Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA EPIC-185-82 - CITY OF TUKWILA - SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD REALIGNMENTSOUTHCENTER BLVD REALINGMENT EPIC- 185 -82 1908 City. of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor August 12, 1983 State of Washington Department of Ecology Olympia, WA 98504 Attn: SEPA Public Information Center Subject: Final D.N.S. EPIC - 185 -82; City of Tukwila Enclosed is a copy of the Final Declaration of Non - Significance issued by the City of Tukwila as lead agency for the proposed alignment and im- provement of Southcenter Blvd. A proposed Delcaration of Non - Significance was circulated to other agencies with jurisdiction in accordance with WAC- 197 -10- 340(3 -7). This Declaration of Non - Significance is based upon Federal Highway Administration funding of NO.-Significant Impact (FONSI) on July 14, 1983: We request, therefore, that the subject Declaration of Non - Significance be entered on the "SEPA Register" as provided in WAC - 197 -10 -831. Questions about this matter should be directed.to the Planning Department at 433 -1845. Tukwila Planning Department Ca- roline V. Berry, Planner . CVB-/_b.lk encl. xc: Project File Planning Director Public Works Entranco Engineers WAC 197 -11 -1350 DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of proposal Southcenter Blvd. Improvement and Relocation: Proponent City of Tukwila Location of proposal Lead agency 62nd Avenue & Grady Way City of Tukwila 6 Pic. - iBS - This proposal has been determined not to have a probably significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43- 21C.020(c). This decision was made after review by the lead agency of a completed- environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. Responsible official -- Brad Collins Position /title Planning Director Address and phone Date 6200 Southcenter Blvd., Tukwila, WA 98188 433 -1845 August 8, 1983 Signature (i-t-64 Coo This Declaration of Non - Significance is based upon the Federal Highway Administration Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) on July 14, 1983. OF I • 4 O 0 C; wa. rn o O4))T�D SEP-c°* P BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MAYOR August 19, 1983 Mr. Brad Collins City of Tukwila Planning Department 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT RONALD G. NELSON - DIRECTOR MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 • 235 -2540 RE: FINAL D.N.S. EPIC- 185 -82 Dear Mr. Collins: ANEW /0 AUG 2 2 1983 CITY OF TUK ILA PLANNING DEPT. The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee is in receipt of the above referenced Determination of Non - Significance for the Southcenter Boulevard improvement and relocation project. The City has no comments to offer on this project and wishes to thank you for the opportunity to do so. The Committee would like though, in the future, if we could have a map or sketch of any project proposals sent to us. For the Environmental Review Committee: Roger J. Blay ock Zoning Administrator RJB:JFL:se JOHN SPELLMAN governor • • STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Highway Administration Building • Olympia, Washington 98504 • (206) 753-6005 July 18, 1983 Mr. Byron G. Sneva Public Works Director 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: City of Tukwila Southcenter Boulevard 62nd Avenue to Grady Way M- 1147(5) DUANE BERENTSON Secretary Dear Mr. Sneva: The Environmental Assessment for this projectnwas cadtpledaby the eNFIFederal Highway Administration as a Finding of No -Significant (FONSI) July 14, 1983. We have attached the original FONSI. By copy of letter, we are forwarding the FONSI to the following agencies: NEPA Coordinator Washington State Department of Ecology Mail Stop PV -11 Olympia, WA 98504 This will complete the NEPA process. Mr. Nick Turnbull Planning and Community Affairs 400 Capitol Center Building Olympia, WA 98504 SAM:le LAB (EN) Attachments cc: B. D. Draeger J. A. Klasell Department of Ecology Planning and Community Affairs The project may now proceed. Sincerely, #461' S. A. MOON, P. E. Location - Design Engineer ?t iC•i rJi ,�`��cl 1F • • FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT FOR SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD CITY OF TUKWILA The FHWA has determined that this project will not have any significant impact on the human environment. This finding of no significant impact is based on the attached environ- mental assessment which has been independently evaluated by the FHWA and determined to adequately and accurately discuss the environmental issues and impacts of the proposed project. It provides sufficient evidence and analysis for determining that an environmental impact statement is not required. The FHWA takes full responsibility for the accuracy, scope, and content of the attached environmental assessment. i t /¢ /gy D o Responsible Off cial Acting Chief, Engr. & Operation: Title NN ILA 0 2 att —4 w 19 08 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 Gary L VanDusen, Mayor June 30, 1983 Washington State Dept. of Transportation 6531 Corson Avenue South Seattle, WA. 98108 ATTN: J.A. Klasell, PE District State Aid Engineer RE: Environmental Assessment, Southcenter Boulevard Improvement Project 80- 28 -20; M -1147 (5) EPIC - 185 -82 Dear Mr. Klasell: The Draft Environmental Assessment for improvement to Southcenter Boulevard has been advertised as to its availability for the purpose of obtaining public comment thereon. As of the closing date for receipt of comments, no requests for public hearing were received. Comment letters received and agencies' responses thereto are included as an appendix to the assessment. We request, therefore, that your office-assist us in completing the environmental assessment process by requesting the District Administrator of FHWA to issue a "Finding of No Significant Impact" (FONSI) for the Southcenter Boulevard Project. Thank you for your attention to this matter; please direct questions to my attention. TUKWILA PLANNING DEPARTMENT Bradley J. 144ns, AICP Director xc. Entranco Engineers Public Works File Enclosures (5) JOHN SPELLMAN Governor STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of District Administrator • D -1, 6431 Corson Ave. So., C -81410 • Seattle, Washington 98108 Mr. Byron G. Sneva, P.E. Director of Public Works 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Washington 98188 Dear Mr. Sneva: May 11, 1983 Southcenter Blvd. EA At the request of Phil Frazer of your staff we provide the follow- ing statement: The Department of Transportation foresees no problems with a finding of No Significant Impact by the City for this project. We also wish to remind you that the final EA, with responses to com- ments received, must be approved by FHWA for their issuance of a FONSI. TMS:nc Very truly yours, OHN A. KLASELL, P.E. istrict State Aid Engineer DUANE BERENTSON Secretary • JOHN SPELLMAN Governor STATE OF WASHINGTON • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of District Administrator • D -1, 6431 Corson Ave. So., C -81410 • Seattle, Washington 98108 Mr. Byron G. Sneva, P.E. Director of Public Works 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Washington 98188 Dear Mr. Sneva: May 11, 1983 Southcenter Blvd. EA At the request of Phil Frazer of your staff we provide the follow- ing statement: The Department of Transportation foresees no problems with a finding of No Significant Impact by the City for this project. We also wish to remind you that the final EA, with responses to com- ments received, must be approved by FHWA for their issuance of a FONSI. do( Very truly yours, DUANE BERENTSON Secretary OHN A. KLASELL, P.E. istrict State Aid Engineer 64\ -<?, 0 O w LA 4 City of Tukwila 2 b 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 1908 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor June 13, 1983 Washington State Dept. of Transportation 6431 Corson Avenue South Seattle, WA 98108 ATTN: J.A. Klasell, P.E. District State Aid. Engineer Re: Environmental Assessment, Southcenter Boulevard Improvement Project 80- 28 -20; M- 1147(5) EPIC - 185 -82 Dear Mr. Klasell: The Draft Environmental Assessment for improvement to Southcenter Boulevard has been advertised as to its availability for the purpose of obtaining public comment thereon. As of the closing date for receipt of comments, no requests for public hearing and no responses of a critical or contro- versial nature had been received. We request, therefore, that your office assist us in completing the environmental assessment process by requesting the District Administrator of FHWA to issue a "Finding of No Significant Impact" (FONSI) for the Southcenter Boulevard Project. Thank you for your attention to this matter; please direct questions to. my attention. TUKWI'LA PLANNING DEPARTMENT cA, Bradley J lins, AICP Director xc: Entranco Engineers Public Works file Affidavit of Publication STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING Ss. Cindy Strupp oath, deposes and says that she is the chief clerk of THE DAILY RECORD CHRONICLE, a newspaper published six (6) times a week. That said newspaper is a legal newspaper and it is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication referred to, printed and published in the English language continually as a newspaper published four (4) times a week in Kent, King County, Washington, and it is now and during all of said time was printed in an office maintained at the aforesaid place of publication of said newspaper. That the Daily Record Chronicle has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the County in which it is published, to -wit, King County, being first duly sworn on Washington. That the annexed is a Opportunity....f.or....Pub.l i c Hearing as it was published in regular issues (and not in supplement form of said newspaper) once each issue for a period of two , consecutive issues, commencing on the 18 ttday of March 19 83 , and ending the 2 5 tiny of March ,19 83 both dates inclusive, and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its sub- scribers during all of said period. That the full amount of the fee charged for the foregoing publication is the sum of $ 53 • S which has been paid in full at the rate of per folio of one hundred words for the first insertion and per folio of one hundred words for each subsequent insertion. ...Chie.f...G.l.exk .Subscribed•andworn to before me this 2.5 t.h day of Ma>^cli.: , 19..8.3. Notary Public in a or the State of Washington, esiding at ikent King County. Federal Way — Passed by the Legislature, 1955, known as Senate Bill 281, effective June 9th, 1955. — Western Union Telegraph Co. rules for counting words and figures, - adopted by the newspapers of the State. VN #87 Revised 5/82 • Public Notice' • hearing and/or a copy of the : I 'Environmental •=Assessment: :, should'be made, in writing`to :; 1Phillip:R. Fraser ;Senior.En . 'gineer •'-Public Worke`'De- partment, 6200 Public-. Bou1evard,r..Tukwila-; - -. Washington 98188. r` '' . Comments on' :the En 4ironmental Assessment.1 'and request • for:,the, public hearing 'must be' presented in writing to Phillip R:,Fraser; Senior, •Engineer. Public.. Works .;Department,'.:;6200!: =`':Southcenter': •Boulevard; NOTICE' OF" OPPORTUNI -'7 Tukwila ;. Washington 98188; '`;- Y: FOR' PUBLIC HEARING'.1tiy:April-18, 1983: .'.AND, AVAILABILITY OF AN: The opportunity tor'public -E NV I R ON MENTAL AS- hearing also closes on -April 4SESSMENT.:.ON. SOUTH - ,18, 1983. It is the purpose of CENTER`;-BOULEVARD,.: this notice to • provide inter.' .'-'62ND AVENUE-SOUTH. TO ' •ested persons the opportun- •..GRADY =.WAY' TO BE itytoparticipatein.thefullest i!:4UNDERTAKEN'-,.BY;,CITY..., exchange.: -of information.. OF TUKWILA - ;;'possible regarding the effect 1= r .ln: coordination with the - on ::the- community, •of iheJ ' Federal 'Highway,Administ project :- being "considered,. ration and the Washington: through full discussion' and 'State :Department 'of Trans ='• examination Of the planning. F;:portation.the. City of Tukwila to' date. -This purpose is in .first .notice of.- consonance with.:and our-- 'opportunity for a public hear = • suant-,.to. the:-..Federal Aid ing on the proposed project:. Highway Act (Title 23 U.S.C.: , Notice is given that .an. '101 .•.et seq., 128) . and opportunity -for requesting a • amendments "thereto- -and .I • public hearing is_hereby ex- . the Department of Transpor- • tended to• discuss the pro- tation Act (Title 49 U.S.C.' 1 posed. undertaking and the .1651 1957 (E)). : . •-adequacy;,. •accuracy - and • . . Published in the Daily Re- .1 completeness_ of the en- ,..„cord Chronicle. March .16 vironmental assessment for and' 25, 1983. T1827; ' the realignment and widen - . - . -- - •v - = —, ing .of'•Southcenter' Boulevard 'from 62nd Av- enue South to and including the west approach to the ••Grady ;Way Bridge... This •realignment includes three. (3) new bridge structures, including .1 -405 on /off ramps : at Interurban.Avenue South -, .arid `two crossings of-the Green River. :This notice will also serve.., •to.,publish the availability of - :the . Environmental Assess- ment which has _been pre -... pared for the proposed pro - ject in response to the Na- tional Environmental Policy'' Act of 1969, and to invite • comments regarding the im- • • pacts of the proposal from all •interested parties, for • a period of 30 days from this publication date.„,.. .< Requests for a public NOTICE OF OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC HEARING AND AVAILABILITY OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT'ON SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, 62ND-AVENUE SOUTH TO GRADY WAY TO BE UNDERTAKEN BY CITY OF TUKWILA In coordination with the Federal Highway Administration and the Washington State Department of Transportation the City of Tukwila publishes this first notice of opportunity for a public hearing on the proposed project. Notice is given that an opportunity for requesting a public hearing is hereby extended to'discuss the proposed undertaking and the adequacy, accuracy and completeness of the environmental assessment for the realignment and widening of South conter Boulevard from 62nd Avenue South to and including the west approach to the Grady Way Bridge. This realignment includes three (3) new bridge structures, including I -405 on /off ramps at Interurban. Avenue South and two crossings of the Green River. This notice will also serve to publish the availability of the Environmental Assessment which has been prepared for the proposed project in response to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and to invite comments regarding the impacts of the proposal from all interested parties, for a period of 30 days from this publication date. Requests for a public hearing and /or a copy of the Environmental Assessment should be made in writing to Phillip R. Fraser, Senior Engineer, Public Works Department, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, Washington 98188. Comments on the Environmental. Assessment and request for the public hearing must be presented in writing to Phillip R. Fraser, Senior Engineer, Public Works Department, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, Washington 98188, by April 18, 1983. The opportunity for public hearing also closes on April 18, 1983. It is the purpose of this notice to provide interested persons the opportunity to participate in the fullest exchange of information possible regarding the effect on the community of the project being considered, through full discussion and examination of the planning to date. This purpose is in consonance with and pursuant to the Federal Aid Highway Act (Title 23 U.S.C. 101 et seq., 128) and amendments thereto and the Department of Transportation Act (Title 49 U.S.C. 1651 1957 (E)). Record Chronicle - March 18 and 25, 1983 "Sy M% ZIL t., March 15, 1983 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Attn: Phil Fraser Re: Southcenter Boulevard - Project 82028 -20 Dear Phil: ENTRANCO Engineers ENVIRONMENTAL AND TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS 1515 -116th AVE. N.E., SUITE 200, BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON 98004 (206) 454-0683 Enclosed you will find twelve (12) copies of the Southcenter Boulevard Environmental. Assessment (EA) as approved by the appropriate agencies for public review. We recommend that the City keep five (5) copies avail- able for loan to the public and mail the other seven (7) copies to the agencies indicated on the enclosed circulation list. Although federal guidelines do not require document circulation, the transmittal of the EA to agencies with jurisdiction is a courtesy normally extended by the State. If you wish to extend this circulation list, we can prepare more copies at your request. You may wish to check with Mark Caughey. The enclosed list is merely our suggestion. Any public request to review the document would come as a result of your -Doke --�► newspaper advertisement. We understand the "Notice of Availability" will ��9X�b� be published in the Renton paper on Friday (3/18/83) and again one week later (3/25/83). Comments must be received by 4/17/83 from both public and agency review. Make sure you receive an "affidavit of publication" from the newspaper. �O --gip► A copy of the affidavit and the actual ad should be transmitted to the 1i4 WSDOT along with any comments received. Please inform us if comments are received that may indicate controversy or require a response. We would also like copies of the publication notice and comments for our records. If we can be of further assistance, please call. Sincerely, ENTRANCO EERS Edward Berschinski EB:dw. encl. Alex J. Redford, P.E. John T. Bannon, P.E. Patrick H. McCullough, P.E. SUGGESTED DISTRIBUTION LIST FOR SOUTHCENTER BLVD. ENV. ASSESSMENT Note: Mark to the attention of environmental review Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers Seattle District Office P.O. Box C -3755 Seattle, WA 98124 State of Washington DOT, District 1 6431 Corson Avenue So. Seattle, WA 98108 Washington Department of Game 600 North Capitol Way, GJ -11 Olympia, WA 98504 Washington Department of Fisheries 600 North Capitol Way Olympia, WA 98504 Metro 821 - 2nd Avenue Mail.Stop 52 Seattle, WA 98104 King County Planning King County Courthouse Seattle, WA 98104 City of Renton Planning 211 Mill Avenue So. Renton, WA 98055 Forward to Headquarters and FHWA Transit and water quality Forward to Public Works, Surface water management Forward to Public Works NOTICE OF OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC HEARING AND AVAILABILITY OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ON SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, 62ND-AVENUE SOUTH TO GRADY WAY TO BE UNDERTAKEN BY CITY OF TUKWILA In coordination with the Federal Highway Administration and the Washington State Department of Transportation the City of Tukwila publishes this first notice of opportunity for a public hearing on the proposed project. Notice is given that an opportunity for requesting a public hearing is hereby extended to discuss the proposed undertaking and the adequacy, accuracy and completeness of the environmental assessment for the realignment and widening of Southcenter Boulevard from 62nd Avenue South to and including the west approach to the Grady Way Bridge. This realignment includes three (3) new bridge structures, including I -405 on /off ramps at Interurban Avenue South and two crossings of the Green River. This notice will also serve to publish the availability of the Environmental Assessment which has been prepared for the proposed project in response to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and to invite comments regarding the impacts of the proposal from all interested parties, for a period of 30 days from this publication. date. Requests for a public hearing and /or a copy of the Environmental Assessment should be made in writing to Phillip R. Fraser, Senior Engineer, Public Works Department, .6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, Washington 98188. Comments on the Environmental Assessment and request for the public hearing must be presented in writing to Phillip R. Fraser, Senior Engineer, Public Works Department, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, Washington 98188, by April 18, 1983. The opportunity for public hearing also closes on April 18, 1983. It is the purpose of this notice to provide interested persons the opportunity to participate in the fullest exchange of information possible regarding the effect on the community of the project being considered, through full discussion and examination of the planning to date. This purpose is in consonance with and pursuant to the Federal Aid Highway Act (Title 23 U.S.C. 101 et seq., 128)'and amendments thereto and the Department of Transportation Act (Title 49 U.S.C. 1651 1957 (E)). Record Chronicle - March 18 and 25, 1983 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Public Works Department 433 -1850 7908 February 10, 1983 Washington State Department of Transportation District .1. State Aid. Engineer ATTN:. Mr. John .Klasell, .P.E. 6431 Corson Avenue South Seattle, WA 98108 Byron G..Sneva, Director Re: .Southcenter Boulevard Improvement..:Final Draft-of Environmental .Assessment Document for Signatures Entranco Project No..80 -28 -20 (M- 1147(5)) Dear Mr. Klasell: Enclosed are ..six (6) signed copies of the Southcenter Boulevard Environmental Assessment document. All revisions as required by W.S.D.O.T. /FHWA letter of December 29, 1982 have been incorporated in the. document.. As I understand, the following procedure andchronology of event remains to be completed in order to proceed to the design phase of-the project: 1. W.S.D.O.T. /FHWA review of the documents to assure all comments have been addressed and signature. Return of a signed copy of the cover letter to the EA to Public Works. • 2. The EA with'a signed cover letter will then be printed by Entranco Engineers. • 3. .Printed copies.of the signed.EA with a cover letter will be submitted to the jurisdictional agencies per the attached distribution list for .a thirty (30) day review (see enclosed list). ..4. .Parallel, with agency review, the City of Tukwila will advertise the EA availability for public review and offer the opportunity for-public hearing. An affidavit .0 publication will be obtained from the. local -newspaper.- The public is.allowed thirty days to request a..public:hearing. • .. A public hearing will be held if' requested.. If no comments or comments • of significance are received and no public hearing is requested, the division administrator of FHWA will issue a: "finding of'no significant impact" (FONSI).• This will end the environmental review process. • Requested at this time is your review of the EA and the necessary signatures and of the documents per item 3 above within the 'next two (2) weeks so that we may maintain our current schedule'with the consultant. If you have any questions regarding this matter please do not hesitate to call'me at 433 -1856. Per discussions with our consultant,.a letter from the Department of Fisheries is forthcoming and will be submitted as an errata to the document.. Sim relym Phillip R. Fraser, Senior Engineer xc: Brad Collins /Mark Caughey, Planning Department Byron G. Sneva, Public Works Director D. Neuzil /E. Breschinski, Entranco Engineers Mr. Dick Kay, FHWA FIB Enclosures (2) Distribution List (6) Copies of EA PRF:jst . • '• Federal List - Draft Environmental Assessinent.' .• .• • • • , • • • • February 4,' 1983 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Attn: Phil Fraser Re: ° Southcenter Boulevard Improvements Our Project #82028 -20 [M- 1147(5)] ENTRANCO Engineers ENVIR0O11MENTAL ANO TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS 1515 -1161% AVE N.E.. SURE 200. BEILEVUE, WASHINGTON 560011 (206) 45643610 ,Dear Phil: Enclosed are eight (8) copies of the Southcenter Boulevard Environmental Assess- ment. All revisions as requested by WSDOT /FHWA letter of December 29, 1982 have been incorporated into the document. As we understand, the following procedure . and /or chronology of events remains to be completed in order to proceed with the . design phase of the project. 1. Sign and date the cover letter and submit six (6) copies of the EA to WSDOT for final review. This indicates you endorse the contents of the. EA. WSDOT /FHWA will review the document to make sure all comments were incor- porated. They will then sign the cover letter and return a copy to your office. The return of the fully endorsed cover letter indicates they approve the document for draft circulation. 3. The EA with signed cover letter will•then be printed and submitted to the jurisdictional agencies for review (see enclosed list). At the same time the City of Tukwila must advertise that the EA is available for public 'review and offer an opportunity, for public hearing. An affidavit of pub- lication must be obtained from the local newspaper (see enclosed example). 4. The agencies and public are allowed thirty (30) days to review and submit • comments on the EA. The public is allowed thirty (30) days to request a public hearing.. If no comments or comments of significance are received and no public hearing is requested, the division administrator of FHWA will issue a "Finding of No Significant Impact ".(FONSI). This . will end the environ- mental review process. Of course, comments of significance must be responded to and if a major -issue arises or major. opposition to the project surfaces, the FHWA may .require .a full EIS. We anticipate the issuance of a FONSI. John T. Bannon, P.E Patrick H. McCullough,' P.E. City of Tukwila February 4', 1983 Page Two 5. Once the FONSI is issued the Tukwila Planning Department may proceed with the issuance of a "Declaration of Non - significance" in accordance with SEPA guidelines. The remaining two (2) copies of the EA are for the City (Public Works and Planning). We realize this is a very time - consuming and tedious process, but it appears that we are finally getting near the end. Thank you for your continuous cooperation. Sincerely, .ENTRANCO ENGINEERS Ed Berschinski EB:dw encl.. c:.-Mark Caughey, Planning Department •CITY OF TUKWILA • Suggested Distribution List - Draft Environmental Assessment' :- Federal- 1 . 2 ;3 4.) State • 1) Dept:, of .Tt•ansportati on (Forward to WSDOT Envi r: & FHWA Envi r.) 2) Dept. of Game- - 3) Dept. of Fisheries.• . :Preservatio . 4) . Office of Archaeology & Histoi -lc n...: 5) Dept. of Ecology • • -- •••• _ • Regional • 1) Metro - Transit & Water Quality Division. 2) Puget .Sound Air Pollution Control Agency. . 31 Puget Sound Council -of Governments - • • Local 1) City of Tukwila - 2) City of Renton 3) City of. Kent .4) City- of Seattle . • 5 Kirig County. -. Planning and Community Development 61 King . County -- Public Works Surface Water`•Mgmt. ":Division. 'Utility /Services. • 1) - :south Central-School -District •#406 2) Puget Sound Power and-Light - 3) Washington Natural Gas Co. Private Organizations - ., .1) : Tukwila Chamber. of Commerce...-. 2) . - Rainier. Audubon : Society • • LO DV .unuerLaKen Dy C gtuitilutH-- IN JAN 181983 In coordination with the Federal Highway Administration and the Washington ENTRANCO ENGINEERS State Department of Transportati onj i the publishes this first notice of opportunity for a public hearing on the proposed project. Notice is given that an opportunity for requesting a public hearing is hereby extended to discuss the proposed undertaking and the adequacy, accuracy and completeness of the environmental assessment for . • . ,2e3t —P as's �Li • • • • • • • • • • ► • • • law This notice will also serve to publish the availability of the Environmental Assessment which has been prepared for the proposed project in response to the National Environmental Policy Act of.1969, and to invite comments regarding the impacts of the proposal from all interested parties, for a period of 30 days from this publication date.. Requests for a pi bl i c hearing and /or• a copy of the Environmental Assessment should be made in writing to ( �OU� Comments on the Environmental As sessment and requests for the public hearing must be presented in writing to 4 / .A4 • ' y byr rD of .�30• —c��y• ektf.e.po "Ifl eF 3o Li� Pozi -D The opportunity for .public hearing also closes on . • • • • • • • X • • • It is the purpose of this notice to provide interested persons the opportunity to' participate in the:fullest. exchange of information possible regarding the effect on the cocmunity.of.the project being considered, through full discussion and examination of the planning to date. This purpose is in consonance with and pursuant to the Federal -Aid Highway Act (Title 23 U.S.C. 101 et seq., 128) and 'amendments thereto and the Department of Transportation Act (Title 49 U.S.C. &s t Notice of Avollobllits of on Environmental Assessment Concerning the Prosser Gront Avenue • Brldoe Prolect • In Benton County In coordination with the. ''•Federal HiohwaY Adminis- tration (FHWA) and the Woshlnoton Slate Deport- , merit' of Transportation ()is'SDOT) Benton CovntY • ▪ evaluated . the social. eco- •: nomlc and environmental t imoocts of the Prosser • Grant Avenue Bridge Prot - .ect crotslno the Yakima River of o location slightly • •upstream from the existing ,Steel Bridge lo be replaced. . The County, with the co- operotlon of the WSDOT . and the FHWA hove ere - :pored on environmental es- .sessment In response to the •.. Notlonol Environmental Pot- • ;Icy Act of 1969 (NEPA) •• which summarizes and out- lines the results of the • • noted evaluation Including • ;the evoluation of alternative actions. The Environmental As- • iessment Is available for :public review and comment .for a period of thirty days • from this publication date. • Anyone wishing a copy of the Environmental Assess• :..ment is asked. to contact • 'one of the following: Mr. Pout C. Greoson. • FHWA. Division Adminis- trator, Suite 501 Evergreen ▪ Plaza. 711 So. Capitol Way, • Olympia. WA 98501. Mr. Robert S. Nielsen. As- Slstont Secretory. Public • Tronsoortotion and Plan- 'fling. Washington State De- portment of Tronsportotion. Highway Administration - Building, Olympia, WA 98501. . Mr. Dennis D. Skeote, Benton County Enolneer. • Courthouse Annex. P.O. Box • 110. Prosser, WA 99350. Doted this 22nd day of • March, 1982. -s - Dennis D. Skeole ▪ • Benton County Enolneer ▪ Legal No. 12637 — Mar. 29. 1982 • J ( S At•APLC-- . C AFFI DAVIT OF PUBLICATION COUNTY of Benton )ss. STATE OF WASHINGTON ) .$t1jr�. a,1,S• • Gx-a.vR $ • , being first duly sworn on oath deposes and says she is the Principal Clerk of the Tri-City Herald, ' • a daily newspaper. That said newspaper is a legal newspaper and has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the superior court in the county in which it is published and it is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of the publication hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continually as a daily news- paper in )3em, tOi) County. Washington, and is now and during all of said time was printed in an office maintained at the aforesaid place of publication of said newspaper. That the annexed. is a true copy of a legal ...adv erti s ement Notice of availability of an% environmental assessment as it was printed in the regular and entire issue of the Tri -City Herald itself and not in a supplement thereof, for a period of one time cwt v la , commencing on the • 2.9th...day of Mar.. ,19. $2., and ending on the day of ,19 , and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of this period. That the full amount of S 33 -Q0 • • has been paid in full, also at the rate o• f 5t in.@ 6:00 = 33.00 Subscribed and sworn to before me this 30th day of Mar. , 19 82 Notary Public in and for the State of Washington. residing at Pasco. City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Public Works Department 433 -1850 February 10, 1983 Washington State Department of Transportation District 1 State Aid. Engineer ATTN: Mr. John. Klasell,.P.E. 6431 Corson Avenue South Seattle, WA 98108 Dear Mr. Klasell: Byron G. Sneva ffi@EdEo FEB 17 1983 CITY OF TUKWILA' P ANNING DEPT. Re: .Southcenter Boulevard Improvement..Final Draft °of Environmental.Assessment Document for Signatures Entranco Project No..80 -28 -20 (M- 1147(5)) Enclosed are ..six (6) signed copies of the Southcenter Boulevard Environmental Assessment document. All revisions as required by W.S.D.O.T. /FHWA letter of December 29, 1982 have been incorporated in the. document. As I understand, the following procedure and chronology of event remains to be completed in order to proceed to the design phase of the project: 1. W.S.D.O.T. /FHWA review of the documents to assure all comments have been addressed and signature. .Return of a signed copy of the cover letter to the EA to Public Works. 2. The EA with a.signed cover letter will then be printed by Entranco Engineers. 3. Printed copies of the signed EA with a cover letter will be submitted to the jurisdictional agencies per the attached distribution list for a thirty (30) day review (see enclosed list). • 4. Parallel with agency review, the City of Tukwila will advertise the EA availability for public review and offer the opportunity for public hearing. An affidavit of publication will be obtained from the:local newspaper. The public is allowed thirty days to request a..public. hearing. 5. A public hearing will be held if requested. If no comments or comments of significance are received and no public hearing is requested, the division administrator of FHWA will issue a "finding of no significant impact" (FONSI). This will end the environmental review process. Requested at this time is your review of the EA and the necessary signatures and of the documents per item 3 above within the next two (2) weeks so that we may maintain our current schedule with the consultant. If you have any questions regarding this matter please do not hesitate to call me at 433 - 1856. Per discussions with our consultant, a letter from the Department of Fisheries is forthcoming and will be submitted as an errata to the document. Phillip R. Fraser, Senior Engineer xc: Brad Collins/Mark Caughey, Planning Department Byron G. Sneva, Public Works Director D. Neuzil /E. Breschinski, Entranco Engineers Mr. Dick Kay, FHWA Enclosures (2) Distribution List (6) Copies of EA PRF:jst SUGGESTED DISTRIBUTION LIST FOR SOUTHCENTER BLVD. ENV. ASSESSMENT Note: Mark to the attention of environmental review Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers Seattle District Office P.O. Box C -3755 Seattle, WA 98124 State of Washington DOT, District 1 6431 Corson Avenue So. Seattle, WA 98108 Washington Department of Game 600 North Capitol Way, GJ -11 Olympia, WA 98504 Washington Department of Fisheries 600 North Capitol Way Olympia, WA 98504 Metro 821 - 2nd Avenue Mail.Stop 52 Seattle, WA 98104' King County Planning King County Courthouse Seattle, WA 98104 City of Renton Planning. 211 Mill Avenue So. Renton, WA 98055 AJvuaoW cocatT1 JOS40. Gerd Roc. (1.00^ Oiy 5V.,f. • Forward to Headquarters and FHWA Transit and water quality Forward to Public Works, Surface water management Forward to Public Works February 4, 1983 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Attn: Phil Fraser JFE B 8 1983 Ct T Y JF TUK Wltq f.LANNy\'G DEPT. Re: Southcenter Boulevard Improvements Our Project #82028 -20 [M- 1147(5)] Dear Phil: ENTRANCO Engineers ENVIRONMENTAL AND TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS 1515 -116th AVE. N.E., SUITE 200, BELLEVUE. WASHINGTON 98004 (206) 454-0683 Enclosed are eight (8) copies of the Southcenter Boulevard Environmental Assess- _ ment. All revisions as requested by WSDOT /FHWA letter of December 29, 1982 have been incorporated into the document. As we understand, the following procedure and /or chronology of events remains to be completed in order to proceed with the design phase of the project. 1. Sign and date the cover letter and submit six (6) copies of the EA to WSDOT for final review. This indicates you endorse the contents of the EA. 2. WSDOT /FHWA will review the document to make sure all comments were incor- porated. They will then sign the cover letter and return a copy to your office. The return of the fully endorsed cover letter indicates they approve the document for draft circulation. 3. The EA with signed cover letter will then be printed and submitted to the jurisdictional agencies for review (see enclosed list). At the same time the City of Tukwila must advertise that the EA is available for public review and offer an opportunity for public hearing. An affidavit of pub- lication must be obtained from the local newspaper (see enclosed example). 4. The agencies and public are allowed thirty (30) days to review and submit comments on the EA. The public is allowed thirty (30) days to request a public hearing. If no comments or comments of significance are received and no public hearing is requested, the division administrator. of FHWA will issue a "Finding of No Significant Impact" (FONSI). This will end the environ- mental review process. Of course, comments of significance must be responded to and if a major issue arises or major opposition to the project surfaces, the FHWA may require .a full EIS. We anticipate the issuance of a FONSI. Alex J. Redford, P.E John T. Bannon, P.E. Patrick H. McCullough, P.E. City of Tukwila February 4, 1983 Page Two 5. Once the FONSI is issued the Tukwila Planning Department may proceed with the issuance of a "Declaration of Non - significance" in accordance with SEPA guidelines. The remaining two (2) copies of the EA are for the City (Public Works and Planning). We realize this is a very time - consuming and tedious process, but it appears that we are finally getting near the end. Thank you for your continuous cooperation. Sincerely, ENTRANCO ENGINEERS Ed Berschinski EB:dw encl. c: Mark Caughey, Planning Department JOHN SPELLMAN Governor STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Fou ow rvc- ��.IT OfZ(CT(N( t� I N t 1•I L DUANE BERENTSON Fa,t�? wI1. Tijt=rY�� D °cuNn Highway Administration Building • Olympia, Washington 98504 • (206) 753 -6005 Z\ C December 29, 1982 ' SN -P Mr. Ted-laimmoto. Public Works Director 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 City of Tukwila Southcenter Blvd. 62nd Ave. to Grady Way M - 1147 (5) SNe✓ ��- Dear mr) fvi(C Here are the combined WSDOT /FHWA Environmental Assessment Review comments for your information and modification of the environmental document. If you have any questions or problems regarding these review comments, please contact Jim Leonard (SCAN 234 -1073) of this office. HB:kl JL Attachment cc: J. Klasell Sincerely, ittiaa/ Hefiry Bash Acting City /County Liaison Engineer CITY OF TUKWILA SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD 62ND AVENUE SOUTH TO GRADY WAY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REVIEW Table of Contents. The items contained in Appendix A should be listed; also, add Appendix B and list contents. The Impact section page numbers should be revised to reflect the latest document. Page 1, last paragraph. "Radius" should be radii. Page 8. The text refers to Figure 3 as showing the existing alignment. Figure 3, as shown in the draft, is actually the alignment for Alternate 114, the proposed action. This figure should be replaced' with an exhibit showing the existing alignment. Figure 5, Page 33, appears to be the existing alignment. Page 10, Figure 4. Suggest changing the title of figure to "Proposed Alternate." Page 11, Permits. Delete "State of Washington Department of Transportation Design Approval" and add "Water Quality Certification, Department of Ecology." Page 12, second and third paragraphs. Coordination section. Suggest moving these paragraphs to the Page 14, Earth - Mitigation Measures. A commitment should be made to mitigation which will be undertaken rather than statements like "can be scheduled," and "can be employed." Second paragraph, desiltation ponds control sediment after erosion has occurred. This mitigation measure should be included in the water quality section. Page 20, Mitigation Measures. Again a commitment should be made identifing those measures that will be implemented. Page 21, Flora. Suggest supplementing this section with a map similar to Figure 4 showing where vegetation exists and the general types that are identified in the text. Also "left" and "right" banks would be more easily defined if east and west are used. Map should show vegetation loss and proposed replacement. Page 21, third paragraph. The WSDOT has never planted Scotch Broom. If the species is Scotch Broom it naturalized there. If the broom is planted it most likely is Moonlight Broom. Page 22 - Mitigating Measures. The first sentence needs clarifying. Is revegetation going to be with erosion grasses or does the reference to plants mean the landscape material being proposed? (The other option would be just to delete the sentence). Page 23, Fauna. We question why a complete list of mammals and birds of the lower Green River watershed is included in the EA if "only those organisms that can readily adjust to human encroachment" utilize the existing habitat? Bald eagles, peregrine falcons (both threatened or endangered) plus other bird species of high interest are on this list. Such mammals as black -bear and black - tailed deer are also listed. We suggest only those species which might be reasonably expected to occur in the project vicinity should be listed rather than letting the reader pick and choose. Page 24, Noise. Due to the inclusion of two additional field noise measurement sites, the Noise Report (Appendix C) has been updated. Therefore, the Noise Section of the EA requires revision. We found the easiest way to incorporate these revisions was to re -write the noise section. Our rewritten version is attached for your use and may replace the existing section if you desire. If you have questions on the noise section, please contact Mr. Al Elston at 753 -0664. Page 28, Land Use Impacts. There are no statements in the report indicating whether or not there will be any dislocation of residences or businesses; whether or not minority interests will be impacted; and whether or not there will be any disruption of residents or businesses either during construction or upon project completion. Even if there are no impacts in these areas, it should be so -stated. Page 32, 3rd paragraph, delete the first sentence and replace with a reference to accident rate per million vehicle miles as shown on Table 3. . The accident rate of 10 per MVM is high on a statewide average. Since the reduction of accidents was one of the needs identified for this project, the accident rates on this section should not be considered low. Page 39, Table 2. In our opinion the capacity value of level of service D for the new alignment may be optimistic. We feel a level of service E or F may occur based upon the geometrics and traffic volumes. Page 41, Table 3, Anticipated Accident Rates for 1990. The ADT shown for the various alternatives are only representative of a particular segment of the alternatives and it appears that the value for Alternative 4 should be corrected to 23,250. It appears unlikely that the number of accidents would decrease as shown on Table 3 when traffic on SR 181 and Southcenter Boulevard are higher than the no -build alternative. Page 46, Energy Impacts. The statement that there will be "6,200 fewer vehicle miles of travel" appears to be a contradiction to traffic values shown in Figures 6 and 7. An explanation of the computations are needed to support the "6,200 fewer" figure.. Page 48, Human Health. This section should be revised. The discussion, as presented, creates the impression that air and noise impacts have not been fully analyzed and that a complete analysis may show significant impacts. Page 48, Aesthetics. The project does not consider the visual impact of the project from adjacent commercial or private property or other roadways. Many people view this project from neighboring businesses from I -405, etc. This project will certainly have some visual impacts on these views and this impact should be discussed. Page 51, Economics. The economic impact section does not follow the EA outline. This section should address existing conditions, impacts and mitigating measures. Under "Impacts," we offer the following: The proposed action would not have significant adverse economic impacts on property values, tax revenues, employment, retail sales and would not require any commercial displacements. The .06 acre of right -of -way required would not cause an adverse impact. The proposed action would improve access to the unimproved property north of Southcenter Boulevard between 68th Avenue South and Interurban Avenue and would have the effect of increasing property values and tax revenues. -2- There would be no mitigation necessary except for the purchase of the .06 acre of right -of -way. Page 52, Impacts. It states that there will be greater congestion on I -405 Southcenter Boulevard, and Interurban Avenue with the "no -build alternative" - the traffic diagrams do not support this. The comment on Page 52 will also affect conclusions on Page 54. The discussion of Alternative 2 also has similar problems as noted for Alternative 1 above. Page 58, Coordination. There is no evidence of coordination with natural resource agencies, such as Washington State Department of Fisheries, Washington State Department of Game and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. We predict a high degree of interest in this project. To avoid delays later on, a briefing meeting is suggested with these agencies. The comments and coordination section contains a letter from the Coast Guard regarding applicability of Coast Guard bridge permit requirements. In August 1982, FHWA advised. the Coast Guard that they had determined that the bridges proposed for construction under this project were exempt from the Coast Guard bridge permit requirements. It is suggested that FHWA's letter to the Coast Guard and their response be included directly following the Coast Guard's April 1982 letter to the city. Copies of these letters are attached. General Comments: All pages should be numbered consecutively. After revisions to the document are completed, please send six copies together with a separate title page signed and dated by the city. Once the document is approved by WSDOT and FHWA, the title page will be returned for inclusion into the EA. Because of the change in layout and function of connecting street system, it is recommended that a Notice of Opportunity for Public Hearing should be advertised. The Notice of Opportunity should be combined with the Notice of Availability of the Environmental Assessment and published in a newspaper of general circulation within the project area. This can occur following the approval of the EA. Receipt of the title page signed by the city, WSDOT and FHWA indicates approval of the document for public availability. 10 /PD34 DATE: FROM: Phone: To: December 29, 1982 S. A. Moon Henry Bash kY k_ DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION INTRA- DEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION SUBJECT: City of Tukwila Southcenter Boulevard 62nd Avenue to Grady flay M-1147(5) Attached are the combined WSDOT /FHWA Environmental Assessment review comments for transmittal to the City of Tukwila. SAM:cej LAB (EN) Attachment F. Noise Existing Conditions The project area is parallel to I -405 and can be considered part of the I -405 corridor. In the project corridor, sounds originating from motor vehicles are the major source of noise, dominated by traffic noise from I -405. The Washington State Department of Transportation conducted noise assessment of the project . area, . which included the determination of existing noise levels; identification of land use and specific establishments that have a particular sensitivity to noise; and prediction of future noise levels, including contributions resulting from implementation of the proposed project. This assessment is enclosed as Appendix C. Existing noise levels were measured at four locations as indicated in the table below. Location Noise Measurement Sites Time & Date Leq (dBA) 30 ft. north of Southcenter Blvd. C /L, West of 65th St. 10:30 a.m. 9 -3 -82 Private Driveway 140 ft. north 9:45 a.m. of Southcenter Blvd., opposite 11 -22 -82 68th St. "T" 71 67 45 ft. farther back on same driveway. 9:30 a.m. 66 11 -22 -82 SE Quadrant of Southcenter Blvd. 9:45 a.m. Interurban Ave. Intersection 9 -3 -82 100 ft. from both streets. 67 Noise measurements were made with a Metrosonics Inc. sound level meter which averages sound intensity over the measurement period giving Leq. These stations where recordings were made are considered representative of the various conditions along the entire project route. Based on proximity to I -405, these noise measurements also correlate well with readings taken by WSDOT on December 8, 1981 approximately three - quarters of a mile east of the intersection of Interurban Avenue and Southcenter Boulevard. On that date, during afternoon peak hour, Leq values. of 74 dBA and 67 dBA were registered at approximately 100 feet and 225 feet, respectively, from the nearest I -405 lane. Existing noise contours are plotted on the figures provided in Appendix C. In the area where construction would take place, the nearest occupied structure is a commercial office building located approximately 30 feet from . the existing Southcenter Boulevard roadway. According to the noise assessment, a private residence located on the bluff north of Southcenter Boulevard near 68th Avenue S. already exceeds exterior design noise levels recommended by the Federal Highway Administration. Other business offices, public buildings, and residences are located at a sufficient distance from 1-405 to drop below the FHWA noise criteria. Environmental Impacts Noise prediction models utilizing projected traffic counts, roadway geometry, and other pertinent data were developed for the no -build condition as well as for each alternative. Noise contour maps of these projected conditions are provided in the appendix. According to the analysis, the implementation of any of the proposed alternatives should have no significant impact in the project corridor. Normal traffic growth in the area will result in approximately 1 dBA increase in noise by 1990 with a no -build alternative (Alternative 1). All of the build alternatives (2, 3A, 3B, and 4) would have an identical effect in the corridor sensitive areas; that is, an additional 1 dBA rise above the no -build condition. No sites will be above the guideline noise levels, except the home opposite 68th St. which already exceeds design conditions. As stated, implementation of the project will only increase Leq values at these receptors by 1 dBA. 6/PD42 Some noise impacts from construction are expected to occur. According to the list contained in "Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, • Building Equipment, and Home Appliances," issued by the U.S. EPA, most construction equipment likely to be used on the project produces noise levels ranging from 79 to 91 dBA when recorded 50 feet from the source.. Pile drivers are one of the noisier types of equipment, with sound levels at about 101 dBA when measured from a distance of 50 feet. Temporary noise impacts to the commercial property close to Southcenter Boulevard would arise primarily from equipment used to widen the roadway. Because of the proximity of the building, intermittent noise levels received by this property during the widening phase of project construction could sometimes be in the range of 91 dBA. Supports for the new bridges over the Green River may be pile driven. However, greater distances (at least 200 feet) would separate developed properties from pile driver operations. The noise impact expected at the commercial building from this particular source would be reduced to approximately the level of impact from other project equipment. During construction of the Southcenter Boulevard bridge over the Green. River, bicyclists and pedestrians near the existing northern terminus of the Christensen Greenbelt Trail would be subject to elevated noise levels arising from the use of a pile driver and other equipment. As a result, the attractiveness of this part of the trail may be temporarily reduced for its users. Mitigating Measures A number of measures can be taken to reduce potential project . noise impacts during construction, including: 1. Limit the use of equipment that generates high noise levels to normal working hours (8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.). 2. Use modern equipment that is designed or properly muffled to reduce noise. 3. Construct temporary noise barriers around pneumatic equipment or other high noise generators. No permanent noise protection is planned for installation as an element of this project. However, the City of Tukwila may provide potential builders in the project corridor with noise contour maps developed for this project. These maps may aid the builder with design and layout of new buildings on the vacant lands in the project corridor in order to avoid future noise problems. Based on noise contours, the developer may construct buildings in quieter areas, orient the structure to face windows away from traffic, use parking and landscape areas for buffer zones, or take other measures, including construction of noise barriers. G. Light and Glare Existing Conditions Street lighting is currently provided only where Southcenter Boulevard ..intersects other streets: 62nd Avenue S., 65th Avenue S., 68th Avenue S., and Interurban Avenue. The luminaires provide lighting for pedestrians at the existing intersections. Some light from luminaires along I -405 may • contribute minimally to the existing lighting level along Southcenter Boulevard. Headlights on vehicles traveling on Southcenter Boulevard provide the majority of available lighting during the evening and nighttime hours. APPENDIX C TABLE 1 DESIGN NOISE LEVEL /ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIPS Design Noise Levels - DBA Activity Category Leq(h) Description of Activity Category A 57 Tracts of land in which serenity and quiet are of (Exterior) extraordinary significance and serve an important public need and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to serve its intended purpose. Such areas could include amphitheaters, particular parks or portions of parks, open spaces, or historic districts which are dedicated or recognized by appropriate local officials for activities requiring special qualitie! of serenity and quiet. ' B 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active (Exterior) sports areas, and parks which are not included in Category A and residences, motels, hotels, public meeting. :rooms, schools, churches, libraries, "and hospitals. C 72 Developed lands, properties or activities not in- (Exterior) cluded in Categories A or B above. D Undeveloped lands. E 52 Residences, motel, hotels, public meeting rooms, (Exterior) schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums. FROM: USDOT Federal Highway Administration Federal -Aid Highway Program Manual Volume 7, Chapter 7, Section 3, July 9, 1982. CITY OF TUKWILA Southcenter Boulevard 62nd Avenue South to Grady Way Bridge Noise Assessment A. W. Elston October 29, 1982 Revised December 1, 1982 SUMMARY Ths most significant aspect of the project area, as it relates to noise, is that is lies essentially parallel to the I -405 freeway and is, therefore, dominated by traffic noise from I -405. Only at relatively close points to Southcenter Boulevard and certain of the adjacent streets and arterials is there any difference in noise levels other than that due to I -405 by itself. The area between 62nd Street and 68th Street on the north side of Southcenter Boulevard is a valuable piece of real estate containing fairly new office buildings, Tukwila City Hall, city park, etc. Only one private dwelling opposite 68th Street was found to be above the guideline noise level as defined in Table I. Expected natural growth of traffic in this area will cause about 1 dBA increase in noise which would apply to the 1990 "no- build" or Alternate 1. All of the build alternatives, that is Alternatives 2, 3A, 3B and 4, have an identical effect on this area between 62nd Street and 68th Street and will cause another 1 dBA rise above the no -build condition by the year 1990; and no sites will be above guideline noise levels except the one that is already above. Construction of any of the alternatives will cause an unnoticable increase in noise relative to not constructing anything new. Abatement by means of noise walls is not considered necessary. The office building at 65th Street is very close to Southcenter Bouldvard but is below design noise levels for commercial property and shows no indication of any outside activity that would be sensitive to noise. Interior noise levels quite probably are perfectly adequate for office work since the building was built there under present noise conditions. The private dwelling also shows no indication of outside activity areas facing traffic. The rear portion of the property is shielded to some extent by the top of the well vegetated cut and should be quiet enough for outside use without undue annoyance from traffic noise. METHOD OF ASSESSMENT Determination of the effect of a project will have on the noise climate in adjacent areas is based on three steps: 1. Identify land use and the sensitivity of a particular use to noise, i.e., houses, schools, parks, commercial establishments, etc. 2. Find existing noise levels. 3. Predict future levels, including the contribution from the proposed project. Noise impact, that is problems with noise, is based on increases in noise over what now exists, and actual level in the future as shown by the Design Level /Activity Relationships of Table I. As an example, increases between 5 and 10 dBA and /or levels of 67 dBA or more for residential use is a condition where mitigation would be investigated. . Four locations were measured and site location is shown on the Noise Contour map for no -build (Alternate 1). It can be seen that measured values agree well with noise contours, which were predicted. Existing noise contours are shown superimposed on all the noise contour maps for comparison. Predicted values were obtained by modeling traffic, geometry, etc. as described in FHWA HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (FHWA -RD -77 -108) (December 1978). DISCUSSION By inspection of the noise contour maps, it can be seen that none of the alternatives have much effect on the area between 62nd Street and 68th Street. As stated in the summary, mitigation is not considered necessary. There are, however, vacant lands along this section of the project that could, and probably City of Tukwila Noise Assessment Revised December 1, 1982 Page 3 will, be developed sometime in the future. The City of Tukwila can provide potential developers with the appropriate noise contour maps (the alternate chosen for construction) as an aid to the developer in design and layout to avoid a future noise problem. For example, if the developer is aware of the noise condition, he can place parking areas in the noisy areas, buildings in the quieter areas and face windows away from traffic; or build buffer zones, earth berms or walls and landscape areas to provide the type of noise climate needed for that particular de velopment. The proposed bike trail park along the Green River will be affected differently by the various alternates and from the standpoint of noise, the two alternates, 3B and 4, which eliminates the section of Southcenter Boulevard from 68th Street to Interurban Avenue along the Green River, would provide the quietest environment for this section of the bike trail. The overall benefit, however, in choosing 38 or 4 over the other alternatives is minimized because in all cases, the bike trail must pass beneath the noisy I -405 freeway. 1:PD36 FED. 'DAD 0, toe __ 62 STATE 10 l WASH. FED •iD —0. w0 F 'SC.. 01•1. S• C7 re tr` .' re' iao 1 Let Noise Leve Is Existin Noise Levels 1981 1t6� No Build 1990 /--•...._„„67 ^. Field Measurement (4.3.1962)— Q NOISE CONTOUR MAF Soutcenfer• Boulevard City of Tukwila ALTERNATIVE 1 rrb N. . \ \ \ \ ` / \ \ \ ) \ • \ \ cTr1 \ \ pAIt K \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ N \ ` 67 Y mAs 3 d I it Dot Ign.d By Onlyn GrckW By o a a i 3 m \ WQ�� a a m _ \ \ \/ OFFICE 1 ..........ot 1 OFFrCE / e .a / °,72 7 X72 / // 7.5. \ GI +Y HALL. 75 OFF scE xE20X W O i • 1 0 N_ cc W F Q 0 FED. 'DAD 0, toe __ 62 STATE 10 l WASH. FED •iD —0. w0 F 'SC.. 01•1. S• C7 re tr` .' re' iao 1 Let Noise Leve Is Existin Noise Levels 1981 1t6� No Build 1990 /--•...._„„67 ^. Field Measurement (4.3.1962)— Q NOISE CONTOUR MAF Soutcenfer• Boulevard City of Tukwila ALTERNATIVE 1 3 Bridge Ndriucr 3 0 Engineer or Bridge Oedgn 0 1 0 cc J 62 } 67 L7_ I • [[D. Div. w0 fl�T[ 10 WASH. •ED •lD I [,SCA& pOJ WO Y[sO 5� Cory p^RK 1 62 osrocir 62- CROX 72 7z if sdof o r 110111. 01001•01! l Lel_ Noise Levels Ex;st;n9 Nose LeveIs 1981 -67/". Alter nJe 2. 1990`.67" 7S NOISE CONTOUR MAI Soufhcenfer Boulevard City of Tukwila ALTERUATsVE z GED. ROAD O.v. w0. 10 S1•TE WASH. 'ED •1D •401 +D f iSC•1 •E•N 5.•11 ..0 IV ME' c .TO. Eoe' Lect. Nose Levels Ex;stiny Nose Levels I981 '1_67/- Alternate 3,41990.."••■,,,i -67../ 1024.02. NOISE CONTOUR MAP Southcenfer Boulevard Cify of Tukwila A{T I .,T1 V 3-P. • � \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\\\\\ G�TY yARK \ \ \ \ a im Y 6 a � j � m. 1 t° as 1 iF gg a z O ti \ a N. \ 1 _ 62 err rcc ` 1 \ c.,...., MALL \ ofnce 1 ill . SII 1 / /' \ o «rc� f o o a ....-. 72 . ......... �--_� tt —� 75 `---71 7s z 0 N_ D: • W - 0 GED. ROAD O.v. w0. 10 S1•TE WASH. 'ED •1D •401 +D f iSC•1 •E•N 5.•11 ..0 IV ME' c .TO. Eoe' Lect. Nose Levels Ex;stiny Nose Levels I981 '1_67/- Alternate 3,41990.."••■,,,i -67../ 1024.02. NOISE CONTOUR MAP Southcenfer Boulevard Cify of Tukwila A{T I .,T1 V 3-P. j tat CC N 110. NOD 010.140. 62 10 srAT[ WASH. 110 0,0 PRO/ '40 F iSC0L •E*A 5 +EE' *40 \ SO ./0s se •F' 4 � 1 Lei, Noise Levels Ex'lstins Nose Levels 198I Alternate 331990 • NOISE CONTOUR MV Southcenter l3oulevarc City of Tukwila ALTERFd kTlV C. J°'H' . N i b . M/1�l 7S� 62 \ ` \ \` \ \ \ \ \ og \\\\ 1 I / / �6 1 \ ` \ \ 1 e\ \ ` \ \ \ \ / / / - . CITY \ N. \ / • 75 . x+67/ 6CITY ...-. :ii I .3 Y a 3m . 2 I 111 0 0 m .2 3 a. L a c al Z ° cc Qi /f�E OOP /Cf 7L W Q � o 4. z 0 CC I.. Q O 010.140. 62 10 srAT[ WASH. 110 0,0 PRO/ '40 F iSC0L •E*A 5 +EE' *40 \ SO ./0s se •F' 4 � 1 Lei, Noise Levels Ex'lstins Nose Levels 198I Alternate 331990 • NOISE CONTOUR MV Southcenter l3oulevarc City of Tukwila ALTERFd kTlV C. J°'H' FED ROAD D,v. NO 10 S1•7E FED •i0 FP0J NO «ASFI. FISCAL I S *EE' VENN 00 i 6 1 0 A 0 Lec_ Nose Levels Exist.n5 Noise Levels 1981 bi'- • Alternate 4 I9 9O \,_,„0-67�/' Q.K io•z4 7.2 z O cc • NOISE CONTOUR MAP So_ uthcenfer Boulevard City of Tukwila ALTERNATIVE 4 Exemption from U. S. Coast Guard Bridge Permit Requirements — Green River Stilts 501 Evergreen Plaza 711 S. Capitol tray Olympia, 4ns ;ington 98501 August 26, 1982 Ins. Paul C. Crcgson, Division Administrator PPP -WA Olympia, Washington Hr. John Mikencll Chief, Bridge Section United Status Coast Guard 915 Second Avenue • Seattle, Washington 93174. This is to advise you that FIiWA has applied the criteria established in 23 USC 144(h) to the section of the Green River from the mouth of the Black River'upotream to the SR 516 Bridge. We have found that this stretch of river is not subject to the ebb and flow of the tide; and is not used or susceptible to use as a means to transport iuterstate or foreign commerce. Accordingly, we have determined that the bridges proposed for construction with Federal funds under Title 23 USC under the City of Tuk i1a's.Southcenter Doulovard Project are exempt from U. S. Coast Guard bridge permit requi.reneets. 14a►0r Thio determination will also apply.to future bridge construction projects that nay be proposed on this suction of the Green River. l tM 3. GLOVER Williams J. Glover Environmental Engineer U S. Department of Transportation United States Coast Guard Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration ATTN: Mr. Paul C. Gregson Division Administrator Suite 501 Evergreen Plaza 711 S. Capitol Way Olympia, WA 98501 Gentlemen: COTIIVUKIC :r Thirteenth Coast G6 ri) District 915 Second !.venue Seattle, WA 98174 Staff Symbol: (oan) Phone: (206) . 442 5864 16591 Serial 427 9 September 1982 RE: Green River, from mouth of Black River to SR 516 Bridge; Coast Guard Bridge Permit determination pursuant to Surface Transpor- tation Assistance Act of 1978 Your letter, HPP -WA, of 26 August 1982, advised that a determination has been made pursuant to the Surface Transportation Act of 1978, that Coast Guard Bridge Permits will not be required for bridges constructed with Federal funds under Title 23 USC, across that portion of the Green River between the mouth of the Black River and the SR 516 Bridge. This determination is noted and will be filed for record purposes. The Coast Guard has no further comments at this time. Sincerely, John E. Mikesell Chief, Bridge Section By direction of the District Commander 'D0r'4 oKM 1Trus IN[Vlt[D �� /n • • ;November 29, 1982 G. L. Gilbert �.. A.4Klasell - i. `40'5 :CS 1743 dc:i744 cwilft.:to 'North :Renton• gwno Sout eentec4B improyaments ,L-8180- 414- 1/47(5) Thank ,;.you for the opportunity to review the ..design . report _prepared - by ENTRANCO::Engineers for the City of - Tukwila, for - the proposed..Southcenter Boulevard .improvements Because this project will promote diversion of short 'length :_, trips 'between ukwila ,and. Renton ,tfrom .SR 405 onto-.- .:Southcenter:' Boulevard, the Department should support it because of the potential benefits ,to SR 405t However, `there are several concerns -Which need to be addressed and resolved before the final design is approved. The horizontal and vertical alignments of the .proposed ramp revision to and from southbound SR 405 do not meet the Department's guidelines. At the intersection of the SR 405 ramps with Interurban Avenue and Fort Dent Road the proposed horizontal alignment of the ramps enter the intersection on a 200 foot radius curve. It is desirable to have a minimum of a 50 foot tangent section after the curve prior to entering the intersection. The angle of intersection of the two centerlines can vary from 75 degrees to 105 degrees preferably being as close to 90 degrees as possible. The proposed alignment does not appear to meet this cri teria. It has been a policy of the District to have a 50 foot "landing zone" (a 50 foot section with grades less than plus or minus 2 percent outside of the vertical curves) on profiles at intersections. There are several places where a "landing zone" could be used. There appears to be .several problems with 'signal controls, phasing and sight distance to the signal heads. Closer coordination -with traffic design and traffic operations is needed to resolve these problems., .. Since both signals on Interurban Avenue are dependent oNeach other because of= queueing; t.h'e level of service of both intersections would be D-E using a conservative: approach in analyzing intersection capacity. This is less than the Department's design= criteria of level of service C for urban conditions. The proposed improvements =restrict, the intersection of Monster Road and Grady • way to a right-An; `right- out only for -'Mofister •Road'` n :Greidy'iNay. the left turn channelization (for the west to south movement ,from Grady -Way to Interurban Avenue) extends beyond this intersection, thereby making it i legal or at best ,hazardous to turn east onto Grady Way from Monster Road. '; The impacts and feasibility of this needs to be addressed in the design report. Intersection plans c yiar Headquarters approval for both the SR 101 and the SR 181/Port Dent /Proposed ra interchange plans on myiar (scale 1" = 100') fir the westbowid SR 405 will have to be submitted for Headquarters app ova1. loth sets should reflect WSDOT's design criteria, otherwise the retzooate 1or Mines should be included in the design report text. In general, there needs to be close coordination with the field office preparkig the SR 405 South HOV Project (Wirkkala's) to ensure that the proposed improvements of this report fit in with and coincide with the Department's plans for HOV improvements on SR 405. Clarification is needed as who is to build what and the sources of funding for the replacement of Christensen Road undercrossing (Bridge 405/9). If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Jay LaVassar (233 -2400) or Tom Hansen (233 -2402) of my section. TH /hl cc Traffic Planning /S.Ching Environmental /P. Leavy SR 405/SR 181 Vicinity - Proposed ENS Rear rew _ Rea?ia*�at: of Soutibcent:er Boilevard. 62nd Avenue to ;SR 181 Dear Mr. Collins: The Washington State Department of Transportation has reviewed the subject Proposed Declaration of !don - Significance and offers the following cco is : 1. The proposed -ramp realignment and intersection relocation construction and operation may cause significant safety and operational impacts. 2. In order to adequately evaluate the proposal we would like to review your existing and projected traffic volume data. 3. Ramp and intersection gecmetrics must conform to this departments design standards. 4. This department is currently designing ROV inprovenents . on SR 405. One of the criteria for the project is . that no right -of- y will be acq gyred. All right- of-way necessary for your project that includes hig*y facilities should be transferred to the state when construction is completed. The bridge section labeled Ramp O'Xing -Green River is aril-al ly the 'Southcenter Boulevard.O'Xing. The bridge section labeled Southcenter Boulevattl'O'Xing 18 . the ramp O'Xing.at Green River. 6 We .suggest the "addition of a median barrier as" sham in ;.red `on the attached bridge section sheet. We would appreciate having the City of 'Media and .Entranco Thgirecrrs con- tinue to coordinate. their plans with this office and our .I V.Project -. . "Dale Witldcala- at 464 -5462. Ci of Tukwila. 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 Frank Todd, Mayor M EMORANDUM TO: BRAD COLLINS, PLANNING DIRECTOR FROM: Mark Caughey, Associate Planner OAT E: 19 November 1982 SUBJECT: Status Report -- Southcenter Blvd. By telephone conversation today with Ed Breschinski at Entranco, I have ascertained that a completed draft E.A. has been sent to the State for preliminary review. Once the document is corrected per the preliminary review, it will be circulated formally to the agencies with jurisdiction. We have no further action to take at this time, but we should continue to monitor Entranco's progress. AP /blk LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL To' C_--j---/ (,)F —Co kw<l q. D,)U Waite-S. D G..aO So c. e; &oa.leoo..., k w; ex_. \ .J o..stk t r. t r.. ?P i PA$ Office: Attention: Pk; t Ffq...cetr- Date: I I-1 -e� Job Title: S.C. j ,0fe:.ra.,,r-ek Job No- Sao ae -o Location: Subject° .Ar 7-e—tc We are sending herewith via We are sending under separate cover via: No., of No. of . No. of No: of Description Originals Sepias Prints (Other) j a • p to), cro.„C `k-o A '$- i00) e_., ( pr. I Li -1`Z 1 Rte; (. c.,rA i- -3 - R 2.,) t c l (am..c 4-0. Av-c.k + 14s4-.0 if:73 co-s-1) i d.:: v e 1 . Aff3..s,--,01:, C.., 0 For Approval 21-For Your Information l 1 as noted Returned for Corrections C As Per Your Request ill Approved as Noted ® Please Re= submit R- (c3. ca ; -c. o r - _ a 0-e , ko -0.e _ lei sue - 4 Of,/ r,� a I Ragarks' P(�. -�&e._ �,I-e_ -44-„,....)i-- ' .1 S ; 734— 4 � pre bn-.:.�,r)7 f,/� ,Q / C . it' . a/` e s .) i 't7 1 c-. (K.01 `�h c ,, 0.J\ 4e_1 . 4-0 �Y� _, et to c.-v r".�)4 ! ENTRANCO Engineers ENVIRONMENTAL AND TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON 1515 - 1161h AVE. N.E.. 98004 (206) 454 -0683 A -02.2 revised 12/80 APPENDIX B JOHN SPELLMAN Governor F STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT'OF TRANSPORTATION Highway Administration Building • Olympia, Washington 98504 . (206) 753 -6005 November 1, 1982 • Mr. Phillip R. Fraser Senior Engineer City of Tukwila Public Works Department 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188. Dear Mr. Fraser': lSC 5 0 E NOV 03 198 ENTRANCO ENGINEERS ,t IP Re: City of Tukwila Southcenter Boulevard M- 1147(5) L 9647 DUANE BERENTSON Secretary Attached are the Air Quality and Noise Studies as requested in your letter of October 14, 1982, for the above noted project. By copy of this letter we are forwarding duplicates of the documents to Mr. Dennis Neuzil /Ed Berschinski of Entranco Engineers. Charges for the studies will be billed to the established project fund L 9647. Study costs will not exceed the (Noise $2,469 and Air Quality $1,708) estimates. If you have any questions, please call Mr. Jerry Cheek at 206 - 753 -6155. Very truly yours, Q. 0(444-t--- SAM:cej LAB (EN) Attachments / cc: Mr. Dennis NeuzilV H. C. Bash J. A. Klasell S. A. MOON, P. E. Location - Design Engineer AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS. FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD (62nd Avenue to Grady Way) Prepared By WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION November 1, 1982 SUMMARY Air quality impacts resulting from the proposed construction of additional improvements to Southcenter Boulevard between 62nd Avenue South and Grady Way will improve the mesoscale air quality of the I -5 /Renton corridor. Construction of this project will not increase the overall traffic volumes in this corridor. It will provide an alternative route for traffic which would use I -405 if the project were not built. The "bottle neck" in the existing Southcenter Boulevard causes queueing of traffic, a corresponding reduction of speed and a greater level of pollutants being emitted. Removal of this "bottle neck" would cause an increase of traffic speeds and a corresponding decrease in congestion. This in turn will decrease the pollution per vehicle. The completion of this project will cause no adverse air quality impacts within the project area. CLIMATE The climate of the area is determined by the geographic relationship to the Puget Sound and Pacific Ocean water surfaces which control the moisture content, temperature and velocity of air masses reaching Renton and the whole Puget Sound Region. The maritime air is a moderating influence and is responsible for the generally mild winters and summers. The average yearly temperature is 52 degrees, with a high of 90 degrees in summer and a low of 25 degrees in the winter. The dry season is from May through September, and the rainy season is from October to April, with over 75% of the total annual precipitation occurring during the latter period. The average yearly precipitation is 35 to 40 inches. The prevailing regional wind is from the southwest in the fall and winter months, gradually shifting to the northwest in the late spring and summer. No change to the climate conditions of the area will occur as a result of constructing this project. EXISTING AIR QUALITY The principal sources of air pollution within the study area are transportation emissions, heating system emissions and emissions from local industries. Since the study area is mostly residential, with limited industrial development, air pollution from other than transportation sources is relatively minor. However, the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency has on file 10 stationary pollutant sources in the vicinity of the study area. Container Corporation of America 7000 South 143rd Street Renton, WA 98055 Sternoff Metals Corporation 1600 S.W. 43rd Street Renton, WA 98055 Northwest Steel 22011 - 84th South (home office) Kent, WA 98031 Paccar, Inc. 1400 North 4th Renton, WA 98055 Boeing Airplane Company 8th North and Park North Renton, WA 98055 Interpace Corporation 1500 Hauser Way South Renton, WA 98055 King County Gravel Pit # #40 3005 N.E. 4th Street Renton, WA 98055 M. A. Segale Edmonds and N.E. 3rd Renton, WA 98055 Renton Municipal Airport 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Mobil Oil Corporation 1600 Lind Avenue S.W. Renton, WA 98055 The major transportation generators of air pollution in the study area are I -405, Southcenter shopping mall, Longacres Race Track, SR 181 and Grady Way. Building this project will not cause any appreciable change in the existing conditions for transportation sources of air pollution. Changes within the project corridor will be positive with the increase of speeds and the corresponding decrease of queueing traffic. -2- NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS A new approach to air pollution control came into being with the Federal Clean Air Act of 1970. The law requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to promulgate national primary and secondary ambient air quality standards. The primary standards for each pollutant are based upon known health effects for that particular substance as detailed in "air quality criteria" documents published by the federal government. Primary standards protect the public health and must allow an adequate margin of safety. Secondary standards must protect the public welfare against other adverse effects. These include effects on soils, water, crops, vegetation, man -made materials, animals, wild life, weather, visibility, climate, property, transportation, economic values and personal comfort and well being. Pursuant to the schedule established by the Congress, the Enviornmental Protection Agency published on April 30, 1971, the first national ambient air quality standards. In January 1979, the standard for photochemical oxidant was renamed "Ozone," and was changed from 0.08 ppm to 0.12 ppm. A new national standard for lead in air was adopted in October 1978. The following table is a summary of the current Ambient Air Quality Standards: SULFUR OxiDES The presence of sulfur oxides in the a!nbier.t air has been asscciated with a variety of respiratory diseases and in- creased mortality rates. They repre- sent a significant economic burden and have a nuisarce impact. When sulfur oxides are inhaled withsrail particles, the effect on health is increased. In- halation of sulfur dioxide can cause increased airway resistance by con- stricting lung passages. PARTICULATES Small discrete masses of solid or liq- uid-.'tterdispersed in the atmosphere, especially those of one micron or less in dianeter, are associated with a variety of adverse effects on public health and welfare. Particulate mat - ter in the respiratory tract may pro- .= duce injury by itself, or it may act in ccnjunction with gases to increase • ',the effect on the body. Small parti- cles suspended in the air are chiefly respcn.icle for reduced visibility in the Puget Sound area. Soiling of build - ings and other property is a common effec t of high particulate levels. CARSON 1•')NGX I DE Carbon rncno.ide reacts with the hemo- globin in red blood cells to decrease the oxygen - carrying capacity of the blood. The national primary standard for carbon monoxide was based on evi- dence that levels of carbexyhen'colabin in ht: :-.an blood as low as 2.5t may be associated with impairment of ability to discriminate time intervals. The national ambient air quality standards for carbon monoxide are intended to protect against the occurrence of car - boxyhemoglobin levels above 2<. Note: Smoking up to 2 packs of cigarettes.a day raises carboxyhemoglobin levels to about 5:. This is equivalent to expos- ure for 8 or more hours to 30 ppm of carbon monoxide. AiBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS NATIONAL WASHIi;GTOr STATE PUGET SOUND REGION N PRIMARY SECOi:0ARY o SULFUR OXIDES Annual Average 30 day Average 24 -hour Average 3 -hour Average 1 -hour Average 1 -hour Average 5 min. Average pp,i, _ ppm t e 0,03 0,14 0.50 a b b SUSPENDED PARTICULATES Annual Geo. Mean 24 -hour Average ug/m3 ug /m3 a .b 75 260 60 150 CARBON MONOXIDE d -hour Average 1 -hour Average ppm same b b 9 • 35 OZONE 1 -hour Average ppm sane e 0.12 NITROGEN DIOXIDE Annual Average ppm same a 0.05 HYDROCARBONS (Less Methane) 3 -hour Average ppm same b f 0.24 LEAD Calendar Quarter Average ug/m3 same a 1,5 ppm 0 t e PPM 0.02 0.10 0.25 0.40 a b c b 0,02 0.04 0.10 0.25 0,40 1.00 0 t e 5 a a a c a d ug /m3 60 150 a hg/M3 60 150 a b same same same PPm 0.08 b same same same but applies only 4/1 thru 10/31 same as National ppm = parts per million ug /m' = micrograms per cubic meter a Never to be exceeded b Not to be exceeded more than once per year c Not to be exceeded more than twice in seven days d Not to be exceeded more than once in eight hours e Standard attained when expected number of days per year with maximum hourly average above 0.12 ppm is equal to or less than one f Applies 6 a.m. to 9 a.m. daily PSAPCA 6/79 1 _1 ,- . i i_._1 OZONE Oxidants are produced in the atmosphere when nitrogen oxides and some hydro- carbons are exposed to sunlight. Ozone is the oxidant foundin'largest amounts. It is a pulmonary irritant that affects lung tissues and respiratory functions. Ozone impairs the normal function of lung and, at concentrations between 0.15 and 0.25 ppm, causes lung tight -.. ness, coughing, and wheezing. Other oxidants, produced in smaller amounts than ozone, cause eye irritation. Per- sons with chronic respiratory proble^:s_ such as asthma seem most sensitive to changes in ozone concentration. NITROGEN DIOXIDE Nitric oxide results from the fixation of nitrogen and oxygen at high temper- atures as in fuel combustion. There are several atmospheric reactions which lead to the oxidation of nitric oxide to nitrogen dioxide, and the presence of nitrogen dioxide in ambient air is essential to the production of photochemical oxidant;. of nitrogen dioxide in ambient air has been associated with a variety of res- piratory diseases. HYDROCARBONS Defined as organic compounds composed exclusively of carbon and hydrogen, hydrocarbons are primarily associated with the use of petroleum products. They are the main components of photo- chemical smog. Hydrocarbons alone have no known effect on human.health; there- fore the sole purpose of prescribing a hydrocarbon standard is to control photochemical oxidants. LEAD Lead affects humans in numerous ways, but the greatest effects appear to be on the blood - forming system, the nerv- ous system, and the kidneys. It af- fects some persons more than others. Young children (ages 1 -5) are particu- larly sensitive to lead exposure. The standard for lead in air is intended to preventmost children from exceeding blood lead levels of 30 micrograms per deciliter of blood. MICROSCALE ANALYSIS No microscale analysis was performed for the project. A review of the microscale analysis performed by Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) for an adjutant project, SR 515 S.E. 196th Street to Carr Road, allows the conclusion to be made that there should be no adverse air quality impacts. The criteria and information used by WSDOT in their analysis for SR 515 is as follows: 1. Although this project is close to the southern boundary of the motor vehicle emission inspection area for Seattle, no inspection maintenance credits were considered in the 1984 and 1990 emission factors. 2. PM peak hour traffic volumes. (4:00 to 5:00 p.m.) were used in the study since the slowest traffic speeds and most congestion occur along the highway and arterials during this time period. 3. Receptors were located along the right -of -way line and at major intersections. 4. The worst case meteorological conditions used were a one meter per second wind speed and a Class F stability for the one hour average. 5. The background concentrations used in this study were derived in the SR 515 Carr Road to Puget Drive Air Quality Study completed in October 1979. The background of 3 ppm for one hour and 1.3 ppm for eight hour average represents contributions of CO from other than identifiable vehicular related sources and from roadways which were not included in the roadway network analyzed. -5- The results of the predicted CO concentrations for the p.m. peak hour for all conditions (years) studied are shown in the following table. TABLE A SR 515 - SE 196TH STREET TO CARR ROAD MAXIMUM PREDICTED CARBON MONOXIDE LEVELS ONE HOUR AVERAGE (PM PEAK) 1980 EXISTING 1984 NO -BUILD 1984 BUILD 1990 NO -BUILD 1990 BUILD Wind Conc. Wind Conc. Wind Conc. Wind Conc. Wind Conc. Dir. PPM Dir. PPM Dir. PPM Dir. PPM Dir. PPM RECEPTOR NOS. AT R/W LINE R -1 SW CORNER OF SR 515 (Sc 192ND 0 3.0 0 5.5 0 4.4 0 5.6 0 4.8 R -2 SW CORNER OF SR 515 & 192ND 0 4.5 0 7.5 6.5 0 7.4 0 6.6 Z-3 SW CORNER OF SR 515 & 182ND 180 3.3 0 6.8' 0 4.9 6.6 0 4.7 . -4 SW CORNER OFSR515 & 182ND 0 3.9 0 7.9 0 5.7 0 7.8 0 5.6 Z-5 SW CORNER OF SR 515 & CARR RD 68 4.0 7.5 0 5.9 0 7.7 0 5.6 Z-6 SW CORNER OF SR 515 & CARR RD 338 4.2 0 6.2 0 5.3 0 6.9 0 4.9 & -7 NW CORNER OF SR 515 do CARR RD 180 5.0 180 6.7 248 5.1 248 6.9 248 5.8 -8 NE CORNER OF SR 515 & CARR RD. 248 5.2 248 7.0 248 5.6 248 7.5 248 6.2 -9 60' SOUTH OF CARR RD 270 3.6 270 4.7 270 3.7 68 5.0 270 4.2 -10 40' NORTH OF SE 176TH 248 4.2 248 3.9 248 3.7 248 5.2 248 4.2 OTE: Add 3.0 ppm as background concentration for one hour average Add 1.3 ppm as background concentration for eight hour average All of the build conditions are values less than the corresponding no- build. This lends support to the finding that improving traffic flow with an increase in speeds and a decrease in congestion, queueing, result in a decrease in pollutants emitted. CONCLUSION The build alternative will improve the air quality in the mesoscale corridor. There should also be a positive improvement within the microscale or project corridor. This will be a result of improvement in traffic flow with the corresponding congestion reduction and the potential capability for increase in speed. PROJECT CONFORMITY WITH THE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN This project is in an air quality nonattainment area which has transportation control measures in the state implementation plan (SIP) which was approved by the Environmental Protection Agency. The FHWA has determined that both the transportation plan and the transportation improvement program conform to the SIP. The Federal Highway Administration has determined that this project is included in the transportation improvement program for the Puget Sound Council of Governments. Therefore, pursuant to 23 CFR 770, this project conforms to the SIP. 1M/239 -8- APPENDIX C CITY OF TUKWILA Southcenter Boulevard 62nd Ave. S. to Grady Way Bridge Noise Assessment A. W. Elston October 29, 1982 SUMMARY The most significant aspect of the project area, as it relates to noise, is that is lies essentially parallel to the 1 -405 freeway and is, therefore, dominated by traffic noise from I -405. Only at relatively close points to Southcenter Boulevard and certain of the adjacent streets and arterials is there any difference in noise levels other than that due to I -405 by itself. The area between 62nd Street and 68th Street on the north side of Southcenter Boulevard is a valuable piece of real estate containing fairly new office buildings, Tukwila City Hall, city park, etc. Only one office building at the corner of Southcenter Boulevard and 65th Street and a private dwelling opposite 68th Street were found to be above the guideline noise level as defined in Table I. Expected natural growth of traffic in this area will cause about 1 dBA increase in noise which would apply to the 1990 "no- build" or Alternate 1. All of the build alternatives, that is Alternates 2, 3A, 3B and 4, have an identical effect on this area between 62nd Street and 68th Street and will cause another 1 dBA rise above the no -build condition by the year 1990; and no sites will be above guideline noise levels except the two that are already above. Construction of any of the alternatives will cause an unnoticable increase in noise relative to not constructing anything new. Abatement by means of noise walls is not considered necessary. The office building at 65th Street shows no indication of any outside activity that would be sensitive to noise and interior noise levels quite probably perfectly adequate for office work since the building was built there under present noise conditions. The private dwelling also shows no indication of outside activity areas facing traffic. The rear portion of the property is shielded to some extent by the top of the well vegetated cut and should be quiet enough for outside use without undue annoyance from traffic noise. METHOD OF ASSESSMENT Determination of the effect of a project will have on the noise climate in adjacent areas is based on three steps: 1. Identify land use and the sensitivity of a particular use to noise, i.e„ houses, schools, parks, commercial establish- ments, etc. 2. Find existing noise levels. 3. Predict future levels, including the contribution from the proposed project. Noise impact, that is problems with noise, is based on increases in noise over what now exists; and actual level in the future as shown by the Design Level /Activity Relationships of Table I. As an example, increases between 5 and 10 dBA and /or levels of 67 dBA or more for residential use is a condition where mitigation would be investigated. Two locations were measured and site location is shown on the Noise Contour map for no -build (Alternate 1). It can be seen that measured values agree well with noise contours, which were predicted. Existing noise contours are shown superimposed on all the noise contour maps for comparison. Predicted values were obtained by modeling traffic, geometry, etc. as described in FHWA HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (FHWA -RD -77 -108) (December 1978). DISCUSSION By inspection of the noise contour maps, it can be seen that none of the alternatives have much effect on the area between 62nd Street and 68th Street. As stated in the summary, mitigation is not considered necessary. There are, however, vacant lands along this section of the project that could, and probably will, be developed sometime in the future. The City of Tukwila can provide potential developers with the appropriate noise contour maps (the alternate chosen for construction) as an aid to the developer in design and layout to avoid a future noise problem. For example, if the developer is aware of the noise condition, he can place parking areas in the noisy areas, buildings in the quieter areas and face windows away from traffic; or build buffer zones, earth berms or walls and landscape areas to provide the type of noise climate needed for that particular development. The proposed bike trail park along the Green River will be affected differently by the various alternates and from the standpoint of noise, the two alternates, 3B and 4, which eliminates the section of Southcenter Boulevard from 68th Street to Interurban Avenue along the Green River, would provide the quietest environment for this section of the bike trail. The overall benefit, however, in choosing 3B or 4 over the other alternatives is minimized because in all cases, the bike trail must pass beneath the noisy I -405 freeway. TABLE 1 DESIGN NOISE LEVEL /ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIPS Design Noise Levels - DBA Activity Category Leq(h) Description of Activity Category A 57 Tracts of land in which serenity and quiet are of (Exterior) extraordinary significance and serve an important public need and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to serve its intended purpose. Such areas could include amphitheaters, particular parks or portions of parks, open spaces, or historic districts which are dedicated or recognized by appropriate local officials for activities requiring special qualitieE of serenity and quiet. B 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active (Exterior) sports areas, and parks which are not included in Category A and residences, motels, hotels, public meeting:rooms, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals. C 72 Developed lands, properties or activities not in- (Exterior) cluded in Categories A or B above. D Undeveloped lands. E 52 Residences, motel, hotels, public meeting rooms, (Exterior) schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums. FROM: USDOT Federal Highway Administration Federal -Aid Highway Program Manual Volume 7, Chapter 7, Section 3, July 9, 1982. 5 A 5 FED RO *,S S:•tE 10 WASH. FED Ail) I 'MEAL FwO�. NO. YEAR r0 tk_ S "EE•S \\ ! j' it \ Lect_ Noise Levels Existin Noise Levels 1981 ��ef No guild 1990 Field Measurement (4.3.1982)— Q 75 1 0.27.82 NOISE CONTOUR MAP 5outhcenter Boulevard City of Tukwila ALTC4N ^rlv 1 1 1 1 1 1 J OFPIce 7s / 72 7s .10* I I I 1 61 72 75 4„r FED. ROAD ow _ HO. STATE 1E0. A10 PROF. 140. FISCAL FEAR SHEET HO. TOTAL SHEETS 10 WASH. Lel Noise Levels ,o a Ex;stin9 Noise Levels 1981 —6TZ- `K.. 1M11=1 Alternate 2 1990 v x 1o•7.9•82 NOISE CONTOUR MAP 5oufhcenfer Boulevard • City of Tukwila_ ALrE2MATIVE 2 J X72 bZ z osPTcr 7Z 7s / .°' l� 1 62 s7 rFRVge f GZ • 1 G7 7 a FED. ROAD OIV. NO STATE FED A1O FRO.. NO FISCAL YEAR SHEET HO. TOTAL SHEETS 10 WASH Lei, Nose Levels 4`.. , Exist n9 Noise Levels I981 Alternate 3Q 1990 NOISE CONTOUR MAP 5outhcenfer Boulevard • CifX of Tukwila AITCRNAsT 1ve ,3-A 3 0 2 0 72. 7s 61 b1 72 7Z 6 f 67 1 K 62 67�/ 14/re,. mti 4e1 1, 4frr a 62 1E0. ROAD 010.00. STATE 110 *10 FRO,. NO. FISCAL YEAR SWEET RO. '0101. 001105 10 WASH. Ry Lei. Noise Levels Ex'stii'3 Nose Levels 1981 -6TH Alternate 3-B1990 p•K 10.2 -t• e a. NOISE CONTOUR MAP Soul- hcenter Boulevard • City of Tukwila ALIEQN&T,Ve' 9-B 4 3 5. FED. ROAO ETATE FED AID FISCAL DIV. NO. FROJ. NO. YEAR it 10 WASH. Y:ctr TOTAL MO. SHEETS 72 OFFICE. 62 CETY MALL OPP/C L Lei_ Noise Levels Exist.n3 Nose Levels 1981 Alternate 4 19901.E -b��l 75 'DR.K loa.q•ai NOISE CONTOUR MAP Southcenter Boulevard City of Tukwila 1 ALTERNArlvE 4 APPENDIX D UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98195 Office of Public Archaeology Institute for Environmental Studies FM -12 (206)543 -8359 15 November 1982 Phil Frazier, Senior Engineer Public Works Department City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Washington 98188 Subject: Southcenter Boulevard Archaeological Assessment Dear Mr. Frazier: Enclosed please find one (1) copy of this office's report for the above- referenced project. As per our re- cent phone conversation, I have forwarded copies of this same report to Entranco Engineers and the State's Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP). I will be contacting OAHP in the next few days to verify that the report meets with their approval. Your kind attention to this matter is greatly appre- ciated. Should you have any questions or need further information or assistance, please don't hesitate to con - tact me at your earliest convenience. It has been a pleasure working with you on this project, and I look forward to our continued association. cc: Ed Berschinski Entranco Engineers Dr. Robert Whitlam Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Enclosure 9ecycled Paper Jer. Je ann, Ph.D. Sta haeo ogist CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT OF THE SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD IMPROVEMENT AND RELOCATION PROJECT, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON by Jerry V. Jermann A final report of 'findings submitted to the City of Tukwila under the conditions and specifications of a contract dated 2 November ,1982. Office of Public Archaeology Institute for Environmental Studies University of Washington Seattle 15 November 1982 INTRODUCTION As a part of its continuing efforts to improve and upgrade existing transportation facilities, the City of Tukwila's Department of Public Works proposes several modifications to Southcenter Boulevard between 62nd Ave - nue South and Grady Way (Figures 1 and 2) to improve access for vehicles, decrease response time for emergency vehicles, and facilitate completion of the Christensen Greenbelt Trail. Although several alternatives are still under consideration, the currently preferred alternative, known as the "At -Grade Intersection ", involves several modifications that include (Figure 3): (1) Widening of the eastern portion of South - center Boulevard to match the five -lane, 60 -foot wide driving surface that currently ends west of 62nd Avenue South; (2) Extending and realigning the eastern terminus of Southcenter Boulevard to link with the new Grady Way Bridge — this would require a new bridge over the Green River; (3) Realigning the transit link between the current intersection of Southcenter Boulevard and Interurban Avenue South (SR 181) and Inter- state 405 — this also would require a new bridge over the Green River; and (4) Relocating the existing T -line bridge that connects Southcenter Boulevard and Tukwila Parkway to an alignment somewhere between 66th Avenue South and a point approximately 30' east of its current location. With the exception of the two new bridges over the Green River and the relocation of the T -line bridge, con- struction of the proposed improvements will involve re- latively minor modifications of the existing ground sur- face. Indeed, as currently conceived, the new alignments will be built on fill that will be used to bring the roadways up to grade with existing driving surfaces. Construction of the proposed bridges will require limited ground distunbnce for the excavation of necessary footings. 2 The proposed undertaking requires issuance of several local, state, and federal permits and licenses prior to its implementation. As part of the permit and licensing process, an evaluation of potential project - related im- pacts to cultural resources that may be located in the immediate vicinity is necessary to insure against unmiti- gated loss of significant heritage values. Recognizing its responsibility for the stewardship of such resources, the City of Tukwila entered into a contractual agreement with the University of Washington's Office of Public Archaeology (OPA) for conduct of archaeological assess- ment measures related to the Southcenter Boulevard Improvement and Relocation Project. The following report summarizes findings and recom- mendations issuing from OPA's cultural resources assess- ment of the above - referenced project. The report is divided into four major sections. The first two sections, which briefly summarize the natural and cultural settings of the project area, are the product of archival and literature review conducted in advance of on -site activi- ties and are intended largely to provide a context for evaluating resource potential and later management recom- mendations. The third section describes the techniques and results of in -field assessment measures. Finally, the fourth section summarizes our findings and offers recommendations for further management consideration. LOCATION AND NATURAL SETTING The project area is situated in the SWa, Sec. 24, T.23N., R.4E., W.M. Located in the Puget Sound Basin of the Puget Trough physiographic province (Franklin and Dyrness 1973), the geology and topography of the region owe their character almost entirely to Pleistocene glacial action. Approximately 5,000 years ago, the Osceola mud - flow swept down the slopes of Mt. Rainier into the White and lower Green River valleys before finally coming to rest just north of the present -day city of Auburn. 3 Because the prior channel of the White River was filled with mudflow debris,, the river cut a channel northward, eventually joining the Green River at Auburn. During this period of channel realignment, coarse debris from the intrusive mudflow was redeposited into the lower valley as a massive alluvial fan, and finer sediments were carried beyond the fan into a marine embayment. In this fashion, the combined flows of the White, Green, and eventually the Black Rivers built a narrow delta that gradually moved northward to fill the lower valley (Dunne and Dietrich 1979). The last 75 years have witnessed a complex series of changes in the flow patterns and course of the Green River. Prior to 1906, the river joined the White River near what is now Auburn; this combined stream was known as the White River Valley to that point near present -day Tukwila where it was joined by the Black River, whence the river was known as the Duwamish. Lake Washington had an outlet through the Black River, and the Cedar River could flow into either the Black River or Lake Washington, or both (Dalan and Wilke 1982:3). Then, in. 1906, a major flood episode caused debris to block the main channel of the White River, causing it to cut a new channel southward to the Stuck River, which joined the Puyallup River before emptying into Commencement Bay at Tacoma. Subsequent flood control measures made this channel diversion a permanent fixture of the landscape. In 1913, a dredging and channel- straightening project began on the lower Duwamish River to provide a deep waterway for oceangoing ships to come into Seattle. The construction of the Lake Washington Ship Canal and Govern- ment Locks at Ballard in 1917 . caused Lake Washington to fall to a level that virtually stopped the flow of the Black River. At the same time, Cedar River was rerouted into Lake Washington to provide a sufficient flow of Water to insure continuous operation of the Locks (Pence 1946:26). Subsequently, the Green River is now the accepted name for the stream that occupies . the valley in which the current project area is found. As might be expected from the discussion above, the Green River Valley historically has been the locus of frequent flooding. Initial attempts to control these destructive hydraulic events largely consisted of dikes constructed by local landholders, but these efforts were only marginally effective. With the construction and subsequent operation of the Howard A. Hanson Dam in 1962, the danger of major flooding along the river was averted at last, and the several levees that have been placed along the river in the vicinity of the project area have further reduced the hazard of flood damage. Insofar as cultural resource sites in the region are concerned, particularly those . of the prehistoric period, the most important factors affecting their preser- vation and our ability to locate their remains are river meander and alluvial deposition rates. Dalan and Wilke (1982:4) report that between 1898 and 1978 the river has shifted its lateral course at average rates of up to 18 m per year, although the rate below Auburn has tended to be less than .3 m per year. Doubtless such dynamic course changes across the floodplain have either eroded or buried many of the aboriginal sites that once dotted the land- scape. Consequently, those sites that do remain in the valley likely are covered by varying amounts of flood - deposited alluvium, and subsurface examination will be required in most instances"to locate such remains. Given that the aboriginal inhabitants of the region practiced a hunting - fishing- gathering economy, knowledge of the distribution and composition of the area's flora and fauna is of considerable importance in understanding prehistoric settlement and subsistence patterns. The project area and the valley as a whole lie within Franklin 5 and Dyrness' (1973) Tsuga heterophylla zone, which occurs over much of western, Washington and Oregon. The over - story is dominated'by several coniferous species, most notably western hemlock..(Tsuga heterophylla), Douglas fir (Pseudotsuqa menziesii), and western red.cedar (Thuja plicata). In. riparian hab.itatsdeciduous hardwood species are found. These include bigleaf maple (Aces macrophyllum), red. alder (Alnus rubra), black Cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa), and. Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia). A broad spectrum of understory communities are arrayed according to moisture gradients within the zone. In the southern Puget Sound area. the most common species are vine maple (A. circinatum), broadleaf rhododendron (Rhododendron macrophyllum); Pacific dogwood (Cornus nuttallii), red huckleberry (Vaccinium parvifolium), Oregon grape (Berberis nervosa), salal (Gaultheria shallon), and trailing blackberry (Rubus ursinus) — several of these were important constituents of the aboriginal diet and economy. The Green River Valley supports a highly varied and abundant fauna, due in large measure to the diversity of its habitats. A variety of large and small mammals occupy the region's forests, meadows, and waters, and a signi- ficant number of resident and migratory birds also frequent the area. Of most importance to the aboriginal economy:i however, were the large numbers of fish that occurred in the streams and estuaries; for example, Salo and McComas (1979) list 44 separate species of fish for just the river estuary system. In short, the region offered an abundance of fish, game, and plant resources for its human inhabitants. CULTURAL SETTING The Green River Valley has long been occupied and exploited by various groups having widely divergent sub- sistence and settlement systems. .Although a compre- hensive account of the history and prehistory of the region is beyond the scope of this report, it is impor- tant nonetheless to review major aspects of our current understanding of these topics to provide a framework for assessing any cultural resources that might be located within the project area.. HISTORY The first Euroamerican settlers in what is now King County occupied the mouth of the Green River in 1850 and 1851. With the opening of a road through Naches Pass in 1853, which connected the Puget Sound area with the inland portions of the Territory, significant numbers of new settlers entered the area. Between 1853 and 1855, various individuals were able to acquire land in the valley under the provisions of the Donation Land Act. Two of these, William H. Gilliam and Henry Meter (Meader), claimed parcels in the immediate project vicinity. Never- theless, a review of the General Land Office (GLO) plat maps, which were surveyed in 1861 and 1863, shows no evi- dence of structures or other improvements on either property. During the Indian wars of 1855-1856, local settlers constructed Fort Dent for protection in the event of raids. Situated somewhat north and west of the project area, an historic marker now indicates the location of this former fortification (Dalan et al. 1981). To a large degree, the early Euroamerican economy of the region was based on agriculture, and this was the principal focus of local land use until quite recent times. Since the 1940's, however, industrial development has moved rapidly to replace the family farm throughout much of the valley. 7 ETHNOGRAPHY At the time of the first Euroamerican encroachment into the region, the Green River Valley was occupied by the Duwamish Tribe, whose. territory reached from the river's mouth up to and including the Black and Cedar Rivers (Haeberlin and.Gunther 1930; Smith 1940; Spier 1936). Actually, the Duwamish were composed of several groups, who controlled portions of the various water- ways included within the larger territorial unit (Lane 1973a) . The settlement-subsistence pattern of the Duwamish reflected.the seasonal availability of the various re- sources that characterized the indigenous diet. Never - theless,'the principal focus of the settlement system was the "winter village "• which was occupied by the entire group only during .the winter months. These rela- tively permanent villages — permanent in the sense that the same locality was used for several years — typically were located on high, well- drained ground along major rivers or stream confluences. Village size tended to vary from one to three houses; •each house was large enough. for four to six families (Smith 1940:4). The houses were rather substantial affairs constructed of cedar planks that were fastened to a rectangular super- structure of large cedar logs (Lorenz et al. 1976:19). With the settlement of the area by non - Indian peoples, the house style changed from a multifamily to a single - family sturcture (Noel 1980:11). During the spring months, families began to dis- perse from their winter dwelling to beach areas where they collected various molluscan and other marine re- sources. Certain species were consumed immediately, while others were processed and stored for later winter use. Following the collection and curation of the winter shellfish supply, women travelled to their accustomed 8 root and berry gathering areas (Haeberlin and Gunther 1930). At the same time, the men took up the pursuit of fish, an activity that would occupy their attentions . from early summer until November. To a large degree . exploitation of the abundant fish resources of the region centered on four species of salmon and steelhead, and most of these were taken using weirs, although a variety of other techniques were also. employed (Lane 1973b :1 -8) . The men also occasionally hunted terrestrial mammals, but these were not a critical part of the indigenous diet. As might be expected, housing during the spring, summer, and fall months was considerably different than that noted for the winter village. The structures were quite temporary and were constructed from woven mats laid over a set of poles and secured with strips of hide, net- tle, or cedar bark twine (Noel 1980:10). Typically, these structures were built as single- family dwellings and were either.. teepee- shaped or square (Haeberlin and Gunther 1930). Although available ethnographic souces list several village sites and temporary campsites within the general region, none of these is located in the immediate project area. Nevertheless, two villages . are recorded a short distance downstream (Dalan et al. 1981; Hedlund 1981), and it is likely that other such sites were scattered throughout the nearby vicinity. ARCHAEOLOGY The prehistory of. the Green River Valley and the greater southern Puget Sound region is poorly understood. In large measure this is probably the result of the re- latively early Euroamerican settlement of the area and the substantial development that has occurred during this century, factors that have resulted in substantial destruction of the archaeological record. Nevertheless, 9 the relatively few professional archaeological surveys and excavations that have. been conducted in the region provide important insights in.to'aboriginal lifeways. Three major archaeological excavations have been undertaken on village sites in the general project vicinity. The first of these, conducted at the Duwamish No. 1 site (45- KI -23) along the.Duwamish Waterway, con- sists of a series of three investigations carried out by OPA under contract to the Port of Seattle during.the mid- 1970's. This site, which is an aboriginal shell midden,. was occupied intermittently between approximately A.D. 650 and A.D. 1600. by peoples exploiting the nearby •estuarine fish and mollusc resources (Lorenz et al. 1976;. Jermann et al. 1977; Campbell 1981). Excavations at the Sbabadid site (45- KI -51), located in Renton, were conducted by OPA during the fall of'1979 and the summer of 1980 under contract to CHG International, who planned to use the area as the site of'their Earling- ton Woods Planned Unit Development.. On -site investiga- tions recovered an abundance of artifacts and features that can be attributed to two separate historic villages: one occupied between 1790 and 1825 and another occupied briefly between, 1850 - 1856 (Chatters 1981) . This site is of particular importance to an understanding of sub- sistence and settlement patterns of the native population when it first encountered the perturbating factor of Euro- american incursion into the region. The third locality, the Tualdad Altu site (45- KI -59), was excavated by OPA during the summer of 1980 under con- tract to First City Equities of Seattle. Located in Ren- ton at the west end of the Earlington Golf Course, exca- vations at this site recovered numerous tools of bone and stone from a village of rectangular houses that.was occupied during the period A.D. 300 -500 (Chatters 1982). - 10 - In addition to these more intensive investigations, a number of reconnaissance surveys have been undertaken in areas immediately adjacent to the project area (Dalan and Wilke 1982; Moura .1982).: One of these, a survey con- ducted in 1963 in conjunction. with the rechanneling of the Green River as part of the original construction of the current Interstate 405 - Interurban. Avenue - Southcenter Boulevard Interchange system, located a small shell midden site. Unfortunately, this site (45 -KI -6) lay directly in the'path.of the new channel and was completely destroyed before further investigations could be undertaken. ASSESSMENT TECHNIQUES AND. RESULTS On -site evaluation of the project area was conducted by a team of two professional archaeologists on 11 Novem- ber 1982. This aspect of the cultural resources assess- ment effort was conducted in two phases: (1) systematic pedestrian surface reconnaissance and (2) limited - scale subsurface testing. In the paragraphs that follow we detail the techniques and results of both assessment phases. Initially, the assessment team conducted an inten- sive reconnaissance of all project lands in an effort to locate any remains of historic or prehistoric cul- • aural activity. All available horizontal and vertical exposures were examined for evidence of prior human use/ occupation. Unfortunately, surface visability was very poor: much of the area is` covered in dense grassy vege- tation, and riprap covers both banks of the Green River in this vicinity. Consequently, no discernible evidence of cultural remains were identified during this phase of on- project evaluations. Given that it was, still. possible that the area might contain cultural resources that simply had been obscured by vegetation or recent alluvium, a program of limited - scale subsurface testing was.undertaken in an effort to locate any such deposits. A one -inch push tube soil sampler was used to. core the area ,at intermittent loca- tions to a depth of-1.5 m. Cores were placed'at intervals of 10 -30 m along the east bank of the Green River, and another series of borings was placed every 10 m along a transect perpendicular to the river in the vicinity of the proposed.easten extension of Southcenter Boulevard that will link that roadway. with the new Grady Way Bridge (Figure 3). No evidence. of buried. cultural deposits was found in any of these test holes. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS On the basis of both archival /literature review and direct on -site surface and subsurface investigations, we must conclude that the project area likely contains no. significant cultural resources. While there is always some finite chance such remains lie buried at depth greater than 1.5 m, the likelihood of this is very low. We there- fore recommend that the project be allowed to proceed as planned. At the same time, however, certain precautionary measures should be adopted to insure against loss of any significant remains that may have escaped detection during the current project assessment. In the unlikely event that artifacts are encountered Auring construction, further-work should be temporarily halted in that vicinity until a professional archaeological evaluation can be made of the need for mitigative efforts. In addition, notification of any such findings should be made to the state's Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation so that they might coordinate and review possible preservation /recovery alternatives. - 12 - REFERENCES CITED Campbell, S. K. 1981 The Duwamish No. 1 site: a lower Puget Sound shell midden. Office of Public Archaeology, University of Washington, Research Report 1. Chatters, J. C. 1981 Archaeology of the Sbabadid site (45KI51), King County, Washington. Office of Public Archaeology, University. of Washington, Seattle. 1982 Interim report on excavations at Earlington Park. Unpublished letter report submitted to First City Equities, Seattle. Manuscript on file at the Office of Public Archaeology, University of Washington, Seattle. Dalan, R., S. Hunt, and S. Wilke 1981 Cultural resource overview and reconnaissance: Green River Flood Damage Reduction Study. Geo -Recon International, Seattle. Report submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, Seattle. Dalan, R. and S. Wilke 1982 Cultural resource evaluation of the proposed Tukwila Hotel site, Tukwila, Washington. Geo -Recon International, Seattle. Dunne, T. and W. E. Dietrich 1979 Geomorphology and hydrology of the Green River. In A river of green, Appendix A, Jones and Jones Associates, Seattle. A planning report to the King County Department of Planning and Community Development. Franklin, J. F. and C. T. Dyrness 1973 Natural vegetation of Oregon and Washington. USDA, Forest Service, General Technical Report PNW -8. Haeberlin, H. and E. Gunther 1930 The Indians of Puget Sound. University of Washington, Publications in Anthropology 4(1) :1 -84. Hedlund, G. 1981 Archaeological resources at the mouth of the Black River. Report submitted to the King County Depart- ment of Public Works. Manuscript copy on file at the Office of Public Archaeology, University of Washington, Seattle. - 13 - Jermann, J. V., T. H. Lorenz, and R. S. Thomas 1977 Continued archaeological testing at the Duwamish No. 1 site (45KI23) . Office of Public Archaeology, University of Washington, Reconnaissance Report 11. Lane, B. 1973a Anthropological report on the identity and treaty status of the Muckleshoot Indians. Unpublished manuscript on file at. the Office of Public Archaeo- logy, University of Washington, Seattle. 1973b Anthropological report on the traditional fisheries of the Muckleshoot Indians. Unpublished manuscript on file at the Office of Public Archaeology, University of Washington, Seattle. Lorenz, T. H., G. R. Spearman, and J. V. Jermann 1976 Archaeological testing at the Duwamish No. 1 site, King County, Washington. Office of Public Archaeo- logy, University. of Washington, Reconnaissance Report 8. Moura, G. F. 1982 Archaeological reconnaissance of the 16 acre Tukwila Bend Project. Unpublished letter report submitted to Evergreen Managment Company, Bellevue. Manuscript on file at the Office of Public Archaeology, Univer- sity of Washington, Seattle. Noel, P. S. 1980 Muckleshoot Indian history.. Auburn School District No. 408, Auburn, Washington. Pence, W. R. 1946 The White River Valley of Washington. Unpublished' MA thesis, Department of Geography, University of Washington, Seattle. Salo, E. and R. L. McComas 1979 Aquatic resources of the Green -Duwamish River; with enhancement. possibilities. In A river of green, Appendix B, Jones and Jones Associates, Seattle. A, planning report.to the King County Department of Planning and Community Development. Smith, M. 1940 The Puyallup - Nisqually. Columbia University, Contributions to Anthropology 32. Spier, L. 1936 Tribal distribution in Washington. General Series in Anthropology 3. Bantu Publishing, Menasha. — 14 — r M.ob,; . N..1.0 • • .i • -1 — —. I,M.oU ! ' IIrN"w: • Y ,� a• r \ . i alliW i bw' Bohn r I i if- I r Itel r • R . rra Ww relic 'lA:S6lat:1. .�•. . • z. tarn � . W.:i r• ..... :Y yr 1d ors. :SrLAVp W mi' - .. Y,.nrM LA+ .• N.! w • . 3/ ter, •1 Uor +' TI Aubi 1 stoo {b. �` a '„ \ �. 2 I.c1 Figure 1. General vicinity map showing location of project area. - 15 - r Lt.11111 r s U I L t1 = I1111t I tJ . . LLL� • e 0V11111111111111= IA I` "f 1% �. ff lilt 88 IWUTNC[NT[R /KMT ; 1 ' - • . L • to . r 151Er fif o a e�I < C AVE a N i • I Fr PARK 11,141 . ..' e um 1 CIL . ,. ;'-,,C .- di ...... Lawni.... , . ....... ..;..... ism . . .. . MIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ......... pi o ,� -- _tom ki � t�s.� • • ./...,,,,,, r wow o \ 1------- ��� :.•..(1,s.,....‘ / �` �� D o� . i. ............ • • Mi..... .. ... 11111 .. = • wo. .1 il imam, •,,, en.m..e. n . >E • • Es se A )1.",...... • Imp wo so r IONYACR[i • �< . non ( .. •• 111 ft ft ft wip ft 111111111111111111 Figure 2. Map of project location in relation to surrounding roadway systems. I- . .` . • New AMpmment New Bridge • ALTERNATIVE 4 At -Grade Intersection Figure 3. Detailed map of the "At -Grade Alternative." UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98195 Office of Public Archaeology Institute for Environmental Studies FM -12 (206)543 -8359 .15 November 1982 . ;;,Phil Frazier, Senior Engineer. public Works Department City of Tukwila. 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Washington 98188 Subject: Southcenter Boulevard Archaeological Assessment Dear Mr. Frazier: Enclosed please find one (.1) copy of this office's report for the.. .above-referenced project. As per our re- cent phone conversation, I have forwarded copies of this same report to Entranco Engineers and the State's Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP). I will be contacting OAHP in the next few days to verify that the report meets with their approval. Your kind attention to this matter is greatly appre- ciated. Should you have any questions or need further information or assistance, please don't hesitate to con- tact me at your earliest convenience. It has been a pleasure working with you on this project, and I look forward to our continued association. cc: Ed Berschinski Entranco Engineers Dr. Robert Whitlam Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Enclosure . to, Recycled Paper ruly yours, ('JerJe Bann, Ph.D. Sta •haeo ogist JEMMIED NOV 2 2 1982 C OF TUKWILA FANNING DEPT. CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT OF THE SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD IMPROVEMENT AND RELOCATION PROJECT, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON by Jerry V. Jermann A final report of findings submitted to the City of Tukwila . under the conditions and specifications of a contract dated 2 November 1982. Office of Public Archaeology Institute for Environmental Studies University of Washington Seattle 15 November 1982 INTRODUCTION As a part of its continuing efforts to improve and upgrade existing transportation facilities, the City of Tukwila's Department of Public Works proposes several modifications to-Southcenter-Boulevard between 62nd Ave- nue South:and Grady Way (Figures:1 and 2) to improve. access for vehicles, decrease response time for emergency vehicles, and facilitate completion of the Christensen Greenbelt Trail. Although several'alternatives.are.still under consideration, the currently preferred alternative, known as the "At -Grade Intersection ", involves several modifications that include (Figure 3): X1) Widening of the eastern portion of South- center Boulevard to match the five -lane, 60 -foot wide driving surface that currently ends west of 62nd. Avenue South; (2) Extending and realigning the eastern terminus of Southcenter Boulevard to link with the new Grady. Way Bridge — this would require a new bridge over the Green River; (3) Realigning the transit link between the current intersection of Southcenter Boulevard and Interurban Avenue South (SR 181) and Inter- state 405 — this also would require a new bridge over the Green River; and (4) Relocating the existing T -line bridge that connects Southcenter Boulevard and Tukwila Parkway to an alignment somewhere between 66th Avenue South and a point approximately 30' east . of its current location. With the exception of the two new bridges over the .Green River and the relocation of the T -line bridge, con- struction of the proposed improvements will involve re- latively minor modifications of the existing ground sur- face. Indeed, as currently conceived, the new alignments will be built on fill that will be used to bring the roadways up to grade with existing driving surfaces. Construction of the proposed bridges will require limited ground disturbance for the excavation of necessary footings. 2 The proposed undertaking requires issuance of several local, state, and federal permits and licenses prior to its implementation. As part of the permit and licensing process, an evaluation of potential project- related im- pacts, to cultural resources that may be located. in the immediate vicinity is necessary to insure against unmiti- gated loss of significant heritage values. Recognizing its responsibility for the stewardship of such resources, the City of Tukwila entered into a contractual agreement with the University of Washington's Office of Public Archaeology (OPA) for conduct of archaeological assess- ment measures related to the Southcenter Boulevard Improvement and Relocation Project. The following report summarizes findings and recom- mendations issuing'from OPA's cultural resources assess- ment of the above- referenced project. The report is divided into four major sections. The first two sections, which briefly summarize the natural and cultural settings of the project area, are the product of archival and literature review conducted in advance of on -site activi- ties and are intended largely to provide a, context for evaluating resource potential and later management recom- mendations. The third section describes the techniques and results of in -field assessment measures. Finally, the fourth section summarizes our findings and offers recommendations for further management consideration. LOCATION AND NATURAL SETTING The project area is situated in the SW4, Sec. 24, T.23N., R.4E., W.M. Located in the Puget Sound Basin of the Puget Trough physiographic province (Franklin and Dyrness 1973), the geology and topography of the region owe their character almost entirely to Pleistocene glacial action. Approximately 5,000 years ago, the Osceola mud - flow swept down the slopes of Mt. Rainier into the White and lower Green River valleys before finally coming to rest just north of the present -day city of Auburn. 3 Because the prior channel of the. White River was filled with mudflow debris.,. the river cut a channel northward, eventually joining the Green. River at Auburn. During this period of channel realignment, coarse debris from the intrusive mudflow was redeposited into the lower valley as a massive alluvial fan, and finer sediments were carried beyond the fan into a marine embayment. In this fashion, the combined flows of the White, Green, and eventually the Black Rivers built a narrow delta that gradually moved northward to fill the lower valley (Dunne and Dietrich 1979). The last 75. .years. have witnessed a complex series of changes in the flow patterns and course of the Green River. Prior to 1906, the river joined the White River near what is now Auburn; this combined stream was known as the White River Valley to that point near present -day Tukwila where it was joined by the Black River, whence the river was known as the Duwamish. Lake Washington had an outlet through the Black River, and the Cedar River could flow into either the Black River or Lake Washington, or both (Dalan and Wilke 1982:3). Then, in. 1906, a major flood episode caused debris to block the main channel of the White River, causing it to cut a new channel southward to the Stuck River, which joined the Puyallup River before emptying into Commencement Bay at Tacoma. Subsequent flood control measures made this channel diversion a permanent fixture of the landscape. In.1913, a dredging and channel- straightening project began on the lower Duwamish River to provide a deep waterway for oceangoing ships to come into Seattle. The construction of the Lake Washington Ship Canal and Govern- ment Locks at Ballard in 1917 caused Lake Washington to fall to a.level that virtually stopped the flow of the Black River. At the same time, Cedar River was rerouted into Lake Washington to provide a sufficient flow of Water to insure continuous operation of the Locks. 4 (Pence 1946:26). Subsequently, the Green. River is now . the accepted_name —f.o. t stream t� at= occupies. the valley in which the current project area.is found. As might be expected from the discussion above, the Green River Valley historically has been the locus of frequent flooding. Initial attempts to control these destructive hydraulic events largely consisted of dikes constructed by local landholders, but these efforts were only marginally effective. With the construction and subsequent operation of the Howard A. Hanson.Dam in 1962, the danger of major flooding along the.river.was averted at last,. and the-. several levees that.. have been placed . along the river in the'vicinity of the project area have further reduced the hazard of flood damage. Insofar as cultural resource sites in the region are concerned, particularly those of the prehistoric period, the most important factors affecting their preser- vation and our ability to locate their remains are river . meander and alluvial deposition rates.. Dalan and Wilke (1982:4) report that between 189.8 and 1978 the river has shifted its'lateral.course at average rates of up to 18 m per year, although the rate below Auburn has tended to be less than .3 m per year. Doubtless such dynamic course changes across the floodplain have either eroded or buried many of the aboriginal sites that once dotted the land- scape. .Consequently,. those sites, that do remain in the valley likely are covered by varying amounts of flood - deposited alluvium, and subsurface examination will be required in most instancesto locate such remains. Given that the aboriginal inhabitants of the region practiced a hunting- fishing - gathering economy, knowledge of the distribution and composition of the area's flora and fauna is of considerable importance in understanding prehistoric settlement and subsistence patterns. The project area and the valley as a whole lie within Franklin 5 and Dyrness'.(1973) Tsuga heterophylla zone, which occurs over much of western Washington and Oregon. The over - story is dominated by several coniferous species, most notably western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), and western red .cedar (Thuja plicata): In. riparian habitats, deciduous hardwood species are found. These include bigieaf maple. (Acer macrophyllum), red alder (Alnus rubra),.black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa), and. Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia). A broad spectrum:of understory communities are arrayed according to moisture gradients within the, zone. 'In the southern Puget Sound area. the most common species are vine maple (A. circinatum), broadleaf rhododendron (Rhododendron macrophyllum), Pacific dogwood (Cornus nuttallii), red huckleberry (Vaccinium parvifolium),' Oregon grape (Berberis nervosa), salal (Gaultheria shallon), .and trailing.blackberry (Rubus ursinus) — several of these were important constituents of the aboriginal diet . and economy. The Green River Valley supports a highly varied and abundant fauna, due in large measure to the diversity of its habitats. A variety of large and small mammals occupy the region's forests, meadows, and waters, and a signi- ficant number of resident and migratory birds also frequent the area. Of most importance'to the aboriginal economy:;. however, were the large numbers of fish that occurred in the streams and estuaries; for example, Salo and McComas (1979) list 44 separate species of fish for just the river estuary system. In short, the region offered an abundance of fish, game, and plant resources for its human inhabitants. 6 CULTURAL SETTING The Green River Valley has .long been occupied and exploited by various groups having :widely divergent sub- sistence and settlement :systems. HAlthOugh a compre- hensive account of the history.and. prehistory of the region:: is beyond the scope..pf this 'report, it is impor- tant nonetheless to review rriajor:aspects of our current understanding of these topics to provide a framework.for assessing any cultural resources that might be located' within the project area. HISTORY The first Euroamerican'settlers in what is now King County occupied the mouth of the Green.River in 1850 and 1851. With the opening of a road through Naches Pass in 1853, which connected the Puget Sound area with the inland portions of the. Territory, significant numbers of new settlers entered the area. Between 1853 and 1855, various individuals were able to acquire land in the valley under the provisions of the Donation Land Act. Two of these, William H. Gilliam and Henry Meter (Meader), claimed parcels in the immediate project vicinity. Never- theless, a review of the General Land Office (GLO) plat maps, which were surveyed in 1861 and 1863, shows no evi- dence of structures or other improvements on either property. During the Indian wars of 1855-1856, local settlers constructed Fort Dent for protection in the event of raids. Situated somewhat north arid west of the project area, an historic marker now indicates the location of this former fortification (Dalan et al. 1981). To a large degree, the early Euroamerican economy of the region was based on agriculture, and this was the principal focus of local land use until quite recent times. Since the 1940's, however, industrial development has moved rapidly . to replace the family farm throughout much of the valley. 7 ETHNOGRAPHY At the time of the first Euroamerican encroachment into the region, the Green River Valley was occupied by the Duwamish Tribe, whose.territory reached from the river's mouth up to and including the Black and Cedar Rivers (Haeberlin and.Gunther.1530; Smith 1940; Spier 1936). Actually, the Duwamish were composed of several groups, who controlled portions of the various water- ways included within the larger territorial unit (Lane 1973a) . The settlement-subsistence pattern of the Duwamish reflected the seasonal availability of. the various re- sources that characterized the indigenous diet. Never theless,.the principal focus of the settlement system was the "winter.village ", which was occupied by the entire group only during the winter months. .These rela- tively permanent villages — permanent in the sense that the same locality was -used for several years — typically were located on high, well - drained ground along major rivers or stream confluences. Village size tended to.vary from one to three houses; each-house was large enough for four to six families (Smith 1940:4). The houses were rather substantial affairs constructed of cedar planks.that were fastened to a rectangular super - structure.of large cedar logs (Lorenz et al. .1976:19). With the settlement of the area by non - Indian peoples, the house style changed from,a multifamily to a single - family sturcture (Noel 1980:11). During the spring'morths, families began to dis- perse from their winter dwelling to beach areas where they collected various molluscan and other marine re- sources. Certain species were consumed immediately, while others were processed and .stored for later winter use. Following the collection and,curation of the winter shellfish supply, women travelled to their accustomed 8 root and berry gathering .areas ( Haeberlin and Gunther 1930). At the same time., the men took up the pursuit. of fish, an activity that would,occupy their attentions from early summer until November.:• To a_large degree exploitation of the abundant.fish.resources of the region centered on four. species of salmon and steelhead, and most of these were taken. using weirs, although a variety of other techniques were also.employed (Lane 1973b :1 -8). The men also 'occasionally hunted terrestrial mammals, but these were not a critical part of the indigenous diet. As might be expected, housing during the spring, summer, and fall months was considerably . different than that noted for the winter village. The structures were quite temporary and were constructed from woven mats laid over a set of poles and secured with strips of hide, net - tle, or cedar bark twine (Noel 1980:10). Typically, these structures were built as single- family dwellings and were either teepee- shaped or square. (Haeberlin and Gunther 1930). Although available ethnographic souces list.several village sites and temporary campsites within the general region, none of these is located in the immediate project area. Nevertheless, two villages are recorded a short distance downstream (Dalan et al. 1981; Hedlund 1981), and it is likely that other such sites were scattered throughout the nearby vicinity. ARCHAEOLOGY ■ The prehistory of the Green River Valley and the greater southern Puget Sound region is poorly understood. In large measure this is probably the result of the re- latively early Euroamerican settlement of the area and the substantial development that has occurred during this century, factors that have resulted in substantial destruction of the archaeological record. Nevertheless, 9 the relatively few professional archaeological surveys and excavations that have been conducted in the region provide important insights into aboriginal lifeways. Three major archaeological excavations have been undertaken on village sites in the general project vicinity. The first of these, conducted at the Duwamish No. 1 site (45- KI -23) along the Duwamish Waterway, con- sists of a series of three investigations carried out by OPA under contract to the Port of Seattle during the mid- 1970's. This site, which is an aboriginal shell midden, was occupied intermittently between approximately A.D. 650 and A.D. 1600. by peoples exploiting the nearby estuarine fish and mollusc resources (Lorenz. et al. 1976; Jermann et. al. 1977; Campbell 1981). Excavations at the Sbabadid site (45- KI -51), located in Renton, were conducted by OPA during the fall of 1979 and the summer of 1980 under contract to CHG International, who planned to use the area as the site of their Earling- ton Woods Planned Unit Development. On -site investiga- tions recovered an abundance of artifacts and features that can be attributed to two separate historic villages: one occupied between 1790 and 1825 and another occupied, briefly between. 1850 - 1856 (Chatters 1981) . This site is of particular importance to an understanding of sub- sistence and settlement patterns of the native population when it first encountered the perturbating factor of Euro- american incursion into the region. The third locality, the Tualdad Altu site (45- KI -59), was excavated by OPA during the summer of 1980 under con- tract to First City Equities•of Seattle. Located in Ren- ton at the west end of the Earlington Golf Course, exca- vations at this site recovered numerous tools of bone and stone from a village of rectangular houses that was occupied during the period A.D. 300 -500 (Chatters 1982). - 10 - In addition to these more intensive.investigations, a number of reconnaissance surveys have been undertaken in areas immediately adjacent •to the project area (Dalan and Wilke 1982; Moura 1982).. .One of. these, a survey con- ducted in 1963 in conjunction with the rechanneling of the Green River as part:of the original construction of the current Interstate'405 - Interurban Avenue - Southcenter Boulevard Interchange system, located a.small shell midden site. Unfortunately;- this site (45 -KI -6) lay directly in the path.of the new. channel and was completely destroyed before further investigations could be undertaken'. ASSESSMENT TECHNIQUES AND RESULTS On -site evaluation of the project area was conducted by a team of two professional archaeologists on 11 Novem- ber 1982. This aspect of the cultural resources assess- ment effort was conducted in two phases: (1) systematic pedestrian surface reconnaissance and (2) limited -scale subsurface testing. In the paragraphs that follow we detail the techniques and results of both assessment phases. Initially, the assessment team conducted an inten- sive reconnaissance of all project lands in an effort to locate any remains of historic or prehistoric cul- tural activity. All available horizontal and vertical exposures were examined for evidence of prior human use/ occupation. ..Unfortunately, surface visability was very poor: much of the area is'covered in dense grassy vege- tation, and riprap covers both banks of the Green River in this vicinity. Consequently, no discernible evidence of cultural remains were identified during this phase of on- project evaluations. Given that it was still possible that the area might contain cultural resources that simply had been obscured by vegetation or recent alluvium, . a program of limited - scale subsurface testing was undertaken in an effort to locate any such deposits. .A one -inch push tube soil sampler was used to core the area at intermittent loca- tions to a depth of 1.5 m. Cores were placed at intervals of 10-30 m along the east bank of the Green River, and another series of borings was placed every 10 m along a transect perpendicular to the river in the vicinity of the proposed.easten extension. of Southcenter Boulevard that will link that roadway. with the new Grady Way Bridge (Figure 3). No evidence of buried cultural deposits was found in any of these test holes. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS On the basis of both archival /literature review and direct on -site surface and subsurface investigations, we must conclude that the project area likely contains no significant cultural resources. While there is always some finite chance such remains lie buried at depth greater than 1.5 m, the likelihood of this is very low. We there- fore recommend that the project be allowed to proceed as planned. At the same time, however, certain precautionary measures should be adopted to insure against loss of any significant remains that may have escaped detection during • the current project assessment. in the unlikely event that •artifacts are encountered during construction, further work should be temporarily halted in that vicinity until a professional archaeological evaluation can be made of the need for mitigative efforts. In addition, notification of any such findings should be made to the state's Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation so that they might coordinate and review possible preservation /recovery alternatives. - 12 - REFERENCES CITED Campbell, S. K. 1981 The Duwamish No. 1 site: .a lower Puget Sound shell midden. Office of Public Archaeology, University of Washington, Research Report 1. Chatters, J. C. 1981 Archaeology of. the Sbabadid..site (45KI51), King County, Washington. Office of Public Archaeology, University of Washington, Seattle. 1982 Interim report on excavations at Earlington Park. Unpublished letter report submitted to First City Equities, Seattle. Manuscript on file at the Office of Public Archaeology, University of Washington, Seattle. Dalan, R., S. Hunt, and S. Wilke 1981 Cultural resource overview and reconnaissance: Green River Flood Damage. Reduction Study. Geo - Recon. International, Seattle. Report submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, Seattle. 0 Dalan, R. and S. Wilke 1982 Cultural resource evaluation of the proposed . Tukwila Hotel site, Tukwila; Washington. Geo -Recon International, Seattle. Dunne, T. and W. Dietrich 1979 Geomorphology and hydrology of the Green River.. In A river of green, Appendix A, Jones and Jones Associates, Seattle. A planning report to the • King County Department of Planning and Community Development. Franklin, J. F. and. C. T. Dyrness 1973 Natural vegetation of Oregon and Washington. USDA, Forest Service, General Technical Report PNW -8. Haeberlin, H. and E. Gunther 1930 The Indians of. Puget Sound. University of Washington, Publications in Anthropology 4(1) :1 -84. Hedlund, G. 1981 Archaeological resources at the mouth of the Black River. Report submitted to the King County Depart- ment of Public Works. Manuscript copy on file at the Office of Public Archaeology, University of Washington, Seattle. - 13 - Jermann, J. V., T. H. Lorenz, and R. S. Thomas 1977 Continued archaeological testing at the Duwamish No. 1 site (45KI23). Office of Puublic Archaeology, University. of Washington, Reconnaissance Report 11. Lane, B. 1973a Anthropological report on the identity and treaty status of the Muckleshoot Indians.. Unpublished manuscript on file at. the Office of Public Archaeo- logy, University of Washington, Seattle. 1973b Anthropological report on the traditional fisheries of the Muckleshoot Indians. Unpublished manuscript on file at the Office of Public Archaeology, University of Washington, Seattle. Lorenz, T. H.., G. R. Spearman, and J. V. Jermann. 1976 Archaeological testing at the Duwamish No. 1 site, King County, Washington. Office of Public Archaeo- logy, University. of Washington, Reconnaissance Report 8. Moura, G. F. 1982 Archaeological reconnaissance of the 16 acre Tukwila Bend Project. Unpublished letter report submitted to Evergreen Managment Company, Bellevue. Manuscript on file at the Office. of Public Archaeology, Univer- sity of Washington, Seattle. Noel, P. S. 1980 Muckleshoot Indian history. Auburn School District No. 408, Auburn, Washington. Pence, W. R. 1946 The White River Valley of Washington. Unpublished MA thesis, Department of Geography,. University of Washington, Seattle. Salo, E. and R. L. McComas • . 1979'" Aquatic.resources of the Green-Duwamish River; with enhancement. possibilities. In A river of green, Appendix B, Jones and Jones Associates, Seattle. A. planning report,to the King County Department of Planning and Community Development. Smith, M. 1940. The Puyallup - Nisqually. Columbia University, Contributions to Anthropology 32. Spier, L. 1936 Tribal distribution in Washington. General Series in Anthropology 3. Bantu Publishing, Menasha. - 14 - 1.t ..*"*.4.,.1. tan • I� - , .4 Iad,no 1 • �li... Po- Abbot i . • T ' /.. • , r.:. W e Part t tfrw {� :• 6:666 • } .VW l .a: haa,w: . � d/ IA IA Mne.o!eY 6mM . •10114 6A NEW ILYii.. ■SeIA•rD • is „, i E; ,.r • o,Il.uy6nC ■ l '.:.:::w W.w z Pan. is Y.aW R1 %WK. " ' P - P •'..t • la.- I Haed . ' / D... r,,,,.....;.-...- _w..► Pan. �:.. °- . �:J,a•I.,d P — $0 Gan r.ao - ` A' • 4 ...,.o,{wndeSlw i ow cfrchmmo • :orza rr� - ° 61.66 I jWale°"•... • - .:r SouyA.a.na ��Veshr Neiaa W a P.w 4 .` d P6..,e3. -..t1 5i•- .,..= - •- - -6 66._. ._ 7IS6+//- / ' Do:anm P tithe'. •' T . _ . / / • ! ..1 ten, • 4? _11'1,,. 'V tail l TN_, TUKWILA Tres Pan. •- - -' . _ __ 'l Mi' -. Steles -- • • er, •'. 4, • i �, �b,,,, ♦ 40o.0e Pnn • %" Allan . V - 15 - TUKWILA CITY La 111111 U 111111111 Figure 2. Map of project location in relation to surrounding roadway systems. 1. Owl Dm* Os* ,O■I•CuutIm ALTERNATIVE 4 At -Grade Intersection Figure 3. Detailed map of the "At -Grade Alternative." JOHN SPELLMAN Governor STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Highway Administration Building • Olympia, Washington 98504 o (206) 753 -6005 November 1, 1982 Mr. Phillip R. Fraser Senior Engineer City of Tukwila Public Works Department. 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Re: City of Tukwila Southcenter Boulevard M- 1147(5) L 9647 Dear Mr. Fraser: DUANE BERENTSON Secretary Attached are the Air Quality and Noise Studies as requested in your letter of October 14, 1982, for the above noted project. By copy of this letter we are forwarding duplicates of the documents to Mr. Dennis Neuzil /Ed Berschinski of Entranco Engineers. Charges for the studies will be billed to the established project fund L 9647. Study costs will not exceed the (Noise $2,469. and Air Quality $1,708) estimates. If you have any questions, please call Mr. Jerry Cheek at 206 - 753 -6155. Very truly yours, (- s --? LI, QD SAM:cej LAB (EN) Attachments cc: Mr. Dennis "Neuzil H. C. Bash J. A. Klasell WISE % y' S. A. MOON, P. E. Location- Design Engineer 3 /r4A6? X � c5 AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD (62nd Avenue to Grady Way) Prepared By WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION November 1, 1982 SUMMARY Air quality impacts resulting from the proposed construction of additional improvements to Southcenter Boulevard between 62nd Avenue South and Grady Way will improve the mesoscale air quality of the I -5 /Renton corridor. Construction of this project will, not increase the overall traffic volumes in this corridor. It will provide an alternative route for traffic which would use I -405 if the project were not built. The "bottle neck" in the existing Southcenter Boulevard causes queueing of traffic, a corresponding reduction of speed and a greater level of pollutants being emitted. Removal of this "bottle neck" would cause an increase of traffic speeds and a corresponding decrease in congestion. This in turn will decrease the pollution per vehicle. The completion of this project will cause no adverse air quality impacts within the project area. CLIMATE The climate of the area is determined by the geographic relationship to. the Puget Sound and Pacific Ocean water surfaces which control the moisture content, temperature and velocity of air masses reaching Renton and the whole Puget Sound Region. The maritime air is a moderating influence and is responsible' for the generally mild winters and summers. The average yearly temperature is 52 degrees, with a high of 90 degrees in summer and a low of 25 degrees in the winter. The dry season is- from May through September, and the rainy season is from October to April, with over 75% of the total annual precipitation occurring during the latter period. The average yearly precipitation is 35 to 40 inches. The prevailing regional wind is from the southwest in the fall and winter months, gradually shifting to the northwest in the late spring and summer. No change to the climate conditions of the area will occur as a result of constructing this project. EXISTING AIR QUALITY The principal sources of air pollution within the study area are transportation emissions, heating system emissions and emissions from local industries. Since the study area is mostly residential, with limited industrial de""elopment, air po:_ation from other than transportation sources is relatively minor. However, the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency has on file 10 stationary pollutant sources in the vicinity of the study area. Container Corporation of America 7000 South 143rd Street Renton, WA 98055 Sternoff Metals Corporation 1600 S.W. 43rd Street Renton, WA 98055 Northwest Steel 22011 - 84th South (home office) Kent, WA 98031 Paccar, Inc. 1400 North 4th Renton, WA 98055 Boeing Airplane Company 8th North and Park North Renton, WA 98055 Interpace Corporation 1500 Hauser Way South Renton, WA 98055 King County Gravel Pit 1140 3005 N.E. 4th Street Renton, WA 98055 M. A. Segale Edmonds and N.E. 3rd Renton, WA 98055 Renton Municipal Airport 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Mobil Oil Corporation 1600 Lind Avenue S.W. Renton, WA 98055 The major transportation generators of air pollution in the study area are I -405, Southcenter shopping mall, Longacres Race Track, SR 181 and Grady Way. Building this project will . not cause any appreciable change in the existing conditions for transportation sources of air pollution. Changes within the project corridor will be positive with the increase of speeds and the corresponding decrease of queueing traffic. -2- NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS - A new approach to air pollution control came into being with the Federal Clean. Air Act of 1970. The law requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to promulgate national primary and secondary ambient air quality standards. The primary standards for each pollutant are based upon known health effects for that particular substance as detailed in "air quality criteria" documents published by the federal government. Primary standards protect the public health and must allow an adequate margin of safety. Secondary standards must protect the public welfare against other adverse effects. These include effects on soils, water, crops, vegetation, man -made materials, animals, wild life, weather, visibility, climate, property, transportation, economic values and personal comfort and well being. Pursuant to the schedule established by the Congress, the Enviornmental Protection Agency published on April 30, 1971, the first national ambient air quality standards. In January 1979, the standard for photochemical oxidant was renamed "Ozone," and was changed from 0.08 ppm to 0.12 ppm. A new national standard for lead in air was adopted in October 1978. The following table is a summary of the current Ambient Air Quality Standards: SULFUR OXIDES The presence of sulfur oxides in the ambient air has been associated with a variety of respiratory diseases and in- creased- mortality rates. They repre- sent a significant economic burden'and have a n'Jisarce impact. When sulfur oxides are inhaled withs -all particles, the effect on health is increased. In- halation of sulfur dioxide can cause increased airway resistance by con- stricting lung passages. PARTICULATES Small discrete masses of solid or liq- uidmatter dispersed in the atmosphere, especially those of one micron or less in diameter, are associated with a variety of adverse effects en public health and welfare. Particulate mat- 1 ter in the respiratory tract may pro - -,e duce injury by itself, or it may act we in conjunction with gases to increase lathe effect on the body. Sriail parti- cles suspended in the air are chiefly resper.;iele for reduced visibility in the Puget Sound area. Soiling of build- ings and other property is a common effect of high particulate levels. CARn0t1 f')NOXiCE Carbon monoxide reacts with the hemo- globin in red blood cells to decrease the oxygen - carrying capacity of the blood. The national primary standard for carbon monoxide was based on evi- dence that levels of carbexyhemeglobin in human blood as low as 2.5: may be associated with impairment of ability to discriminate time ir.tervals. The national arbient air quality standards for carbon monoxide are intended to "protect against the occurrence of car - boxyhemoglobin levels above 2T. Note: Smoking up to 2 packs of cigarettes a day raises carboxyhemoglobin levels to about 54. This is equivalent to expos- ure for 8 or more hours to 30 ppm of carbor.'monoxide. t AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS NATIONAL WASHINGTON .STATE 1 .t PUGET SOUND REGION N PRIiiARY SECO GARY o SULFUR OXIDES Annual Average 30 day Average 24 -hour Average 3 -hour Average 1 -hour Average 1 -hour Average 5 min. Average ppm ppm t s 0,03 0.14 0.50 a b b SUSPENDED PARTICULATES Annual Geo. lean 24 -hour Average ug /m3 ug /m' a .b 75 260 60 150 CARBON MONOXIDE 8-hour Average I -hour Average ppm same 1 .0 .0 9 35 OZONE 1 -hour Average ppm sane e 0.12 NITROGEN DIOXIDE Annual Average ppm same a 0.05 HYDROCARBONS (Less Methane) 3 -hour Average ppm -same b ' f 0.24 LEAD Calendar Quarter Average ug /m3 same a 1.5 ppm 0 t e ppm 0.02 0.10 0.25 0.40 a b c b 0.02 0.04 0.10 0.25 0.40 1.00 0 t e a a a c a d ug /m3 60 150 a b ue /m' 60 150 a b sane sane same PPm 0.08 b same same but applies only 4/1 thru 10/31 same same as National ppm parts per million ug /m' = micrograms per cubic meter a Never to be exceeded b Not to be exceeded more than once per year c Not to be exceeded more than twice in seven days d Not to be exceeded more than once in eight hours e Standard attained when expected number of days per year with maximum hourly average above 0.12 ppm is equal to or less than one f Applies 6 a.m. to 9 a.m. daily PSAPCA 6/79 L_:_� OZONE Oxidants are produced in the atmosphere when nitrogen oxides and some hydro- carbons are exposed to sunlight. Ozone is the oxidant found in'largest amounts. It is a pulmonary irritant that affects lung tissues and respiratory functions. Ozone impairs the normal function of lung and, at concentrations between 0.15 and 0.25 ppm, causes lung tight- ness, coughing, and wheezing. Other oxidants, produced in smaller amounts than ozone, cause eye irritation. Per- sons with chronic respiratory problems such as asthma seem most sensitive to changes in ozone concentration. NITROGEN DIOXIDE Nitric oxide results from the fixation of nitrogen and oxygen at high temper- atures as in fuel combustion. There are several atmospheric reactions which lead to the oxidation of nitric oxide to nitrogen dioxide, and the presence of nitrogen dioxide in ambient air is essential to the production of photochemical oxidants. Tr.-_ • of nitrogen dioxide in ambient air has been associated with a variety of res- piratory diseases. HYDROCARBONS Defined as organic compounds composed exclusively of carbon and hydrogen, hydrocarbons are primarily associated with the use of petroleum products. They are the main components of photo- chemical smog. Hydrocarbons alone have no known effect on human .health; there- fore the sole purpose of prescribing a hydrocarbon standard is to control photochemical oxidants. LEAD Lead affects humans in numerous ways, but the greatest effects appear to be on the blood - forming system, the nerv- ous system, and the kidneys. It af- fects some persons more than others. Young children (ages 1 -5) are particu- larly sensitive to lead exposure. The standard for lead in air is intended to prevent most children from exceeding blood lead levels of 30 micrograms per deciliter of blood. MICROSCALE ANALYSIS No microscale analysis was performed for the project. A review of the microscale analysis performed by Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) for an adjutant project, SR 515 S.E. 196th Street to Carr Road, allows the conclusion to be made that there should be no adverse ail quality impacts. The criteria and information used by WSDOT in their analysis for SR 515 is as follows: 1. Although this project is close to the southern boundary of the motor vehicle emission inspection area for Seattle, no inspection maintenance credits were considered in the 1984 and 1990 emission factors. fit 2. PM peak hour traffic volumes (4:00 to 5:00 p.m.) were used in the study since the slowest traffic speeds and most congestion occur along the highway and arterials during this time period. 3. Receptors were located along the right -of -way line and at major intersections. 4. The worst case meteorological conditions used were a one meter per second wind speed and a Class F stability for the one hour average. 5. The background concentrations used in this study were derived in the SR 515 Carr Road to -Puget Drive Air Quality Study completed in October 1979. The background of 3 ppm for . one hour and 1.3 ppm for eight hour average represents contributions of CO from other than identifiable vehicular related sources and from roadways which were not included in the roadway network analyzed. -5- The results of the predicted CO. concentrations for the p.m. peak hour for all conditions (years) studied are shown in the following table. RECEPTOR NOS. AT R/W LINE R -1 SW CORNER OF SR 515 & 192ND R -2 SW CORNER OF SR 515 & 192ND R -3 SW CORNER OF SR 515 & 182ND R -4 SW CORNER OF SR 515 & 182ND R -5 SW CORNER OF SR 515 & CARR RD R -6 SW CORNER OF SR 515 & CARR RD TABLE A SR 515 - SE 196TH STREET TO CARR ROAD MAXIMUM PREDICTED CARBON MONOXIDE LEVELS ONE HOUR AVERAGE (PM PEAK) 1980 EXISTING 1984 NO -BUILD Wind Conc. Wind Conc. Dir. PPM Dir. PPM 0 3.0 0 5.5 4.5 0 7.5 180 3.3 0 6.8 0 3.9 0 7.9 68 4.0 0 7.5 338 4.2 0 6.2 R -7 NW CORNER OF SR 515 & CARR RD 180 R -8 NE CORNER OF SR 515 & CARR RD. 248 R -9 60' SOUTH OF CARR RD 270 R -I0 40' NORTH OF SE 176TH 248 NOTE: Add 3.0 ppm as Add 1.3 ppm as 5.0 180 6.7 5.2 3.6 4.2 248 7.0 270 4.7 248 3.9 1984 BUILD Wind Conc. Dir. PPM 4.4 0 6.5 0 4.9 0 5.7 0 5.9. 0 5.3 248 5.1 248 5.6 270 3.7 248 3.7 background concentration for one hour average background concentration for eight hour average 1990 NO -BUILD 1990 BUILD Wind Conc. Wind Conc Dir. PPM Dir. PPM 0 5.6 0 7.4 6.6 0 7.8 0 7.7 0 6.9 0 " 4.8 0 6.6 0 4.7 5.6 0 5.6 0 4.9 248 6.9 248 5.8 248 7.5 68 5.0 248 5.2 248 270 248 6.2 4.2 4.2 All of the build conditions are values less than the corresponding no- build. This lends support to the finding that improving traffic flow with an increase in speeds and a decrease in congestion, queueing, result in a decrease In pollutants emit Led. CONCLUSION The build alternative will improve the air quality in the mesoscale corridor. There should also be a positive improvement within the microscale or project corridor. This will be a result of improvement in traffic flow with the corresponding congestion reduction and the potential capability for increase in speed. PROJECT CONFORMITY WITH THE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN This project is in an air quality nonattainment area which has transportation control measures in the state implementation plan (SIP) which was approved by the Environmental Protection Agency. The FHWA has determined that both the transportation plan and the transportation improvement program conform to the SIP. The Federal Highway Administration has determined that this project is included in the transportation improvement program for the Puget Sound Council of Governments. Therefore, pursuant to 23 CFR 770, this project conforms to the SIP. 1M/239 CITY OF TUKWILA Southcenter Boulevard 62nd Ave. S. to Grady Way Bridge Noise Assessment . A. W. Elston October 29, 1982 SUMMARY The most significant aspect of the project area, as it relates to noise, is that is lies essentially parallel to the I -405 freeway and is, therefore, dominated by traffic noise from I -405. Only at relatively close points to Southcenter Boulevard and certain of the adjacent streets and arterials is there any difference in noise levels other than that due to.I -405 by itself. The area between. 62nd Street and 68th Street on the north side of Southcenter Boulevard is a valuable piece of real estate containing fairly new office buildings, Tukwila City Hall, city park, etc. Only one office building at the corner of Southcenter Boulevard and 65th Street and a private dwelling opposite 68th Street were found to be above the guideline noise level as defined in Table I. Expected natural growth of traffic in this area will cause about 1 dBA increase in noise which would apply to the 1990 "no- build" or Alternate 1. All of the build alternatives, that is Alternates 2, 3A, 3B and 4, have an identical effect on this area between 62nd Street and 68th • Street and will cause another 1 dBA rise above the no -build condition by the year 1990; and no sites will be above guideline noise levels except the two that are already above. , Construction of any of the alternatives will cause an unnoticable increase in noise relative to not constructing anything new. Abatement by means of noise walls is not considered necessary. The office building at 65th Street shows no indication of any outside activity that would be sensitive to noise and interior noise levels quite probably perfectly adequate for office work since the building was built there under present noise conditions. The private dwelling also shows no indication of outside activity areas facing traffic. The rear portion of the property is shielded to some extent by the top of the well vegetated cut and should be quiet enough for outside use without undue annoyance from traffic noise, METHOD OF ASSESSMENT Determination of the effect of a project will have on the noise climate in adjacent areas is based on three steps: 1. Identify land use and the sensitivity of a particular use to noise, i.e„ houses, schools, parks, commercial establish- ments, etc. 2. Find existing noise levels. 3. Predict future levels, including the contribution from the proposed project. Noise impact, that is problems with noise, is based on increases in noise over what now exists; and actual level in the future as shown by the Design Level /Activity Relationships of Table I. As an example,' increases between 5 and 10 dBA and /or levels of 67 dBA or more for residential use is a condition where mitigation would be investigated. Two locations were measured and site location is shown on the Noise Contour map for no -build (Alternate 1). It can be seen that measured values agree well with noise contours, which were predicted. Existing noise contours are shown superimposed on all the noise contour maps for comparison. Predicted values were obtained by modeling traffic, geometry, etc. as described in FHWA HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (FHWA -RD -77 -108) (December 1978). DISCUSSION . By inspection of the noise contour maps, it can be seen that none of the alternatives have much effect on the area between 62nd Street and 68th Street. As stated in the summary, mitigation is not considered necessary. There are, however, vacant lands along this section of the project that could, and probably will, be developed sometime in the future. The City of Tukwila can provide potential developers with the appropriate noise contour maps (the alternate chosen for construction) as an aid to the developer in design and layout to avoid a future noise problem. For example, if the developer is aware of the noise condition, he can place parking areas in the noisy areas, buildings in the quieter areas and face windows away from traffic; or build buffer zones, earth berms or walls and landscape areas to provide the type of noise climate needed for that particular development. The proposed bike trail park . along the Green River will be affected differently by the various alternates and from the standpoint of noise, the two alternates, 3B and 4, which eliminates the section of Southcenter Boulevard from 68th Street to Interurban Avenue along the Green River, would provide the quietest environment for this section of the bike trail. The overall benefit, however, in choosing 3B or 4 over the other alternatives is minimized because in all cases, the bike trail must pass beneath the noisy I -405 freeway. TABLE 1 DESLGN NOISE LEVEL /ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIPS Design Noise Levels - DBA Activity Category Leq(h) Description of Activity Category A 57 Tracts of land in which serenity and quiet are of (Exterior) extraordinary significance and serve an important- public need and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to serve its intended purpose. Such areas could include amphitheaters, particular parks or portions of parks, open spaces, or historic districts which Are dedicated or recognized by appropriate local officials for activities requiring special qualities of serenity and quiet. B 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active (Exterior) sports areas, and parks which are not included in Category A and residences, motels, hotels, public meeting.;rooms, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals. C 72 Developed lands, properties or activities not in- (Exterior) cluded in Categories A or B above. D Undeveloped lands. 52 Residences, motel, hotels, public meeting rooms, (Exterior) schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums. FROM: USDOT Federal Highway Administration Federal -Aid Highway Program Manual Volume 7, Chapter 7, Section 3., July 9, 1982. 0 1E c FE 0 W Q a • 75 OFFICE 7 Ii Ii 1 1 1 67 --,....••••• iy r ,t`R8 0 " ,‘,00 is 6T 0. I FED. RO *D Div. MO, RATE FED, AID RROJ 00 FECAL TEAR • SHEET NO 10 WASH. 1 Lei_ Nose Leve is Existing Noise Levels 1981 �L6� Na Build 1990 ,■R`...67* Field Measurement (9.3-198a)— 0 10.29• NOISE CONTOUR MAP 5outhcenfer Boulevard City of Tukwila A1-1-c4ns Arov ♦: 1 _\ 82 ,ED. WOAD o.� «D. 10 STATE EED •10 MOJ MO FOCAL. VEAA E..EET m0 so' ti; 0 Q m SOS. u 0e Lei. Noise Levels Ex;stin9 Nose Levels 1981 -67 Alternate 2 NOISE CONTOUR MAP Southcenfer Boulevard City of Tukw1IQ ALTER ElATIVE 2. FE0. ROAD DIV. NO. 10 STATE FED AID ERO4. NO. i ISCAL TEAK 10001 140. WASH. rc CITY o.ALL. OPPI Cr ,• ¢E• o' ro go.' Ley- Noise Levels Ex■stin9 Noise q Levels 19E31 x`.677- Alternate 3A 1990 rALC fO- as -oo. NOISE CONTOUR MAP Southc.enter Boulevard City of Tukwiia ,1LT0RN^TIVE ,3-A FED. ROAD D. O. 2 10 RATE FED. AID PROD. NO FISCAL YEAR SNEET NO. Ti So WASH. V) 0 c sr. E1 q' !d /E Ley Noise Levels Exustin9 Nose Levels 1981 -6TH Alterh41 e 3-B1990 ""■.,f -67 —,/' N_ CC 0 z 0 4< 10.7.7•S2 NOISE CONTOUR MAP Southcen±er Boulevard City of Tukwila 0 0 ALYERWATJVG' 8-H FED. ROAD l !F,YE D1*. RO ID l WASH. FE* AID •OJ. 00 E00CCl YEAR EMEFT Lei_ Noise Leve Is Existn9 Noise Levels 1981-6/ - AItQ•it4te 4 1990 • 17.44 10.14.92 NOISE CONTOUR MAP Southcenter Boulevard City of Tukwila. ALTERNAr,V E 4 • AosoL4 4/ City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard - Tukwila, Washington 98188 • 1909 Public Works Department 433-1850 September 20, 1982 Mr. Dennis Neuzil Entranco Engineers. 1515-116th Avenue N.E. Bellevue, Washington 98004 ATTN: Mr. Ed Breschinski Dear Mr. Neuzil: Byron G. Sneva, Director Re: Southcenter Boulevard Preliminary Design Report - Project No. M-1147(5) Attached you will find the Department.of Transportation letter of-September 14th indicating that the subject project is exempt from the U.S. Coast Guard bridge permit requirements. This information is to be incorporated in your final preliminary engineering design report and environmental . . assessment documents. Phillip R. Fraser, Senior Engineer xc: /Brad Collins, Planning Director file PRF:jt Cam.,. -�,[' ,y�_ •i JOHN SPELLMAN Governor STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Highway Administration Building • Olympia, Washington 98504 • (206) 753 -6005 September 14, 1982 Mr. Byron Sneva Public Works Director 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 City of Tukwila Southcenter Blvd. M- 1147(5) Dear Mr. Sneva: The FHWA has determined that the Green River is not navigable from the mouth of the Black River to the SR516 Bridge. This project is therefore exempt from the U.S. Coast Guard bridge permit requirements. A copy of this . determination is attached for your information. SAM:ds LRR Attachment cc: Don Hoffman w /attach. Sincerely, /110.164PA S. A. MOON City /County Liaison Engineer i`r='er 3 • 1 Exemption from U. S. Coast Guard Bridge Permit Requirements - Green River Goo.. 7`v,CC4./c q Suite 501 Evergreen Plaza 711 S. Capitol Way Olympia, Washington 98501 August 26, 1982 Mr. Paul C. Gregson, Division Administrator EPP -WA Olympia, Washington Mr. John Mikesell Chief, Bridge Section United States Coast Guard. 915 Second Avenue Seattle, Washington 98174 This is to advise you that FHWA has applied the criteria established in 23 USC 144(h) to the section of the Green River from the mouth of the Black River upstream to the SR 516 Bridge. We have found that this stretch of river is not subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, and is not. used or susceptible to use as a means to transport interstate or foreign commerce. Accordingly, we have determined that the bridges proposed'for construction with Federal funds under Title 23 USC under the City of Tukwila's Southcenter Boulevard Project are exempt from U. S. Coast Guard bridge permit requirements. This determination will also apply to future bridge construction projects that may be proposed on this section of the Green River. Y(IWtAM J. GLOVER By: William J Glover Environmental Engineer;' • '""A City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 • 1909 blic .Works Department. 433 - 1850: August 16,;:1982' Byron G..Sneva, Director } Washington State_' Department 'of" Transportation s , M F District h r , ' ATTNs ' Mr.. Don Hoffman a 5431' ^Corson Avenue . South - {= ` Seattlei , Way s h, �r n t- g ton 9 810 8F y rSt :su e7s'f44..4 -4;t a d — ;f +}mow Re c Southcenter Boulevard :'Improvements alt, F .'� •' - : Noise Impacts ---'2, Gentlemen: • The�City "of.°.Tukwila is: 'preparing. :an .Environmental 'Assessment: for .°the -above referenced project through =its'consultants, Entranco -Engineers :: Based:upon phoneaconversations between :Entranco staff' members' and Al'.Elston,-we.are.: enclosing material, which. provides.a' project description, traffic :data, roadway geornetry, and other pertinent information .[Through your` evaluation of this.data,•.we are requesting the State to make.a determination regarding the noise 'impacts that may"occur as.a result of the implementation.of this .project:`. We are of the understanding that a noise impact assessment can be accurately made at headquarters by review of data, a site visit, and if-necessary the use of nomographs of computer madels, and that no noise monitoring is likely to be required. As the information shows, the project limits are 62nd Avenue South on the west end, and the Grady Way Bridge- (near S.R. 181) on the east. There appears to be the potential for considerable noise influence,(background contributions) from I -405, S.R. 181 and the existing Southcenter Boulevard and Grady Way traffic. The proposed project of realigning Southcenter Boulevard to connect directly into Grady' Way should improve traffic circulation and reduce move- ments and vehicle delays. These improvements therefore help reduce existing traffic related - noise. • Please respond to this request at your earliest convenience by including a schedule for completion of the work and an estimate of cost to the project for this service. Thank you. for your prompt attention to this.matter. Please call myself of Ed Breschinski at Entranco Engineers (454 -0683) if you need additional information. Sincerely, Phillip R. Fraser, Senior Engineer Attachments xc: Byron G. Sneva, Public Works: Director Planning Department Dennis Neuzil, Entranco Engineers file PRF: jt 1909 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Public Works Department 433 -1850 August 13, 1982 Mr.-Dick ..Kay FHWA,Suite.501Evergreen Plaza 711.' South Capi tal :Way,. Olympia,- Washington, X98501 ".' • Southcenter Boulevard Improvements :.Noise .Impacts t•::. , !- Dear Mr. Kay:. • Byron.Sneva, Director The City of Tukwila .is preparing an Enviromental'Assessment for-•the. above referenced project through its consultants, Entranco-Engineers. Based upon phone conversations. between Entranco staff members-and Al Elston,-we are • enclosing material which-provides a•project` description, traffic data, roadway geometryand other pertinent information. .Through your evaluation Of this data,. -we are requesting the State to'make•a determination-regarding the noise impacts that may occur as a resultof the implementation of this project. We are of the understanding that a noise impact assessment can be accurately made at headquarters by review of data, •a site visit, and if necessary the use of nomographs or computor models, and that no noise monitoring is likely to be required. As the information shows, the project limits are 62nd Avenue So. on the west end, and the Grady Way Bridge .(near SR -181) on the east. There appears to be the potential for considerable noise influence (background contributions) from I -405, SR -181, and the existing Southcenter Boulevard and Grady Way traffic. The proposed project . of re- aligning Southcenter. Boulevard to connect directly into Grady Way should improve traffic circulation and reduce movements and vehicle, delays. These improvements may therefor help reduce existing traffic related noise. Please respond to this request at your earliest convenience by including a ,schedule for completion of• the work and an estimate of cost to the project for this service. • Mr. Dick Kay FHWA Page 2 Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Please call myself at 433 -1856 if you have any further questions. Phillip R. Fraser, Senior Engineer CC: Planning Department Byron Sneva, Director, Public Works Dennis Neuzil, Entranco Engineers PRF;dtd • City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard 'Tukwila, Washington 98188 Public Works Department 433 -1850 August 13, 1982 - Byron .:Sneva, Director - Washington "State Department of District • ATTN :" Mr. Don Hoffman. 54317- Corson Avenue South Seattle,!;G)ashington; 98108 Transportation Re: .Southcenter Boulevard Improvements .Air Quality Impacts Dear Sir: The City of Tukwila is preparing. an Enviromental- Assessment for the .above referenced, project through its consultants, Entranco Engineers. As per . telephone conversations "between Greg Sinnet and Entranco. staff members,• we are enclosing existing and projected traffic counts and other information related to the project... Through your- evaluation of this data we are request- ing the State.to make a determination regarding the air quality:impacts of this project. We are of the understanding that no .air monitoring is_required and that an impact assessment can be made accurately at headquarters by review of data and if necessary, use of nomographs and /or computor models. We also wish a determination of how this project conforms with the State Implementation Plan. Please note that the project limits are 62nd Avenue S on the west end and Grady Way Bridge (near SR -181) on the east. There appears to be the potential for considerable air quality influence (background contributions) from I -405, SR -181 and the existing Southcenter Boulevard and Grady Way traffic. The pro- posed project of re- aligning Southcenter Boulevard to connect directly into Grady Way should improve traffic circulation and reduce movements and vehicle delays resulting in improved air quality. Please respond to this request by including a schedule for completion of the work and an estimate of cost to the project for this service. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Please call myself if you have any further questions at 433 -1856. Phillip R. Fraser, Senior Engineer cc: Planning Department Mr. Dick Kay, FHWA Byron Sneva, Director T1 w...i c Nonni l Fntrmnnn I SUMMARY This Design Report is the result of a preliminary engineering study addressing proposed improvements to Southcenter Boulevard between 62nd Avenue S. and Grady Way. Currently this section is a narrow, curving, two -lane road with unpaved shoulders and open drainage. It connects to an- improved five -lane street on the west end and to a planned five -lane street on the east end that is scheduled for start of construction in 1982. This project is the final link in an important east /west route that serves as an alternative to the parallel section of I -405 for traffic between Tukwila and Renton. The purpose of this-Design Report is to determine the ultimate function and configuration of Southcenter Boulevard /Grady Way as an element of the future transportation system serving Tukwila. The preliminary engineering studies consisted of four major parts, three of which are presented in this report -- identification of design considerations and criteria, evaluation of the alternatives, and preliminary design of the recommended alternative. A fourth area of study is the assessment of environmental impacts, which has been accomplished concurrently with the work presented here. The design considerations and criteria were identified early in the study and established the requirements of the proposed improvement based on traffic operations and safety requirements, pedestrian /bicycle and trail facilities, transit needs, and economic considerations. ,Four basic alternatives were developed and evaluated using these criteria. The four alternatives are: (1) a "no- build" alternative that evaluated the effects of not improving the route; (2) improving the road on • • the existing alignment; (3) a high -level bridge between 68th Avenue S. and Grady Way spanning the Green River, the I -405 ramps, and Interurban Avenue; and (4) a realignment between 68th Avenue S. and Grady Way, creating an at -grade intersection with Interurban Avenue. Alternative 4, realignment at grade, is recommended as the alternative that best meets the objectives of the project. The recommended improvements are shown on the plan sheets, Figures V -1 through V -4. The roadway section for Southcenter Boulevard consists of two 12 -foot wide through lanes in each direction, with a 12 -foot wide left -turn lane the full length of the project. Curb and gutter with closed drainage are provided, with an 8 -foot wide sidewalk /bikeway on the north side. A new traffic signal will be installed at the Southcenter Boulevard /Grady Way /Interurban Avenue intersection, with minor revisions required initially to the existing signal at the Fort Dent Park /Interurban Avenue intersection. A continuous illumination system will be installed on Southcenter Boulevard and on the realigned I -405 ramps. Three new bridges are proposed for the recommended alignment, including one on Southcenter Boulevard spanning the Green River, and two on the realigned I -405 ramps - -one crossing Southcenter Boulevard and one crossing the Green River. It is recommended that the Christianson Greenbelt Park be completed as a part . of this improvement since the final link in this pedestrian trail system is within the limits of the Southcenter Boulevard project. The proposed trail design is included as a part of this report. A small amount of right -of -way will be required for the recommended design at some street and driveway intersections and for rock wall construction in areas of steep cut slopes. Temporary easements will be required for cut slopes and property restoration during construction, and acce€s control is proposed at the new ramp intersection with Interurban Avenue. • • The total estimated construction cost is $6,400,000. Estimated right -of -way costs are $40,000. • • II INTRODUCTION A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This Design Report is the result of a preliminary engineering study that addresses proposed improvements to Southcenter Boulevard. The proposed project is a realignment of Southcenter Boulevard, which would provide an improved connection between Southcenter Boulevard and Grady Way. The project site is located in the city of Tukwila (see Figures II -1 and II -2), adjacent to the north side of Interstate 405. The project is a segment of an important east /west route that serves as an alternative to the parallel section of I -405 for traffic between Renton and Tukwila. The project limits are 62nd Avenue S. on the west and Grady Way on the east, and include intersections with Interurban Avenue (SR -181), the southbound on /off ramps of I -405, 68th Avenue S. (Christianson Road), 65th Avenue S., and 62nd Avenue S. The Puget Sound Council of Governments has given a high regional priority to the Southcenter Boulevard improvements due to the major regional corridor it serves, heavy congestion in the corridor, and its significance as the final link in the route with improvement projects completed or under way on both ends. B." EXISTING FACILITY Southcenter Boulevard between 62nd Avenue S. and Interurban Avenue is currently a narrow, curving two -lane road with unpaved shoulders and open drainage. The west end of the proposed project tapers to meet an improved five -lane street with curb and gutter, sidewalk, and closed drainage. The t � ..' Wood..y. 1•,.,ro • Moun11.A• 1 Brier A<nn" "a Bulne WOod,n.ille ,es 0.1 A.... Pt Kirkland Redmond 18�, ....I 1-- =-t �nb - c •.annsBa �- •.� i.. ty� i J. 100•3•••• BA. n le 1 porn •L� '� jam% I'L•AwL� -2818 :< -. . ! -\ �n���a�. r Iri`� 'C •� 2 .o J - -� J �. r I m• `s.• ,�'�i : �'.' C..,o,.:q ,,„„",„":-..0.°7.7.4,, I y I,, ): �y'ieaerdak ' :Unr•. --ISLAND _• " 1 1�r. • m I r,•:1. :1 . 'IL. =.>J•� •- ^!_� .1 �17!�•' I•.w.»h P1 .O • >41- .. '''.7.\14.,1-::;5-'' : _ ._ -_- • ` - - - W =.1 Point 1 : 1 ,,,!;--.16-"r"--:,.... eKa T116;;; .. ..Y, G.aa. -•1..o/, 'r »q„ r r !. - •� �.. [. Medina J ' 1 c °yt>.r. _ n � eol .. lu,d W� t,n.we - - - - :Bellevu. -, 1 � / •J -a. ...I: r 30 �° l; l 1 � �,` II Co em ' � -d l • > :� 1 }y eyl p 1 4! is r, ?. .9 I ,.d... Pal 6.>�dy .� a L e lei :' • J r ;1 -c . -'iT ') JAI. _i I 0 'i"P" »' • � Awn,. - GIO=.� ; ' e' .. e..or.,,on "d I;I'� � ---_. .• p ��\`; - ,l'•'1..r ,1r 6••.; —PI t0I, .� 'I Poiel 6S �• a •r." a_ -�. �� Mercer f s - r — } :i • , Island /u;�asIPIN. • ... i r2 B.hrrr. .,,, , •!' ,,io Mancnesler ' '.NI �i - Ci , 11.1 : /i ,L.,`.j• , ) 90 �. lY 11.••• • y,... Port %. . " \Glkhesle, ._. i Ir:,..,.,, I •�� )-� .a I , I r, 1r x W,. .2....... l �F OrOW/1..�, � •�.r- of n,. ..•.a '7"5..":::::' 1) ` 5 e L 1 l �. �` � h . �2 ..C�ri�:i . 'Aeon � � v� 777777 �. 4r1F4 I II (- �^ ` 1 •`• ~ .� May C�~ • J%d 'C.- p .. �� 8 - 1© /� � wel »r'r,. �I �I1� Q c s •Gorsrc °ti(-. - •�•b� , o^ n'4� rl.__ --- - -- \'I 11 '«co,.. °mac In - SouOnralh 1.Ynha, lit legs H a I • .. _ — ..': sToo..6 . .. --,1-5.. 1Dc:ohrn A `, I I 1 _ •d. 'Bernd _ ... /� ' _ • Three TUK WI L A V: - .1"7 J i _ - Normandy q = "=I r. .l�r Ilsaol • .. .1 .' A •ono 4 - I - r v P•. H'"" x ! 3 5 ... - ;., `•'J t-1 ".'. PTO I'a% :SLANl1' .lnsaM 1 •'1 l>o. t. 111 l.r =, Pu0, ' °s • -.. F ! -..1Ks ent= ®._+.. . Nett., _�Pal Zenith, Cr..,jl ' i . J Ir Redondo r -,-0.' ,,Ciq Harborl M�\c - m•- _19.•:. i� ^ De. -, CuI _ ,lahkooan .' \ /o.. h. Roston 5 1 _ ,Tacoma$ \ 8 NORT ENTT:tANCO Engineers City Of Tukwila SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD 62nd Avenue South To Grady Way Figure 11 -1 PROJECT VICINITY "111 • SOUTH DEN TER PKWY • 62ND AVE AN. OVER PARK EAST Y ROAD r.1OSII,..r .... 11.101111•• wm1•11iIIMOM1.1111unnnunnnln.'vnnnua• Ir•r111 • -4 INF r .n �i .j :r • ...�.. r.� ar ...rn— LONOACRE& • • east end of Southcenter Boulevard curves north along the west side of the. Green River, intersecting Interurban Avenue approximately 600 feet north of the- intersection of Grady Way and Interurban Avenue. The resulting offset between Southcenter Boulevard and Grady Way requires that east /west traffic make a weaving movement between the two intersections with limited left -turn storage on Interurban Avenue. Traffic signals are currently located at both ends of the project at the intersection of 61st Avenue S. and Southcenter Boulevard, and at the intersection of Interurban Avenue and Southcenter Boulevard. Geometry is poor for the existing alignment, with a series of short radius, horizontal reverse curves. Sight distance is limited due to the adjacent steep topography. The Green River channel and the I- 405 /SR -181 interchange and ramps are major obstacles to improving the alignment for this section of Southcenter Boulevard. The present poor alignment and low capacity increase travel time and congestion, which reduces the effectiveness of Southcenter Boulevard /Grady Way as an alternative east /west route through this corridor. Southcenter Boulevard /Grady Way has a functional classification of "minor arterial" from I -5 into Renton. Interurban Avenue (SR -181) has a functional classification of "principal arterial." C. PURPOSE AND SCOPE In October 1981, the Tukwila City Council authorized Entranco Engineers to perform this preliminary engineering study to determine the nature of the design required to complete the unimproved segment of Southcenter Boulevard. This report has been prepared under the auspices of the Tukwila Department of Public Works and the Washington State Department of Transportation, State Aid Division. • • The purpose of this Design Report is to determine the ultimate function and configuration of Southcenter Boulevard /Grady Way as an element of the future transportation system serving Tukwila. Key features in this first phase of the work are: - Establishment of design criteria and objectives - Development and evaluation of alternative improvement concepts - Preliminary design of recommended improvements - Assessment of environmental impacts This Design Report summarizes and evaluates the studies made on these and other design elements. The environmental assessment document prepared in this first phase will be distributed to county, state, and federal highway officials for their threshhold determination. Should an environmental impact statement (EIS) be required, it would become the next phase of work. The final design phase will be performed next, i.e., detailed design of all project features. This work will include preparation of contract plans, specifications, and final cost estimates for the roadway, bridges, and related items. Without an EIS, final design and construction contract documents could be completed by early 1983, with the award of the construction contract by mid -1983. An EIS, if necessary, would delay the construction start date by approximately one year. The actual length of time required for the EIS .process would depend upon the number and magnitude of significant impacts and the length of reviews. S() Ln MA• te'T - 9 'poi... C 1.111,v) cirm ca_.._ --D.scrr_ tqAvv\v_ 71.6cw.a.p, , , .7PLIcAL, \t.)1,1. /-1*-L — I asslo .P9-\), 04.3A:1-_ Scati- 8-z34-i713 volnco .....11s . _ ' _ 484— o8-3 /3"-/--0.6 €,..3 ....1cIA___k.‘, .1—te-____cs,c_.....0_5..._ncjAz 0 r • 1 1 Mi..TZK_ ci&U61-19- 1 - , (t w 5. or- 574&-- 4-2-0 .-. .6i4-,, a- 7Titio4‹.. Din. Ple_ - 75 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 MEMORANDUM TO: Brad Collins, Planning Director FROM: Mark Caughey, Associate Planner DATE: 19 July 1982 SUBJECT: Southcenter Boulevard Realignment (.EPIC- 179 -82) • The following is an advisory report on the status of our efforts to date since the 9 July meeting with the advisors from State Aid and F.H.W.A.: - Based on our telephone conversation of 7- 14 -82, Larry Blackerby of WSDOT State Aid suggests that we withold our final SEPA D.N.S. until the N.E.P.A. assessment i.s'completed and a tentative F.O.N.S.I. is:issued. At that time, the City may choose to approve a final D.N.S. or to proceed with a SEPA.impact statement. Ed Berschinski of Entranco confirms this understanding of the process. - Mr. Blackerby also discussed the following topics with me: A). Archeological investition: Most, likely will be required.as an appendix to the E.A. at our option, we may authorize the State to retain its own consultants to perform this study, or we may make our own arrangements. In either case, the City will be expected to pick up the cost of its production. Ed does not feel that this study is justified, however, since the project is located in a portion of the Green River channel that has gone. through significant revision in recent years, resulting in disturbance to any cultural artifacts that may have existing there. Obviously, this topic will require further negotiation between responsible officials. MC /blk Coast Guard Bridge Permit: Due to a pre- existing inter- agency agreement between WSDOT and the Coast Guard, it is possible that a defintion of "navigability" may be applied to the Green River in this case which obviates the need for a Coast Guard Permit. Mr. Blackerby and his staff are negotiating this matter and will advise us of the outcome during the E.A. process. May 13, 1982 Department of Transportation United States Coast Guard 13th District 215 - 2nd Avenue Seattle, Washington 98174 Attention: John E. Mikesell Re: Southcenter Boulevard Realignment Response to SEPA Proposed,Negative Declaration Gentlemen: Thank you for your comments of 28 April 1982 on the above referenced project. We are aware that the Green River is considered a navigable waterway in the project area, and will therefore require a Coast Guard Bridge Permit. This requirement was listed with the other necessary permits, licenses, and approvals in Section 9 of the SEPA Checklist form. We are also aware of the time required to process a bridge permit application and will do so in a timely fashion, but not before other project approvals are secured. The Grady Way Bridge is sponsored by the City of Renton; they have made or will make the necessary permit applications. That bridge, however, does not cross a navigable waterway, and therefore should not require a bridge permit. This project is partially financed through local distribution of Federal Aid Urban Systems (FAUS) funds. Administration of the project is accomplished through the Washington State Department of Transportation State Aid Division. We are coordinating NEPA environmental documentation through the WSDOT State Aid office, as required by the Local Agency Guidelines. At this time, it is not clear what federal agency will assume lead agency status, possibly the FHWA. The level of environmental documentation has also not been determined. According to the Local Agency Guidelines, an Environmental Assessment is required at the minimum. It is likely that you will be contacted at a later date for further input through the NEPA process and most certainly through the permit application. Sincerely, TUKWILA PLANNING DEPARTMENT • • May 13, 1982 Department of the Army Seattle District Corps of Engineers P.O. Box C -3755 Seattle, Washington 98124 Attention: R.P. Selkvold, P.E., Chief Engineering Division Re: Southcenter Boulevard Realignment Gentlemen: Thank you for your comments on the proposed Declaration of Nonsignificance for this project. This declaration and checklist were prepared in compliance with SEPA requirements. In addition to the SEPA requirements, a NEPA environmental assessment and possibly an EIS will be required at a later date. Therefore, a more detailed evaluation of impacts will be undertaken with preparation of the environmental assessment. We have, however, prepared a response to your comments on an item -by -item basis, as follows: a. The area slated for fill does not support wetland vegetation. It was landscaped during the construction of I -405 and is even equipped with an irrigation system. Loss of riparian vegetation will be limited to the approximate width of each bridge structure on both banks of the river. For the two structures proposed, this will amount to less than 300 feet of riverfront riparian vegetation. b. Drainage patterns will remain basically the same; that is, gravity flow with direct or indirect runoff to the river. Due to the proximity of the improvements to the river, most of the stormwater runoff will likely enter the river at approximately the same rate as the preconstruction condition. For example, rainfall on the new brdige . decks would normally be direct precipitation to the river. Precipitation on adjacent roadway surfaces created by this proposal would normally flow to the river with minimal detention. Department of the Army Corps of Engineers Seattle, Washington 98124 May 13, 1982 Page 2 The project improvements would result in an increased impervious surface area of approximately 3.5 acres, resulting in an additional runoff volume of 2.5 cfs, when Q = CiA = .90 (.80)(3.5) = 2.5 cfs. where Q = runoff volume (cfs) C = runoff coefficient (.90) i = intensity in inches /hour = .80 for 100 -year storm, 1 hour duration A = area in acres (3.5) The Green River has an estimated discharge of 12,000 cfs during the 100 -year occurrence, so the additional runoff does not merit concern. No stormwater detention facilities are currently proposed, but could be added if further analysis indicates detention is desirable. Detention could be used to reduce the rate of runoff, which doesn't seem necessary or help improve stormwater quality. c. All required practices for preventing erosion and other construction - related impacts will be specified in the contract documents. Additional analysis of potential water quality impacts from roadway runoff will be explored during preparation of the environmental assessment. Flow in vegetation -line channels will be maintained where possible. Oil separators and sediment traps will be included, if required, but will be helpful only when properly maintained. d. A six -foot freeboard over the 100 -year flood elevation is planned as per recommendation of King County Hydraulics Division. e. The proposed greenbelt trail would pass under the bridges. This is believed to bevthe safest and most pleasant route through this heavy traffic area. Impacts and benefits to recreational users will be discussed further in the assessment. Sincerely, TUKWILA PLANNING DEPARTMENT t May 4, 1982 Mr. Brad Collins, Director Tukwila Planning Department 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Re: SR- 405 /SR -181 Vicinity Proposed DNS Review Realignment of Southcenter Boulevard 62nd Avenue to SR -181 Dear Mr. Collins: ENTRANCO Engineers ENVIRONMENTAL AND TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS 1515 -116th AVE. N.E., SUITE 200, BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON 98004 (206) 454-0683 In response to the Department of Transportation's review comments dated April 16, 1982 concerning the subject Proposed Declaration of Nonsignificance, we offer the following responses (response numbers correspond to the numbers of WSDOT comments which are attached). 1. Analysis of existing and projected traffic movements shows an improvement in the level of service for the intersections involved in the proposed realignment, indicating improved operating conditions. Significant reductions in left -turn movements are projected (see response number 2) for the proposed realignment. The resulting reduction in potential conflicts indicates an improvement in traffic safety. Some disruption of normal operation is expected during construction; however, a plan will be developed for construction phasing, detours, and safety provisions in order to mitigate any possible traffic hazards during construction. 2. We have attached a copy of our traffic volume data and level of service calculations for your review. 3. The geometric design standards of the Department of Transportation have been and will continue to be used in the design of the proposed ramp and intersection revisions. 4. Right -of -way required for the proposed highway facilities is currently owned by the City of Tukwila and no new right -of -way need be acquired. Access limitations are proposed on Interurban Avenue adjacent to the new ramp intersection and would have to be purchased by the City. We will include the stipulation in the design report for this proposed project that ownership of right -of -way and access limitations for highway facilities will be transferred to the State when construction is completed. Alex J. Redford, P.E. John T. Bannon, P.E. Patrick H. McCullough, P.E. Mr. Brad Collins, Director Tukwila Planning Department May 4, 1982 Page 2 5. The bridge layout sheets have been corrected to show the proper titles. We have included the revised bridge layout sheets with this response for your review. 6. Our recommendation for the two -way ramp section called for raised channelization from the end of the traffic barrier at the junction of the two ramp bridges (Sta. 5 +00 On /Off Ramp) to the intersection with Interurban Avenue (Sta. 11 +75 On /Off Ramp). At your request, we have extended the traffic barrier to the end of the ramp bridge over the Green River (Sta. 10 +00 On /Off Ramp). This change is reflected on the typical roadway section sheet, the two bridge layout sheets, and the two plan sheets, all of which are enclosed for your review. 7. We will be happy to continue to coordinate our plans with the HOV Project Engineer, Dale Wirkkala. I believe these responses satisfactorily answer the questions concerning this proposed project. If there are any further questions, please contact us. Sincerely, ENTRANCO ENGINEERS 1;?0=t1 5/44,011,04/ Rod H. Schrengohst, P.E. Project Manager cc: Phil Fraser Tukwila Public Works Department Enclosures: WSDOT Comments (2 pages) Traffic Volume Analysis Report (15 pages) Revised Bridge Layouts (3 sheets) Typical Roadway Sections (1 sheet) Plan Sheets (2 sheets) JOHN SPELLMAN Governor STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of District Administrator • D -1, 6431 Corson Ave. So., C -81410 • Seattle, Washington 98108 Brad Collins, Director Planning Department 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Dear M. Collins: April 16, 1982 DUANE BERENTSON Secretary APR 1 6 1982 CITY PARKS &ARE K144 C. r�PT SR 405 /SR 181 Vicinity Proposed DNS Review Realignment of Southcenter Boulevard 62nd Avenue to SR 181 The Washington State Department of Transportation has reviewed the subject Proposed Declaration of Non - Significance and offers the following comments: 1. The proposed ramp realignment and intersection relocation-construction-and operation may cause significant safety and operational impacts. 2. In order to adequately evaluate the proposal we would like to review your existing and projected traffic volume data. 3. Ramp and intersection geometrics must conform to this departments design standards. 4. This department is currently designing HOV improvements on SR 405. One of the criteria for the project is that no right -of -way will be acquired. All right -of -way necessary for your project that includes highway facilities should be transferred to the state when construction is completed. 5. The bridge section labeled Ramp O'Xing Green River is acutally the Southcenter Boulevard O'Xing. The bridge section labeled Southcenter Boulevard O'Xing is the ramp O'Xing at Green River. 6. We suggest the addition of a median barrier as shown in red on the attached bridge section sheet. 7. We would appreciate having the City of Tukwila and Entranco Engineers con- tinue to coordinate their plans with this office and our HOV Project Engineer, Dale Wirkkala at 464 -5462. • Brad Collins, Director April 15, 1982 Page 2 Thank you for the opportunity to review this proposal. Very truly yours, J.D. ZIRKLE, P.E. District Adnini/ trator / '1. D.L. H1 .d ,/ '.E. • District t/ gn Engineer PRL:jcw Attachment cc: D.E. Wirkkala T.T. 'McLeod SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD REALIGNMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE Volumes for a 1990 design year were produced using output volumes from the Tukwila Micro Model and using current (1981) traffic counts for k and d factors. The Tukwila area travel demand forecast assumes a growth of 240,000 square feet in retail space, 1.9 million square feet in office space, and 350,000 square feet in industrial/ warehouse space in the Tukwila commercial - industrial area. The resulting growth in vehicle trip ends per day is 63,000, or about 46 percent by 1990. Growth in other areas of the region was taken into account by using the Puget Sound Council of Governments (PSCOG) 1990 regional trip table as a basis for the modeling effort. The capacity restraint assignment technique which adjusts travel speed based on volume /capacity ratios was used to provide 1990 daily travel assignments on the network. The resulting daily approach volumes for the improved system are shown in Figure 1. The October 1981 approach volumes and p.m. peak hour percentages for the existing alignment are shown in Figure 2. By applying the current year peak hour percentages to the 1990 traffic volume forecast, 1990 p.m. peak hour approach volumes were calculated. Figures 3 and 4 show these volumes for the existing configuration and the new alignment. The approach volumes vary between Figures 3 and 4 due to the change in traffic patterns caused by the new alignment. These approach volumes were used in all 1990 level of service calculations. Turning movement percentages were taken from the model and from manual counts made in June of 1978. These were applied to the approach volumes to produce the turning movement diagrams shown in Figures 5 and 6. The differences in turning movements are, again, due to the change in traffic patterns caused by the new alignment. • • In calculating the level of service for the intersections, publication 212, "Interim Materials on Highway Capacity," published by the Transportation • Research Board, was used. The level of service for the p.m. peak hour in 1990 on SR -181 for the existing system for the three intersections under study would be as follows: SR -181 at Fort Dent - Level of Service D -E SR -181 at Grady Way - Level of Service F SR -181 at 1-405 northbound ramps - Level of Service F These calculations assume that three -phase signals would be used and that there would be no improvements made to the intersections or roadways. The intersection configurations and calculations are shown in Figure 7. The 1990 p.m. peak hour level of service for the proposed new alignment is shown in Figures 8a and 8b. The new alignment would improve the level of service at the three intersections as follows: SR -181 at Fort Dent - Level of Service D SR -181 at Grady Way - Level of Service D -E SR -181 at I -405 northbound ramps - Level of Service C Two other alternatives have also been proposed, widening of the existing streets (Alternative 2) and construction of a new roadway on the proposed alignment but without an at -grade intersection at SR -181 (alternatives 3a and 3b). Access to SR -181 would be via a connection at the I -405 westbound ramps or at the Fort Dent Park entrance. Alternative 2 and Alternative 3b provide a lower level of service, while Alternative 3a would provide about the same level of service as the proposed alignment. Figures 5a, 5b, and 5c show 1990 p.m. peak hour turning movement volumes and Figure 9 shows 1981 p.m. peak hour turning movement volumes. �ouYtn caN�a.e 4 ezzl i n J- f ck 181 r -4os Wr3 ou /ot - Sovtin tAwT44 -V- e1vd •-- IR40 lbe i ty o pv -oo 94blvw4t tow tr-o w rtn %Ct 10% ea.6- twvle w at NO to. 1- 84 so �► F1k t3vt 1 20 -v\ 17840 b'1to to7..00 3k /8L FO wr tin J'r (t xL 1i Soo gm4o 145 Gvrody W oy r -4-05 81go w000 V3 oN /off' SR 181 ()%11r11*. 01...4TvOC Aligv IONINIOMPIMIllowar 6 ens 4..v- cLLIA. • 1161 Toto..1144-ic csluio rs Pv." 012.0.14- ‘,A4(J tr % q-orc- %leis L. ( (LcLily ) SC. lb( Forv- VaNrr- (t4.3°A s50 %UM 4400. (ma%) st.-70 (RA%) wa-rec lg4 I. 40 5 owdott- 11530 Orvo :1°161 #01\1 ./\ to G-To 41 o I- 4O3 SA. .t(- , 11340 ( ILO%) 557o , suk tel OUT' COAlltVg aomprowdau (4190 Pt peA0A.. (4\40V 42.taSr sle s-r4t 81 1410 au AN ea Niro.. II Iv et • e. Arc_ 3 h /13z cOW,- %A.ur %oo' 4 o S b. epa Att. 4 o5 E e. 0.Vott tra_ 3 410 •-• • leis° \ V-02 t 13 GA") W t) 144'. CAA) lleV- ■101010111e1101" fet_4:,/lirlOrl s R 181 -4S wo3 16e-0 1ct c10 PV4A 0.14. Utf" N 11APJ I TJ votAi r' 1730 410 1170 • C.M. 170 owrIk (Q4J1r €1461,. 1180 4 4o5 as om /0% iLo 5cto sle 181 L4110 Way i Sow Tt,, cu.) fair 13 I v c� sou t\\ c krrve RI4a. 1 4o5 ES 0u /off. ) 1 ,R t bi 100 qto to 1 q CI o I� m Itiov∎r -rvv-*J tuc N,aw,►,aor: ri 9y S-r,Q_vr- J. h t_ 70 +• 10 r- X40 1Tr 4to 9,o So a40 (AO J'. `- I L 130 Io t70 --p r -0 450 L.,O `3° loco 41 140 —� 4.50 --�, 1I ,q0 1340 SIR Fo r C∎Art k.y 43 y Pow S SOO TV. uw r-or Y31 v a -sue sou-rlr. ce 1 'r R d S. 'WS tug 0.310W- 405 Es. tet- ZR 6l (polo p rn k1/40 Qv- -ruv-io 1'1 zepteggivED- leo Ito 10 L 't— pro ado _1 7 80 Ai r 4:110 9,o 110 47o SP, IS 7qo 9l�a 1 • 840 30 �- a60 zzo T•a0 650 rte. Z10 SR 16l 4dle toms 12311N *0=1:1•40 o 6-30 tom 140 4-50 1 1 T 1430 idle Owe Q50 wiggle 9-R t �1 •4-r t?swr- r Way Sov Tt►, c a.o r-or [31 v los Pn /�� Sokrk cLP. T 1 RI�d S. 4os w6 0.3/01.- 405 £a ou /otr SiSS SOO 130 talpi Z.Qo SR 1 bl l q°lo 1 Iowv- NO C,p u "'LI. i b 41' 30_ 160 qto ffto Ai L t_ TO 940 0 Z,30 1W 140 '4o 1 L t__ 4110 0 ,h.-. dao, O ss+a o 1 T r 6? 0 45O =et 0 s�Z 18( 63o goo 14o _ _1 430 --�, 11 ,q0 13go Fovr Dowr G way G,o 6.ed NtWL10 p..) rely- v riA 4)) e•r =- 409 wES 1 ! tn1-.44c34.. ovQk. 1170 4-- w.�anw� 0 S 41E90 —0. r sow Tt►. (AA) r-or VI 1 v of eced510 R 1 b 1 O Ig9v two tem gtos to L, t- -,„ SsfA3 n cuNT a pro R d o seer o ism --� o ..� I. 405 wg 001!Mr 1 Tr Adz. 11 o 'sex 0 2.66 s't 44o g:so Ego 440 L60 130 —� `-430 I o -; t.,o 1 1 r %to Ms LTO 1000 SR 1St Ism 63o �s WM to loo —? 450 40 Wis. 1340 (XR t �1 P rn flea koQv- -TWA) r*) I ug ►r.c .►Maur, New bv-Ontst e O" r¢.wuvaoaN NO toaue-txtot) O c F&C1 (‚.r A.Ud SR l 4-i 3b Fo.-r Dam-- CsAr -o..y W Q i 810 132.0 ---- -,'- 101.e.xv t■■■ -LORI -IAQ co■ AN- trIA V113 r 0 1:717 ob£ 1 0b'1 oS T 1' 055 o)r, 191 )• 0I °bal 4J L 0 L oi►I '-- 012 +- 0 T r 01. oob 002 191 oit °i►ot OLS Obi -1 09 --V 091 os 1 02 021 092 191 "tis 0 lawamessmir pm g Sad Tn15A -ste. 0 5 ve/ r Q. grin 0'p *1. «►L N1I'D VV. Chs d �-- ub-C. Its 1 at. NR■• -t o t, 4,3o .-- s -4os t ui6 ado% spy yD4 �o 4 L To ,t-- ►o a40 kip 41, tiy y4' s1R :t 8 140" -• r 4.5 E$ ea c34- l%Pr 400 �► .t? Hr OPte ste. 1 61 jo SR. 181 o Q- Sur 199 o IP Wl . Weak. - tici's reiul 14y . s1 w. -rivet:. a tAaai. 1b %3 N 4t.o i so s -1- "'` iao= lavaL • tss D -E G :way way qo -t •. 460.. moo. LSJ$ --t30" . .. IA,Q,,e l F 1 S40 F ...wV'l V. •••• • . ..w 9R l 8l Z8° 4•° ,,,P yo I 4 C T.409 - ws oa /o4,_ %30... , L 405 EAS 0 S0 dr,. t90 .iR 181 00 se may° so d 1, 9.t? 181 et 6A0 ti Mph eft. VA-Mt Z.. 54S E- .54s e- 80 Tr( 1,0t6 VP eP Mai O pwt V Lcd . kipv New alt4N KNAAJ goer 112.0r Y'4b02. S 1 N0. 1 570 ` ' •lqo 1%30 4. 80 12.0o j7 pL t %Its Nat 1 545 64S+ 160 + .. s$o 4.70 1.34-5 (4v41 5 I4? a -F act RT....... No " p‘a ie. sits Oat 495 +?T5 +t4o 1110 (,sva t Fil3v`r4. 84, 1 Soo-r - CaArrv, C Ivct So 0.A. ow stud eAt g/3 /sz Clued 1-1 ‘et 'rvwk) 'LVI.amut,t i LGt.r,`o') mN &rody Way cued au S,bu riti %Arno, Y3 WA. ro i vv. ptrowa c•-V-+o■. k' t t ' Ct E. sR l GI 10 i 4 . Sit I T sky 46 No GAr.e.d.y Way 405 6,45ti6044-r5= +-70 70 z.eo t.ew.l s.oArT\I■ Ca.P.YT -e.Nr • 4• 5 u oN /off s oa gika R..f.firy»a»_ • 19 81 Q OYX r&& Lour -ru4-s.11 %g wooQ4tANA J V Qsri lyu1'etl. Q-•r VY% 1Qrq "r. v'A • a a 14 81 ap fArosck tow urs S) VA 161 9 3 AI. 4 ..1 1 to Ir-• Z- $ 3 — j— $ e ao 37S -,, I t 3 36 7413 3o Std t81 ssta 146 d l L gto 131 —. r 4 —+ %7o 1 T r s4R 161 0-4 1.1 Pero i'r GAr°dy may VJILA • 19 06 City of Tukwila z 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 Frank Todd, Mayor MEMORANDUM TO: Mark Caughey, Planning. Department FROM: Don Williams, Parks and Recreation Department DATE: April 8, 1982 SUBJECT: Environmental Checklist response for Southcenter Blvd. Improvements Specifically, I have reviewed the Environmental Checklist for the South- center blvd. improvement project from the view of potential pedestrian and recreational use. The road improvements and locations were only reviewed with the thought of how do they affect Christensen Trail and sidewalks or vice versa. A review of the large.drawings indicates a sidewalk is located on the north. side of the. :roadway and sidewalk street crossings are provided on the north side. T see no crossings from the north side of Southcenter Blvd. to the south side of the road. A crossing should be located at the Christensen Road intersection. I.n addition, I see no sidewalk from where Southcenter Blvd: crosses . Interurban. Avenue leading t� the.nor. th -.on either side of Interurban Avenue. Any road development of this area should include a ;sidewalk, either on the west or east side of Interurban Avenue, to: the entrance road to Fort Dent Park. The sidewalk may be installed later as Interurban Avenue is improved, however, it should be identified in these drawings to show future connections. My major concern involves the answer to question #6. The fifth paragraph states,..!'Bridges over the Green River will be designed to allow the completion of the Christensen Greenbelt. The greenbelt is completed to the north and south." I see nothing in the plans to indicate the location of the trail, any crossings or how it is to be built. It is also inaccurate to say the greenbelt is completed to the north. From Tukwila Parkway south the trail is completed to So. 180th. We do want to connect the northend of the existing trail to the entrance road to Fort Dent Park, but I do not see anything in the plans showing the proposedconnection. I do know Entranco has worked on possible trail locations and. understand our plans. I suggest the possible routes be identified. The answer to question #19 indicates this "...project will promote and incorporate the necessary design features to complete the Christensen Greenbelt (Phase III should be added)." I would like, at some time, to receive this design information to see if it is acceptable. Page -2 - Mark Caughey April 8, 1982 In conclusion, the plans as submitted may be good as far as traffic is concerned, but I have some reservations.(orconcerns) regarding pedestrian . and,-bi cyCl.e jaci'l i ti.es , • Th.e »dr.awi ngs submi tted. do not, show in sufficient detail what the narratives indicate Will be done. DW /blk 411 1908 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila Washington 98188 Frank Todd, Mayor April 7, 1982 Department of Transportation Office of District Engineer, D -1 6431 Corson Avenue South Seattle, WA 98108 Subject: Attention: Project No. MG- 1041(1.) City of Tukwila Southcenter Parkway. Signal Modifications - Entranco Project No. 82026 -20 Mr. Tom McLeod District Aid Engineer Dear Mr. McLeod: Transmitted herewith for WSDOT approval are two copies of the Design Memorandum for the above referenced project. The recommendations for signal system coordination and modifications which are contained in the Design Memorandum are a result of analysis by Entranco Engineers, as well as discussions with WSDOT and King County personnel. Your approval of these recommendations will enable our consultant to proceed with the plans and specifications which are to be completed by April 30, 1982 in accordance with their agreement. Sincerely, Phil Frase Acting Public Works Director PF /blk cc: Rod Schrengohst Brad Collins Mark Caughey V 'File INTRODOCTICN This outline is intended as a guide to assist the preparers and 7 reviewers of Environmental Impact Statements and Environmental 8 Assessments to ensure that the documents prepared are complete and in 9 ccmpliance with the regulations of both NEPA and SEPA. 10 The purpose of this outline is to identify all possible subjects and headings that may require evaluation of potential environmental impacts during the preparation or review of environmental documents. 12 13 14 B. E. Bockstruck, P.E. 17 Project Development Engineer 18 W.ashingtcn State Department 19 of Transportation 20 APRIL -® 198.2. 23 Federal Highway Administration Region 10 TITLE OF PROPOSED ACTION CITY OR COUNTY OF ACTION 64 65 68 70 ENVIRONMENTAL.ASSESSMENT 72 (AND 4(f) EVALUATION IF APPLICABLE) 74 PURSUANT TO P.L. 91 -190 76 U. Sa DEPARTMENT CF TRANSPCRTATION 78 FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION 79. and 8 4 . WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT CF TRANSPORTATION 83 and 85. (LOCAL AGENCY) 87 90 DATE APPBCVED: 91 City cr County Engineer 92 DATE DATE 94 APPICVED: 95 R. E. Pockstruck, F. E. . 96 Project Developmett Engineer 97 Washington State Department 98 of TransFortation • 99 APPFCVED: Federal Highway Administration Official 101 102 103 104 (Title Sheet for Local Agency Prcjects) 107 INDEX 110 I. Title Page .... 1 113 II. Table of Contents 2 115 III. Descripticn cf Proposed Action 2 - . 117 IV. Impacts cf the Proposed Action 3 119 A. Earth 3 121 B. Air 3 122 C. water 4 123 D. Flora 4 124 E. Fauna 5 125 F. Noise 5 126 G. Light and Glare, 5 127 H. Land Use 5 128 I. Natural Resources .. 6 129 J. Risk cf Upset 6 130 R. [Population 6 131 L. Housing O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O 00000 O O O O O 6• 1' 32 3. Transportation /Circulation 7 133 N. Public Services 7 1,34 0. Energy 7 135 P. Utilities 8 136 Q. Human Health 8 537 R. Aesthetics ........... 8 138 S. Recreation 9 139 T. Archaeological /Historical ...................... 9 140 U. Economic Impacts o...........O...0.....O.C...... 9 141 V. Alternatives Considered . r . 10 143 VI. Comments and Coordination 11 145 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 152 I. TITLE PAGE - See example attached. II. TABLE OF CONTENTS - Include all sections, illustrations and figures. . 155 157 158. NEED FOR THE ACTION - Describe problem which proposal will 160 address, clearly demonstrate that a need exists. Discussion 162 will form the basis for the "no action" discussion in alternative section. Discussion should include, where 164 appropriate, the following needs, and should stress the need for 165 the project independent of projected traffic or use increases. 166 A. Transportation demand needs. 168 B. Safety needs. 170 C. Social service demands or economic development needs. 173 D. Environmental impact mitigation needs. . 175 E. Modal interrelationship needs (needs for transit service, 177 etc. 178 F. System linkage needs - to complete a gap in transportation 181 system, etc. G. Need to improve structural condition of existing facility.. 184 H. Legislative direction or inclusion in applicable transportation plans. 186 187 III. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION 190' A. One cr two paragraph history of development of the proposed 193 action. B. Describe length, termini, and logic of termini. 196 C. Describe proposed improvement_, including number of lanes 198 or tracks, access control, interchange and structure locations, 199 bicycle and pedestrian facilities, if any. . 200 D. Identify schedule of proposed construction and completion 202 of action. 203 E. Identify permits needed. 205 F. Identify future additions, expansions, or related actions. 208 G. Identity the cost of the proposed action. 210 I9. IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED_ ACTION - In discussing impacts, describe 213 the physical setting of the proposal and include any other. 214 information needed to give an accurate understanding of the 216 environmental - setting cf the proposal including existing traffic. 217 flow and vehicle circulation patterns. All environmental 219 factors aenticned in the SEPA Checklist or the Department's EIS 220 outline must be addressed, unless it is clear without explanation that there are no impacts involved. Otherwise, 222 include an explanation of who no impacts result. Nhere 223 possible, quantify impacts identified. A. Earth 226 1. Describe the existing terrain and soils in the project 229 area. 2. Evaluate possible impacts caused by project such as: 233 a. Unstable earth conditions. 235 b. Changes in topography - landslides, settling, 238 etc. c, Excavation, embankment, or.overcovering of soil.. 240 Consider pit sites, etc. .Quantify excess excavation 242 and identify if waste sites are State cr Contractor 243 provided. d. Increase in wind or eater erosion. 245 e. Deposition or erosion of beach sands, river beds, 247 bays, etc. 248 f. Changes in siltation. 250 3. Identify mitigation measures proposed. 252 B. Air 255 1. Describe the existing air guality. 257 2. Evaluate possible impacts caused by the project such 261 as: a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air 263 quality - consider impacts of both construction and 264 operation. b. Creation of objectionable odors. 266 c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, 268 temperature, or climate. 269 3. Identify mitigation measures proposed. 271 -6 C. Rater 274 1. Describe the existing water quality in the area. 277 2. Evaluate possible impacts caused by the project such 281 as: a. Changes in currents or the course and direction 283 of water movement. - 284 b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage, patterns, 286 or the rate and .amount of. surface water runoff. 287 c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood 290 waters. d. Change in the amount of surface water in any 29: water Cody. 29? e. Discharge into surface water or alteration of 29! surface water quality resulting from erosion, 29( sedimentation, spillage from trucks, deicing and weed 291 control sprays, etc. f. • Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of 295 ground waters. 30( ge Change in the quantity cf ground waters. 30; h. Deterioration in ground water. quality. 30E i. Reduction in the amount of water otherwise 30( available for public water supplies. 30" j. Flood plain impacts. 30! 3.. Identify mitigation measures proposed. 31' D. Flora 311 1. Describe the existing .flora in the area. 31 2. Evaluate possible_ impacts caused by the project, such 321 as: a.. Change in the diversity cf species. - 32 b. Reduction in the numbers of unique, rare or 32 endangered species. 32 c. Introduction of new species. 32 d. Reduction in critical habitat of unique, rare, or 329 endangered species or the acreage of any agricultural 330 crop. 3. Identify mitigation measures proposed. 332 E. Fauna 335 1. Describe the existing fauna in the area. 337 2. Evaluate possible impacts caused by the project, such 341 as: a. Changes in the diversity of species. 343 b. Reduction in the critical habitat of or numbers 345 of, any unique, rare or endangered species. 346 c. Introduction of new species. 348 d. Deterioration of existing fish or wildlife 350 habitat. 351 3. Identify mitigation measures proposed. 353 F. Noise 356 1. Describe the existing noise levels in the area. 359 2. Evaluate the possible impacts caused by the project 362 due to noise increases. Identify residences and buildings 364 affected. Include impacts of both construction and 365 operation. 3. Identify mitigation measures proposed. 367 G. Light and Glare 370 1. Describe the existing light and glare in the area. 373 2. Evaluate the possible ice Facts of the _project. 377 3. Identify mitigation measures proposed. 379 H. Land Use 382 1. Describe the existing land use in the area. 385 2. Evaluate the possible impacts to land use resulting 388 frcm the project. Include impacts on minorities, lower 390 income residents, and their neighborhoods. 391 a. Taking of land for. right- of -way. 393 Increased accessibiltiy. c. Induced secondary development in region. d..... Consistency with state and local plans. 3. Identify mitigation measures proposed. 395 397 399 401 I. Natural Resources 404 1. Describe the existing natural resources in the area. 407 2. Evaluate possible impacts caused by the project, such 411 as: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural 413 resources. 414 b. Depletion of any non - renewable natural resources. 417 c. Taking of resources for right -of -way and 419 construction materials - quantify amounts. 420 3. Identify mitigation measures proposed. 422 J. Risk cf U2set 425 1: Describe the existing risk of upset (explosion or 427 release of hazardous substances) in the project area.. 428 2. Evaluate possible impacts cf the proposal relative to 432 . increasing cr decreasing the risk of upset. 3. Identify mitigation measures proposed. 4344 K. Population 437. 1. Describe the existing population make -up density, and 439 growth rate in the area. 440 2. Evaluate the possible impacts tc these population 443 factors caused by the project. 444 3. Identify mitigation measures'prcpcsed. 446 L. Housing 449 1. Describe the existing housing in the area. 452 2. Evaluate the effect the proposal will have on existing 455 housing and the tendency cf the proposal to create demand 456 for additional housing. Consider housing taken for right- 458 of -way. Ccnside.r impacts on minorities and low income 459 groups. If homes and occupants are displaced by this 460 action, a discussion of the 206 Housing Program together 461 with a commitment to provide that housing should be 462 included. If homes and occupants are displaced by this action, a 464 discussion of the 206 Housing Program together with a 466 commitment to provide that housing should be included. 3. Identify mitigation measures proposed. 468 M. TransportationLCirculation 471 1. Describe the relationship of the proposal to existing 473 transportation facilities in the area. 474 2. Evaluate the possible impacts caused by the project 477 such as: 47E a. Generation of additional vehicular movement; impact on efficiency of existing transportation facilities and need for maintenance. 480 481 482 b. Effects cn existing parking facilities or demand 484 for new parking. 485 c. Impact upon existing transportation systems and 487 accessibility of project area. 48E d. Alteration to present patterns of circulation or 49C movement of people and/or goods. 491 e. Alterations to waterborne, rail cr air traffic. 494 f. Increase in safety hazards to motor vehicles, 496 bicyclists or pedestrians. 497 3. Identify mitigation measures proposed. 495 N. Public Services 502 1. Describe the existing public services in the area. 50! 2. Evaluate the possible impacts caused by the project, 5OE r such as: - 50< a. Fire and police protection. 51' b. Religious and social institutions. 51: c. Schools. 51! d. Social services. 51'. e. Other governmental services. 51! -10- 3. Identify mitigation measures proposed. 521 0. Energy 524 i. Description of existing energy use in the area. 527 2. Evaluate the possible impacts on energy use caused by 530 the Frojecta such as: 531 a. Energy needed for construction. Identify period 534 of operation time needed to Fay back this amount of 535 energy. b. Energy consumed on the completed facility. 537 c. Energy consumed in the region. Effect of the 540 project on vehicle miles traveled. d. Demand upon existing sources of energy, or 542 reguirement of development of new sources of energy. 543 3. Identify mitigation measures proposed. 545 P. Utilities 5Qtd 1. Describe the existing utilities in the-area. 551 2. Evaluate the impacts of the project cn (or possible 554 generation cf the need for new systems or alterations to 555 existing) utilities such as: 556 a. Power or natural gas.. 558 b. Communications-systems. 560 c. Water. 562 d. Sewer or septic tank_. 564 e. Storm water drainage. 566 f. Solid waste and disF.osal. 568 3. Identify mitigation measure proposed. 570 Q. Human Health 573 1. Description of existing buman health in the area if 576 applicable. 2. Evaluate the possible impacts the project may cause 579 relative to the creation of any health hazard. 580 3. Identify mitigation measures proposed. 582 R. Aesthetics 585 1.. Describe the existing aesthetic values in the area. 588 2. Evaluate the possible impacts caused by the project 591 relative to: 592 a. Obstruction of any scenic vista or open view. 595 b. Creation of an aesthetically offensive site open 597 to the public view. 598 3. Identify mitigation measures proposed. 600 S. Recreation 603 1. Describe the existing parks and recreation facilities 605 in the area. 606 2. Evaluate the possible impacts on the quality or 609 quantity of existing recreational opportunities. 610 3. Identify mitigation measures proposed. 612 T. Archaeological /Historical 6.15. 1. Identify archaeological or historical resources in the 618 area. 2. Evaluate possible impacts of the proposal on 621 archaeological or historical sites, structures, objects, or 622 buildings. 3. Identify mitigation measures proposed. 6244 U. Economic Impacts 627 1.. Describe the existing economic conditions in the area 629 - employment, property values, taxes, and overall output of 630 goods and services. . 2. Evaluate the possible impacts caused by the project such as: . . 6316 633 a. Effect on employment. b. Effect on businesses by access control or displacement. c. Effect on property values. d. Effect on tax revenues. 636 638 639 641 643 e. Effect of project expenditures and investment on. 645 the public and private development cf the project area 646 and its overall output cf goods and services. 647 V. ALTERNATIVES• CONSIDERED - Discuss any alternatives to the 649 proposed action which were considered and why they are not 650 proposed for action. A. The No Action Alternative 653 1. Description of alternative. 655 2. Impacts of alternative. Describe, where relevant, the 659 impacts of this alternative upon each cf the impact areas 660 listed above. If, and only if, it is clear without 661 discussion that there are no impacts in certain areas, the 662 EA should include a statement that only those impact areas 663 with impacts are discussed. In such case, a "no impact" 664 one liner is not needed in the impact areas where there are 665 no impacts. 3. Conclusion - A conclusionary statement relative to the 667 alternative considered should include the following type of 668 language, !Due to the following environmental impacts 669 associated with not constructing the proposed facility the 670 no action alternative is not felt to be a reasonable 671 alternative: "(1) ; j2) ; (3) 672 , etc. B. Corridor B, Corridor C. etc. 675 1. Description of alternative improvement - design 677 configuration etc.. 678 2. Impacts of alternatives as appropriate - see above. 682 3. Conclusion - see above. 684 C. Design Options A. B, etc. etc.. (where relevant'. 687 1. Description of alternative improvement. 689 2. Impact of alternative as appropriate - see above.. 693 3. Conclusion see above. 695 D. Improve Existing Facility 698 1. Description of alternative improvment - design etc. 701 2. Impacts of alternative as appropriate. See above. 705 3.. Conclusion - see above. 707 -13- VI. COMMENTS !ND COORDINATION - Descrite all early ccmments and 710 coordination efforts, all comments received from gcvernment 711 agencies and the public, and all agencies and persons consulted. 712 City of Tukwila 6200 South; enter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 PLANNING DEPARTMENT TRANSMITTAL DATE OF TRANSMITTAL / /4A2 / B ' TO: ❑ BUILDING DEPT. ❑ POLICE DEPT. EIRE DEPT. ❑ RECREATION DEPT. ❑ PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. ❑ SOG'rg SWI7 4.1&m N"r PROJECT: LOCATION: The above mentioned applicant has submitted the following plans or materials for the above reference project: Environmental Checklist ❑ Preliminary Plat ❑ Environmental Impact State- ❑ Final Plat ment ❑ Site /Development Plans ❑ Rezone Request. ❑ Shoreline Permit Application❑ Variance Request ❑ Conditional Use Permit DOther: Application The attached materials are sent to you for your review and comment. The Planning Dept. needs your comments to satisfy review procedures and to complete the project file. Please use the space provided below for your comments or attach a separate sheet. Requested response date: 9 / A-01, / 82 Review Department comments: - READ- /GINt.a sii t,tt -L IV o7 EFFE C J / .F SPow1141WF T1 NE s ROT f,►) a a-S.- ifelbscc ]ZESPo►J SE SOM iFtbarH /1 i' SA Fe lR - 7 7)/ E X COURSE- RSE /Iu l- C_A SE t..1 S O) ,ITT -Lc) tv C1 ASE' By: V &LW-4'I Date: ii a _Ut. 3d / IAZ 111:741;t2. City of Tuk 6200 Sa. h ;enter Boulevard Tukwila V■as:on 98188 PLANNING DEPARTMENT TRANSMITTAL • DATE OF TRANSMITTAL 2%, / M / SZ TO: J2151JILDING DEPT. ❑POLICE DEPT. ❑ FIRE DEPT. ❑ RECREATION DEPT. ❑ PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. ❑ PROJECT: o - 6LV 7 REAL.I6k1 "►,►•1r LOCATION: The above mentioned applicant has submitted the following plans or materials for the above reference project: environmental Checklist ❑Preliminary Plat ❑Environmental Impact State- ❑Final Plat ment ❑ Site /Development Plans ❑Rezone Request- 0 Shoreline Permit Application❑ Variance Request DConditional Use Permit ❑Other: Application The attached materials are sent to you for your review and comment. The Planning Dept. needs your comments to satisfy review procedures and to complete the project file. Please use the space provided below for your comments or attach a separate sheet. Requested response date: �► / ar7K / 82 Review Department comments: 4/d By.: "xlovt-- Date: 740--v a r 11 ;1 City of Tukwie 5200 South center Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 PLANNING DEPARTMENT TRANSMITTAL DATE OF TRANSMITTAL 2, / Ma.R / .SZ TO: PROJECT: LOCATION: ❑ BUILDING DEPT. LICE DEPT. ❑ FIRE DEPT. ❑ RECREATION DEPT. ❑ PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. ❑ The above mentioned applicant has submitted the following plans or materials for the above reference project: .> Environmental Checklist ❑Preliminary Plat ❑ Environmental Impact State- ❑ Final Plat ment ❑ Site /Development Plans ❑ Rezone Request- ❑ Shoreline Permit Application❑ Variance Request ❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Other: Application The attached materials are sent to you for your review and comment. The Planning Dept. needs your comments to satisfy review procedures and to complete the project file. Please use the space provided below for your comments or attach a separate sheet. Requested response date: / SZ Review Department comments: T fi , pos&-o Zok win{ ri wz=r.6 6- /Oki y 11y ,►4��ds� 5l'r<QMlc( la e- liT lnnd"ek ,4,i E /6oAfro S g" e- 774 z!c &jou /J k[i zfy.r EN e„,„, � rei9rrpts T�Gin>'ra/`�rav Toatti tnii&nce,14 1/lugSo.,a1 FotA S(5n Tiuo osrf Twoe�rei- �/M, L�ou�ieo Itr nP STRiinnu245 Evrneea, /r a/•rrec<tr As P."kl f- 6%461E'ursr, V-1-4 ob.) ST Yr ;A! - 4 j ou6/e, i a/ 1,y/ c Lo- au/d /34--7 Aer vA.Ed) �4 I I I !u t' kX t.<ld dire M i2A/ c Diu S t (kr:4 4117 ,1174)4*. i �,a AI q r ,265 crop i . St-facts 4u- of de-TA GS e ou/da,�� be r,s clu �n / /T rs L)P1 /,n 114x- The GnafdE cIe uiafl (,_46r as e hg.,s i e. 6-,a .1)4c °s (►o-pst Ailfy • AT -4 e- MsIru.'ri A lJ/ A1- EHtrAt'grtnti-r- 0 wn / g4, # Ta 1/c --N $ Er— The- s tc to a ,,/n1 - L,u rri,1 774 WI ie -A t °kPg Tiavx44 1,.o x,z at= <4.2.'t�ie' W71 C��/LP 74 //ifZZAIZA LLMLe 4 -h 4A-,1 ,. fetz'r-v D 44- lti�i .S-o By.: Date: ,1302 • 0 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 PLANNING DEPARTMENT TRANSMITTAL DATE OF TRANSMITTAL 29 / "AZ/ ft TO: PROJECT: LOCATION: • BUILDING DEPT. LICE DEPT. lgiFIRE DEPT. RECREATION DEPT. ❑ PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. ❑ :o•rz s�.vv. The above mentioned applicant has submitted the following plans or materials for the above reference project: environmental Checklist ❑Preliminary Plat ❑ Environmental Impact State- ❑Final Plat ment ❑ Site /Development Plans ORezone Request. ['Shoreline Permit Application❑ Variance Request ❑Conditional Use Permit ❑Other: Application The attached materials are sent to you for your review and comment. The Planning Dept. needs your comments to satisfy review procedures and to complete the project file. Please use the space provided below for your comments or attach a separate sheet. Requested response date: °l / &f /82 Review Department comments: By: Date: DRAFT Date `3- la --(2,1_ TO: Tukwila Planning Department FROM: Department of Public Works SUBJECT: Environmental Checklist for the Proposed Southcenter Boulevard Improvement and Relocation Gentlemen: Enclosed is a revised environmental checklist and preliminary plans for the above referenced project. A Declaration of Non - significance had been previously issued by your office for this project until a design specific concept was available. The enclosed plans represent the preferred design concept and the original checklist language has been modified to represent these plans. Please review this new information and let us know if this changes the status of the .11r`NS or if any further requirements must be met to comply with SEPA. Please be aware we must also meet NEPA requirements as outlined in the Local Agency Guidelines. We have asked for direction from State Aid with respect to the extent of environmental documentation. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Phil Fraser Acting Director of Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM I. BACKGROUND 1. Name o Proponent City of Tukwila 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Attn: Phil Fraser, Acting Director of Public Works 3. Date Checklist Submitted 4. Agency Requiring Checklist City of Tukwila Planning Dept. 5. Name'of Proposal, if applicable: ' Southcenter Boulevard Improvement and Relocation 6. Nature and Brief Description of the Proposal (includ- ing but not limited to its size, general design ele- ments, and other . factors that will give an accurate understanding of its scope and nature): See attached 7. Location of Proposal (describe the physical setting of the proposal, as well as the extent of the land area affected by any environmental impacts, including any other information needed to give an accurate understand- ing of the environmental setting of the proposal):. See attached 8. Estimated Date for Completion of the Proposal: Construction 5/1983 through 10/1984 9. List of all Permits, Licenses or Government Approvals Required for the Proposal (federal, state and local- - including rezones): City of Tukwila Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit; State Flood Control Zone Permit; State Department of Game & Fisheries Hydraulic Approval; U.S. Coast Guard Bridge Permit; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 404 Permit; and State Department of Transportation Approval. 10. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, e ::plain: NO 11. Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain: YES. (a) The replacement of Southwest Grady Way Bridge (b) The completion of the Christensen Greenbelt Trail 12. Attach any other application orm that has been com- pleted regarding the proposal; if none has been com- pleted, but is expected to be filed at some future date, describe the nature of such application form: NONE ANTICIPATED 6. Nature and Brief Description of the Proposal: The existing portion of Southcenter Boulevard scheduled for improvement is a two -lane, 30 -foot wide facility, lying between 62nd Avenue South and Interurban Avenue. The planned improvements will widen this eastern portion of roadway to match the five -lane, 60 -foot wide driving surface of Southcenter Boulevard west of 62nd Avenue. In addition to widening, the eastern terminus of Southcenter Boulevard would be extended and realigned to link with the new Grady Way Bridge. (The new Grady Way Bridge is presently under design and will be con- structed while this project is being designed.) The link would be a new at -grade intersection at Interurban Avenue (SR 181)., A direct connection to Grady Way by an elevated structure spanning Interurban Avenue has also been considered. Either of the extension alternatives would require at least one new crossing of the Green River as well as modifications to the I -405 south- bound on /off ramp. The preferred alternative would require two river crossings: one to extend Southcenter Boulevard to Interurban Avenue, and the other to extent the 405 ramps over the Green River. The ramps would be modified to pass over the Boulevard extension and river to link with Interurban Avenue at the existing Boulevard /Interurban intersection. The proposed project would provide the missing link necessary to complete the Southcenter Boulevard /Grady Way connection. This new system would serve as an alternate route to I -405. It will also provide improved safety, capacity and access for vehicles approaching Southcenter from the north and east. The improved continuity of design at the Interurban highway will promote access for transit, decrease response time for emergency vehicles, and allow completion of the Christensen Greenbelt Trail. Bridges over the Green River will be designed to allow the completion of the Christensen Greenbelt. The greenbelt is completed to the north and south of this area. Ramps,and roadways will require placement of fill in the Green River floodplain, but not the floodway. The land is presently undeveloped. No new right -of -way is required, but some access agreements will have to be obtained to allow construction. 7. Location of the Proposal: The project area is almost entirely within the City of Tukwila limits. However, the connection point to Grady Way lies within the boundaries of the City of Renton. The proposed improvement and relocation would begin at the intersection of Southcenter Boulevard and 62nd Avenue South. Then, proceeding in an easterly direction, the new roadway would parallel the north side of I -405 extending over the Green River and across Interurban Avenue to link with S.W. Grady Way. See attached vicinity map. Ns, 'Ofut ',WV, ` ' ®s• s»••$, trINT" IN MI PROPOSED PROJECT CITY OF TUKWILA SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD IMPROVEMENT AND RELOCATION VICINITY MAP II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required.) ATTACH EXPLANATIONS ON SEPARATE SHEET ON BACK - USING CORRECT NUMBER ASSIGNMENTS. Yes Maybe No (1) Earth. Will the proposal result in: (a) Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? (b) Disruptions, displacements, com- paction or overcovering of the soil? X ___(c) .Change in topography- or ground surface relief features? (d) The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? (e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? (f). Changes in deposition or ero- sion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? (2) Air. Will the proposal result in: (a) Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? (b) The creation of objectionable odors? (c) Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? (3) Water. Will the proposal result in: (a) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water.move- ments, in either marine or fresh waters? (b) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? (c) Alterations to the course or flow of.flood waters? X X X X X 1 X (d) Change in the amount of sur- face water in any water body? (e) Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? (f) Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? -(g) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? (h) Deterioration in ground water quality, either through direct in- jection, or through the seepage of leachate, phosphates, detergents, waterborne virus or bacteria, or other substances into the ground waters? (i) Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? (4) Flora. Will the proposal result in: (a) Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of flora (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants)? (b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of flora? Yes Maybe No X X X (c) Introduction of new species of flora into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenish- ment of existing species? X (d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? • W Maybe No (5) Fauna. Will the proposal result in: •(a) Changes in the diversity of • species, or numbers of any species of fauna (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shell- fish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna)? (b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of fauna? (c) Introduction of new species of fauna into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of fauna? X (d) Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? X (6) Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels? X (7) Light and Glare. Will the pro - posal produce new light or glare? X (8) Land Use. Will the proposal result in the alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? (9) Natural Resources. Will the pro -, posal result in: (a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? (b) Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? (10) Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an acci- dent or upset conditions? (11) Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? (12) Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing. or create a demand for additional housing? X • • Yes Maybe No (13) Transportation/Circulation.' Will the proposal result in: (a) Generation of additional vehicular movement? X (b) Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? (c) Impact upon existing trans- portation systems? (d) Alterations to present patterns of circulation or move- ment of people and /or goods? (e) Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? (f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? (14) Public Services. Will the pro- posal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or al- tered governmental services in any of the following areas: • (a) Fire protection? (b) Police protection? (c) Schools? (d) Parks or other recreational facilities? (e) Maintenance of public facili- ties, including roads? (f) Other governmental services? (15) Energy. Will the proposal result in: (a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? (b) Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the develop- ment of new sources of energy? X X X X (16) Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for r.:-: systems, or alterations to the following utilities: (a) Power or natural gas? (b) • Communications systems? (c) Water ?. (d) Sewer or septic tanks? (e) Storm water drainage? (f) Solid waste and disposal? (17) Human Health. Will the proposal result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? (18) Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal re- sult in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? - -(19) Recreation. Will the-proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing . recreational opportunities? (20) Archeological /Historical. Will the proposal result in an alteration of a significant archeological or his- torical site, structure, object or building? • Maybe No X X X X X III. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, state.that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non- signi- ficance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. Proponent: Explanations to Yes and Maybe Answers II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (1) Earth. (b) Widening of the existing portion of Southcenter Boulevard will require compaction and over - covering of the soil along both sides of the existing roadway. Excavation and fill for the ex- tension and ramp modifications will disrupt the existing soil and require fill material to be imported to construct new embankments. (c) Embankments will be as much as 35 feet high, depending upon the alternative selected. This will alter the local topography. Em- bankments, pavement and bridges will modify the ground surface relief features. (e) Until new embankments or disturbed soils are stabilized, the potential for erosion remains high. Temporary means may be utilized to prevent erosion during construction. (2) Air. (a) The project will improve the movement of traffic from the north and east and may promote traffic usage, thereby increasing vehicle- originated air emissions. However, if the project functions as an alternate route to I -405 and reduces congestion, it may help im- prove air quality. Construction equipment will produce a temporary increase in air emissions. (3) Water. (b) The new facilities will result in some minor changes in drainage patterns and slight increases in the amount of runoff. (d) All drainage now flows into the Green River, which may have a minor increase in volume during storm events from the additional runoff. (e) Due to the potential for erosion during construction, the water quality in the Green River may be degraded during rainstorms if soil is not stabilized. (4) Flora. (a) Grass, shrubs and trees bordering the Green River and growing within or adjacent to the proposed roadway will be removed or over - covered. The loss of these plants will be permanent with some compensation of loss from post- construction landscaping. II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (continued) (5) Fauna. (a) Birds, small mammals, reptiles, etc. that presently inhabit the area planned for construction will be destroyed or displaced when the facility is built. Displaced wildlife usually dies or forces its competitors to flee and suffer a similar plight. (d) There 'may be a deterioration in the amount of riparian habitat along the Green River wherever bridge crossings are made. (6) Noise. Noise levels will increase during construction from the operation of heavy equipment. Noise may also increase over the long term due to the additional vehicles using the new facility. (7) Light and Glare. Slight increases in light and.glare may result from the installation of new light fixtures. The removal of vegetation may also result in minor light and /or glare impacts. (13) Transportation /Circulation. (a) The revised alignment and connection to Grady Way will allow this route to function as a practical local alternate to I -405, thereby promoting additional vehicular movement. (c) The proposed project will modify the entire Southcenter Boulevard/ Grady Way /Interurban Avenue intersection, as well as the I -405 south- bound on and off ramps. There will be some delays and detours during construction, but there should be a positive impact on the operation of the system after construction. (d) The project may alter patterns of movement by realigning Southcenter Boulevard in a new tangent with Grady Way and by possibly changing the point of entrance and exit of I -405 southbound. (14) Public Services. (a) The proposal should have a positive impact on fire protection by improving response time. (b) Police protection should also be positively impacted by faster response time. (14) Public Services (continued) (d) The project would facilitate the completion of a missing link in the Christensen Greenbelt and trail along the Green River. (e) The improvements will initially reduce current maintenance needs. However, these improvements, like all new facilities, will even -. tually need maintenance, including resurfacing. (16) Utilities. (a) In order to construct the proposed project, some power lines may have to be relocated. (b) Telephone lines may also have to be relocated to construct the roadway. (e) New storm drainage will be included as part of the facilities. (19) Recreation. The project will promote and incorporate the necessary design features to complete the Christensen Greenbelt. 1u111111111.111111111 � IUelhuIlI�■lIuuuIIIn: uu1011111u 11111U IuuuIulU Iii.Illlwllllllilll :i _ _••••:-•••• _ La- ` •br`v I - •. /' -` �\ lam\ r Ow* ti oa — M Chaim. fy• ENTRANCO Engineers OIVOIOIIIpfpLAID tRYORORMT011 O016IA.TAAIi$ �h4.rie:'' �a'�t....t� . t,« �f 1 . - •'••Z rx..I.' �'�.6�iLf�Y",t :..ii;•.+�'` \•' =nA. _ .;e ..r:^Y_ Lam..:% -• •r:o.SS- �'+%'i c.�- ,•.:tai.. -L'.. rw O. 2 iiuIioii IIau.ulIu■IuIuuUIui ■: • INEMEIMPI7 • • . e+oo . . .. ELEVATION . - • • . ... . • -.-- . .‘ • . _ . .. ......, • • • • =CRETE GOMM . • j . • • - . • . . • . ' . ' ••• TYPICAL SECTION I., •, Ono Os fiewww , . • ENTRANCO Engineers EOMONOBITAI. ASIV,TROMPORTATION 0011HULTAITI Oor loor • Z7TttgVIZ 00i4ArkeP G7XOLO ,`n` .101laz Dom. ncco city. 24.6' ELEVATION ca. 1 ENTRANCO Engineers • . : -.',-, , •!.---. - -,. _. . - . - • .• . : . . . ca. 1 ENTRANCO Engineers UNE UMW .I. :M: MC: =Si MIMES --- 50 4Q 30- 20 I0 lOYOI -9599) 35%0FF -RU ) scurNOENTEN turti. rsnw - YAWL 30'10 APPROX. 55• ( 4+00 5 +00 ELEVATION 6+00 - TYPICAL MEDIAN SECTION - - STA.5NS TO 5+90 as crrr. r..rr ENTRANCO Engineers SIVIIIO ENTAL A,o lituar0117A11,11 0011SLL,1W,9 SSW yw,r ,�cw� it snF,�lm+t� eaas ulc 1 t ,iA • 11111111111111111111110 MIMUMMERMINIIIIMMINIMMAITUUM NOMMOMMINOMMM • UNIMMINIMMUMM 'R 6`E8b Lfv -]!: PMEMMINIMMON • MEM in I mommomminitimum nommummilimmelp I. immmmonnomman • mmilmmimmals MINMEINIMMIM 1 '• A6 MMEMMUMMIMME NO NM NMEMMUMWRIMEMM OM= • a�i°EE :1N t Nyi lay' �• ,..' ...:� ......... • . .. .. ..... • • uiu•uii1111ui■iuir ..I..I.MI I..II.I • U,149111 .. OW9Y t,iM 4 • 0 0 N G • 1 .MC MIMEO moo= =MIN :M: :C= MIMEO =MU a 55 2w•vc ' 1S 22 00'.::: 23, 0• . 33- .'34 00' 's;._'��'ib • u _*✓g,c t.tir Y " - - - .', '_:a.: MEI :o: MMIMIN 110 • :t� 10. :8.00 d ti. w.r • :,3,_+_.._ r -= �3i:s'.G7s;�.its.- +it�at ; -' Z4�} �t _`_'�.6°..�.5�- .a��`Y:S- `+�`i' Davis '- �:*�ii.�,.- ,ea�•-".�WY."' �. _.3xS�'�'.: �`''` ^" _v,'... �'�'" .. ,:x•11.00 :.:. 12 - -s ..... 1i10O 00 ENTRANcO Engineers BIVVO4IBRAL AND TRANSPORTATION 00NSULTAMTS rau r. • .20 • 00 4arn*470- w:azwe9 .rear 0 0 ��t Q,1 \4,"� INT OAT( O..G ING ;4'l j1 4'(//) :w ■ " -C.0 i V►I�'� j' • ze. • • T t4 .f. 4 .I.. 74..n ��o-�:•, sue. Chown By. De.3gned By: No. Dote By Ckd. App.. Neti.ion a1,1\ ENTRANCO Engineer,_ ENVIRONMENTAL AND TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS.• • ;.tr taus BELLEVUE - WASHINGTON ., 'Jon No.: ` \1 \1;';,1; \ T!\ \ \ \',il' \\!: \\ \ \W \ FF _ s 1 • \ 11 �\`S lttt.\ ,p ' , 11' 411` 1`\ ` ii 1 j \\;,. `,\_ %.\ l \.`\ \ \' \i't \ \`)1 \ \•\ .11 n\ r \ ; ` \ \ ;t \ \ 1a 1 \ • 1 . ,p. , S\�'-4it,',1 of • e \ \\ �, \11\li, \ \,' i' \\ ; w' ° \'tit \\ 1 \ \C \I • \ z V A ckyk\ \� Imo•\ F V i111 r� \ \A \ ''. ;, \ \\.\\ ';-\.\k‘ \ 0 JJ 1 • t . • r ri- .y .n 1 4t- 3 1 , m• `;'\ , \ \ \ \ \ _ i _- / 1 ( I \ \. \ \.\ \ al ' • \'--,� ,' �\ \ � . . ,„ • H. :- -, \t' it II i t /i1-r . - ':i 1 1 1 � 1 '.. ', 1 ',t ;t . `..11 \ 1\ 1 1 ',. QC �It 1} WT DATE DNG ENG aA 4 Approved By No. Dote By 04 App. ReNsvon ENTRANCO Eng�i; veers ENVIRONMENTAL AND TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS BELLEVUE • ,e•� �' WASHINGTON Scale: Job No Sheet Of +t3 !'X,* SC+ 6@0£rAYE; 5£ +02 ,V1S►OAc 6'48l 81 Via lAc OZ'0 • 31 =' QESV19 Mcs; :! • 795'02 , -5'0£ A31 017+'21 'V1S 1Ac x MT ,/ �a ti:: 0 • • .. 65 9£ 'A3l' . 5L -91 !VIS 3A2": .. ' r; 7912 21+8 £ 1 I +8 'V1S 13 POLid4.4F83E -- • Fj b7 •t O O ny' 7%s O O O O O O 0 M 0 z • w w i w 6. > z w w wm �: r .YOp_c,,, a i(t ici O 0 m O 0 ' o O 0 • 0 0. . rr O • +- .y, tR °visnA ti N +0�ro F ` • .. ;I w • 0• 'J U. 1 I') . 0 ' . • . . • w • • . . : • CI 1,7 .er r .. • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • w :o : . . a • • Vi STA.40 LEV 29.26 1 1' ry 1 LEV. 38.56 Lai 0 ...... • • • . • FS 11 ni p < m< o'' Z•• . m c , . m 0 ■- z ). i. - : 4 . . . 0 (73 0 . 0 d M • o z (0 0 —..• illikifif;-9'; -..i:•-•; 7- .iti...; .4.,,,.. :.,,;:1.• •;,.... .,;•.:„,...7..c.r.r>+: ,:-.,:a: ;•fi Z -1-.(D..c...:: .-.::.-..:....--..•:.:,: :,..,...-'..:-:. .. " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - ' • - - z co yj . . . -. . . . . .. • • • • • - • • • • . ... . ... . .. . . . .. • • .. • • • • • . : . . . . . . . • - • : . . : . • • • • • : .. .. . fi ; ty. . . : . . . • • • • • • • ........ . . . Q ... • ... • : ..... . . • • • . • • • • • . • • • • • • • O .0 0 0 0 .A i 1 O •O 0. . 0 0 0 0 O IV: { • END EXIST. 0V -RAMP. STA 0 +00 ELEV. 999P iSTA 0 +85 :LEV 4760 3EGIN EXIST 'VC STA I+ EI-EV. 4630 IF -RAMP 5 A.P) • PVC STA. 2 +00 • .'4.e STA. 2 +fr5 ELEV 4090 VI STA-. 3+ LEV 43.90 F n VT STA 4 .25 LEV. 46.9 • °VCC STA. = 00 ELEV 49.90 STA 5 +12;R GTA 33 +32 STA 5 +12 STA 5 +12 MP. OUTHCENT ER BLVD. - RAMP F -RAMP • • • VI STA. 7+00 • LEV 5700 • • ' LEV '47 9 P. f. • • PVC STA 10 0 . 0 • r,* ELEV. 40.35 • • 60 • 5V1'9TA II +'5 ELEV 36.60 EDGE OF P• TAT • NTERURE1 AVE. . /.11. STA 12 00 ELEV. 35.00 • • ... ....... STA .12 +35 "AMP =•• • -- •• a IN T ERURB • N AVE: ' • • • - - E �a�ll�*151i. i•''. 1. f ,V' q�•tr. ' Ij)gn `4 f ", 4'4 'fi • • • /SERIES 14 PRESTRESSED f . CONCRETE GIRDERS No. Date By CM Appr. Revision ENTRANCO. Engineers ENVIRONMENTAL AND TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS BELLEVUE WASHINGTON Scale: Roth ._ Vert Job No.: 01 DATE ENO 60' ' 40_ EXISTING GROUND LINE AT 4O'.Rt X29. +00 f- , ELEVATION 60' ROADWAY PROFILE - GRADE. SERIES 14 - PRESTRESSED. CONCRETEsGIRDERS Approved BY No. Date By Oka. Appr. ReWaion • ENTRANCO Engineersr; ENVIRONMENTAL AND TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANT r;,' 'too No BELLEVUE WASHINGTON •` Hone Vert m. Of .7_ A ( [:r Nr. DATE DWG ENG 60 . 30' (ON -RAMP) 35' (OFF - RAMP) 170' (ON -RAMP) 180' (OFF -RAMP) 95'(ON -RAMP) • 100' (OFF -RAMP) MEASURED ALONG 4_ OF BRIDGE 45 (OFF -RAMP) 50 40 SOUTHCENTER BLVD 30_ 20 es/w 16' MIN. VARIES, 30' TO APPROX. 35' 24' MIN 4 +00 3 5 +00 ELEVATION VARIES VARIES. 10' BTWN STA 5+45 B 5+90 POST - TENSIONED CONCRETE BOX GIRDER TYPICAL SECTION TYPICAL MEDIAN SECTION STA45 +45.T0 5 +90. :. • Approved By No Date By Cka. Appr: ReNelon ENTRANCO Engine e7 a ENVIRONMENTAL AND TRANSPORTATION CONSUL4A'NTS BELLEVUE WASHINGTON -- . . s:����'°"r'::•. Seale: Fkvtz._ Vert Job No.: CE:13N ammo s■u. smou ammo slornms MINIM MOS IMMO NUM s•111!♦1♦ EMMEN MI MO immNIMMI 60 50 40 30 20 10 0_ 2 70' 50' ICO YR. FLOOD ELEV. 243 8 +00 •EXISTING GROUD LINE AT E • 9 +00 ELEVATION 1 8' SHOULDER eLANE :. AN. i 14 /w�ti QAu�HN ,,...,cc_ :In 14' vl■.y . NI mar GRADE j CONCRETE TRAFFIC BARRIER vor„..--SERIES PRESTRESSED CONCRETE GIRDER,:, TYPICAL SECTION APWvrd er Drawn By Desinee Of cnl .ea er Atvrowd By ENTRANCO Engineers Heft. ENVIRONMENTAL AND TRANSPORTATION CONSUL1NTS •bp NO,. BELLEVUE WASHINSTON City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 29 March 1982 SUBJECT: Proposed Declaration of Non - Significance -- EPIC - 179 -82 Enclosed is a copy of the Environmental Checklist and Declaration of Non - Significance for the proposed realignment of Southcenter Boulevard within the City of Tukwila. This transmittal is a follow -up to the proposed D.N.S. and environmental checklist on this project which was sent to you in early February. Whereas the former material dealt with - non - specific policy issues, the present data is a specfic engineering analysis of the roadway alignment and related improvements. As an agency with jurisdiction, we are sending the enclosed material in ac- cordance with WAC- 197 -10 -340 (3 -7) for your review and comment. Your response should be returned to the City of Tukwila, as lead agency, on or before 15 April 1982. Additional information on this matter may be obtained from the Department. of Public Works by dialing 433 -1850. Tukwila Planning Department Brad Collins Di rector encl. BC /MC /ibm CITY OF TUKWILA OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED DECLARATION OF NON- SIGNIFICANCE Description of proposal Proponent City of Tukwila Location of Proposal Realignment of Sn uthrentPr Rnu]PVard Southcenter Blvd from 62nd Ave to S.R. 181 Lead Agency City of Tukwila File No. EPIC - 179 -82 This proposal has been determined to (have /not have) a significant adverse impact upon the environment. An EIS (is /is . not) required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review by the lead agency of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. Responsible Official Brad Collins Position /Title Planning Director Date Signature COMMENTS: CITY OF TUKWILA OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FINAL DECLARATION OF MOISIGNIFICANCE Description of proposal Roadway Construction - Southcenter Boulevard Proponent City of Tukwila Location of Proposal Lead Agency Southcenter Boulevard /SR 181 /I -405 Interchange City-of Tukwila File No. EPIC - 179 -82' This proposal has been determined to (have /Aptob X)g) a significant adverse impact upon the environment. An EIS (is /XISXXV(Z.) required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review by the lead agency of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. Responsible Official Brad. Col lins Position /Title Planning Director Date Signature COMMENTS: • • THRESHOLD DETERMINATION File EPIC - 179 -82: Southcenter Boulevard Plan Line The proposed action concerns that portion of Southcenter Boulevard lying between 62nd Avenue South and Interurban Avenue. The project proposes to widen the roadway to match the five -lane, 60 -foot wide driving surface of Southcenter Boulevard west of 62nd Avenue. The easterly terminus of Southcenter Boulevard will be configured as an at -grade connection at Interurban Avenue or as elevated direct connection to the Grady Way bridge. The project checklist has been circulated to all internal city departments as well as to agencies outside of city government: :which have permit jurisdiction over various aspects of this proposed roadway improvement. A summary of comments received follows: A) Tukwila Fire Department - Realignment will enhance safety of emergency response - 65th Avenue /Southcenter Boulevard intersection may become more hazardous to responding fire apparatus due to increased speed and capacity of Southcenter Boulevard. B) Tukwila Police Department - Various concerns expressed regarding adequate signalization of ramps required to serve the alternative elevated connection to Grady Way. - Inadequate site distances identified at the Christensen Road Bridge connection to Southcenter Boulevard. Parks. and Recreation - Pedestrian crossing from the north edge of Southcenter Boulevard to the Chirstensen Road bridge is not identifed. - Pedestrian access across Interurban Avenue from Southcenter Boulevard to the entrance of Fort Dent Park should be identifed. - Disagree with response to Section I, item 6, paragraph 5 regarding adequacy of provisions within the proposed plan for expansion of the Christensen Greenbelt trail. - On the whole, the drawings do not support what the narratives indicate will be done. State of Washington, Department of Transportation - Adequacy of safety and operational efficiency of the proposed ramp and intersection alignments questioned. - Evidence of coordination with on -going H.O.V. engineering efforts has not been demonstrated. E) Department of Transportation, United States Coast Guard Page -2- THRESHOLD DETERMI NA1•1 File EPIC- 179 -82: Southcenter Boulevard Plan Line • - The Green River is a navigable waterway; bridge permits for all over -water crossings will be necessary. - If use of federal funds is contemplated for completion of this project, identification of lead agency is required. F) Department of the Army, Seattle District Corps of Eagtneers - Impact of fill placement in the Green River riparian habitat is not adequately addressed, nor are alternative approaches identified. - Drainage patterns and runoff impacts on water quality within the Green River should be identified. - Control of construction - induced water quality degradation within the Green River should be identified. - Noise and safety impacts on the greenbelt trail should be identified. Checklist evaluation by the Planning Department was also conducted with the following results: Section II, Item 1: Earth - It is not clear from the narrative the extent to which existing topography of the area surrounding the project, such as the base of Tukwila Hill. Sheet 4 of the plan set suggests some disturbance of this area. It is also not apparent the extent to which existing riparian lands in the interchange will be affected quantitatively by topographic changes. Section II, Item 2: Air Quality - In Seciton 1, Item 9 of the checklist, the applicant does not indicate permit jurisdiction of the P.S.A.P.C.A.; their requirements should be noted and compliance or appropriate mitigation suggested. - As the project occurs in a localized area of non - compliance with state standards for certain pollutant produced emission levels, the extent to which such non - compliance will be reduced or exacerbated should be quanitified, and further violations more easily identified in the checklist narrative. Section II, Item 5(d): Fauna Deterioration of riparian habitat as it affects the fishery value of the Green River should be subject to expanded discussion, and Fisheries Department permit approval compliance standards noted. Page -3- THRESHOLD DETERMINAl•1 File EPIC - 179 -82: Southcenter Boulevard Plan Line Section II, Item 6: Noise • - Disagree with "Maybe" response; most probably, noise impacts on surrounding recreational and residential areas will increase.:-That increase should be discussed in quantitative terms for each alternative. Section II, Item 13: Transportation /Circulation - The checklist document contains information on transportation - related topics, but that data is dispersed and needs to be drawn together in a cohesive format. Also, service level impacts should be identifed for each alternative alignment configuration. Section II, Item 18: Aesthetics - The response to checklist Item 1(c) under "Earth" indicates that embankments up. to 35' in height may be required in this area to complete certain alternatives. As this height limit approaches the maximum height of buildings allowed by basic C -2 znoning in the area, an urban form study should be undertaken to assess the visual impact of this project on adjacent land uses and view corridors. Section II, Item 20: Archeological /Historical - In light of the project's proximity to the Green River channel, the probability of encountering concealed cultural materials should be evaluated with the Office of Public Archeology and a decision made as to the necessity of a preconstruction field investigation. Conclusion Based on the comments received, and on the identifed potential impacts represented by this major transportation system modification, staff suggests that effort be expended to disclose fully those impacts to the public. A formal finding of environmental significance is suggested, therefore, with a concommitant need to complete a formal environmental impact statement. As indicated in the checklist, review of the project via the environmental assessment procedures of the National Environmental Policy Act is mandatory, as federal funding is involved to implement this project. We have attempted to coordinate the local environmental review and N.E.P.A. processes; the local requirement of an E.I.S. may obviate the need for N.E.P.A. predraft assessment. In any case, the issue of lead agency status must be resolved and then appropriate steps must be taken to insure that the resulting impact statement is adequate to both the state and national impact statement standards. MC /blk sti City of Tukwila O ▪ 6200 Southcenter Boulevard - Tukwila Washington 98188 .1908 Frank Todd, Mayor May 5, 1982 Hand Delivered MR. ED BERSCHI+NSKI ENTRANCO ENGINEERS 100 116th S.E. Bellevue, WA 98004 RE: Southcenter Boulevard SEPA Checklist - EPIC 179 -82 Attached you will find copies of correspondence received from the Depart- ment of the Army, Seattle District Corps of Engineers, and from the Department of Transportation, United States Coast Guard in response to our referral of the SEPA Checklist for the Southcenter Blvd. realignment project for outside agency comment. Although the responses were received well after the 15 day review period prescribed in WAC- 197 - 10-340, it is our wish to evaluate them in the context of preparing a final threshold determination. We request, therefore, that you prepare a written reply to these agency comments, addressed to Planning Director, Brad Collins for his use in finalizing the threshold determination process. Also, we are still awaiting your reply to the WSDOT comment letter of • • April 16, 1982; your response to these items will be most helpful to us. TUKWILA PLANAING DEPARTMENT Mark Caughey Associate Planner MC /co cc: Planning Director Senior Engineer SPECD\ � LIMIT It's • law w • con live with. • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT ' TION UNITED STATES COAS RD .j\ • City of Tukwila Planning Department ATTYN: Mr. Brad Collins Director 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Gentlemen: MAILING ADDRESS COMMANDER (oan) THIRTEENTH COAST GUARD DISTRICT 915 SECOND AVE SEATTLE WA 99174 PHONE (206) 442 5864 16591 Serial 180 28 April 1982 RE: Propos enter Boulevard Your letter of 29 March 1982 forwarded a proposed declaration of non- significance for the above- referenced project for our review and comment. It is not that the project includes the construction of one or more bridges across the Green River. The Green River is a navigable water of the United States in the project area, therefore, Cbast Guard bridge permits will be required for the proposed bridges. Reference is made to a new Grady Way Bridge which is presently under design. Abridge permit will also be required for that structure. In order to provide timely imput and avoid unnecessary delays in processing permit applications for the proposed structures, it is suggested that you make application for the necessary permits at your'earliest opportunity. A copy of our Bridge Permit Application Guide is enclosed for your information and assistance. It is not clear from the information received whether, or not, any federal funds will be used for the project. It is requested that this information be furnished so that we may determine lead federal agency for environmental concerns. If you have any questions, please contact this office. Sincerely, Encl: As noted John E. Mikesell Chief, Bridge Section By direction of the District Commander NPSEN -PL -ER DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY SEATTLE DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS P.O. Box C -3755 SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98124 Brad Collins, Director Tukwila Planning Department 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 28 APR 1982 Dear Mr. Collins: We have reviewed the Proposed Declaration of Non - Significance and the ac- companying Environmental Checklist for the proposed realignment of South - center Boulevard within the City of Tukwila, Washington, with respect to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' areas of responsibility for flood con- trol, navigation, and regulatory functions. We have the following comments: a. It is not clear from the Environmental Checklist whether the lo- cation of fill will remove significant areas of wetland and /or riparian habitat. This issue is not adequately addressed and should be clarified. It may be pertinent to the final decision on the significance of the proj- ect. As you know, wetlands are ecologically significant areas which help maintain the quality of the human environment in a number of important ways. Seattle. District encourages you to consider the use of alternatives which minimize impacts to wetlands. b. It is noted that interior drainage will be altered, thereby in- creasing runoff into the Green River which is already a severe problem in the Green River basin. Drainage patterns resulting from road relocation should be addressed. c. Water quality in the Duwamish River is a key environmental issue. Mitigation of construction - induced pollution should be addressed as well as a long -term means of reducing oils and other surface water contaminants. d. The bridge should be designed to withstand a 100 -year frequency flood. The design should also include free board water surface for drift clearance. e. The enlarged arterial would affect the proposed greenbelt trail. The impacts, such as noise and safety, should be discussed. • NPSEN -PL -ER Brad Collins, Director We appreciate the opportunity to review this checklist and regret that our response was delayed. If you have any questions, please feel free to con- tact Dr. Steven F. Dice, telephone (206) 764 -3624, of my staff. Sincerely, R.P. sEuE►aiu.�.E. ChM, Engineesing Division SOUTHCENTER BLVD REALINGMENT VIISCELLANEOi1S DOCUMENTS EPIC- 185 -82 anu Hvariaollity or an tnvironmental Assessment on J to be Undertaken by ( A -ic.y EE II ! Oi JAN 18 1983 In coordination with the Federal Highway Administration and the Washington ENTRANCO ENGINEERS Ade-uc.y State Department of Transportatio1 the (L m cA ,- publishes this first notice of opportunity for a public hearing on the proposed project. Notice is given that an opportunity for requesting a public hearing is hereby extended to discuss the proposed undertaking and the adequacy, accuracy and completeness of the environmental assessment for . • • This notice will also serve to publish the availability of the Environmental Assessment which has been prepared for the proposed project in response to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and to invite comments regarding the impacts of the proposal from all interested parties, for a period of 30 days from this publication date.. Requests for a Kblic hearing and /or a copy of the Environmental Assessment should be made in writing to.0 e""'4t-T Comments on the Environmental Assessment and requests for the public hearing must be presented in by (1D of c3o writing to 4 �--0 �-. . A.c. 7 &,..C74 ?c i o A. . . . .� CENO of'o -?I ?c?Lre'DJ The opportunity for public hearing also closes on l� . It is the purpose of this notice to provide interested persons the opportunity to participate in the fullest exchange of information possible regarding the effect • on the community of the project being considered, through full discussion and examination of the planning to date. This purpose is in consonance with and pursuant to the Federal -Aid Highway Act (Title 23 U.S.C. .1 101 et seq., 128) and amendments thereto and the Department of Transportation Act (Title 49 U.S.C. & s S. Recreation See "Public Services." T. Archaeological /Historical Existing Conditions The State of Washington Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation has reviewed available records and noted that the project vicinity has a high potential for occurrence of previously unidentified cultural resources. Based on this review, it was recommended that a professional archaeological survey of the project area be conducted prior to further action. Because of this recommendation, a professional survey team from the University of Washington Office of Public Archaeology was contracted to do this survey. A report outlining the results of the cultural resources assessment of the project area was submitted by the University of Washington Office of Public Archaeology and is enclosed as Appendix D. The report concurs that the vicinity is rich in cultural resources, but basically concludes that through archival and literature review as well as direct surface and subsurface exploration no significant cultural resources have been found or are likely to occur in the specific project area. Impacts Since archaeological resources are unlikely to exist in the area, no significant impacts are expected. In addition, the amount of excavation work is limited; therefore, if resources were discovered, little damage would likely occur prior to a proper inventory. No historical sites will be affected by this project. Mitigating Measures Certain precautionary measures should be adopted to ensure against loss of any significant remains that may have escaped detection during the current project assessment. In the unlikely event that artifacts are encountered during construction, further work should be temporarily halted in that vicinity until a professional archaeological evaluation can be made of the need for mitigative efforts. In addition, notification of any such findings should be made to the State's Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation so that they might coordinate and review possible preservation /recovery alternatives. U. Economic Impacts Existing Conditions As of December 1980, the city of Tuwila contains 1,006 businesses employing 19,174 people. The Southcenter Boulevard project is located on the border between the Tukwila /Interurban and the Southcenter /Andover areas, as definded by the 1980 City of Tukwila Employment Survey. The Tukwila /Interurban area had employment of 1,257 people, while the Southcenter /Andover area had employment of 15,056 people, or 78.5 percent of total employment. Gross floor area of leasable space for 1980 totaled approximately 10,668,000 square feet, with the majority of that (6.9 million square feet) devoted to light industrial uses and warehousing. There were approximately 2 million square feet of retail space and 1.8 million square feet of office space. Some differences are expected to occur if Southcenter Boulevard is improved. Figures 6 and 7 show 1990 average daily traffic for the no -build alternative and the proposed project. Increases in traffic are expected to occur on Southcenter Boulevard with the realignment alternative attracting 3,000 to 7,000 more vehicles than the no -build alternative. Corresponding decreases in traffic volumes are expected on I -405. Volumes on Grady Way would increase by about 2,000, with volume on 68th Avenue S. increasing by 4,700. Other changes in traffic should be of lesser significance. The 1990 approach volumes and existing turning movement counts were used to generate 1990 p.m. peak hour turning movements. These were then used to calculate level of service for the three intersections - -Fort Dent Park /SR -181, Grady Way /SR -181, and I -405 northbound ramp /SR -181. Table 2 shows the anticipated 1990 level of service for the various alternatives. Only alternatives 3B and 4 provide level of service D or better at the Fort Dent Park /SR -181 intersection; only alternatives 3A and 4 provide level of service D or better at the Grady Way /SR -181 intersection, while none of the alternatives provide better than level of service E at the I -405 northbound ramp /SR -181 intersection ( "Alternatives Considered," for a description of Alternatives 3A and 3B). The latter intersection needs a separate right -turn lane for southbound traffic on SR -181 to improve access to I -405 northbound. Construction of this lane is outside the scope of this project, and was therefore not considered in any of the alternatives. As previously stated, current storage length for left turns from SR -181 southbound onto Grady Way eastbound is not adequate to handle the p.m. peak hour demand. On some signal cycles, left turning traffic backs up onto the through lanes, blocking that movement. In some cases, it may backup through the present Southcenter Boulevard /Fort Dent Park /Interurban Avenue intersection, severely restricting traffic flow. The increase in traffic volumes expected by 1990 will exacerbate the situation. Only alternatives 3A and 4 offer any relief: 3a because it will 21iminate the Grady Way /SR -181 intersection, and 4 by converting the left -turn movement from Southcenter Boulevard to a through movement due to the realignment. 1. Limit the use of equipment that generates high noise levels to normal working hours (8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.). 2. Use modern equipment that is designed or properly muffled to reduce noise. 3. Construct temporary noise barriers around pneumatic equipment or other high noise generators. No permanent noise protection is planned for installation as an element of this project. However, the City of Tukwila may provide potential builders in the project corridor with noise contour maps developed for this project. These maps may aid the builder with design and layout of new buildings on the vacant lands in the project corridor in order to avoid future noise problems. Based on noise contours, the developer may construct buildings in quieter areas, orient the structure to face windows away from traffic, use parking and landscape areas for buffer zones, or take other measures, including construction of noise barriers. G. Light and Glare Existing Conditions Street lighting is currently provided only where Southcenter Boulevard intersects other streets: 62nd Avenue S., 65th Avenue S., 68th Avenue S., and Interurban Avenue. The luminaires provide lighting for pedestrians at the existing intersections. Some light from luminaires along I -405 may contribute minimally to the existing lighting level along Southcenter Boulevard. Headlights on vehicles traveling on Southcenter Boulevard provide the majority of available lighting during the evening and nighttime hours. Some noise impacts from construction are expected to occur. According to the list contained in "Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances," issued by the U.S. EPA, most construction equipment likely to be used on the project produces noise levels ranging from 79 to 91 dBA when recorded 50 feet from the source. Pile drivers are .one of the noisier types of equipment, with sound levels at about 101 dBA when measured from a distance of 50 feet. Temporary noise impacts to the commercial property close to Southcenter Boulevard would arise primarily from equipment used to widen the roadway. Because of the proximity of the building, intermittent noise levels received by this property during the widening phase of project construction could sometimes be in the range of 91 dBA. Supports for the new bridges over the -Green River may be pile driven. However, greater distances (at least 200 feet) would separate developed properties from pile driver operations. The noise impact expected at the commercial building from this particular source would be reduced to approximately the level of impact from other project equipment. During construction of the Southcenter Boulevard bridge over the Green River, bicyclists and pedestrians near the existing northern terminus of the Christensen Greenbelt Trail would be subject to elevated noise levels arising from the use of a pile driver and other equipment. As a result, the attractiveness of this part of the trail may be temporarily reduced for its users. Mitigating Measures A number of measures can be taken to reduce potential project noise impacts during construction, including: readings taken by WSDOT on December 8, 1981 approximately three - quarters of a mile east of the intersection of Interurban Avenue and Southcenter Boulevard. On that date, during afternoon peak hour, Leq values of 74 dBA and 67 dBA were registered at approximately 100 feet and 225 feet, respectively, from the nearest I -405 lane. Existing noise contours are plotted on the figures provided in Appendix C. In the area where construction would take place, the nearest occupied structure is a commercial office building, located approximately 30 feet from the existing Southcenter Boulevard roadway. According to the noise assessment, this office building and a private residence located on the bluff north of Southcenter Boulevard near 68th Avenue S. may already exceed exterior design noise levels recommended by the federal Highway Administration for facilities of their respective usages. Other business offices, public buildings, and residences are located at a sufficient distance from I -405 to fall under the FHWA criteria. Environmental Impacts Noise prediction models utilizing projected traffic counts, roadway geometry, and other pertinent data were developed for the no -build condition as well as for each alternative. Noise contour maps of these projected conditions are provided in the appendix. According to the analysis, the implementation of any of the proposed alternatives should have no significant impact in the project corridor. Normal traffic growth in the area will result in approximately 1 dBA increase in noise by 1990 with a no -build alternative (Alternative 1). All of the build alternatives (2, 3A, 38, and 4) would have an identical effect in the corridor sensitive areas; that is, an additional 1 dBA rise above the no -build condition. No sites will be above the guideline noise levels, except the two buildings that are already assumed to exceed design conditions. As stated, implementation of the project will only increase Leq values at these receptors by 1 dBA. No rare or endangered species will be affected by this project. Mitigating Measures Revegetation of exposed areas and permanent landscaping will provide some compensation for lost habitat. Mitigation measures discussed in the "Earth" and "Water Quality" sections will help prevent erosion and reduce impacts to fish species. F. Noise Existing Conditions The project area is parallel to I -405 and can be considered part of the I -405 corridor. In the the project corridor, sounds originating from motor vehicles are the major source of noise, dominated by traffic noise from I -405. The Washington State Department of Transportation conducted a noise assessment of the project area, which included the determination of existing noise levels; identification of land use and specific establishments that have a particular sensitivity to noise; and prediction of future noise levels, including contributions resulting from implementation of the proposed project. This assessment is enclosed as Appendix C. Existing noise levels where measured at two locations on September 3, 1982, and correlate well with values obtained from the noise prediction model. An Leq of 67 dBA was recorded at the corner of Southcenter Boulevard and Interurban Avenue; and Leq of 71 dBA was recorded adjacent to Southcenter Boulevard just west of 65th Avenue S. These were the only stations where recordings were made, but they are considered-representative of the various conditions along the entire project route. Based on proximity to I -405, these noise measurements also correlate well with E. Fauna Existing Conditions Both the existing roadside habitat and riparian habitat described in the flora section of this document are capable of supporting a variety of birds, small mammals, and reptiles. A complete list of mammals and birds sighted in the Lower Green River Watershed is provided in Appendix A. Because of the present developed nature of the project area, only those organisms that can readily adjust to human encroachment can be expected to utilize the existing habitat. For example, members of the rodent family, oppossum, and raccoon may be found in the region, but it is unlikely that mink, bobcat, or fox would be sighted. Most birdlife in the project area is likely to consist of songbirds or those species that require the unique elements of the river habitat for survival (i.e., bank swallows). fish species in the Green River are also listed in Appendix A. Sixteen types of fish are known to inhabit the river, including several anadromous species. Impacts As described in the "Flora" section, approximately 4.5 acres of vegetation will be lost by implementation of the preferred alternative. The removal of this plantlife will result in the displacement and /or destruction of many of the animals that utilize this flora for their habitat. Mature trees that provide nesting, perching, and food sources for birds will be lost. Placement and compaction of fill material will eliminate food sources and burrows of many small mammals and reptiles. During construction, when earth from excavation and fill placement is unstable, erosion during rainstorms could result in a reduction in water quality that might be harmful to fish and other aquatic organisms. The loss of riparian vegetation reduces food sources and natural shade to the river. Trees and plantings along the existing two -lane roadway west of 68th Avenue S. will be removed from both the north and south side of the street, but the change will be more physically evident on the north side. Because of the installation of drainage structures and retaining walls to construct a sidewalk, vegetation removal will be more of a permanent change on the north side. Even where clearing is required on the south side, a strip of vegetation will still separate the new roadway from the I -405 right -of -way. The major vegetation loss will be the trees and plants which will be removed along the river banks and in the floodplain in order to construct the bridges for the new Southcenter Boulevard alignment and I -405 ramps. This includes some old growth plants and some exotics that cannot be readily replaced. No land currently used for agricultural purposes will be utilized for this project. With the exception of an approximately five - square -foot drainage area that supports a group of cattails, no established wetland will be affected by this project. No rare or threatened plant species are known to exist in the project area. Mitigating Measures All exposed soil areas will be revegetated with rapid - growing plants upon completion of construction. A landscape plan has been developed for the street and trail sections utilizing both indigenous and introduced species of plants that will not only provide protection against erosion but also attract wildlife and add beauty to the area upon maturity. The eastern portion of the project area is represented by typical Northwest riparian vegetation. Trees covering the left bank of the river include Big Leaf Maple, Red Alder, Pacific Willow, and Black Cottonwood. The right bank is mostly covered by blackberry vines and thick grasses but also has scattered groupings of trees of the same species as previously described for the left bank. A large section of grassy floodplain lies adjacent to the right bank of the river. It is bordered on the other two sides by roadway -- Interurban Avenue on one side and I -405 on the other. This area is presently an unmaintained grass field scattered with a variety of trees and shrubs. Some of the plants are not native to the Northwest and were likely introduced by farmers who settled the area. Introduced species observed in this area include Horse Chestnut, Rybergs Cottonwood, and Red Maple. Other trees include some very old growth Big Leaf Maple and Black Cottonwood, as well as Black Locust, Oregon Ash, and False Arborvitae. Although the area is a floodplain, it does not support wetland vegetation. Its dryness is reflected by the remnants of an irrigation system in the field described above. However, a small patch of cattails was observed in a depression at the end of one drainage culvert. The slopes cf the existing I -405 southbound on /off ramps are planted with Scotch Broom. The highway right -of -way east of Interurban Avenue grassy area bordered by Poplar, Cottonwood, and Silver Maple trees. Environmental Impacts A total area of approximately 4.5 vegetated acres will be cleared and grubbed to build the preferred alternative. Most of the land cleared of vegetation will be paved or covered with overburden to establish the new alignment for Southcenter Boulevard, change the I -405 ramps, and create the widened portion of the existing roadway. Some will be cleared temporarily to facilitate the movement and storage of construction materials and equipment, but will be revegetated upon completion of the project. Mitigation Measures All established practices for controlling erosion and for preventing construction equipment pollutants from entering the Green River will be specified in the contract documents. A good street cleaning and maintenance program can help reduce the potential for water quality impacts. O. Flora Existing Conditions The project corridor can be divided into two distinct segments, each of which are represented by different vegetation habitats. The western half of the project corridor consists of Southcenter Boulevard between 62nd Avenue S. and 68th Avenue S. (Christensen Road). This portion of the corridor has plant life that can be considered "roadside" habitat. A portion of the flora on the north side of the roadway in this area is composed of lawn and landscaping plants, some of which are poorly maintained. Trees found on the north side of the roadway include Big Leaf Maple, Oregon Ash, Red Alder, Pacific Willow, Black Cottonwood, Mountain Ash, Hawthorne, Western Holly, and Black Locust, with understory vegetation consisting primarily of trailing blackberry, horsetail fern, and various species of grasses. Most of the vegetation on the south side of Southcenter Boulevard along the western section of the roadway consists of Big Leaf Maple, Oregon Ash, and Red Alder trees. These trees border the right -of -way and persist on the steep hillside that slopes downhill toward I -405. The understory vegetation is much the same as along the north roadway border. These trees are periodically trimmed to prevent them from becoming an obstruction to vehicles traveling east on Southcenter Boulevard. Since the river has an estimated discharge of 12,000 cfs at this location during the 100 -year occurrence, the small amount of additional runoff does not merit concern. When major storms occur in the region, the Green River flow is allowed to increase by the manual control of outflow through the Howard Hanson Dam. Stormwater discharge to the river must occur prior to the time that rise in water level reaches the Tukwila area or gravity discharge into the river will not take place, backing up stormwater into drains, surface drainage channels, and streets. Therefore, in the project area east of Christensen Road, no stormwater detention presently exists nor is any proposed to minimize the time required for runoff to enter the Green River. Storm runoff west of this area will continue to be discharged into the existing detention basin, where some physical treatment occurs. The new impervious surface area will collect some additional atmospheric and automobile - generated pollutants that will be washed into the river during storm events. Again, considering the volume of additional runoff and the river volume during rainstorms, the pollutant contributions . are not considered to have any significant water quality impacts. fill necessary to construct the new bridge embankments will be placed in the Green River floodplain. Although the project will result in the loss of 0.25 acre of the floodplain fringe area, no construction will take place in the floodway and no impact on the flow of floodwaters is expected. During construction, the fill required to construct new embankments as well as spoils piles from excavation will be subject to erosion. If not controlled, eroded soil will enter the waterway and add to the turbidity and suspended solids problems that now occur during many rainstorms. Oil, hydraulic fluids, fresh concrete, and other materials may also enter the river during construction activities. No groundwater impacts are anticipated. A U.S. Geological Survey flow recording station is also located on the Green River in the vicinity of the project area. The latest year of record is 1979. During that year, the maximum flow recorded was 6,490 cfs, with a minimum flow of 250 cfs and mean of 1,193 cfs. The maximum flow ever recorded was 13,200 cfs in November of 1959. According to the King County Surface Water Management Division, the 100 -year flood discharge is estimated to be 12,000 cfs. The 12,000 cfs river flow is controlled by discharge of the Howard Hanson Dam and includes the future maximum P -1 channel pumping capacity, at such time as this facility is placed in service. Environmental Impacts The recommended alternative will result in the formation of approximately 3.5 acres of additional impervious surface area. During the 100 -year frequency storm, this surface area would result in an additional runoff volume of 2.5 cfs. This volume was calculated by using the formula Q = CiA = 0.90 (0.80)(3.5) = 2.5 cfs, where: Q = runoff volume (cfs) C = runoff coefficient (0.90) i = intensity in inches /hour (0.80 for 100 -year storm, 1 hour duration) A = area in acres (3.50) The modified Southcenter Boulevard alignment, new bridges, and new ramps will require some changes in the existing drainage structures, but drainage patterns will remain basically the same. The total additional 2.5 cfs for the above described storm event will enter the river as fractionated flow from various discharge points, but all will enter near the new Southcenter Boulevard crossing. C. Water Existing Conditions The Green River is the major water body in the project vicinity and receives all drainage from the project area. According to the State of Washington Water Quality Standards, this portion of the Green River falls into the Class A (excellent) designation. Water quality of this class shall meet or exceed the requirements for all or substantially all uses, including water supply, wildlife habitat, recreation, commerce, and fish production. There are established water quality criteria for Class A waters which should not be violated. The Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (Metro) regularly samples the water quality of the Green River at different locations along the water course within Metro's jurisdictional boundaries. Data collected at the Interurban Avenue crossing of the Green River was reviewed in an effort to evaluate the existing water quality conditions and compare the existing values to State standards. From the 50 sampling dates over the 1980 -81 period, the following determinations were made: 1. In the project area, the Green River exceeds the standards for fecal coliform organisms. 2. On one occasion during that two -year period, the river exceeded the desirable limit of 18° C for temperature. The dissolved oxygen level dropped below the standard of 8.0 mg on this same occasion. 3. Turbidity standards are occasionally exceeded. High turbidity tends to coincide with periods of high suspended solids. Other parameters, including nutrients and heavy metals, for which the Green River is tested often exceed the recommended limits considered beneficial for freshwater aquatic life. An air quality analysis to determine the potential long -term impacts of this project was conducted by the Washington State Department of Transportation and is enclosed as Appendix B. Although no specific micro - scale analysis was performed for this project, a comparative analysis was conducted to relate this project to microscale findings for SR -515. In that study, all of the build conditions predict CO values less than the corresponding no -build alternative. Similar conclusions were drawn for this project. Therefore; it is believed that the improved traffic flow with increased travel speeds, reduced congestion, and queueing resulting from construction of the new facility will be beneficial for air quality on a long -term basis. Some air quality impacts from increased traffic usage of the new facility can be expected, but as previously stated, these will be less than a no -build alternative. Most air quality degradation in the mesoscale region will continue to be related to vehicles using I -405, SR -181, and other nearby roads and parking facilities (Longacres race track, Southcenter Mall, etc.). The Federal Highway Administration has determined that this project is included in the transportation improvement program for the Puget Sound Council of Governments. Therefore, pursuant to 23 CFR 770, this project conforms to the SIP. Mitigating Measures Watering haul roads and cleaning streets should help reduce construction- related dust. Proper maintenance of construction equipment and minimum idling time will help minimize construction vehicle emissions. No operational plan to mitigate long -term vehicular emission impacts is proposed other than reliance on the State vehicle inspection and maintenance program and the gradual replacement of older vehicles with newer models with better emission controls. significance to this project, especially during construction, is the generation of particulates (microscopic particles) which suspend in the atmosphere and impose visibility and health problems. Air quality in Tukwila falls under the jurisdiction of the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency (PSAPCA). By law, the standards set by any subfederal jurisdiction cannot be less stringent than the national standards. The standards adopted by the PSAPCA are identical to the national standards, with the exception that additional standards have been promulgated for sulfur dioxides. PSAPCA records indicate that particulate levels in the Tukwila area have been increasing since 1975 and occasionally exceed State standards. Carbon monoxide is the only air pollutant that can be accurately quantified and predicted on a small -scale basis with existing technology and modeling programs. There was no CO monitoring data available from any federal, state, local, or private agency that was pertinent to the project area; therefore, current air quality conditions relative to CO standards are unknown. Existing air quality in the project area is affected largely by general urbanization and vehicular travel in the Tukwila region. The proposed site is shown on maps from the State Implementation Plan as being within the boundaries of nonattainment areas for carbon monoxide and photochemical oxidants. Environmental Impacts Construction activities will generate dust and other suspended particulates, which may result in short -term violations of air quality standards. Emissions from construction equipment and paving operations may also result in short -term air quality and odor impacts. Approximately 14,000 cubic yards of soils will be excavated, and about 34,000 cubic yards of fill will be required. Roadway widening and realignment and 1 -405 ramp extensions will add approximately 3.5 acres of impervious surfacing to the area. During site preparation and construction activities, the presence of uncovered soils and stockpiled fill will increase the potential for erosion. Mitigating Measures The placement of embankments and other construction activities that have a potential for increasing erosion can be scheduled to avoid the rainy season. A number of methods and devices can be employed to control erosion during construction. These measures include the use of desiltation ponds, construction staging to limit the amount of soils exposed in the project area at any one time, and covering or revegetation of exposed soils and stockpiled fill. B. Air Existing Conditions National ambient air quality standards have been established to protect the public from air pollutants discharged from various sources (i.e., factories, autos). Of significance to the present and future usage of Southcenter Boulevard project are motor vehicle emissions that contribute carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of nitrogen (N0x) and hydrocarbons (HC) to the atmosphere. These pollutants may concentrate under stagnant weather conditions and exceed health standards. They may also chemically react under the influence of sunlight to form photochemical oxidants (smog) that can be harmful to human health, vegetation, and property. Also of CITY OF TUKWILA . Suggested Distribution List - Draft Environmental Assessment Federal 1) Environmental Protection Agency 2) US Army Corps; of Engineers - Seattle District Office .3) Dept. of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service 4) Dept. of Commerce - U.S. Coast Guard State 1) Dept. of Transportation (Forward to WSDOT Envir. &.:FHWA Envir.) 2) Dept. of Game 3) Dept. of Fisheries 4) Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation 5') Dept. of Ecology Regional 1) Metro - Transit & Water Quality Division. 2) Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency 3) Puget Sound Council of Governments Local 1) City of Tukwila 2) City of Renton 3) City of. Kent 4) City of Seattle 5) King County - Planning and Community Development' 6) King County - Public Works Surface Water:Mgmt. Division Utility /Services 1)- South Central: School District #406 2) Puget Sound Power and Light 3) Washington Natural Gas Co. Private Organizations.,.. 1) Tukwila Chamber of Commerce. 2) .Rainier Audubon Society AFFID I, OF DISTRIp.11TION , being duly sworn, hereby declare that has been mailed to each of the following addresses. Renton Planning Department 200 Mill Ave. So. Renton, WA 98055 Department of Ecology 4350 150th NE 1 Redmond, WA 98052 Puget Sound Air Pollution co`k► . kG0-1c)1 410 W. Harrison St. P. 0. Box 9863 Seattle, WA 98109 Department of Fisheries 115 General Administration Bldg. Olympia, WA 98504 Department of Transportation 6431 Corson Ave. So., C -81410 Seattle, WA 98108 PErr• or TIM- A 't c ocz.Ps or X14.04 *CLS 4735 p. NIAZGt► LL wl.`( 5. sfAT LC, We.. C.cKHAxvtlL- sEe.Trvz, w°°.. 13 SST l,Va¢a D tsic f AVPJ t7� Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of 19 . Notary Pulbic in and for the State of Washington, risiding at Bridge Permit Application Guide • U.S. Department of Transportation United States Coast Guard / A B C D F G H • • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION UNITED STATES COAST GUARD COMMANDANT INSTRUCTION M16591.2 MAILING ADDRESS U.S. Coast Guard (G -NBR) Washington, D.C. 20593 Phone: (202) 755 -7620 COMDTINST M16591.2 Subject: Bridge Permit Application Guide 1. PURPOSE. This guide was prepared to assist Federal, State and local agencies as well as members of the general public in applying for a Coast Guard permit to construct a new bridge or causeway or reconstruct or modify an existing bridge or causeway across navigable waters of the United States. 2. DISCUSSION. Federal law prohibits the construction of any bridge across the navigable waters of the United States unless first authorized by the Coast Guard. If the procedures described in this handbook are followed, it will help us process your application quickly. Should you have any questions regarding a specific project, please contact the bridge' administration staff of the Coast Guard district where the project is located. 7Pq R. A. BAUMAN Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Chief, Office of Navigation DISTRIBUTION - SDL No. 114 a b c d e f g h i j k I m n o p q r s t u v w x y z 50 NON-STANDARD DISTRIBUTION: TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1: Introduction A. Purpose 1 B. Who Must Apply 1 C. Authority and Pertinent Laws 1 D. Navigable' Waters 1 E. Highway Bridges Which Do Not Require a Permit 2 F. Notice to Mariners 2 G. Transfer of Permits 2 H. Maintenance 2 I. Bridge Navigational Lighting 2 Chapter 2: Permitting Process A. The Application Package 5 B. Other Requirements 6 1. Temporary Bridges 6 2. Time Limits for Construction 6 3. Applications for Extensions of Time 6 4. Bridge Fender Systems 7 5. Clearance Gauges 7 6. Additional Information 8 C. District Commander's Investigation 8 D. Headquarters Review 8 E. Supplementary Information 8 1. Approval of Falsework and Construction Procedures 9 2. Pre - Construction Conferences 9 3. Change in the Character of Bridges and Causeways 9 Chapter 3: Environmental Procedures A. Policy 11 B. Requirements 11 C. Information for Preliminary Environmental Investigation 11 D. Environmental Laws, Orders and Special Acts 12 1. National Environmental Policy Act 12 2. Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act 12 3. Historic Properties 12 4. Coastal Zone Management 12 5. Wetlands 13 6. Floodplains 13 7. Water Quality Certification 13 8. Fish and Wildlife 13 9. Wild and Scenic Rivers 13 10. Prime and Unique Farmlands 13 11. Air Quality 13 12. Noise 13 13. Relocation Assistance 14 Appendix A: Glossary 15 Appendix B: Coast Guard Districts: Phone numbers, addresses, map17 Appendix C: Sample Letter of Application for Permit 19 Appendix D: Checklist 21 Appendix E: Sample Plans Submitted for Approval 23 CHAPTER 1 Introduction A. PURPOSE This handbook was prepared to assist you in apply- ing for a Coast Guard permit to construct a new bridge or causeway or reconstruct or modify an ex- isting bridge or causeway across navigable waters of the United States. Federal law prohibits the construc- tion of such structures unless first authorized by the Coast Guard. If you follow the procedures described in this handbook, it will help us process your applica- tion without delay. Should you have any questions regarding a specific project, please contact the bridge administration staff of the Coast Guard district where the project is located. A glossary (Appendix A), is included to ex- plain many of the key words involved in securing a bridge permit. B. WHO MUST APPLY Any individual, partnership, corporation, or local, state, or federal legislative body, agency, or authority planning to construct or modify a bridge or causeway across a navigable waterway of the United States must submit an application for a Coast Guard permit. A bridge permit is written approval of the location and plans of the bridge or causeway to be constructed or modified. For bridges constructed by the state or municipal agencies, primary authority to apply for construction of a bridge project will be presumed without proof. If state law does not require a license, primary authority may be that granted in the charter of a corporation or the authority inherent in owner- ship of the land on which the structure is to be placed. In such cases, an extract from the charter and evidence that the applicant has sufficient real estate interest to allow construction of the bridge should be submitted with the application. C. AUTHORITY AND PERTINENT LAWS With the formation of the Department of Transpor- tation in 1967, the Coast Guard was transferred to that Department. Among the new assigned duties was the authority to issue bridge permits approving location and plans under authority of several Acts pertaining to bridges including Section 9 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and the General 1 Bridge Act of 1946. The purpose of these Acts is to preserve the public right of navigation and to prevent interference with interstate and foreign commerce. The General Bridge Act of 1946 and the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 require that the location and plans be submitted to and approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers prior to construction of bridges and causeways across the navigable waters of the United States. (The General Bridge Act of 1946 is cited as the legislative authority for bridge construc- tion in most cases.) Authority to approve the location and plans for bridges or causeways across these waters was transferred to the Secretary of Transpor- tation by Section 6(g) of the Department of Transpor= tation Act (Public Law 89 -670, 80 Stat. 931 -950, 49 U.S.C. 1651 - 1659). This authority was delegated to the Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard by Department of Transportation Order 1100.1 dated 31 March 1967 (49 CFR 1.4 (aX3)). The Acts placed the navigable waters of the United States under the exclusive control of the United States to prevent any interference with their navigability, whether by bridges or other obstructions except by express permission of the United States Government. Specifically, therefore, the Coast Guard's mission under these Actsis to administer the Bridge Administration Program by approving the location and plans of bridges and causeways and imposing any conditions deemed necessary relating to the construction, maintenance and operation of these bridges in the interest of public navigation. Also, we are required by law to make sure that environmental considerations are given careful atten- tion and appropriate weight in each of our bridge per- mitting decisions. (See Chapter 3). In addition, the Coast Guard has an obligation to consult with and obtain the comments of any Federal agency which has jurisdiction by law or special exper- tise with respect to any environmental or naviga- tional impact involved. D. NAVIGABLE WATERS The concept of what constitutes "navigable waters of the United States" has become very broad through administrative and judicial interpretations. In the administration of the bridge statutes, Coast Guard permits are required for bridges in all tidal areas and in all rivers, streams and lakes which have evidence of past, present, or prospective use for interstate or foreign commerce. If there is any doubt as to whether or not the location of proposed bridge construction is subject to the bridge statutes, an inquiry should be directed to. the Chief, Bridge Administration Branch/ Section of the Coast Guard District having jurisdic- tion over the geographic area where the bridge is to be constructed. Bridges which were built over a waterway which at the time of construction was not considered navigable waters of the United States are considered legal structures. If you are not certain whether or not a waterway is susceptible to improvement for naviga- tion, or tidal, or considered navigable waters, the Coast Guard should be contacted to obtain informa- tion regarding a navigability determination. Con- struction in these waters continues to be subject to other Coast Guard authorities, such as approval of navigation lights and signals, and timely notice to local mariners of construction in the waterway. Appendix B provides a map of district boundaries, the mailing addresses of the District Bridge Administration Branches/ Sections and the telephone numbers for obtaining permit application informa- tion. Rules and regulations governing the U.S. Coast Guard bridge permit program are listed in Parts 114 and 115 of Title 33 Code of Federal Regulations. A copy may be found in your local library or purchased from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Govern- ment Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. The classification of certain waterways or portions of waterways as being navigable changes occasionally and the information required for applicants varies with particular situations. For these reasons, if you are planning to construct a new bridge or causeway or modify an existing bridge or causeway over a canal, channel, stream, river, lake, bay or other waterbody or waterway you should contact the appropriate Coast Guard District for initial discus- sions as soon as possible prior to submitting a formal application. Information needed varies depending on the District involved because of the different characteristics of the waterways and navigation in each District. This guide should be used with sup- plementary data that will be provided upon request by the appropriate Coast Guard District. E. HIGHWAY BRIDGES WHICH DO NOT REQUIRE A PERMIT Coast Guard permits are not required for certain bridges over waters which are not tidal and not used 2 or susceptible to use for interstate or foreign com- merce. Section 124(a) of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) of 1978, Public Law 95 -599, eliminates the requirement for Coast Guard bridge permits . for bridges built with assistance from the FHWA under Title 23 United States Code. The Administrator of the Federal Highway Administra- tion (FHWA) makes the determination of whether or not a bridge qualifies under STAA. F. NOTICE TO MARINERS The Coast Guard publishes Local Notices to Mariners to keep waterway users informed of work in progress that may affect navigation. The permittee must notify the Coast Guard promptly of the start of construction, any events affecting navigation during construction and when major phases of construction are completed. G. TRANSFER OF PERMITS Although issued to a specific party, the approval granted in a bridge permit is not restricted to con- struction, operation or maintenance of the bridge by the party to whom the permit was issued. The permit passes with the title when transferred to an assignee or purchaser of the bridge. H. MAINTENANCE Bridges constructed under a Coast Guard permit must be maintained in accordance with the terms of the permit and approved plans. No further authoriza- tion is required for routine maintenance. However, a major renovation or a change in the size or type of structure which deviates from the approved plans must be authorized by the Coast Guard. I. BRIDGE NAVIGATIONAL LIGHTING Bridges across waterways which support nighttime navigation may be required to display navigational lights in accordance with Part 118 of Title 33 Code of Federal Regulations. Approval of navigational lights and other signals required shall be obtained, prior to construction, from the District Commander of the area in which the structure will be situated. It is the responsibility of the permittee to maintain proper temporary navigational lighting, and other such markings as may be prescribed, on bridges during construction and permanent lighting on the bridge when completed. Bridges over minor streams where there is no traf- fic or very little nighttime traffic may be exempted by the District Commander from the requirement to display navigational lights. The following is furnished to assist in the selection of the proper equipment to maintain marine naviga- tional lighting on bridges. It is recommended for best service and ease of maintenance that your installation incorporate the features outlined below: 1. That Fresnel lanterns be used and installed in duplex arrangement, providing a service lamp and a standby lamp, each duplex lantern or fixture to be controlled by a lightout relay to exhibit the standby lamp on burnout of the service lamp. Fresnel equip- ment embracing duplicate lenses in one lantern is available; lightout relays are also available. 2. That lamps for Fresnel equipment be 60 watt, 120 volt, A -21, clear, medium screw base, traffic signal lamp, or equivalent, all lamps to be properly . focused in Fresnel lenses. 3 3. That any equipment used for general illumina- tion of the bridge be so designed that the light distribution pattern will not permit high intensity light to spill over and blind or interfere with the marine navigation. There are a number of street light luminaries manufactured to control the light distribu- tion by lenses, ray collectors, hoods or shields. Proper consideration of this matter while the bridge design is in progress will avoid difficulties in the future. Any person who obstructs or interferes with any lights or signals maintained in accordance with 33 CFR 118 is subject to a $500 penalty by Section 33 CFR 118.10. A list of suppliers of marine navigationa lighting equipment known to the District . Comntander is available on request. • . CHAPTER 2 Permitting Process Processing of an application results in a decision to either issue or deny the bridge permit. A. THE APPLICATION PACKAGE The information which you submit as your bridge permit application, including any approvals or other permits which you have already received, should be sent to the appropriate Coast Guard District office which has jurisdiction in the vicinity of the site of the proposed bridge (See Appendices B, C and D). The application may be in letter format and should cite or include the following information (See appendix C): 1. Name, address and telephone number of the applicant. 2. Name, address and telephone number of the applicant's authorized agent, if appropriate. In such a case, the application must be accompanied with writ- ten authorization for the agent to act on the appli- cant's behalf. 3. The location, description and purpose of the project. Include the name of the waterway which the bridge is to cross, how many miles above the mouth of the waterway the bridge is to be located and the city(ies) or town(s) and the state(s) that it is to be located at, near, or between. 4. The primary authority for the construction of the bridge and under what legislative authority the bridge is being built. This would be either a state per- mit, charter, or statement of ownership of lands. State the legislative authority for the existing bridge if it is to be replaced. 5. For international bridges, the International Bridge Act of 1972, or a copy of the Special Act of Congress if constructed prior to 1972, should be cited as the legislative authority for bridge construction. In addition, Presidential approval must be obtained from the State Department prior to issuance of a Coast Guard bridge permit under the International Bridge Act of 1972. 6. The proposed horizontal and vertical clearances in the navigation span(s). 7. Any existing bridge structure at the bridge site. Indicate if it will be modified or removed and show evidence of . ownership or assent of the bridge owner for its removal. 8. When a bridge permit application includes the removal of a bridge(s), it should include the extent of removal and the time needed for such removal. There are three basic types of removal conditions for existing bridges being removed as part of a bridge project. The following language should be used to denote the extent of removal: a. in its entirety —All parts of the bridge will be completely removed. This will include requiring the piers to be pulled out. All temporary bridges must be removed in their entirety. b. to the natural bottom of the waterwa —All parts of the bridge will be removed down to of oelow the natural bottom. The piers will be cut off at or below the natural bottom of the waterway. c. to a specific elevation —Part or parts of the bridge, including the piers, will be removed down to or below a specific elevation. The elevation should refer to a specific datum (i.e., mean sea level). 9. The date when the construction activity is scheduled to commence and the anticipated comple- tion date. 10. State whether or not the project is believed to have a significant effect on the environment. The environmental documentation provided with an ap- plication for a bridge permit must address the questions identified in Chapter 3 and also include con- sideration of the construction phase of the bridge project. 11. State whatever other state and local authoriza- tions are required for the proposed bridge construc- tion activity. The district staff will provide the applicant with information on local and state regulatory programs, if available. Although it is preferable to obtain local and state approvals before applying to the Coast Guard, bridge permit applica- tions will be accepted and processing commenced without delay. 12. Identify any other federal agencies with jurisdiction over the proposed project and their per- mits or type of approvals required for the project. 13. State the general composition and amount of fill above and below Mean High Water (MHW) or Ordinary High Water (OHW) in cubic yards, if any is required. For proposed bridge construction which may require dredging or filling in the navigable waters of the United States, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers may require the applicant to obtain a Sec- tion 404 permit. It is the responsibility of the appli- cant to obtain such a permit. 14. Identify the names and addresses of adjacent . property owners. 15. Indicate at appropriate points in the text any underlying studies, reports, and other information obtained and considered in the submissions. 16. One reproducible original and 3 copies of the location and plan sheets should be submitted. They should be drawn to scale with the scale(s) of the draw- ing(s) indicated by a bar graph(s) and include an arrow indicating North. The lower right corner of each sheet submitted for approval should contain a title block identifying the applicant, waterway, city, state, date of plans and sheet number of the total number in the set submitted for Coast Guard approval. Plans should show navigational clearances above appropriate datum and the 100 year flood level. The plan set shall conform to the requirements of Appendix D and generally follow the format of the sample drawings included in this handbook as Appen- dix E. (Sheet size should be no larger than 81/2" x 11 ".) B. OTHER REQUIREMENTS 1. Temporary Bridges: Any proposed temporary bridge requires a bridge permit prior to construction. Procedures and information requirements are the same as that of a permanent bridge. Often a tem- porary bridge is used while construction of a perma- nent bridge continues. We suggest that the request for approval of such a temporary bridge be included in the application for the permanent bridge. 2. Time Limits for. Construction: A reasonable period of time, based on the estimate given in the application, will be allowed for the commencement and completion of the construction of the bridge pro- ject covered by the permit. Coast Guard bridge per- mits specify that the permit becomes null and void unless construction of the bridge is commenced and 6 completed' by certain dates, usually three years and five years, respectively, from the date of the permit. You may request longer time periods. Any such request must be substantiated with good reasons. It is important that the time . specified corresponds to the actual time needed to complete construction since it may not be a routine matter to grant a time exten- sion. If the authorized work is not completed within the time specified in the permit, the permit is voided and a new application and approval are required before construction work can continue. However, should an extension be needed, a written request sub - mitted at least 30 days prior to the expiration date of the permit will allow the existing permit to remain in effect during processing and work may continue until the final agency action is taken on the request for the time extension. 3. Applications for Extensions of Time: Applica- tions for extensions of time should be in letter form and request an extension of the date(s) for starting and / or completing construction of the bridge for a definite number of years to coincide with the present construction schedule. The decision as to whether or not an extension of time will be granted is based primarily on a review and evaluation of any changes in the project or conditions which result in impacts on navigation or the environment that were not known at the time the original permit for the bridge was issued. In addition, the project must be reviewed in accordance with any current laws that were not in force at the time the original permit was issued. If the bridge is under construction, furnish a brief descrip- tion of status of the work including the percentage of the project completed to date and a description of the remaining work. Applicants should review the environmental documentation submitted in support of the last Coast Guard permit action and update the information as necessary. On Federal -Aid projects, any impact statements, supplemental studies, Finding of No Significant Impact, reassessments, etc., required by ,the "lead agency" subsequent to the issuance of the bridge permit should be submitted, or a statement that none have been required should be made. On Federal -Aid projects, the environmental assessment submitted in support of the last permit action should be updated to cover any environmental impacts associated with the remaining work which were not mentioned in the original assessment, or a statement that the previously submitted assessment adequately covers the remaining work. The application should in- clude a copy of the current water quality certificate from the appropriate state agency(ies) certifying that any discharges associated with this project will be in compliance with Sections 301, 302, 303, 306, and 307 of P.L. 92 -500, as amended. If a water quality cer- tificate has been furnished previously for the project, the application should include a statement that the water quality certificate submitted previously has not been modified or rescinded by the certifying agency(ies). The procedure for extension of time for removal of existing or temporary bridges as part of a permit for construction of a new bridge parallels the above information and procedure. 4. Bridge Fender Systems: The Coast Guard may require fenders when considering an application for a bridge permit to provide for the safety of present or prospective navigation. Your application must include consideration of the possible need for a fendering system which would promote safer naviga- tion through the bridge as well as provide for the pro- tection of the bridge structure. The need for a fender - ing system for a proposed bridge will be established on the basis of existing and prospective navigation on the waterway at the proposed site. The applicant, when required, must submit a plan for a needed fendering system as part of the plans submitted for approval. The plans should contain a full description of the proposal including the type of fendering system to be employed, methods and materials for its con- struction from the stand -point of safety of navigation. Proper denotation of the dimensions and the minimum clear horizontal distance normal to the channel axis measured between the most restrictive parts of the fendering system must be clearly shown. The Coast Guard does not require installation of pier fenders on existing bridges. When changes in navigation warrant, installation of fender systems is highly recommended. You are required to apply for a permit amendment for approval of the fender in- stallation plans. 5. Clearance Gauges: Clearance gauges installed on bridges across navigable waters must be so con- structed and placed as to indicate the vertical distance between "low steel" of the bridge channel span and the level of the water. The gauge reads from top to bottom, measured from low steel to the bottom of the foot marks. The gauge is installed so as to face approaching traffic and extends to a reasonable height above high water so as to be meaningful to the mariner. When a clearance gauge is required, it shall be in- stalled on the end of the right channel pier or pier pro- tection structure facing approaching traffic. The District Commander may approve other or additional locations for clearance gauge installations, as par- ticular conditions or circumstances may warrant. 7 The costs of installation and maintenance of clearance gauges is borne by the bridge owner or operator. Clearance gauges shall be of durable material, per- manently fixed to the bridge pier, or pier protection structure, and of such strength as to provide a struc- ture resistant to weather, tide, and current. However, clearance gauges may be painted directly on the bridge channel pier if the face of the pier is flat and has sufficient width to accommodate the foot marks (graduations) and numerals. The gauge shall be marked by black numerals and foot marks on a white background. Paint, if used, should be of good exterior quality, resistant to chalk- ing or bleeding. Manufactured numerals and background material may be used. The size, type and spacing of numerals conforming with those published in "Standard Alphabets for Highway Signs ", Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), U.S. Department of Transportation shall be used as follows: Nominal Day Visibility Distance (feet) less than 500 500 to 750 750 to 1,000 1,000 to 2,000 More than 2,000 Height of Type Numeral Standard (inches) Alphabet 12 Series C 18 Series C 24 Series D 30 Series E 36 Series E Vertical Spacing of Numerals (feet) 2 2 5 5 10 The length of the foot marks shall be no less than the width of a single numeral used (except numerals 1 and 4), the same thickness as the width of stroke of the numeral, and should extend to the nearest margin of the white background: "Foot marks" shall be spaced every foot for nominal day visibility of less than 500 feet, every 2 feet for a nominal day visibility of more than 500 feet but less than 1,000 feet, and every 5 feet for nominal day visibility of more than 1,000 feet. Intermediate foot marks may be used when more precise determination of actual clearance is necessary. Such intermediate foot marks shall have a width of , stroke one -half the width of the stroke required for the numeral and shall be three- quarters as long as the primary foot marks. The horizontal distance between the numeral and nearest edge of the white background shall be no less than one -half the width of a single numeral (excepting numerals 1 and 4). The minimum width of the white background shall be no less than three times the width of a single numeral (excepting numerals 1 and 4) plus the width of each additional numeral (when multiple numerals are used) plus numeral spacing. The vertical distance between the top and bottom ends of the clearance gauge and "low steel" shall be as established by the District Commander after deter- mination of the requirements of navigation for such information. Clearance gauges shall be maintained in good repair and kept in good legible condition by and at the expense of the owner or operator of the bridge. The bridge owner or operator shall be responsible for the accuracy of the gauge. The vertical distance of the numerals and foot marks below "low steel" of the bridge should be remeasured when the gauge is repainted or the structure is repaired. When special or peculiar circumstances or condi- tions exist, which make compliance with these stand- ards impractical, the bridge owner or operator may apply in writing to the District Commander for per- mission to deviate from these standards or obtain a waiver of the requirement for clearance gauges. 6. Additional Information: In addition to the information required above, the applicant may be required to furnish such additional information as may be necessary to assist in the evaluation of the application. This information may include further environmental assessment, possible alternate con- struction methods and sites, and other supplemental information necessary for a complete evaluation of the application or preparation of an environmental impact statement. C. DISTRICT COMMANDER'S INVESTIGATION Your request for a bridge permit is investigated by the district bridge administration staff to make sure that: the proposed bridge is under Coast Guard jurisdiction (i.e., over navigable waters of the United States), the application includes all necessary informa- tion, including four sets of plans and adequate en- vironmental and other supporting documentation (as part of an initial review, a preliminary decision is made as to which type of environmental document is required), and, the proposed bridge provides for the reasonable needs of navigation. After the application is determined to be complete, the Coast Guard District Commander undertakes a rigorous independent investigation to determine the possible impacts of the proposed project on naviga- tion and on the human environment. As part of the District Commander's independent investigation, a notice soliciting public comment is issued to all known interested individuals, adjacent property owners, ex- pertise groups, and governmental agencies. 8 Responses to the public notice are received, evaluated and acted upon by the district bridge administration staff. Substantive comments received in response to the public notice are normally furnished to the appli- cant to afford him an opportunity to resolve or rebut the issues that are raised. Public hearings will be held when there are substan- tial issues concerning the effect that the proposed bridge will have on the reasonable needs of naviga- tion. They will also be held whenever appropriate in accordance with the statutory requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The purpose of a public hearing is to afford interested parties full opportunity to express their views and to develop pertinent data for evaluating the permit application. Subsequent to the District Commander's investiga- tion, the request for the permit is forwarded to Coast Guard Headquarters with the case record, including the State Water Quality and Coastal Zone Manage- ment Certifications, appropriate environmental docu- ment, Findings of Fact, and the District Commander's recommendation for issuance or denial of the permit. The Findings of Fact discusses various aspects of the documents in the case file, commen- surate with the scope and complexity of the project. In certain cases the District Commander may issue or deny the permit. D. HEADQUARTERS REVIEW A proposed bridge must provide for the reasonable needs of navigation with due consideration for the effects on the quality of the human environment (such as impacts on historic sites, fish and wildlife refuges, floodplain development, recreation, water quality). When Headquarters final agency action is required, the staff of the Bridge Permits Branch, Bridge Administration Division, Office of Navigation, U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters in Washington, D.C., reviews and evaluates the case file submitted by the District Commander. Based on this evaluation, the District Commander's recommendation may be ac- cepted or rejected and a bridge permit may be issued or denied. E. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION The clearances provided for navigation through or under the bridge spans must be approved by the Coast Guard. This authority extends to, and may be exercised in connection with, the construction, modification, operation, maintenance and removal of bridges, and includes the power to authorize the tem- porary restriction of passage through or under a bridge by use of falsework, pilings, floating equip- ment, closure of draws, or any work or activities which temporarily reduce the navigational clearances and design flood flows, including obstruction of any or all spans of the bridge. 1. Approval of Falsework and Construction Pro- cedures: A Coast Guard bridge permit normally con- tains a condition stating that the plans for coffer- dams, falsework or any other temporary structures that are to be placed in the water to facilitate the construction of a bridge must be submitted to and approved by the District Commander, prior to the start of construction. Approval of a temporary reduction of previously approved navigational clearances by any of these temporary structures varies greatly depending on the location of the bridge, type of river traffic, time of year structures will be in place, etc. For this reason we encourage the permittee to specify in any con- struction contract the minimum navigational clearances that must be maintained during the con- struction of a bridge. This information may be obtained by writing the appropriate Coast Guard District Commander. Requests for approval of the plans for temporary structures and erection scheme should be made in writing to the District Commander. The request should be supported with reproducible tracings and two (2) copies of plans, including tentative work schedules for the temporary structures and any other temporary:.hazards to navigation, such as a moored floating plant. Plans for cofferdams and falsework bents and brackets, as well as plans for temporary dolphins, survey towers, test piles, work dikes, etc., should be submitted to the District Commander for his approval prior to commencement of construction. 2. Pre-Construction Conferences: Coast Guard personnel may be made available upon request to attend a pre - construction conference for a bridge per- mitted by the Coast Guard. We appreciate the oppor- tunity to explain our procedures and answer any questions concerning our requirements. Invitations for Coast Guard personnel to attend pre - construction conferences should be made by telephone or in writing, when possible, to the appropriate district bridge administration staff. 3. Change In The Character Of Bridges And Causeways: A bridge owner does not need Coast Guard approval to remove his bridge if it will not be replaced with another bridge. The owner should notify the appropriate Coast Guard District so that a Local Notice to Mariners may be issued notifying waterway users of the removal and clearance work. If the owner of a bridge or causeway discontinues use of the old structure and wishes to remove or modify any part of the old structure in such a manner that it will lose its character as a bridge or causeway, the Coast Guard will normally require removal of the structure from the waterway in its entirety. However, if the owner of a bridge or a causeway wishes to retain it in whole or in part for use other than for operation and maintenance as a bridge or causeway, a permit to maintain an obstruction must be obtained from the Corps of Engineers. The Coast Guard will refer requests for such uses to the Corps of Engineers for consideration or you may contact the Corps of Engineers directly. The Corps of Engineers will advise the Coast Guard District Commander of the receipt of an application for approval of the conver- sion of a bridge or causeway to another structure and provide opportunity for comments on the proposed work. If the Corps of Engineers approves the conver- sion of a bridge or causeway to another structure, no residual jurisdiction over the structure will remain with the Coast Guard. However, if the Corps of Engineers does not approve the proposed conversion, then the structure remains a bridge subject to Coast Guard jurisdiction. CHAPTER 3 Environmental Procedures A. POLICY It is the policy of the Coast Guard in carrying out the Bridge Administration Program that an approach be used which assesses the social, economic, environmental and other effects that may result from the project as they relate together; that efforts be made to improve the relationship between man and his environment and to preserve the natural beauty of the countryside and coastal areas and natural and cultural resources; that Coast Guard investigations include consultations with local, state and federal agencies and the public; and that recommendations and decisions be based on providing for the reasonable needs of navigation and consideration of the social, economic and environmental goals. B. REQUIREMENTS Prior to issuing a bridge permit, the Coast Guard must comply with various Federal laws and regula- tions relating to the environment. Section C of this chapter contains a list of questions, that you, as the applicant, must answer and submit with the formal bridge permit application. The information obtained from these answers will enable the U.S. Coast Guard district bridge administration staff to determine what the proper environmental document will be. If the district staff determines that additional information is required to complete the environmental analysis documentation, they will contact you. This informa- tion will be used by the Coast Guard in support of the final action which is issuance or denial' of the bridge permit. Section D of this chapter describes the various environmental directives that the Coast Guard must satisfy prior to taking final action. C. INFORMATION FOR PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATION You must submit answers to the following ques- tions With the application package. Offices which could be helpful in obtaining the necessary informa- tion are noted below in parentheses. 1. Identify alternatives to the proposed project, in- cluding location and design alternatives, and address probable impacts of each alternative on the quality of the human environment that will occur. 11 2. Identify any public parks, publicly owned recrea- tion areas, wildlife or waterfowl refuges of national, state, or local significance located in or within 1/2 mile radius of the proposed project site. Where are they located in relation to the proposed project bound- aries? Will the project require the taking of any land from any of these protected areas? (Local parks or recreation officials). 3. Are there any historic or cultural resources of federal, state or local significance located in or within 1/2 mile radius of the proposed project boundaries? Historic and cultural resources include historic districts, objects, archaeological remains and historic structures, including bridges. Normally such proper- ties are 50 years or older, however, in certain in- stances more recent properties may be eligible. When applicable, where are these resources located in rela- tion to the proposed project boundaries? (State Historic Preservation Officer or local historic preser- vation organizations). 4. If your state or territory has a federally ap- proved Coastal Zone Management (CZM) plan, and the project is located in the "Coastal Zone ", you must provide written certification that the proposed project is consistent with the approved state CZM Plan. The State CZM Program office must concur in writing with your certification. (State Coastal Zone Office). 5. Is the proposed project located in or adjacent (within 500 ft.) to a wetland? Wetlands are defined as lands either permanently or intermittently covered or saturated with water. This includes, but is not limited to, swamps, marshes, bogs, sloughs, estuarine areas, mudflats, and shallow lakes and ponds with emergent vegetation. How much land, if any, will be used or affected? (State Fish and Game Commission or local U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service area or regional office). 6. Is the proposed project located in a base floodplain? The base floodplain is that area which would be inundated by a base flood. The base flood is that flood having . one percent chance of being ex- ceeded in any given year. (Regional office of the Federal Emergency Management Agency). • 7. Have you obtained a Water Quality Certification (WQC) or waiver from the appropriate Federal, in- terstate, or state agency? 8. Are threatened or endangered species known to be present in the proposed project area? (State Fish and Game Commission or local U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service area or regional office). 9. Are there any designated or proposed wild, scenic, or recreational rivers located in or within a 1/2 mile radius of the proposed project? (U.S. Park Service regional office). 10. State the number of acres of designated prime or unique farmlands being taken by the proposed project. (U.S. Soil Conservation Service area or regional office). 11. Is the project consistent with the approved State Implementation Plan (SIP) governing the ambient air quality? If not, has an air quality analysis been prepared by the state or local air quality board? (Local Highway Department). 12. If known, what are the anticipated design noise levels for the proposed project? (Local Highway Department). 13. If the proposed project requires the displace- ment of residences or businesses, what measures have been taken to provide for their relocation and compensation? D. ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS, ORDERS AND DIRECTIVES The following is a brief summary of various Federal laws, acts, and regulations relating to the environment with which the Coast Guard must comply prior to taking final agency action. 1. National Environmental Policy Act a. Compliance: All Bridge Administration actions require compliance with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (P.L.91 -190), as amended; Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations (40 CFR 1500 -1508) which implement NEPA; Executive Order 11514, Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality. b. Summary: NEPA, as implemented by the CEQ Regulations, requires all federal agencies to: 1. Utilize a systematic interdisciplinary approach which will ensure the integrated use of the natural and social sciences and the environmental design arts in planning and in decision - making which may have an impact on man's environment. 2. Identify environmental effects in adequate detail, adverse impacts that cannot be avoided, alter- 12 • natives to the proposed actions, relationships between local short -term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long -term productivity, irreversible or irretrievable com- mitments of resources, and the comments of other organizations with jurisdiction by law or special expertise. 2. Section 4(f) of the Department of Transporta- tion Act a. Compliance: All bridge actions require com- pliance with section 4(f) of the DOT Act of 1966 (P.L. 89 -670), as amended. b. Summary: Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act prohibits Coast Guard approval of any bridge project which requires the use of any publicly owned lands from a public park, recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or any land from any historic site of national, state, or local significance unless there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such land, and the project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the 4(f) land. 3. Historic Properties a. Compliance: All bridge actions require com- pliance with section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (P.L. 89 -665), as amended; Executive Order 11593, Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment; the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974 (P.L. 93 -291); sec- tion 1502.25(a) of Title 40 CFR; Part 800 of Title 36 CFR (Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties) which implements section 106 of P.L. 89 -665 and Executive Order 11593; parts 60 and 63 of Title 36 CFR; and any other appropriate implementing regulations. b. Summary: Prior to taking final agency action, the Coast Guard must assess and analyze the effect of the proposed bridge on properties listed in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. 4. Coastal Zone Management (CZM) a. Compliance: All bridge actions require com- pliance with the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (P.L. 92 -583), as amended; and section 930 of Title 15 CFR, which implements P.L. 92 -5$3. b. Summary: All bridge projects within the coastal zone must be carried out in a manner consistent with the Federally approved State Coastal Zone Manage- ment Program. Under section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act, Coast Guard final agency action cannot be taken unless the applicant certifies that the project is consistent with the state's Coastal Zone Management Program and the state concurs in that certification. 5. Wetlands a. Compliance: All bridge actions require com- pliance with the provisions of Department of Transportation (DOT) Order 5660.1A, Preservation of the Nation's Wetlands. b. Summary: Under the above DOT Order, new construction of bridges located in wetlands must be avoided unless there is no practicable alternative to the construction in wetlands. The proposed action must then include all practicable measures to minimize harm to wetlands which may result from such construction. 6. Floodplains a. Compliance: All bridge actions require com- pliance with the provisions of Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management. b. Summary: The above Executive Order, re- quires, where practicable, avoidance of bridge con- struction in a base floodplain. In the event that no alternative to construction in the base floodplain ex- ists, the Coast Guard must insure that the project in- cludes all practicable measures to minimize the adverse impacts such construction may have. 7. Water Quality Certification (WQC) a. Compliance: All bridge actions require com- pliance with section 401 of the Federal Water Pollu- tion Control Act of 1972 (FWPCA) (P.L. 92 -500), as amended. b. Summary: Each applicant must obtain a Water Quality Certification (WQC) from the appropriate Federal, interstate, or state agency certifying that the proposed project will not violate applicable water quality standards. In some instances the WQC agency may issue a letter of waiver of certification. A copy of the certificate or waiver must be forwarded to the ap- propriate District Commander. Under section 401 of the FWPCA, the Coast Guard cannot approve a bridge project when a WQC has been denied. 8. Fish and Wildlife a. Compliance: All bridge actions require com- pliance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (P.L. 85 -624), as amended; and the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (P.L. 93 -205), as amended; and their implementing instructions. b. Summary: Under the Fish and Wildlife Coor- dination Act, consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is required. The Endangered Species 13 Act provides that such actions as are necessary will be taken to insure that no bridge construction jeop- ardizes the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or results in the destruction or modification of their habitat. A project that affects an endangered or threatened species will require a for- mal consultation under section 7 of the Act. 9. Wild and Scenic Rivers a. Compliance: All bridge actions require com- pliance with the provisions of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (P.L. 90 -542), as amended. b. Summary: Section 7 of the Act requires that no permit be issued for construction of a bridge project across a wild and scenic river that would have a direct and adverse effect on the values for which the river was established. Final authority on whether a bridge project will have an adverse effect rests with the National Park Service or the Forest Service, as appropriate. 10. Prime and Unique Farmlands a. Compliance: All Federal agencies are requested to comply with the Council on Environmental Quality Memorandum dated 11 August 1980. b. Summary: This document requests that the im- pact of all bridge projects on prime and unique farmlands be evaluated, and efforts be made to insure that such farmlands are not irreversibly converted to other uses which would erode their productivity, scenic value, wildlife habitat value or their benefit as open space. 11. Air Quality a. Compliance: All bridge actions require com- pliance with the provisions of the Clean Air Act, as amended. b. Summary: Section 176 of the Clean Air Act requires all Federally approved projects to be consis- tent with the approved State Implementation Plans (SIP) which have been designed to implement national ambient air quality standards. Section 309 of this act requires that the Administrator of EPA review and comment in writing on the environmental impact of newly authorized bridge actions with regard to the duties and responsibilities granted by the Act. 12. Noise a. Compliance: All bridge actions shall comply with the provisions of the Noise Control Act of 1972 (P.L. 92 -574), as amended. b. Summary: Under the Noise Control Act the adverse impacts on existing activities or land uses that may result from noise from the bridge, its related highway sections, or its construction must be considered. Should there be no alternative to avoid the adverse effects, the project must include all possi- ble measures to minimize the noise impact. FHWA, Federal -Aid Highway Program Manual (Volume 7, Chapter 7, Section 3), and any state standards maybe used as a guide for noise levels for particular activity categories. 14 13. Relocation Assistance a. Compliance: All bridge actions require com- pliance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and. Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (P.L. 91 -646). b. Summary: The above Act applies to projects where Federal funds are involved. When applicable, the environmental document for any bridge permit action should contain information on residences and businesses displaced and what measures are taken to relocate them and compensate them in an acceptable manner. APPENDIX A Glossary BRIDGE: Any structure over, on or in navigable waters of the United States which: 1. is used for the transit of people, vehicles, com- modities and other physical matter and; 2. is constructed in such a manner that either the horizontal or vertical clearances, or both, may ef- fect the passage of vessels or boats through or under the structure. This definition includes, but is not limited to, highway bridges, railroad bridges, pedestrian bridges, aqueducts, aerial tramways and conveyors, overhead pipelines and similar structures of like function together with their approaches, fenders, pier protec- tion systems, foundations and appurtenances (in- tegral features). This definition does not include aerial power transmission lines, submerged pipelines and other similar structures and works (except as they may be integral features of a bridge and used in its construction, maintenance, operation or removal; or except when they are affixed to the bridge and will have an effect on the clearances provided by the bridge) over which jurisdiction remains with the Department of the Army and the Corps of Engineers under Sections 9 and 10 of the Act of 3 March 1899, as amended (33 U.S.C. 401 and 403). BRIDGE PERMIT: An authorization issued by the U.S. Coast Guard, which approves the location and plans of a bridge across a navigable waterway of the United States. Bridge permits include the approved bridge project plans. Issuance of a bridge permit expresses the assent of the federal government so far as the project affects the public right of navigation, giving due considera- tion to the impacts on the quality of the human environment. The permit does not give any property rights, either in real estate or materials, or authorize any injury to private property or invasion of private rights, nor does it remove the necessity of obtaining the assent of other agencies having cognizance of any aspect of the location, construction or maintenance of a bridge. Permits for bridges, once completed, remain valid indefinitely, unless otherwise conditioned or 15 amended, as long as the bridge remains in place, is continued to be used for transportation purposes and conforms to the original approved plans. CAUSEWAY: A causeway is a raised road of solid fill across water or marshland, with the water or marshland on both sides of the road. A raised road with any openings is considered to be a bridge with solid fill approaches, not a causeway. Congressional approval is required before the Coast Guard may ap- prove a causeway across waters which are regularly navigated. CLEARANCE GAUGES: A series of markings painted on or otherwise attached to bridge piers to indicate the vertical clearance available L -ieath the navigation span between "low steel" an,, various water levels. COMMENCEMENT OF . CONSTRUCTION: Com- mencement of construction is normally considered to be the date upon which work actually commences at the site of the proposed bridge, its approaches or ancillary works. However, in cases where construc- tion will be carried out under a construction contract with performance guaranteed by bond or other sure- ty; the date of the contract should be the date of com- mencement. COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION: The comple- tion date is normally considered to be the date upon which the structure completely spans the waterway in conformance with the configuration shown on the plans, any required navigational lights have been in- stalled, it is open to traffic or placed in operation and all temporary falsework has been removed from the waterway. FALSEWORK: A general term used to identify any temporary structure that may be used to facilitate the construction, modification, or removal of a bridge. This includes work platforms, temporary bents, erec- tion towers, cofferdams, and the like. Plans for falsework must be submitted to the District Com- mander for approval prior to commencement of work. • FENDER: A structure whose purpose is to fend off vessels from collision with the bridge. This structure may be composed of steel cells, pile dolphins, sheer fences, or walers attached to or separated from the bridge pier, designed to protect the pier from damage due to collision. Walers are the horizontal heavy timbers that face sheer booms, sheer fences, and other protection work to prevent direct contact with the structure itself. Walers, or comparable non - sparking material, are required on steel structures to prevent steel -to -steel contact between a barge and a steel structure. LEAD AGENCY: The Federal agency which has primary responsibility for the preparation of the NEPA document. LOW STEEL: The site of the lowest part of the superstructure of the navigation span. MODIFICATION TO THE BRIDGE: Any modifica- tion of the bridge which deviates from the approved location or plans requires a new or amended bridge permit. This applies to both before and after the bridge is constructed. However, repair or replace- ment of parts in kind does not require a bridge permit unless the proposed work will affect the approved navigational clearances or the approved configura- tion of the bridge. NAVIGABLE WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES: Navigable waters of the United States for bridge administration purposes are, in general, waters sub- ject to tidal influence, waterways that have a history of substantial commercial navigation, waterways that presently have commercial navigation, and water- ways that are susceptible to commercial develop- ment. A stream that conforms to the above definition would not change its navigable character because of 16 the existence of natural or artificial obstructions such as falls, shallows, rapids, dams or bridges. The legal definition of navigable waters is found in 33 CFR 2.05- 25(a). NAVIGATIONAL LIGHTING: The lights installed and maintained on a bridge by the owner as private aids to navigation, if required, must be approved by the District Commander prior to the construction of a bridge. SUPERSTRUCTURE: The structure of a bridge above the piers. STANDARD DATUMS: (For datums not listed, please contact the district for assistance). High Water (HW): The maximum height reached by a rising tide. Mean High Water (MHW): The average of the height of the diurnal high waters at a particular location measured over a period of 19 years. Mean Low Water (MLW): The average of the height of diurnal low waters at a location measured over a period of. 19 years. Mean Sea Level (MSL): The average height of the surface of the sea for all stages of the tide over a 19 year period. The datum for typographic maps and most land elevation references. Normal Pool Elevation: Height in feet above sea level at which a section of the river is to be main- tained behind a dam (impoundment design eleva- tion). Two Percent FlowlIne: The water surface eleva- tion that is not expected to be exceeded-more than two percent of the time at a particular location. Appendix B District Bridge Administration Staff Phone Numbers and Addresses 1st Coast Guard District: Phone Number: (617) 223 -0645 Address: First Coast Guard District (obr) 150 Causeway St. Boston, Massachusetts 02114 2nd Coast Guard District: Phone Number: (314) 425 -4607 Address: Second Coast Guard District (obr) 1430 Olive St. St. Louis, Missouri 63103 3rd Coast Guard Dlstrlct: Phone Number: (212) 668 -7165 Address: Third Coast Guard District (oan) Governors Island New York, New York 10004 5th Coast Guard District: Phone; Number: (804) 398 -6227 Address: Fifth Coast Guard District (oan) Federal Bldg. 431 Crawford St. Portsmouth, VA 23705 7th Coast Guard District: Phone Number: (305) 350 -4108 Address: Seventh Coast Guard District (oan) Federal Bldg., Rm. 1012 51 S.W. First Ave. Miami, Florida 33130 8th Coast Guard Dlstrlct: Phone Number: (504) 589 -2965 Address: Eighth Coast Guard District (obr) Hale Boggs Bldg. 500 Camp St., Rm. 1140 New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 17 9th Coast Guard District: Phone Number: (216) 522 -3993 Address: Ninth Coast Guard District (obr) 1240 East Ninth St. Cleveland, Ohio 44199 11th Coast Guard District: Phone Number: (213) 590 -2222 Address: Eleventh Coast Guard District (oan) Union Bank Bldg. 400 Oceangate Long Beach, California 90822 12th Coast Guard District: Phone Number: (415) 556 -8668 Address: Twelfth Coast Guard District (oan) 630 Sansome St. San Francisco, California 94126 13th Coast Guard District: Phone Number: (206) 442 -5864 Address: Thirteenth Coast Cuard District (oan) Federal Bldg. 915 2nd Ave. Seattle, Washington 98174 14th Coast Guard Dlstrlct: Phone Number: (808) 546 -7130 Address: Fourteenth Coast Guard District (oan) Prince Kalanianaole Federal Bldg. 300 Ala Moana Blvd. Honolulu, Hawaii 96850 17th Coast Guard District: Phone Number: (907) 586 -7368 Address: Seventeenth Coast Guard District (oan) P.O. Box 3 -5000 Juneau, Alaska 99802 U.S. Coast Guard Districts Pacific Area COMPACAREA Atlantic Area COMLANTAREA at DISTRICT BOSTON R.‘• CDNN. rd DISTRICT NEW YORK DEL. COAST GUARD vA. HEADQUARTERS D.C. 5th DISTRICT . PORTSMOUTH 60 HAWAII ip 10th DISTRICT HONOLULU 7th DISTRICT MIAMI Commander (obr) Ninth Coast Guard District 1240 East Ninth Street Cleveland, Ohio 44199 APPENDIX C Sample Letter of Application for Permit Dear Sir: Application is hereby made by (name of consultant or engineering firm) (name of applicant) at (address) for approval by the Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, of the location and plans of a (type of bridge structure) to be constructed (or modified) across the (name of waterway) at (city), (state), miles above the mouth of the waterway as shown on the attached plans. Federal funds will /will not be utilized and have been /are being applied for. Federal agencies which must grant approvals, easements, or other actions for this project include The bridge will have a /no significant impact on the human environment. The impacts on the human environment are as follows: (briefly describe key issues) An environmental analysis describing these effects has been prepared in the format of Section 102(2XC) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and is enclosed. There are /are no wildlife and waterfowl refuges, recreational areas, public parks or historic sites in the vicinity of or in the way of the (type of structure) or its approaches. (as appropriate) Legal authority for the (type of structure) is found in the General Bridge Act of 1946. The laws of the State of do not require us to obtain a state permit for this work. (or enclose state permits) Enclosed herewith is a letter of authorization from (structure owner) and an extract of (the motions from Corporate meetings, etc.) authorizing me to make this application. This (type of structure) will replace the existing (type of structure) at (city, state), which will be removed when the new (type of structure) is completed. (if applicable) Sincerely, Encls: (1) Original and three copies of map of the vicinity and plans of (type of structure) (2) Environmental Analysis (or two copies of FHWA Final EIS or FONSI) (3) Authorization for applicant to make application (4) Evidence of ownership of old (type of structure) (5) Water quality certification pursuant to Public Law 92-500 (or copy of letter requesting-same) (6) CZM consistency statement (7) State agency concurrence in CZM consistency certification 19 • APPENDIX D Checklist ENCLOSURES TO APPLICATION FORM (as applicable) ( ) letter authorizing agent to act in applicant's behalf ( ) letter authorizing modification or removal of another's bridge ( ) State license to construct the proposed bridge ( ) extract from a corporation's charter ( ) proof of ownership of the land the proposed bridge will be located on ( ) extracts of motions from meetings authorizing construction of the proposed bridge ( ) water quality. certificate ( ) CZM consistency statement ( ) state concurrence with consistency statement ( ) environmental document ( ) other federal, state and local permits ( ) identification of property owners adjacent to proposed bridge site Drawings LOCATION MAP ( ) show the location of the proposed bridge in red ( ) show the location of existing bridges ( ) show wildlife and waterfowl refuges, historical and archaeological sites, public parks and recreation areas ( ) show graphic scale ( ) show north arrow ( ) show direction of streamflow by use of an arrow ( ) show towns in project vicinity PLAN VIEW ( ) show length and width of bridge (proposed and, as appropriate, existing) ( ) show fendering system and indicate type of material ( ) show banks of the waterway ( ) show navigation channel limits ( ) show and identify structures immediately adjacent to the proposed bridge ( ) show graphic scale ( ) show north arrow ( ) show horizontal clearance normal to the channel ( ) show channel axis ELEVATION VIEW (looking upstream) ( ) show the navigational opening in red ( ) show the horizontal clearance normal to the channel ( ) show the vertical clearance above the appropriate datum ( ) show the elevation of the waterway bottom ( ) show the amount of fill required (. ) show the graphic scale TITLE BLOCKS ( ) Indicate applicant ( ) Indicate waterway and mile point ( ) Indicate the location of project (city, county, state) ( ) Indicate date of plans ( ) Indicate sheet number 21 APPENDIX E OVERALL PROJECT LENGTH: 1.818 mi. CHRIST IANA HISTORIC DISTRICT EXISTING BRIDGE 60' CLEAR SPAN MAX. LOW CHORD EL.9.0 MIN. LOW CHORD EL. 7.0 BRIDGE SITE. EXISTING BRIDGE 47'± CLEAR SPAN LOW CHORD EL. 9.0 SMALLEYS DAM ROAD PUBLIC PARK 84 RECREATION AREA NOTE: VICINITY MAP TAKEN FROM U.S.G.S. NEWARK EAST,DELAWARE QUADRANGLE. VICINITY MAP 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 SCALE IN FEET SHEET 1 OF 4 BRIDGE OVER CHRISTINA RIVER RS- 1036(2) PROPOSED ROUTE 273 TOWN OF CHRISTIANA NEW CASTLE COUNTY, DELAWARE MAY 1980 DELAWARE DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION 23 MAY ,I980 1 1. •" LOCATION PLAN •3 o 200 400 . 800 SCALE IN FEET SHEET - 2.-0F 4 LEGEND: 21 0 BEAR YARD STORAGE AREA 0 CHRISTIANA HISTORIC DISTRICT INCLUDES THE LEWDEN HOUSE PUBLIC PARK 8 RECREATION AREA INDICATES PROPERTY OWNER BRIDGE OVER CHRISTINA RIVER RS-I036(2) PROPOSED ROUTE 273 TOWN OF CHRISTIANA NEW CASTLE COUNTY , DELAWARE DELAWARE DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION 25 N rn rn -4 0 0 a r m 3a o � (.m o D II CO O o' -4 • m. - 4 z m z 0. 221' / £Br -cis H(.4.6u, 6e' - -o , 8s' o" Mirs /ow Choy -Gd E/ /9.90 /in/ As of F/// 0 50' PLAN 20" 40 80 SCALE IN FEET /00 Yr: F /oo d E/. /80 i 2 -e- 0" f?prn/o ,'Q E /./9.0 E8,-9L eAbuA (Meosui -e d o/Or79 if Rbul`e 273) oa7uMa0— /.9' Ai/?-7. .4v_q. /i/ 7io/e Fr- eeboor -c/. E/. as '/Vo.- //7 Fgr,SC, / Exis/` , -o�r7d //;-7e MAY, 1980 E/. -2.0 10r Depth 01 mean low water ELEVATION 0 20 40 80 SCALE IN FEET is?. /ow time E/. O. o BRIDGE OVER CHRISTINA RIVER RS- 1036(2) PROPOSED ROUTE 273 TOWN OF CHRISTIANA NEW CASTLE COUNTY , DELAWARE DELAWARE DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION 6 -3 10' Shldr. 24' Rdwy. 4' Shld PROPOSED ROUTE 273 11' II' 4' 24' Shld Rdwy. 10' T'-3" I Shldr. 1 4 d0 4 133HS I I'- 5" 24' TYPICAL APPROACH SECTION 0 Shldr. Rdwy. 58 "/ FT. 100 YR.FLOOD E L.18.0 *DATUM =0 PROPOSED ROUTE 273 15' l' -4" 5' -5" Shldr. 24' Rdwy. 58 "/ FT. SCALE IN FEET II' -5 "� Shldr. I -4 AVG. HIGH TIDE EL.2.5 AVG. LOW TIDE EL0.0 / TOP OF BANK APPROX. EXISTING STREAM BED CIE NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929 MAY, 1980 TYPICAL BRIDGE SECTION 0 5 10 15 30 SCALE IN FEET. BRIDGE OVER CHRISTINA RIVER RS- 1036(2) PROPOSED ROUTE 273 TOWN OF CHRISTIANA NEW CASTLE COUNTY, DELAWARE DELAWARE DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION gOULDIN TRACT YINICE lJCAAD \ "( E Ai0 K�H6 bLAMCO 1 SLAO TA AZT A!NDC+f ISLAND -- • —.1 LCt'i STOCKTON . Mc DONALD ISLAND ti{ �CTOd r Proposed Bridge-. Site ',,pee all Mc ROBERTS ISLAND VICINITY MAP PROPOSED BRIDGE TURNER CUT NEAR STOCKTON CALIF: (AN 'LOAQU /N CQINTV RECLAMATION DM T. 20 a0 SJ 1 of z /2/11/76 31 010..1400 Lo.: ;•'v,/#50EVC El. 11,5-0 Z /. 19.50 /E /. 27.50 + _ ?_ ; ; i a / 50VC ` lave/ r 840V =16o:J 2,..# 35-0 6040-0~ =240'-0 12.3145BVC El. 21.50 50 VC PROFILE GRADE 470 9tJ. 1t95 9 J /o. 4 # 70 %E/.19.50 /E1.14.50 7% ` -Z% aE /81 0 „oSpai,s na '6 Abut. / 5 ent 2 3 4 otum Line E/ev. - 80.0 / Donald is /cad Fl. 75-Flood P /one a� • EL EVA7 /ON * Min. c/r 3'0 Rood Nail. ice/e: 18 =100' Lc Feet /� 1 u"Q'n9 4PMLL.w J/a El. 11.50 Dat&.m U6' 4G5 MSL of /929 M.5i_ 0.50 = MLL W 0.5 PLAN 55'ca /c . 111= 100 5/o. 4t70 E/. /4.56 23 -0 11 041 * 2/ -0” le rLe or,4:1 Cast -in -P oce concre .le TYP /CAL SECT /ON scam: 332 `1,-0., Bent 5 Bent 6 Bent 7 30 el,: MHW 17.3.0 (9.1) /4LLW E /-0.5 PART ELEVATION CLOSED POS/ T /ON No Scale BRIDGE ACROSS TURNER CUT &A.V JOAQU/N COUNTY RECLAMA T /OW D /ST. 2030 Scale ' Ar Noted Slut 2 f 9 -26 -79 FOR BRIDGES WITH FENnFRS: Clearance Gage- Face to Face of Piers 200 . -O (Wor.m° I Channel) '. Old U.S. JO O 54E Lift Span (Relocated U.S. Timber Rub Wales On Face of Pier. 4,1-e 6PIAf dCANAZ Clearance Gage ATimber Rub Wales 1 On Face of Pier .tM el. #50' .� M•�• 1. es.. 0.0 Eti. -wao KOT .: ALL EL.EVATTOY ARE M.S.L.. Timber Rub Waie With Counter Sank Bolts (Typica I Bot Piers) 3/3' /o ' T✓O/IS • EL EVAT /ON 'SO Ps'QPOSEO CeNTER SPAN 9CAI... FerT DANZIGER BRIDGE & APPROACHES OVER INDUSTRIAL CANAL US. HWY.. 90 NEW ORLEANS , LA. ORLEANS PA RI SH STATE OF LOUISIANA DEPT. OF TRANS. AND DEVELOPMENT OFFICE OF HIGHWAYS BATON ROUGE, .LA. JUNE 18, 1979 SHEET4OF 5 35 * U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1982 361- 428/2032 L r4‘...cd /5c Rid 6- z.r -82, , hard ` PA:.,k — rut; et,j 5 h S r. s '�'1..,G �r►�. 'ID r eLeA" Ce.,..set...cus ep . l e5+ `t Q " f-' Nell' A_ 4 �.�s. t, i.att N eirA 6.41.1%. SI 4 de-,,a_ SPAktelA " Y4, G w-s ► 1) N5 co vPA at-Ja }ter 118z- CITY OF TUKWILA OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FINAL DECLARATION OF NON - SIGNIFICANCE Description of proposal Roadway Construction -- Southcenter Blvd, Proponent City of Tukwila Location of Proposal Southcenter Blvd /SR 181 /I -405 Interchange A$5 Lead Agency City of Tukwila File No. EPIC- f/*-82 This proposal has been determined to (BOX(/not have) a significant adverse impact upon the environment. An EIS ( /is not) required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review by the lead agency of.a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. Responsible Official Brad Collins. Position /Title Planning Director Date Signature COMMENTS: This Declaration of Non - Significance is conditioned upon meeting the environmental review requirements of the Lead Agency for the National Environmental Policy Act. Should the NEPA review determine that further environmental assessment of this proposal is needed, this Declaration of Non - Significance may be withdrawn according to WAC- 197 -10 -375 of the State Environmental Policy Act Guidelines,