Mid-term Smith Lake – Barview

842.40–843.70 Limited unless built with preceding section Connects 2 parks

Wetland/freshwater permitting 90% retaining walls

Mid- to long-term

Barview corridor 843.70–844.25 None, unless part of preceding section(s)

Most technically challenging section Complex permitting

Mid- to long-term

Barview corridor – W. Garibaldi

844.25–845.40 None, unless part of another section

100% PoP Complex permitting Expensive

Near-term W. Garibaldi – Downtown Garibaldi

845.40–846.00 Connects downtown No special structures or costs

Near-term Downtown Garibaldi – Miami River Rd

846.00–846.70 Connects downtown to head of cove

Only 2 short PoP Broad area around rail spur

Long-term Miami River Rd – Hobsonville

846.70–847.40 None without adjacent sections

95% PoP or walls New highway crossing

Long-term Hobsonville – Larson Cove


Lengthy section Simple design and permitting

Long-term Larson Cove – Seafood Jetty


95% PoP 2 new bridges

Near-term Seafood Jetty – Kilchis Reserve

849.90–851.23 Connects downtown to Kilchis Point Reserve

50% walls/PoP Short section 1 bridge


Final Plan Report

February 2017 │ 273-4011-008 8-17

Rank Section Mile Posts Independent Function Complexity

Mid- to long- term

Kilchis Reserve – TNC Reserve

851.23–852.09 Mid-term if combined with prior section into Bay City

2 bridges No walls or PoP

Mid- to long- term

TNC Reserve – Creamery

852.09–853.90 Mid-term if combined with prior section into Bay City

3 bridges No walls or PoP

PoP = platforms-on-piers, TNC = The Nature Conservancy


8-18 February 2017 │ 273-4011-008


Til

lam

oo

kB

ay

Pac

ific

Oce

an

Neh

alem

Bay

101

53

6

Mia

mi R

iver Rd

FossRd

Cape

Mea

res

L oop

BayoceanRdNW

Bay

City

Gar

ibal

di

Man

zani

ta

Neh

alem

Roc

kaw

ayB

each

Tilla

moo

k

Whe

eler

Dot

yCr

eek

CheviotCreek

Larson

Cre

ek

Jarris

Cree

k

Trask

River

Messhouse Creek

NedonnaCreek

Sm

ithCreek

Electri

cCre

ek

Peterso

n Creek

Vosbu

rgCr

eek

Hat

haw

aySl

ough

McMillanCree

k

DoughertySlough

WatsecoCreek HeitmillerCre

ek

Patte

rson

Cree

k

Sprin

g Creek

Roy Creek

JettyCreek

HallSlough

Vau

ghn

Cree

k

DoughertySlough

Miami River

83183

2

833

83483

5

836

837

838

839

840

841

842

843

844

845

846

847

848

849

850

851

852

853

854

855 0

12

0.5

Mile

s

Da

ta S

ourc

e: O

DO

T,

Til

lam

ook

Cou

nty

, W

alk

er M

acy

Serv

ice

Laye

r:

Sou

rce:

Esr

i, D

igit

alG

lob

e, G

eoEy

e, E

art

hst

ar

Geo

gra

ph

ics,

CN

ES/A

irb

us

DS,

USD

A,

USG

S, A

eroG

RID

, IG

N,

and

th

e G

IS U

ser

Com

mu

nit

y

Mile

post

UGB

(201

4)

Maj

or R

oad

Cree

k

Phas

e

Nea

r-te

rm

Nea

r to

Mid

-term

Mid

-ter

m

Mid

to L

ong-

term

Long

-ter

m

Document Path: U:\Port\Projects\Clients\2284-DKS Assoc\274-2284-018 SalmonberryTrailPlan\99Svcs\GIS\mapdocs\Salmonberry_CoastPlan_Phasing.mxd

SALM

ON

BERR

Y TR

AIL

COAS

T SE

GM

ENT

PHAS

ING

CO

NCE

PTS

Salm

onbe

rry

Trai

l Co

ast S

egm

ent P

lann

ing

Stud

y Fi

nal P

lan

Repo

rt

8-20

Fe

brua

ry 2

017 │

273-

4011

-008

Th

is pa

ge in

tent

iona

lly le

ft bl

ank.

Appendix A Cost Estimating Details

Salm

onbe

rry

Trai

lCo

ast S

egm

ent P

lann

ing

Stud

yFi

nal P

lan

Repo

rt

Cos

t Est

imat

e De

tails

by

Suba

rea

for 1

2-fo

ot-w

ide

Trai

lJa

nuar

y 20

17$1

5 LF

$225

LF

$275

LF

$335

LF

$550

LF

$1,5

00 L

FLu

mp

Sum

Lum

p Su

m$8

00 L

F$1

50,0

00 E

A$2

0,00

0 EA

$5,0

00 E

A$7

5 LF

$125

LF

$100

,000

EA

$5,0

00 E

A$1

00,0

00 A

CRE

10%

15%

15%

15%

Tota

l Seg

men

t

Suba

rea

Star

t MP

Stop

MP

Tota

l Le

ngth

(fe

et)

Rail

Rem

oval

RTT

Wid

ened

Be

rm

RWT

Wid

ened

Be

rm

RTT

Wid

ened

Be

rm &

Re

tain

ing

Wal

l

RWT

Wid

ened

Be

rm &

Re

tain

ing

Wal

lPl

atfo

rm o

n Pi

ers

Mod

ified

Ra

il Br

idge

s1N

ew T

rail

Brid

ges2

Wet

land

Bo

ardw

alk

US

101

Cros

sing

RR

Cros

sing

sLo

cal S

tree

t Cr

ossi

ngs

5' S

houl

der

Wid

enin

g3

Mar

ine

Driv

e Pa

ving

4

Adva

nced

W

arni

ng

Sign

als5

Trai

l Am

eniti

es

(per

eac

h 1,

000'

of

trai

l)Es

tuar

y M

itiga

tion6

Cons

truc

tion

Cost

Estu

ary

&

wat

erbo

dy

perm

ittin

gPE

CECo

ntin

genc

yTo

tal E

stim

ated

Co

st

1M

ohle

r to

Para

dise

Cov

e83

1.29

834.

12

14,

942

Rail-

To-T

rail

14,9

4214

,838

12,5

28 N

/A2,

311

N/A

N/A

124,

800

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

5 N

/A N

/A N

/A15

N/A

$4,0

40,0

00

$404

,000

$6

06,0

00

$606

,000

$6

06,0

00

$6,2

62,0

00

Rail-

With

-Tra

il16

,527

N/A

N/A

5,58

5 N

/A5,

253

3,98

9 N

/A46

0,00

0 N

/A N

/A0

5 N

/A1,

585

N/A

171.

47$1

1,32

2,00

0 $1

,132

,200

$1

,698

,300

$1

,698

,300

$1

,698

,300

$1

7,55

0,00

0

2Pa

radi

se C

ove

to Je

tty

Cree

k83

4.12

837.

39

17,

266

Rail-

To-T

rail

17,2

6616

,947

13,4

95 N

/A3,

452

N/A

N/A

541,

800

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2 N

/A N

/A N

/A17

N/A

$5,0

85,0

00

$508

,500

$7

62,7

50

$762

,750

$7

62,7

50

$7,8

82,0

00

Rail-

With

-Tra

il17

,266

N/A

N/A

3,10

5 N

/A35

713

,449

N/A

1,42

0,00

0 N

/A N

/A0

2 N

/A N

/A N

/A17

4.94

$23,

234,

000

$2,3

23,4

00

$3,4

85,1

00

$3,4

85,1

00

$3,4

85,1

00

$36,

013,

000

3Je

tty

Cree

k to

Tw

in

Rock

s83

7.39

842.

00

24,

341

Rail-

To-T

rail

24,3

4124

,250

21,4

16 N

/A2,

834

N/A

N/A

165,

200

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

21 N

/A N

/A N

/A24

N/A

$6,5

24,0

00

$652

,400

$9

78,6

00

$978

,600

$9

78,6

00

$10,

113,

000

Rail-

With

-Tra

il24

,341

N/A

N/A

11,4

46 N

/A11

,335

N/A

N/A

380,

000

1,46

5 N

/A1

21 N

/A N

/A N

/A24

0.00

$11,

181,

000

$1,1

18,1

00

$1,6

77,1

50

$1,6

77,1

50

$1,6

77,1

50

$17,

331,

000

4Tw

in R

ocks

to G

arib

aldi

W

est

842.

0084

5.40

1

7,95

2

Rail-

To-T

rail

17,9

5217

,932

14,9

84 N

/A2,

948

N/A

N/A

80,0

00 N

/A N

/A N

/A N

/A5

N/A

N/A

N/A

18 N

/A$4

,823

,000

$4

82,3

00

$723

,450

$7

23,4

50

$723

,450

$7

,476

,000

Rail-

With

-Tra

il17

,952

N/A

N/A

6,14

0 N

/A5,

740

6,05

2 N

/A80

,000

N/A

N/A

25

N/A

N/A

118

2.22

$14,

481,

000

$1,4

48,1

00

$2,1

72,1

50

$2,1

72,1

50

$2,1

72,1

50

$22,

446,

000

5Ga

ribal

di W

est t

o La

rson

Co

ve S

outh

845.

4084

9.27

2

0,43

4

Rail-

To-T

rail

20,4

3420

,213

18,3

65 N

/A1,

848

N/A

N/A

167,

500

N/A

N/A

1 N

/A2

N/A

N/A

N/A

20 N

/A$5

,484

,000

$5

48,4

00

$822

,600

$8

22,6

00

$822

,600

$8

,501

,000

Rail-

With

-Tra

il20

,434

N/A

N/A

11,8

07 N

/A2,

461

4,93

0 N

/A53

7,60

0 N

/A1

22

1,00

5 N

/A N

/A20

1.81

$13,

092,

000

$1,3

09,2

00

$1,9

63,8

00

$1,9

63,8

00

$1,9

63,8

00

$20,

293,

000

6La

rson

Cov

e So

uth

to

Tilla

moo

k Cr

eam

ery

849.

2785

3.90

2

4,44

6

Rail-

To-T

rail

24,4

4623

,243

21,8

94 N

/A1,

350

N/A

N/A

1,53

8,60

0 N

/A N

/A N

/A N

/A5

N/A

N/A

N/A

24 N

/A$7

,413

,000

$7

41,3

00

$1,1

11,9

50

$1,1

11,9

50

$1,1

11,9

50

$11,

491,

000

Rail-

With

-Tra

il24

,446

N/A

N/A

16,9

25 N

/A1,

535

3,86

3 N

/A4,

047,

200

1,02

6 N

/A0

5 N

/A N

/A N

/A24

1.42

$16,

451,

000

$1,6

45,1

00

$2,4

67,6

50

$2,4

67,6

50

$2,4

67,6

50

$25,

500,

000

Not

esR

TT T

otal

s$3

3,36

9,00

0 $3

,336

,900

$5

,005

,350

$5

,005

,350

$5

,005

,350

$5

1,72

5,00

0 1)

RW

T To

tals

$89,

761,

000

$8,9

76,1

00

$13,

464,

150

$13,

464,

150

$13,

464,

150

$139

,133

,000

2)R

TT c

ost/m

ile$2

,300

,000

RW

T co

st/m

ile$6

,200

,000

3) 4) 5) 6)

Estu

ary

Miti

gatio

n –

Bas

ed o

n th

e im

pact

ed su

rfac

e ar

ea, a

s det

erm

ined

by

the

linea

r fee

t of p

latfo

rms-

on-p

iers

, m

ultip

lied

by a

n ou

t-to-

out s

truct

ure

wid

th o

f 16

feet

.

Mod

ified

Rai

l Brid

ges -

Cos

t to

conv

ert t

he e

xist

ing

brid

ge st

ruct

ures

into

trai

l brid

ges u

nder

the

RTT

opt

ion.

See

Ta

ble

4-1

for a

bre

akdo

wn

of p

lan-

leve

l cos

ts fo

r eac

h st

ruct

ure.

New

Tra

il B

ridge

s – C

ost t

o bu

ild n

ew tr

ail b

ridge

s und

er th

e R

WT

optio

n. S

ee T

able

4-1

for a

bre

akdo

wn

of

plan

-leve

l cos

ts fo

r eac

h st

ruct

ure.

5' S

houl

der w

iden

ing

– C

ost t

o ad

d a

5-fo

ot-w

ide

shou

lder

to o

ne si

de o

f S. A

mer

ican

Way

in G

arib

aldi

. Se

e "S

hare

d U

se S

treet

" on

Suba

rea

5.

Mar

ine

Driv

e Pa

ving

– C

ost t

o re

-pav

e M

arin

e D

r. in

dow

ntow

n W

heel

er a

s par

t of t

he R

WT

optio

n. S

ee S

ubar

ea

1 an

d 1A

map

s.

Adv

ance

d W

arni

ng S

igna

ls –

Cos

t to

add

adva

nce

notic

e si

gnag

e an

d re

al-ti

me

train

war

ning

ligh

ts a

nd si

gnal

s fo

r tra

il us

ers o

n th

e 30

0 fe

et o

f wid

th-r

educ

ed tr

ail s

outh

of B

arvi

ew.

Als

o in

clud

s RR

cro

ssin

g im

prov

emen

t. Se

e M

ap 4

A fo

r loc

atio

n.

Janu

ary

2017

| 2

73-4

011-

008

Salm

onbe

rry

Trai

lCo

ast S

egm

ent P

lann

ing

Stud

yFi

nal P

lan

Repo

rt

Cos

t Est

imat

e by

Sub

area

for 1

0-fo

ot-w

ide

Trai

lJa

nuar

y 20

17$1

5 LF

$200

LF

$250

LF

$335

LF

$535

LF

$1,2

50 L

FLu

mp

Sum

Lum

p Su

m$7

00 L

F$1

50,0

00 E

A$2

0,00

0 EA

$5,0

00 E

A$7

5 LF

$125

LF

$100

,000

EA

$5,0

00 E

A$1

00,0

00 A

CRE

10%

15%

15%

15%

Tota

l Seg

men

t

Area

Star

t MP

Stop

MP

Tota

l Le

ngth

(fe

et)

Rail

Rem

oval

RTT

Wid

ened

Be

rm

RWT

Wid

ened

Be

rm

RTT

Wid

ened

Be

rm &

Re

tain

ing

Wal

l

RWT

Wid

ened

Be

rm &

Re

tain

ing

Wal

lPl

atfo

rm o

n Pi

ers

Mod

ified

Ra

il Br

idge

s1N

ew T

rail

Brid

ges2

Wet

land

Bo

ardw

alk

US

101

Cros

sing

RR

Cros

sing

sLo

cal S

tree

t Cr

ossi

ngs

5' S

houl

der

Wid

enin

g3

Mar

ine

Driv

e Pa

ving

4

Adva

nced

W

arni

ng

Sign

als5

Trai

l Am

eniti

es

(per

eac

h 1,

000'

of

trai

l)Es

tuar

y M

itiga

tion6

Cons

truc

tion

Cost

Estu

ary

&

wat

erbo

dy

perm

ittin

gPE

CECo

ntin

genc

yTo

tal E

stim

ated

Co

st

1M

ohle

r to

Para

dise

Cov

e83

1.29

834.

12

14,

942

Rail-

To-T

rail

14,9

4214

,838

12,5

28 N

/A2,

311

N/A

N/A

93,6

00 N

/A N

/A N

/A N

/A5

N/A

N/A

N/A

15 N

/A$3

,696

,000

$3

69,6

00

$554

,400

$5

54,4

00

$554

,400

$5

,729

,000

Rail-

With

-Tra

il16

,527

N/A

N/A

5,58

5 N

/A5,

253

3,98

9 N

/A34

5,00

0 N

/A N

/A0

5 N

/A1,

585

N/A

171.

10$9

,954

,000

$9

95,4

00

$1,4

93,1

00

$1,4

93,1

00

$1,4

93,1

00

$15,

429,

000

2Pa

radi

se C

ove

to Je

tty

Cree

k83

4.12

837.

39

17,

266

Rail-

To-T

rail

17,2

6616

,947

13,4

95 N

/A3,

452

N/A

N/A

446,

100

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2 N

/A N

/A N

/A17

N/A

$4,6

52,0

00

$465

,200

$6

97,8

00

$697

,800

$6

97,8

00

$7,2

11,0

00

Rail-

With

-Tra

il17

,266

N/A

N/A

3,10

5 N

/A35

713

,449

N/A

1,06

5,00

0 N

/A N

/A0

2 N

/A N

/A N

/A17

3.70

$19,

310,

000

$1,9

31,0

00

$2,8

96,5

00

$2,8

96,5

00

$2,8

96,5

00

$29,

931,

000

3Je

tty

Cree

k to

Tw

in

Rock

s83

7.39

842.

00

24,

341

Rail-

To-T

rail

24,3

4124

,250

21,4

16 N

/A2,

834

N/A

N/A

123,

900

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

21 N

/A N

/A N

/A24

N/A

$5,9

47,0

00

$594

,700

$8

92,0

50

$892

,050

$8

92,0

50

$9,2

18,0

00

Rail-

With

-Tra

il24

,341

N/A

N/A

11,4

46 N

/A11

,335

0 N

/A28

5,00

01,

465

N/A

121

N/A

N/A

N/A

240.

00$1

0,48

3,00

0 $1

,048

,300

$1

,572

,450

$1

,572

,450

$1

,572

,450

$1

6,24

9,00

0

4Tw

in R

ocks

to G

arib

aldi

W

est

842.

0084

5.40

1

7,95

2

Rail-

To-T

rail

17,9

5217

,932

14,9

84 N

/A2,

948

N/A

N/A

60,0

00 N

/A N

/A N

/A N

/A5

N/A

N/A

N/A

18 N

/A$4

,429

,000

$4

42,9

00

$664

,350

$6

64,3

50

$664

,350

$6

,865

,000

Rail-

With

-Tra

il17

,952

N/A

N/A

6,14

0 N

/A5,

740

6,05

2 N

/A60

,000

N/A

N/A

25

N/A

N/A

118

1.67

$12,

653,

000

$1,2

65,3

00

$1,8

97,9

50

$1,8

97,9

50

$1,8

97,9

50

$19,

613,

000

5Ga

ribal

di W

est t

o La

rson

Co

ve S

outh

845.

4084

9.27

2

0,43

4

Rail-

To-T

rail

20,4

3420

,213

18,3

65 N

/A1,

848

N/A

N/A

149,

500

N/A

N/A

1 N

/A2

N/A

N/A

N/A

20 N

/A$5

,007

,000

$5

00,7

00

$751

,050

$7

51,0

50

$751

,050

$7

,761

,000

Rail-

With

-Tra

il20

,434

N/A

N/A

11,8

07 N

/A2,

461

4,93

0 N

/A40

3,20

0 N

/A1

22

1,00

5 N

/A N

/A20

1.36

$11,

348,

000

$1,1

34,8

00

$1,7

02,2

00

$1,7

02,2

00

$1,7

02,2

00

$17,

590,

000

6La

rson

Cov

e So

uth

to

Tilla

moo

k Cr

eam

ery

849.

2785

3.90

2

4,44

6

Rail-

To-T

rail

24,4

4623

,243

21,8

94 N

/A1,

350

N/A

N/A

1,17

7,70

0 N

/A N

/A N

/A N

/A5

N/A

N/A

N/A

24 N

/A$6

,505

,000

$6

50,5

00

$975

,750

$9

75,7

50

$975

,750

$1

0,08

3,00

0

Rail-

With

-Tra

il24

,446

N/A

N/A

16,9

25 N

/A1,

535

3,86

3 N

/A3,

035,

400

1,02

6 N

/A0

5 N

/A N

/A N

/A24

1.06

$13,

889,

000

$1,3

88,9

00

$2,0

83,3

50

$2,0

83,3

50

$2,0

83,3

50

$21,

528,

000

Not

esR

TT T

otal

s$3

0,23

6,00

0 $3

,023

,600

$4

,535

,400

$4

,535

,400

$4

,535

,400

$4

6,86

7,00

0 1)

RW

T To

tals

$77,

637,

000

$7,7

63,7

00

$11,

645,

550

$11,

645,

550

$11,

645,

550

$120

,340

,000

2)R

TT c

ost/m

ile$2

,100

,000

RW

T co

st/m

ile$5

,400

,000

3) 4) 5) 6)

Estu

ary

Miti

gatio

n - c

ost i

s bas

ed o

n th

e im

pact

ed su

rfac

e ar

ea, a

s det

erm

ined

by

the

linea

r fee

t of p

latfo

rm o

n pi

ers,

mul

tiplie

d by

an

out-t

o-ou

t stru

ctur

e w

idth

of 1

6 fe

et.

Mod

ified

Rai

l Brid

ges -

this

is th

e co

st to

con

vert

the

exis

ting

brid

ge st

ruct

ures

into

trai

l brid

ges u

nder

the

RTT

op

tion.

See

Tab

le4-

1 fo

r a b

reak

dow

n of

con

cept

ual c

osts

for e

ach

stru

ctur

e.

New

Tra

il B

ridge

s - th

is is

the

cost

to b

uild

new

trai

l brid

ges u

nder

the

RW

T op

tion.

See

Tab

le 4

-1 fo

r a

brea

kdow

n of

con

cept

ual c

osts

for e

ach

stru

ctur

e.

5' S

houl

der w

iden

ing

- thi

s is t

he c

ost t

o ad

d a

5 fo

ot w

ide

shou

lder

to o

ne si

de o

f S. A

mer

ican

Way

in G

arib

aldi

. Se

e "S

hare

d U

se S

treet

" on

Are

a 5.

Mar

ine

Driv

e Pa

ving

- th

is is

the

cost

re-p

ave

mar

ine

Dr.

in d

ownt

own

Whe

eler

as p

art o

f the

RW

T op

tion.

See

A

rea

1 an

d M

ap 1

A.

Adv

ance

d W

arni

ng S

igna

ls -

this

is th

e co

st to

add

adv

ance

not

ice

sign

age

and

real

-tim

e tra

in w

arni

ng li

ghts

and

si

gnal

s for

trai

l use

rs o

n th

e 30

0 fe

et o

f wid

th-r

educ

ed tr

ail s

outh

of B

arvi

ew.

See

Map

4A

for l

ocat

ion.

Janu

ary

2017

| 2

73-4

011-

008

Salmonberry Trail Coast Segment ... - Port of...

Documents

Transcript of Salmonberry Trail Coast Segment ... - Port of...