The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSEPA E95-0001 - DUWAMISH BRIDGE REHABILITATION - SOUTH 102ND / SOUTH 104TH STREETDUWAMISH BRIDGE REHABILITATION REMOVAL OF EXISTING STRUCTURE TO ADD NEW STEEL & CONCRETE S. 102ND & S. 1O4THST. E95-0001 CITY OF TUKWILA Address: Suite: Tenant: THE BOEING COMPANY Type: PW-UTIL Parcel #: 042304-9183 ******************************** Permit Conditions: 1. THE PLANS SHEET NOS: A1.0, REV 2 DATED 3/25/96; D1.1, REV 1 DATED 2/29/96 A1.1, REV 1 DATED 2/29/96 A1.2, REV 2 DATED 3/25/96 C1 DATED 12/12/96 C2 DATED 12/12/96 C3, C4, C5, C6 REV 2/23/96 SO1, S101, S201, S202, S301 REV 2/26/96 ARE APPROVED FOR THE OXBOW BRIDGE REPLACEMENT. COPY OF THE HPA PERMIT NEEDS TO BE SUBMITTED TO PUBLIC WORKS PRIOR TO ANY BRIDGE REPLACEMENT WORK. 2. THESE PLANS REFLECT THE CONDITIONS OF FEB 26, 1996 LETTER OF RON CAMERON, CITY ENGINEER ADDRESSED TO ROBERT SORENSEN, AIA, SABEY CORPORATION AND ROBERT SORENSEN'S, AIA RESPONSE LETTER TO RON CAMERON, CITY ENGINEER DATED MARCH 27, 1996. 3. TO COMPLY WITH THE SEPA (E95-0001) PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK ON THE BRIDGE THE APPLICANT SHALL PROVIDE DCD WITH A DETAILED PLAN WHICH IDENTIFIES THE POTENTIAL OF DEBRIS, OIL AND. OTHER MATERIALS ENTERING THE WATER AND APPROPRIATE MEASURES FOR MINIMIZING THE POTENTIAL. THE PLAN IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. OTHER. FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL PERMITS_ MAY_BE__REQUIREDD pIN ADDITION _TO._THE-_S.UBJECT__ PERMITf 5 THE—OXBOW BRIDGE WILL BE POSTED WITH 10 TON LIMIT UNTILL THE APPLICANT PROVIDES THE CITY WITH A LOAn RATING AND AS -BUILT DRAWINGS FOR THE COMPLETED BRIDGE AS SPECIFIED IN ITEM # 24 OF RON CAMERON'S LETTER DATED FEB 24, 1996 AND RESPONDED TO ARE COMPLETE AS IDENTIFIED AS CONDITIONSIONS IN ITEMS Nos# 2 AND 24 OF SABEYS LETTER DATED MARCH 27, 1996. 6 RON CAMERON LETTER DATED FEB 26, 1996 AND SABEY LETTER DATED MARCH 27, 1996 TO RON CAMERON, CITY ENGINEER ARE ATTACHED AS PART OF THIS PERMIT. Permit No: PW96-0049 • Status: _ISSUED Applied :09/11/1996 Issued: 04/-64/1996 ******************************************* �4_._ Date: 17 -May -96 13:46 From: JOHN -J (JOHN JIMERSON) To: JOANNA Copies -to: GREG,JOHN-J Subject: oxbow Message -id: 2F839C3101DEDEDE I've reviewed the containment plan for the Oxbow bridge demo and find it acceptable. Compliance with the environmental portion of the work plan (R.W. Rhine Inc.) will meet the SEPA mitigation requirement. I will put a copy of this email in the SEPA file with the plan to document my review and approval of the plan....john 05/14/96 TUE 08:13 FAX 206 281 0920 DAS CONSTRUCTION SBEY CORPORATION ARCHITECTURE GROUP 001 • FAX TRANSMITTAL To: Joanna Spencer City of Tukwila Public works 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Fax Number: 431-3865 From: BOD SORENSEN Re: HPA & Coast Guard Permits. RECEIVED MAY 1 4 1996 PUBLIC WORKS Date: May 13, 1996 Time: Protect #: Project: Duwamish River Bridge No. of Pages: 6 (Induding Ns page) For Your: X Informattan and use 0 Review and comment X As requested Action RegUred: X As Indcated 0 No action required 0 For signature and return NOTE: If you do not receive di informallo't as Indcated, please contact me at (206) 281-8700 immediately. Following: HPA PERMIT AND U. S. COAST GUARD PERMIT APPROVALS. Comments: This facsimile communication Is intended only for the use of the IndMdual or entity to which it Is addressed and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. tf the reader of this cover page is not the addressee, or the employee or agent of the addressee, please be advised that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you receive this facsimile In error, please notify us Immediately by telephone and mail this facsimile to us at the above address. Thank you. cc: transmittal only: File John Lang Phil Birk w/ attachments: 0 0 0 0 SABEY CORPORATION ARCHITECTURE GROUP • 101 EWOTr AVE WEST, SUITE 330 • SEATTLE. WA 98119 • (206) 281-8700 • FAX (206) 282-9951 . .05/14/96 TUE 08:14 FAX 206 281,0920 DAS CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT Of FISHERIES • HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL R.C.W. 75.20. 100 Sabey R.C.W. 75.20.103 f1 April 19, 1996 (applicant should refer to this date in all correspondence) PAGE 1 OF 2 PAGES • RWEIVED APR 2 3 1996 a002 NT OF F ation Bldg. Olymp chi 98504 (206) 753- 10 • T NAME FIRST 18 TACT PHONE(S)4CONTROL Sabey Corporation (206) 281-8700 NUMBER 00-B2962-01 19 STREET OR RURAL ROUTE 101 Elliott Ave W, Ste 330, ATTN: Phil Birk D 8 9 09.0001 ttle ZIP 98119zIP SeaciTy t4 17 DATER TRIBUTARY i Duwamish River Puget Sound 11 TYPE OF PROJECT Replace Bridge. Deck/Bank , Protection 13• TER SECTION SECTION NE 04 TOWNSHIP RANGE(E-W) COUNTY 23N 04E King TIME LIMITATIONS: 6 AND MUST BE COMPLETED BY November 1, 1999 5 THIS PROJECT MAY BEGIN Immediately -Pry 1 _ THIS APPROVAL IS TO BE AVAILABLE ON THE JOB SITE AT ALL TIMES AND ITS PROVISIONS FOLLOWED BY THE PERMITTEE AND OPERATOR PERFORMING THE WORK. 11 1Afiw '11 1 I1 shall only occur Revegetation per October 1, 1996 and contractor shall notify by fax at (206) of Fish and Wildlife, of the project start AHB at least threes activities. name,project location, or this Hydraulic entitled, 1995 and submitted (WDFW), except as design criteria per shall be available on accomplished so the enter the stream. re-enter the stream. 100 -year peak flow encountered. RECEIVED MAY 141996 ext. 107 TUKWILA PUBLIC WORKS .. :IN. Y iI Z. :11 /1 1. ADDITIONAL TIMING LIMITATIONS: Placing riprap between June 15 1996 and October 1, 1996. Provision 7 shall be completed no later than shall be monitored through October 1, 1999. 2. NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT: The permittee or the Area Habitat Biologist (AHB) listed below 338-1066 or mail at Washington Department 16019 Mill Creek Blvd Mill Creek( WA 98012, date. Notification shall be received by the orking days prior to the start of construction notification shall include the permittee's starting date for work, and the control number Project Approval (HPA). 3. Work shall be accomplished per plans and specifications "Oxbow Bridge Renovation" dated December 14 to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife utodified by this HPA. These plans reflect Chapter 220-110 WAC. A copy of these plans site during construction. 4. Removal of the existing structure shall be structure and associated material does not Material shall be disposed of so it will not 5. The bridge shall be constructed to pass the with consideration of debris likely to be SEPA: DNS, City of Tukwila, June 1995 REGIONAL HABITAT MANAGER - Philip Schneider (206) 775-1311 PATROL - Frame 124 [ P2 ] APPLICANT - WILDLIFE - READER - PATROL - HAB. MGR. - VRIA DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES / /4 /r/ —le ' ��%&204C. /. DIRECTOR ,05,.14/96 TUE 08:15.FAX 206 281 0920 DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES • DAS CONSTRUCTION HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL R.C.W. 75 R.C.W. 75 April .20.100 .20.103 19, 1996 (applicant should refer to PAGE LOF 2 General Olympia this date in all correspondence) PAGES NT IJ 003 OF FISH on Bldg. 8504 ®LAST NAME Sabey Corporation Mame_ River 18 CONTACT PHONE(S) (206) 281-8700 CONTROL NUMBER 00-B2962-01 y(]WRIA 09.0001 6. Riprap materials used for structure protection shall be clean, angular rock, which shall be installed to withstand the 100 -year peak flow. 7. Alteration or disturbance of the bank and bank vegetation shall be limited to that necessary to construct the project. Within seven calendar days of project completion all disturbed areas shall be protected from erosion using vegetation or other means. Within one year of project completion, the banks shall be revegetated with native or other approved woody species. Vegetative cuttings shall be planted at a maximum interval of three feet (on center and maintained as necessary for three years to ensure 80 percen survival. 8. Bank sloping shall be accomplished in a manner that avoids release of overburden material into the water. Overburden material resulting from the project shall be deposited so it will not re-enter the water. 9. Bank protection and filter blanket material shall be placed from the bank or a barge. Dumping onto the bank face shall beermitted only if the toe is established and the material can be confined to the bank face. 10. All waste material such as construction debris silt, excess dirt or overburden resultingfrom this project shall bg deposited above the limits of flood waer in an approved upland disposal site. 11. Erosion control methods shall be used to prevent silt -laden water. from entering the stream. These may include but are not limited to, straw bales, filter fabric,' temporary sediment ponds, check dams of pea gravel -filled burlap bags or other material, and/or immediate mulching of exposed areas. 12. Extreme care shall be taken to ensure that no petroleum products, hydraulic fluid, fresh cement, sediments sediment -laden water, chemicals, or any other toxic or deleterious materials are allowed to enter or leach into the stream. LOCATION: S. 102nd Ave. east of West Marginal Way. cg REV 10/16/88 ,05/.14/96 TUE 08:16 FAX 206 281 0920 DAS CONSTRUCTION WA GTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WIL E - 600 CAPITOL WAY NORTH OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON 98501-1091 (360) 902-2534 Ij 004 This Hydraulic Prosect Approval pertains only to the provisions of the Fisheries Code (RCW 75.20). Additional authorization from other public agencies may be necessary for this project. GENERAL PROVISIONS This Hydraulic Project Approval shall be available on the Job site at all times and all its provisions followed by the permittee and operator(s) performing the work. The person(s) to whom this Hydraulic Project Approval Is issued may be held liable for any loss or damage to fish life or fish habitat which results from failure to comply with the provisions of this Hydraulic Project Approval. Failure to comply with the provisions of this Hydraulic Project Approval could result in a civil penalty of up to one hundred dollars per day or a gross misdemeanor charge, possibly punishable by fine and/or imprisonment. All Hydraulic Project Approvals issued pursuant to RCW 75.20.100 or 75.20.160 are subject to additional restrictions, conditions or revocation if the Department of Fish and Wildlife determines that new biological or physical information indicates the need for such action. The permittee has the right pursuant to Chapter 34.04 RCW to appeal such decisions. All Hydraulic Project Approvals Issued pursuant to RCW 75.20.103 may be modified by the Department of Fish and Wildlife due to changed conditions after consultation with the permittee: PROVIDED HOWEVER, that such modifications shall be subject to appeal to the Hydraulic Appeals Board established in RCW 75.20.130. APPEALS - GENERAL INFORMATION IF YOU WISH TO APPEAL A DENIAL OF OR COND ITIONS PROVIDED IN A HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL, THERE ARE INFORMAL AND FORMAL APPEAL PROCESSES AVAILABLE. A. INFORMAL APPEALS (WAC 220-110-340) OF DEPARTMENT ACTIONS TAKEN PURSUANT TO RCW 75.20.100, 76.20.103, 75.20.106, AND 75.20.160: A person who is aggrieved or adversely affected by the following Department actions may request an informal review of: (A) The denial or issuance of a Hydraulic Project Approval. or the conditions or provisions made part of a Hydraulic Project Approval; or (B) An order imposing civic penalties. tt is recommended that an aggrieved party contact the Area Habitat Biologist and discuss the concerns. Most problems are resolved at this level, but if not, you may elevate your concerns to his/her supervisor. A request for an INFORMAL REVIEW shall be in WRITING to the Department of Fish and Wildlife, 600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, Washington 98501-1091 and shall be RECEIVED by the Department within 30 -days of the denial or issuance of a Hydraulic Project Approval or receipt of an order imposing civil penalties. The 30 -day time requirement may be stayed by the Department if negotiations are occurring between the aggrieved party and the Area Habitat Biologist and/or his/her supervisor. The Habitat Protection Services Division Manager or his/her designee shall conduct a review and recommend a decision to the Director or its designee. If you are not satisfied with the resutts of this informal appeal, a formal appeal may be filed. B. FORMAL APPEALS (WAC 220-110-350) OF DEPARTMENT ACTIONS TAKEN PURSUANT TO RCW 76.20.100 OR 75.20.106: A person who Is aggrieved or adversely affected by the following Department actions may request an formal review of: (A) The denial or issuance of a Hydraulic Project Approval, or the conditions or provisions made part of a Hydraulic Project Approval; (B) An order imposing civil penalties; or (C) Any other "agency action" for which an adjudicative proceeding is required under the Administrative Procedure Act, Chapter 34.05 RCW. A request for a FORMAL APPEAL shall be In WRITING to the Department of Fish and Wildlife, 600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, Washington 98501-1091, shall be plainly labeled as "REQUEST FOR FORMAL APPEAL" and shall be RECEIVED DURING OFFICE HOURS by the Department within 30 -days of the Department action that Is being challenged. The time period for requesting a formal appeal is suspended during consideration of a timely Informal appeal. If there has been an informal appeal, the deadline for requesting a formal appeal shall be within 30 -days of the date of the Department's written decision in response to the informal appeal. C. FORMAL APPEALS OF DEPARTMENT ACTIONS TAKEN PURSUANT TO RCW 76.20.103 or 76.20.160: A person who is aggrieved or adversely affected by the denial or Issuance of a Hydraulic Project Approval, or the conditions or provisions made part of a Hydraulic Project Approval may request a formal appeal. The request for FORMAL APPEAL shall be in . WRITING to the Hydraulic Appeals Board per WAC 259-04 at Environmental Hearings Office, 4224 Sixth Avenue SE, Building Two -• Rowe Six, Lacey, Washington 98504; telephone 360/469-6327. D. FAILURE TO APPEAL THE REQUIRED TIME PERIODS RESULTS IN FORFEIT URE OF ALL APPEAL RIGHTS. IF THERE IS NO TIMELY REQUEST FOR AN APPEAL, THE DEPARTMENT ACTION SHALL BE FINAL AND UNAPPEALABLE. . £)5/14/96 TUE 08:17 FAX 206 281 0920 DAS CONSTRUCTION 0411/3U/S5 Lu; co y&VA ... • OPTIONAL FOR* ga (7-00) ' FAX TRANSMITTAL • US, Deportment ci TtcnspartoMon United States OoODt Ouofrd 70 � L1 2 Demnktorci a, AlYt . of Noss ► Fax 1 NSN7 _o 11-7969 h,. *°11bA4(.. 6O 9_1O1 GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION BRIDGE PERMIT ) Q005 APR 30 1996 • AMENDMENT WHEREAS by a permit issued on 10 July 1959, the'Socretary of the Army approved the location and plans of a bridge to be reconstructed by the Boeing Airplane Corporation across the DuWAlftish River, at Tukwila, Washington, under authority of the General Bridge Act of 1946, as amended, and that the bridge was - reconstructed; . AND WHLREAS said act, as amended, transferred to and vested in the Secretary of Transportation the functions, powers and duties .oi. the SecrQtnry. of the Army pertaining to..the approval of plans for bridges over the navigable waters of the:United States. end the Secretary of'` Transportation hes delegated these .functions, powers and,.duties to the Commandant_ . s:\Coast Guard by Section 1.46(cP,oClitle 49 Code of:Fadaral�Regulat ne; xliD. WHEREAS ;: eondition=:.d• f;ot.-''that' NDerntitiRprovides'� ;t dt no m the approved• plana':sha11.bo made.:either lir re or deviation from—the _ unlseet the• modification$': said etter�•con+pletion'� of ;the:' � r �t tied: • n � reoe•ived the a pr oval p1 ' e', hes previopel* , ,,;,� , t . ate , e of r - Secret's th i -:>, '•� ,s;^' • 1't' v ;� X'44 ff ,:It *.. ° • • - , M a . ,has eubmitt= • for .AND iaEi1;RBA8 t> tf i lea rid-. . dification :� •the. .,-'.- al the loc 6rS ; an • 4 = ,z : A : 4. ; 8; ERET i r I y th i tion a lan k e i p1 R(i f� 4 - �%}'� Q _ ...i , 0,, liii 99��'� .BAe�I en0 9 o c' 'P• 9. n eh rte I:dated '17.`,:3 tt • 1995 y 13 : ember 1�9 tin appkbMed superaede..'the planiimprfiiiously approved.,; In g ,t wasg this,, approval., 'ell conditiohe i'uhich . the 'origipel ped aubj eptt are superseded`xiiy thYe2 folibwin5f' conditioni/�� 1.• lap d lane be Oaeither 1 ��;� `No deviatio>t;. frEim thi! aPpro�' P may r_rlirii.et3T3 the before • or after, completion.' of •the-'• struCt'Ure modification of eaid' plans• has previously been submitted to and received the approval of the:Commandant. 2. The construction of falsework, cofferdams or other obetruotions, if required, shall be in accordance with plans submitted to and approved by the Commander, Thirteenth Coast Guard District, prior to modification of the bridge. All work shall be so conducted that the free navigation of the waterway ie. not unreasonably interfered with and the present navigable depths are not impaired. 'Timely notice of'any and all events that may affect navigation shall ba given to the District Commander ECEIVED MAY 141996 TUKWILA PUBLIC WORKS .. • . (5/14/96_ _TUE_ 08:18 FAX 206 _281 0920 i S DAS CONSTRUCTION • ContinuationSheet ' Bridge across the Duwamish River at Tukwila, Washington C� 006 DRIDOE PERMIT AMENDMENT (2-96-13) modification'of the bridge. The channel or channels through the structure shall be promptly cleared of all obstructions placed therein or cauaod by the modification of the bridge to the satisfaction of the District Commander, when in the judgment of the District Commander the modification work has reached a point where such action should be taken, but in no case later than 90 days after the bridge has been opened to traffic. 3. Issuance of this permit does not relieve the permittee of the obligation or responsibility for compliance with the provisions of any other law or regulation as may be under the jurisdiction of any federal, state or local authority having' cognizanCe of any aspect of the location, modification or maintenance of said bridge. 4. The permittee shall coordinate methods and schedule of construction activities associated with this bridge modification projoot with the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Department for the purpose of preventing interferenoe with tribal treaty l and fishing rights. Construction activities which pose p y safety impediments to tribal members fishing at the bridge site shall Deese between 1 August and 28 February of each year that work on the project continues. 5. A11 parts of the'existing to be modified bridQe not utilized in the new, modified bridge shell be removed down,'to or below the natural bottom of the waterway and the waterway cleared. to the eatiefootion of the Dietriat'Commander. A period. ot. 90 days subsequent to the. opening .to• traffic will be allow41• or such removal and clearance. , 6. When the existing to be modified bridge is no longer used for transportation purposes, it shall be :removed in,:its entirety or 'to an elevation deemed appropriate bp:•\tha Dish=iot Coi Bender end '`the waterway. cleared. to the eetiefaotion Of the District Commander. Such removal and 'clearance sh$li be completed by end at the expense of. the owner of the bridge upon due notice from the District Commander. 7. The approval hereby granted shall cease and be.null and voideunless acompletedtion of the within five yearse after after theeddee of in three this veers an p bridge permit amendment. N. j4PRAS Chief, Bridge Administration Division U. S. Coast Guard By direction of the Commandant R. W. RFBNE INC. G ^ ar�<Y, potr c B -3 --9 OXBOW BRIDGE DEMOLITION SAFETY SUPPLEMENT FIECE3V 7 MAY 13,1996 PUBLIC WORKS RECEIVE INTRODUCTION MAY 13 1996 This Safety Supplement has been developed to identify issues that are specific to the COMMUNITY demolition of the Oxbow Bridge. And, does not negate any of the policies and procedures DEVELOPMENT contained in the R. W. Rhine Inc., Company Safety and Accident Prevention Program HAZARD ASSESSMENT Fall hazards do exist where personnel are removing the main span beams over the river. Drowning hazards exit for the operators working over the water. FALL PROTECTION In accordance with WAC 295-155-24501; through WAC 295-155-24525, the following FALL PROTECTION PLAN has been formulated for the Oxbow Bridge demolition. During all demolition activities, a Leading Edge exposure exists for all personneL Any workers on the structure will utilize the Fall Restraint noted below. Personnel involved with the rigging of the main span beams will wear approved Safety Harnesses properly secured for fall restraint. Prior to starting this activity a special orientation meeting will be conducted in the proper use and maintenance of the safety equipment. The project superintendent, Gil Olson, is qualified in the use, maintenance and instructional use of the safety equipment. • WATER HAZARDS All workers engaged in activities over water will wear approved floatation devices while over water. A work boat, with an outboard motor will be in the water and accessible for rescue should a worker fall into .the water. Two life rings (one on each side of the river) will be available for extra flotation. lib 1 fV%ITINVIrn-.. c' Leading Edges • • • 1 Leming Edges (for workers not involved in the Leafing Edge work) • . • 1,2 Unprotected Sides • • • Hoist Areas • .., 3 Holes • 4 Formwork and Reinfotcing Steel • . • Ramps, Runways, and other Walkways • &&rations not readily seen due to plant growth or other visual barriers • Wells, Pile, or Shafts • • • Oangertus Equipment • • • Overhand flricklaying and Related Work • • .5,6 Roofing Work on Low -Sloped Roofs • • • • • 1,8 Steep Roofs • • • Precast Canute Flection • • • 1 WallOpenings • • • WalkinglWorking Stafaces No( Otherwise Addressed • . . Protection from Fairing Objects • • • • 8 1. When the employer can demonstrate it is unfeasible or create greater hazard to use these systems, the employer will develo and implement a fall protection plan. 2. if a guardrail system is chosen to provide fall protection. and controlled access zone has already been established for leadir edge work, a warning line may be used in lieu of a guard rail that parallels the leading edge. 3. If guardrail systems or portions thereof, are removed to facilitate hoisting operations, and the works must lean thsvut the access opening or out over the edge of the access opening the worker should use a personal fall arrest system. 4. All holes (including skylights) should be pmtected by covers prevent workers from tripping or falling into the hok or prev! objects from falling through the hole and striking a worker. S. When the worker maces more than 10 inches below the walking/working surface. the use of a Controlled Access Zen is not allowed to protect from fall hazards. 6. Bricklaying operations perfumed an scaffolds are regulated 1 OSHA Standard 1926 Subpart L - Scaffolds. 7. A wanting line system should be used with one of the following guardrail system, safety net system. personal fall arrest syster or safety monitoring system B. On roofs 50 feet or less in width, the use of a safely monitorii system alone is allowed. OXBOW BRIDGE DEMOLITION . WORK PLAN SITE IDENTIFICATION The Oxbow Bridge spans the Duamish River at South 102nd. Avenue in Seattle, Washington. The bridge is a pile supported wooden structure with asphalt concrete surfacing. SCOPE The extent of the proposed demolition is to remove the entire span to the top of piling. It is presumed that the support piling will be incorporated into future construction. SECURITY & PUBLIC SAFETY Prior to any demolition activities, the Owner will close South 102nd. Avenue to all pedestrian and vehicular traffic During the demolition R. W. Rhine Inc., will maintain the integrity of the barricading to ensure against any unauthorized entry. ENVIRONMENTAL Before demolition starts, a debris boom will be placed in the river around the work area to contain any wooden debris that falls from the structure. The wood debris that is contained within the boom surrounds will be clamed out with a hydraulic excavator. During the course of demolition the boom will be inspected periodically and maintained tight for containment. • The activity involving the removal of the asphalt concrete surfacing presents a possibility for materials to fall into the water, Asa containment, plywood sheeting will be placed upright along the railings,, on both sides of the bridge. The proposed equipment will be diesel over hydraulic powered. The is a potential for hydraulic leaks. Equipment, used over water, will be inspected for potential leaks immediately before working over water. Two spill kits (containing absorbent pads, floor dry, rags and detergents) will be available at all times. 1 (1XRC)W/1IAS R. W. RHINE INC. • • Fuel and lubricating products will not be stored on the site. Fuel will be supplied from a service truck that comes to the site. Fueling and lubrication will be performed in an area away from the water, and where any possible spill can be contained before natural drainage can carry it to the waterway, INGRESS AND EGRESS Trucks used to transport materials from the site will enter and leave the site on 102nd Avenue from both the east and west. DEMOLITION METHOD Using a hydraulic excavator, the asphalt concrete surfacing will be removed from the underlying timber decking. The asphalt concrete will be loaded into trucks for delivery to a recognized recycler. The wooden decking, stringers, and pile caps will be removed with an excavator equipped with a grapple attachment. This will be done in two stages, starting from the center, working to the east; and to the west. The salvaged lumber wi7l. be loaded into trucks for delivery to Rhine Salvage. The waste material will be transported to a landfill licensed for that material. The main span beams will be rigged with cables attached to a crane; freed from their mountings; and hoisted to a lay down area. This activity will occur after the main span deck, stringers, and caps have been removed; But before the approaches are demolished. DISPOSAL & RECYCLE The asphalt concrete and portland cement concrete will be transported to Renton Concrete Recyclers, in Renton Washington. Scrap metal will be transported to Seattle Iron & Metals on Harbor Island. Salvaged timbers will be transported to R W. Rhine Inc., salvage yard for inventory and resale. Landfill debris will be transported to Rabanco Regional Landfill via one of it's transfer facilities. (WROWIDAS Date: 28 -Mar -96 13:37 • • From: JOHN -J (JOHN JIMERSON) To: JOANNA Copies -to: JOHN -J Subject: oXboW bRiDgE Message -id: 1B965A3101DEDEDE joanna The proposed changes to the project are within the scope of the shoreline permit and SEPA review already completed. No additional changes to those approvals are necessary. In their letter, they ask that we notify you of this decision. Do I need to do anything else, such as calling Sabey? I will put this e-mail in the files for future reference. john • SBEY • CORPORATION [via fax: (206) 431-3665] City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Attn: Mr. Jack Pace, Senior Planner Re: Oxbow Bridge Renovation Shoreline File No. L95-0004 Dear Mr. Pace: March 21, 1996 Sabey Corporation would like to make a very minor revision the SEPA Checklist for the above Permit. Because of concerns from the Washington State Fisheries and Mukelshoot Indian Tribe we have had our Geotechnical Engineers re-evaluate their recommendations regarding the riverbank stabilization supplement. Their revised recommendation is now shown in response to question B.1.d of the Environmental Checklist. In addition, at the request of the Tukwila Departmant of Public Works, we have included more specific information regarding grading in response to question B.le. The revised page 4 of the Checklist is attached to this letter as well as the Geo Engineers letter of February 26, 1996. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please don't hesitate to call at any time. The timing of this project is critical as the season for doing work over the river is very limited. We look forward to your response as soon as possible. In addition, please notify Joanna Spencer in Public Works of your action. Yours truly, Sabey orporation Robert H. Sorensen AIA, Project Architect enclosures: (3 pages) cc: Sandy Erickson/Jerry Bresslour Dave Sabey Phil Birk A COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE COMPANY 101 Elliott Avenue W. • Suite 330 • Seattle, WA • 98119.206/281-8700 • Fax: 206/282-9951 RECEIVED MAR 2 2 1996 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLI•T B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth Evaluation for Agency Use Only a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, (other Waterfront flanking Duwamish River. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? 45° c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Mixture of sand and clay d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. Not within 100' of the bridge on either side of the river bank. The Geotechnical Engineer is recommending vegetative slope protection supplement to the existing riprap, 20' either side of the bridge structure (see attached). This project will not impact shoreline. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quanti- ties of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Minimal grading to lower and align bridge approaches. Less than 1,000 c.y. of soil removed from site. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Unlikely g• About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Impervious surfaces unchanged -4- Geo Engineers • 14 • 6 CP February'26, 1996 Sabey Corporation 101 Elliott Avenue West, Suite 330 Seattle, Washington 98119 Attention: Mr. Phil Birk {;,v• 1 yyy •• • r Donk. EAR31.-14 tt—ir ;, Consulting Engineers and Geoscientists Offices in Washington, Oregon, and Alaska Summary Letter Geotechnical Consulting Services River Bank Protection Oxbow Bridge Replacement Project South 102nd Street Tukwila, Washington File No. 0548-014-01 We have reviewed the slope protection requirements for both banks of the Duwamish River at the Oxbow Bridge site in Tukwila, Washington, as requested. We understand that the Fisheries Department and Muckleshoot Indians have requested that vegetative slope protection measures be used in lieu of HARD (rock) RIPRAP to the extent, practical in order to provide some cover and shade from a riparian environment. If hard riprap is used for the full height of the river bank, the areas affected by the new construction would be devoid of any bank vegetation at or near the waters edge. We understand that some reshaping of the existing west bank will be done as part of the bridge replacement project to accommodate a jogging path. The grading along this portion of the bank is expected to involve only cutting; no fill will be placed to form the berm between the river and the jogging path. For this condition, we recommend that slope protection above ordinary high water consist of vegetation rather than rock cover in order to better accomplish the goal of the Fisheries Department and the Muckleshoot Indians. Specifically, we recommend that the live stake planting option described on pages 8.13 and 8.15 and shown in Figure 8.2 (page 8.14) of the King County "Guidelines for Bank Stabilization Projects" dated June 1993 be used in this area. The selection of species, preparation and placement of the live stakes should be in accordance with the King County Guidelines. GeoEngineers, Inc. 8410 154th Avenue N.E. Redmond, WA 98052 Telephone (206) 861-6000 - Fax (206) 861-6050 Sabey Corporation • February 26, 1996 Page 2 • Our examination of the east bank of the river indicates that the bank is in a stable condition in the vicinity of the east abutment. Inasmuch as the planned reconstruction of the bridge will not cause any changes to the bank, we recommend that it be left as is. If you have any questions concerning these conclusions, please contact us. JKT:cms Document ID: 0548014.SL2 Three copies submitted One copy transmitted by facsimile Yours very truly, GeoEngineers, Inc. Jack K. Tuttle, P.E. Principal IEXPIR'ES 1 Geo Engineers File No. 0548-014-01-1130 City of Tukwila _ John W Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director Commander, Thirteenth Coast Guard Division Aids to Navigation and Waterways Management Branch 915 Second Avenue Seattle, WA 98174-1067 Attn: John Mikesell RE: Public Notice 95-N-01 Bridge Modification Dear Mr. Mikesell: The City of Tukwila Department of Community Development is processing the SEPA environmental review and shoreline permit for the Duwamish Bridge modification project. A Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance was issued on March 9, 1995, and the comment period on the shoreline permit concluded on March 13, 1995. We have received a courtesy copy of the. letter addressed to you from the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe dated March 22, 1995. In that; letter, the Tribe has asked you to consider several factors -in the' review of your permit. The purpose of this letter is to request that we be informed of any requirements you may place on the permit, including any requirements which address issues raised in the Muckleshoot letter. I will be calling you shortly to find out your permit approval time frame. If you have any questions or comments on this project, don't hesitate to call me at 431-3663.. Sincerely, Jimerson 'As'ociate Planner cc: Roderick Malcom Phil Birk 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Suite &1N) • TuktA/(12 W ehlnntnn. OA, AA • ionAl..4o 17L On - .-___ t ,...... , • • MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE FISHERIES DEPARTMENT MAR 241995 Commander, Thirteenth Coast Guard Division DEVELOPMENT Aids to Navigation and Waterways Management Branch 915 Second Avenue Seattle, Washington 98174-1067 Attn.: Mr. John Mikesell 22 March 1995 RE: PUBLIC NOTICE 95-N-01 BRIDGE MODIFICATION (DUWAMISH RIVER RM. 5.4) Dear Mr. Mikesell: The Environmental Division of the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe has reviewed the Public Notice for the Boeing Company to renovate an existing bridge across the Duwamish River. Actions associated with the renovation work have the potential to interfere with Treaty Fishing access, and lowering the bridge surface has the potential through shading to have adverse impacts upon aquatic resources. The project area is in the reach of the river where Tribal surveys suggest that outmigrating juvenile chum and chinook begin to estuarine residence. Any project in such an estuarine reach must be carefully reviewed for their environmental impacts. The current bridge is relatively high in the air, permitting considerable light to reach the river surface. Lowering the bridge will potentially decrease the quantity of sunlight reaching the river and riverbanks. This may potentially reduce benthic productivity, for which mitigation may be required. Furthermore, the potential loss in benthic productivity and salmonid food due to the proposed river bank stabilization must be determined. The bridge work proper will neither result in an increase in overwater structure nor the number of piles, hence an increase in overwater coverage and decrease of available fishing area. However, many Tribal members set nets from, and adjacent to the, the bridge pilings. The use of barges and other construction equipment, as well as the physical act of construction can prevent Tribal members from using this area during fishing season. To prevent this potential interference with Treaty fishing, construction that will prevent for physical or safety reasons Tribal members from using the site should occur between March through July inclusive. 39015 172nd Avenue S.E. • Auburn, Washington 98092 • (206) 931-0652 • FAX (206) 931-0752 We have also noted that bank work, such as new bulkheads, is associated with this project. If the work on the river banks is covered by this Coast Guard permit, the Tribe requests to be forwarded detail designs for review. Often, bulkheads interfere with Treaty Fishing. If the proposed bank work instead will be authorized by a Corps of Engineers permit, the Tribal Fisheries Department requests by copy of this letter, that the Tribe be granted the opportunity to review the work associated with proposed permit for impacts to aquatic resources and Treaty access. I thank you for your attention to our concerns. If you have any questions regarding this letter call me at 931-0652. Sincerely, izz, Roderick Malcom Habitat Biologist cc: MIT / Glen St. Amant US Army Corps of Engineers / Regulatory Branch NOAA / Restoration Centre US Fish and Wildlife Service DOE / Inter -Agency Operations Section WDFW / Randy Carman City of Tukwila / John Jimerson AFFIDAVIT O Notice of Public Hearing Notice of Public Meeting O Board of Packet O Board of Packet OF DISTRIBUTION hereby declare that: Determination of Non- significance Nonsignificance Adjustment Agenda Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice Appeals Agenda llNotice of Action Planning Commission Agenda Packet Official Notice LI Short Subdivision Agenda 0 Other Packet Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit 0 Shoreline Management Permit Other was mailed to each of the following addresses on :3-13-96 Mistl ..p 1 t b- DN_) C� Cru -M23 gCcLDgtJ _. SePft" 0_0 Lo Name of Project yet& u'fl,sh '3d , Signature -F- File Number ��- CITY OF TUKWILA MITIGATEPIETERMINATION OF NONSIGNI=AWNCE (MDNS) DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: REHABILITATION OF DUWAMISH RIVER BRIDGE PROPONENT: PHIL BIRK, SABEY CORPORATION LOCATION OF PROPOSAL, INCLUDING STREET ADDRESS, IF ANY: ADDRESS: 10201 EAST MA'RG=I=N°AL Wr�S PARCEL NO: 0423 '' _` t — — _-------—sl-.:,;.-, '. ` :�'' SEC/TWN/RNG: 04/23-/'t3.4 ' .d,- . y ,- LEAD AGENCY: _CITY, OF,,'TUKWILA `1 (' ' )//,FILE, NO. E'95-0001 The City has.;de•ter,mi-ned.jthatuthe proposal doe&,.rnot f'aveA aj pr oba,�b1e signif icant4a,dver s -e., im act -on tii'e�.�egnvpLr onment. Ar, engv%jonmen`ta,] impact statement (`E�I'S) is not required under KW 43.21c.030(2)�(c) This decision was9 made after rev:i,ewOo:fi a completed env i ronmenta'•1 check\1 i st and other�,;nfor.mation'on f-i�1•e wit=h_ the lead agency. This,p inutormaton is available .t_o the cpub 1 i c.�on requfest The conditions rto -th vs� SEPA Determination are attached: c tt r e i` r - f� wl 111 ,., r ~''`e,.si 1 a I ,- 1 ;‘k\'‘.,',f >� �..,�— /' (, �e' it This DNS ice. issued-Mu:nder� 97,-1t+1 a340`(12�) ,1C'omments must be submitted by LU�i Lc,+� f;2y�; i9gS' "`,`�-- ~i.YTtie� 1 ead;' ager%cy� 1 1 not act an nth i sil,, proposali for .15 days_ffrom/the ,da't,p be'1oW;: ---- ,!; " - _ i Nti,,' \,t ,'� { Steve Lanc.aste=r�',�Responsible Official�'� City of T-ukwtl;a,•,', (206) 431-3680 6300 Sou;tli;center'.1 Boulevard Tukwila, y,'WA -98188 Date 95 /'i /. J. You may appera0his determi:netion to the Cityotlerk f;atyCit_y iIIal 1, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard',:, Tukwila, • WA_ 98,1.88='no later,'then 10J;days from the above signaturetidate by written appeal stating the basi.sro-f' the appeal for specific factual - objections , -You may be required_tp?'bear some of the expenses for an-.:epu.eal. Copies of the procedure f:ot EW„a.p_p-eel s-ar,e'` ;va=i51 ab 1 e with the City Clerk and Department of Community D_eVelo:pm:ei'-`t'" Address: Applicant: Permit No: E95-0001 Type: P-SEPA Location: 04/23/04? =�y•¢ Parcel #: 042304-9/133 r ('. Zoning: M2 CITY TUKWILA CONDITIONS 10201 EAST MARGINAL WY S KR304E, ' I t' ***************.* ******'*v************,►;•* . ;} (55. 0-23, 1. Prior/ -to commencement•-o,f�'work drr)t sha,1 rovi��de the City with a deta thid; potert:ialofodebris*osi\lPand o thqwater and �approprji a{te meassui~es potential. Trhe p1a.rj s subject to Y V. th,e D;elpartme,nt of- community Develo 11 ff a A Status: APPROVED Applied: 01/13/1995 Approved: 03/06/1995 ***' °******.****:* �*****•***.* ***** L-7 1 ; fit,; `,. he bri da(e'' the 'e 1 1 cant ile`ad, plan wtknih i`den,tifies ther mAterajl s enerng for min'iimi`z°i;rj thels review and apka'va1 pment. 00 TO: Jack Pace FROM: John Jimerso RE: SEPA - Pacificighway S. Intersections Improvements DATE: March 6, 1995 Memorandum Project File No. E95-0001 Project Description: The site is located at the Duwamish River along South 102nd Avenue. The proposal is to demolish an existing arched bridge on wood pilings, cut the wood pilings to a uniform height, and install a new flat bridge. Agencies With Jurisdiction: U.S. Coast Guard (Bridge Permit) Comments to SEPA Checklist: Page 3 - No. 13: The east bank of the river is identified by the City's E.S.A. map as having a steep slope. Page 4 - No. 1(d): Mr. Birk of Sabey Corporation has clarified that the rip rap per the Engineers recommendation is a part of the proposed project. Page 6 - No. 6: There is potential for debris from demolition of the existing bridge and construction of the new to fall into the river. A barge may be used for the reconstruction, thus creating the potential for oil or fuel spill into the river. Page 9 - No. 5(b): A U.S. Fish and Wildlife document submitted by the applicant indicates there are no known proposed or listed threatened/endangered species in the project area. Summary of Primary Impacts: (a) Possibility of debris oil/fuel leaking entering river. (b) Erosion/Bank Stabilization. Summary of Proposed Mitigation: (a) None. (b) Silt Fences if needed. In addition, per Geo Engineers report dated January 20, 1995, it is proposed that rip rap be placed on both the east and west bank, 20 feet to either side of the bridge. Recommended Threshold Determination: MDNS, with one mitigation measure: Prior to commencement of work on the bridge, the applicant shall provide the City with a detailed plan which identifies the potential of debris, oil and other materials entering the water and appropriate measures for minimizing the potential. The plan is subject to review and approval by the Department of Community Development. CHECKLIST: ENVICENTAL REVIEW/SHORELINE !LIT MAILINGS FEDERAL AGENCIES ( )U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ( )FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION ( )DEPT. OF INTERIOR -FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE WASHINGTON ( )U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ( )U.S. DEPARTMENT OF H.U.D. (REGION X) STATE AGENCIES ( )OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY ( )TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT ( )DEPT. OF NATURAL RESOURCES ( )OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR ( )DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ( )DEPT. OF FISHERIES ( )K.C. PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEV. ( )BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD ( )FIRE DISTRICT #11 ( )FIRE DISTRICT #2 ( )SOUTH CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT ( )TUKWILA LIBRARIES ( )RENTON LIBRARY ( )KENT LIBRARY ( )CITY OF SEATTLE LIBRARY ( )US WEST ( )SEATTLE CITY LIGHT ( )WASHINGTON NATURAL GAS ( )WATER DISTRICT #75 ( )SEATTLE WATER DEPARTMENT ( )GROUP W CABLE ( )OLYMPIA PIPELINE ( )KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT ( )TUKWILA CITY DEPARTMENTS: ( )PUBLIC WORKS ( ) FIRE ( )POLICE ( )FINANCE ( )PLANNING ( )BUILDING ( )PARKS AND ORECREATION ( )TUKWILA MAYOR )DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES )DEPT. OF ECOLOGY, SHORELANDS DIVISION DEPT. OF ECOLOGY, SEPA DIVISION* )DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE )OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL *SEND CHECKLIST WITH DETERMINATIONS AND *SEND SITE MAPS WITH DECISION RING COUNTY AGENCIES )KING COUNTY DEPT. OF PARKS )HEALTH DEPARTMENT )PORT OF SEATTLE )BUILDING & LAND DEV. DIV.- SEPA INFORMATION CENTER SCHOOLS/LIBRARIES ( )HIGHLINE SCHOOL DISTRICT ( )KING COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY ( )SEATTLE MUNICIPAL REFERENCE LIBRARY ( )SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICTS ( )RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT UTILITIES ( ( ( ( ( ( )PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT )VAL-VUE SEWER DISTRICT )WATER DISTRICT #20 )WATER DISTRICT #125 )CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS )RAINIER VISTA )SKYWAY CITY AGENCIES ( )RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT ( )CITY OF SEA -TAC ( )CITY OF SEATTLE ( )CITY OF BURIEN ( )TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ( )TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS OTHER LOCAL AGENCIES ( )PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL ( )P.S. AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY ( )SW K.COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ( )MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE ( )DUWAMISH INDIAN TRIBE MEDIA ( )DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE ( )VALLEY DAILY NEWS ( )METRO ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING DIV. OFFICE/INDUSTRIAL 5,000 GSF OR MORE RESIDENTIAL 50 UNITS OR MORE RETAIL 30,000 GSF OR MORE ( ) HIGHLINE TIMES ( )SEATTLE TIMES PUBLIC NOTICE MAILINGS FOR PERMITS SEPA MAILINGS Mail to: (comment period starts on date of mailing) Dept. of Ecology Environmental Review Section Applicant Other agencies as necessary (checked off on attached list) Include these documents: SEPA Determination (3 -part form from Sierra) Findings (staff report, usu. with MDNS) SEPA Checklist (filled out by applicant) Drawings/Plans of project (site plan, elevations, etc. from PMT's) Affidavit of Dlstribution (notice was mailed & sent to newspaper). SHORELINE MAILINGS Notice of Application: Notice of application for a substantial development Permit must be mailed to owners and to property owners within 300 feet of subject property, prepare an affidavit of publication, and publish two consecutive weeks with deadline for comments due 30 days after last newspaper publication date. Shoreline Permit: Mail to: (within 8 days of decision; 30 -day appeal period begins date received by DOE) Department of Ecology Shorelands Section State Attorney General Applicant Indian Tribes Other agencies as necessary (checked off on attached list). Include these documents: Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (3 -part form from Sierra) Findings (staff report, if applicable) Shoreline Application Form (filled out by applicant) Drawings/Plans of project (site plan, elevations, etc. from PMT's) - Site plan, with mean high water mark & improvements Cross-sections of site w/structures & shoreline Grading plan Vicinity map SEPA Determination (3 -part form from Sierra) Findings (staff report, usu. with MDNS) SEPA Checklist (filled out by applicant) Any background studies related to impacts on shoreline Notice of Application Affidavit of Distribution (notice was mailed & sent to newspaper) Affidavit of Publication (notice was published in newspaper). SAkBEY CORPORATION MEMORANDUM TO: John Jimerson, City of Tukwila, Planning Department Commander John Mikesill, Thirteenth Coast Guard District FROM: Phil Birk DATE: January 27, 1995 RE: Army Corps of Engineers Permit Not Required for Duwamish River Bridge Renovation The attached letter from the Army Corps of Engineers dated 1/13/95 confirms they will not require a permit for the Duwamish River Bridge Renovation. Please call me with any questions. RECEIV. J 3 0,1995 COMIVIUN, ._. OEVELOPMi- A COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE COMPANY 101 Elliott Avenue W. • Suite 330 • Seattle, WA • 98119 • 206/281-8700 • Fax: 206/282-9951 • • Summary Letter PI otechnical Consulting Services. E aluation of Existing Timber Pile Foundation For the Oxbow Bridge -South 102nd Street Seattle, Washington January 20, 1995 llor Sabey Corporation • RECEIVED JAN 2 41995 GuiviIV� k,. DEVELOPMhir (i e o E n s i n s s e s File No. 0548-014-RO1 • • Sabey Corporation 101 Elliott Avenue West Suite 330 Seattle, Washington 98119 Attention: Mr. Phil Birk January 20, 1995 Summary Letter Geotechnical Consulting Services Evaluation of Existing Timber Pile Foundation For The Oxbow Bridge South 102nd Street Seattle, Washington File No. 05.48-014-R01 INTRODUCTION This letter presents a summary of our geotechnical consultation services for an evaluation of the existing timber pile foundation for the Oxbow Bridge that spans the Duwamish River on South 102nd Street in Seattle, Washington. We are providing this letter at your request, for submittal to the city of Tukwila. We have reviewed the following documents regarding the existing timber pile foundation and stabilization measures completed along the east bank near the bridge by the city of Tukwila. 1. A plan prepared by The Boeing Airplane Company entitled "Piling Diagram, Oxbow Bridge" dated September 5, 1963. 2. Sheets S-1 and S-3 through S -5a of plans prepared by the Boeing Facilities Department entitled for the Oxbow Bridge dated September of 1975. 3. Sheets S-1 through S-5 of details and specifications prepared by the city of Tukwila entitled "South 104th Street, Duwamish Riverbank Slough, Emergency Repair" dated September 3, 1993. Information obtain d b Mr. Phil Birk of Sabey Corporation indicates that the original bridge piles were to Hong: On this basis, pile tip elevations of -30 or deeper would have been realized if no pile cutoffs were made. Comparable information for the replacement piles is not available, necessitating an assumption about probable existing pile lengths, as discussed below. Sabey Corporation January 20, 1995 AK Page 2 We made site visits on November 30 and December 30, 1994 to evaluate the general condition of existing piles which are accessible onshore. Piles beneath the west approach and along the west riverbank were evaluated by our staff. We subcontracted the services of Mr. Mike Smith of Mike's Diving Center to evaluate the condition of piles located in the river. Randomly selected piles were examined form the mudline to the river surface. OBSERVATIONS EXISTING BRIDGE The existing multi -span bridge consists of a timber trestle structure with creosote -treated timber pile supported abutments and intermediate bents. The bridge is aligned east to west over the Duwamish River along South 102nd Street. The center span is supported by two pile groups of 19 piles each. Intermediate bridge spans and the abutments are supported on 15 bents with 5 piles in each bent. The riverbanks to either side of the bridge are armored with a blanket of riprap. The riprap is constrained along the east bank of the river by vertical and battered timber piles along the shoreline. A number of vertical timber piles support the east bridge abutment and face a treated timber wall. Riprap is generally absent beneath the east end of the bridge and what riprap is present is coated with mud. No significant scour or erosional features were observed beneath the bridge. RIVER CHARACTERISTICS The Duwamish River is approximately 220 feet wide at the bridge site. The water level in the river is affected both by the river flow from upstream and by tidal action. We understand that the river flow can range from about 200 cfs (cubic feet per second) to 12,000 cfs. During low flow conditions, the river level is affected mostly by tidal fluctuation, and during high flow conditions, the river level is controlled mostly by the flow volume. We understand that the average current velocity of the river is about 5 fps (feet per second) in the project area. The maximum high water level of the river in the project area is reported to be about Elevation 7 feet MSL. The minimum low water elevation is reported to be about Elevation -8 feet MSL. For reference purposes, Elevation 0 feet MSL corresponds to Elevation 6.6 feet MLLW (Mean Lower Low Water datum). MLLW is the datum used for reporting water surface levels an tide charts. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS We have evaluated information in our files on past projects completed by our firm and others in the vicinity of the bridge to define probable subsurface conditions at the site. Generally QeoEaginoors Pilo No. 0548-014-R01 Sabey Corporation ak January 20, 1995 411, Page 3 • the subsurface conditions encountered in the vicinity of the bridge consist of approximately 10 to 20 feet of very loose to loose sand and soft to medium stiff silt overlying medium dense sand and stiff silt deposits (based on a ground surface elevation of about 10 feet MSL). Ground water levels along the river are affected by river level and precipitation. EXISTING PILES Onshore Piles The onshore piles for the west approach were evaluated above the ground level for bents 11 through 13 (referenced in accordance with the system presented on the plan prepared by Boeing Facilities Department entitled "Oxbow Bridge, Developmental Center" Sheet S-1, dated August 6, 1975). All of the piles at bent 13 and the northernmost pile at bent 11 had been driven adjacent to abandoned piles during bridge rehabilitation in 1975. The abandoned piles had been cut off 1 foot or less above existing grade. The piles supporting the concrete abutment #2 (the west bridge abutment) were not visible because of fill that had been placed to the east of the bent before 1975. The piles at bents 11 through 13 were evaluated visually _and by sounding with a rock hammer and were observed to be in good condition. A vertical crack with as much as 1/4 -inch of separation was observed on the south face of pile 1 at bent 13. This is --not considered to be a structural deficiency in the pile but, rather, .a natural occurrence. Offshore Piles The offshore piles were evaluated randomly by Mr. Mike Smith of Mikes Diving Center on January 5, 1995. The piles were evaluated visually from the mudline to approximately one foot above the waterline. One to four piles at bents 1 through 10 and five piles at bents A through D (which support the bridge superstructure) were randomly evaluated by probing with an ice pick over the same length as they were visually examined. The river was observed to have a relatively strong current and fresh water from the waterline to a depth of approximately 10 feet. Little or no current was encountered from 10 feet about 18 feet depth (the mudline at the deepest portion of the river). Barnacles and mussels, indicative of a saltwater environment are present on the lower portions of the piles. The barnacles and mussels were scraped off the piles to look for indications of pile decay. Mike Smith reported that he did not observe any indications of decay on the pile surfaces, nor did he observe significant cracks or other indications of pile deterioration. Debris consisting of logs, branches, etc., has collected against the upstream piles and is most prominent at bents 7 through 9 and A through D. GooEnginoors File No. 0548-014-R01 Sabey Corporation • January 20, 1995 Page 4 • RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS EXISTING PILES Condition of Existing Piles Based on our evaluation of the existing piles, it is our opinion that they are in sound condition. It is difficult to determine the life expectancy of treated timber piles which are subject to decay over time when in the presence of a fluctuating water level or a hostile environment. These piles have been in place for up to 20 years and show no indication of significant decay_ Based on our observations of old timber piles on other projects, we would expect the portions of piles below the mudline and adjacent shoreline to remain sound for many years, possibly for the desired 50 year Life of the reconstructed bridge. The aboveground portions of the piles, both in the river and onshore, should be examined periodically for any evidence of deterioration. Examinations should be made at 8- to 10 year intervals. If the piles do experience deterioration with time, the load -carrying capacity of the piles could be maintained by installing reinforced concrete jackets over the free-standing lengths of the piles. This would avoid the need for full pile replacement. Pile Load Capacities According to information presented in the plans developed by Boeing, the' original piles were replaced during the 1975 reconstruction. Available plans do not show pile tip elevations. However, we would expect that the piles were driven to a depth comparable to that of theoriginal files (i.e., to a tip elevation of at least -30). Because of the lack of definitive construction records, we consider it appropriate to use a reduced design capacity for these piles in the redesign of the bridge. Based on our analyses and review of information in our piles and developed by others, we recommend that the existing piles be considered to have an allowable downward capacity of 12 tons each, based on an assumed pile tip elevation of no higher than -25 feet MSL. We understand that uplift capacity is not considered to be a factor for this project. The allowable capacity presented above is based on the assumed soil profile described above, soil strength parameters from our nearby project, a minimum pile tip diameter of 8 inches, and a factor of safety of at least 2.5. This recommended capacity is about half of the typical design capacity loads for new timber piles driven to the deeper penetration indicated for the original piles. We recommend using an allowable lateral capacity of 2 kips for a free head pile condition and 6 kips for a fixed head condition, based on an allowable deflection of 1 inch at the pile head. Based on our analysis and experience with similar projects we anticipate that little or no additional settlement of pile groups should occur if the loading is not changed significantly from that which is presently imposed. GeoEngineers Filo No. 0548-014-R01 Sabey Corporation is January 20, 1995 Page 5 • EROSION/SCOUR We did not observe significant erosion or scour features in the immediate vicinity of the bridge during our visits to the site. However, it is our understanding that erosion of the riverbanks and scour have been problematic along portions of the river in the general vicinity of the bridge. GeoEngineers has previously completed an evaluation of the west riverbank above and below the Oxbow Bridge for the Boeing Military Airplane Company, the results of which are presented in our "Report, Geotechnical Engineering Services, West Duwamish Riverbank Stabilization Project, Tukwila, Washington" dated April 15, 1994. In our April 1994 report we recommended that riprap be placed over certain areas of the west riverbank and that the riprap should consist of toe rock in the 2- to 3 -foot -diameter size range and armor rock in the 1- to 2 -foot -diameter size range. We also recommended that bedding rock be placed for the riprap and that the bedding rock should consist of 6 -inch -mines quarry spalls. The general configuration of the slope stabilization recommended is shown on the attached figure. The complete report can be obtained from Mr. Glenn McKinney of Boeing at M/S 46-87. No significant erosional features were observed along the east bank of the river beneath the bridge. Riprap was generally absent, however, in this area. Therefore, we recommend that this area should be protected by a 2 -foot -thick blanket of riprap consisting of sound, 'durable quarry rock ranging in size from 6 to 24 inches in Least dimension. The average size should be 12 to 24 inches in least dimension_ The riprap blankets should extend from the 100 -year flood level down to ordinary low water level, and should completely cover the bank below the abutment and to 20 feet on either side of the bridge. We understand that the city of Tukwila has confirmed the 100 -year flood level to be at Elevation 8.75 feet MSL for this project. OeoEngineors Filo No. 0548-014801 Sabey Corporation di January 20, 1995 111. Page 6 • We trust that this letter satisfies your current needs. Please call if you have any questions. Yours very truly, GeoEngineers, Inc. RMM:IKr:wd Document ID: 0548014.LET Two copies submitted Attachment Ade*25-- Ro rt M. McIntosh, P.E. Project Engineer Jack K. Tuttle, P.E. Principal G e o E n g i n e e t e Filo No_ 0$48 -014 -Rim 1 1 1 1 I ti rn N 1 110' ELEVATION (FEET) 15 - 10- 5 0- -5- --10 Trail Vegetated Terraces (See Note 1 Coir Geotextile Fabric (See Note 2) 2 -Foot Dian 4 -Inch Layer of 1 1/2 -Inch Minus Gravel Geotextile Filter Fabric Existing Riverbank �o.o.i:p.d. s o - ••'Oopo'- •;• o0I.O 06,0'0'0 Q•Q Qo. ri o •:°.�a' • �Q� ;:6,'p i5: p: p. �, 0�•D 'orp.'o • ° c�°• e o/-� =o j7e a .p;• o• • •��•p _L/:vp�OaOt�.Dap�p�' 0 0i .ob:o p: a- c 6,0 0 • • 0.••U•:•. 4:1'.• ••d'° o o. 'i :O6, •- ,.J 6 -Inch Minus Quarry Spalls (Minim 6 -Inch Thickness Below Armor Rock Livestake Saplings Vegetated Terraces _ 18" DETAIL NO SCALE 2 -Foot Facing Coir Geotextile Fabric (See Note 2) detail) :acing Rock Above E1 = 7.0 Feet (See Detail) '.0 Feet - Upper Limit of Armor Rock 1 3/4 1- to 2 -Foot Diameter Armor Rock Below El = 7.0 Feet 2- to 3 -Foot Diameter Toe Rock -15 -10 0 peter k HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1' = 5' Notes: 1. Vegetated lerraces consist of 15 -inch -thick soil layers with live stake sapling cuttings. Each terrace is faced with 2 -foot diameter facing rock. Overall inclination of the terraces is approximately 2H:1V. 2. Coir Geotextile Fabric below each vegetated terrace layer extending from the riverbank to the front of the lacing rock. Additional Coir Geotextile Fabric behind the facing rock. Geo kip Engineers -10 ELEVATION (FEET) STABILIZATION DETAIL FIGURE REPLY TO ATTENTION OF Regulatory Branch DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY SEATTLE DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS P.O. BOX 3755 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98124-2255 JAN 1 3 1995 GEM eW' Mr. Phil Birk Sabey Corporation 101 Elliott Avenue West, Suite 330 Seattle, Washington 98119 Reference: 94-1-02189 Sabey Corporation Dear Mr. Birk: A Department of the Army permit is not -required for the bridge construction work described in your letter of December 20, 1995. The work will consist of renovating an existing bridge across the Duwamish. River at Seattle, -Washington. ..:The Corps of Engineers does.not have regulatoryaiuthority. over bridges crossing navigable waters. This authority was transferred to the U.S. Coast Guard. We suggest you contact Mr. John Mikesell of the Coast Guard at telephone (206) 553-5864 for regulatory requirements for bridge construction. The Corps does regulate filling activities associated with bridge construction in navigable waters such as the Duwamish River, as well as adjacent wetlands. Activities such as approach g21.11,s and temporary fills for construction access are regulated by the Corps under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Based on our discussion with Mr. Jim Green of this office on December 12, 1995, associated work would consist of tearing up existing asphalt approaches to the bridge and no wetlands would be impacted. If this is the case, a Section 404 permit from the Corps would not be required. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Jim Green, telephone (206) 764-6906. Sincerely, afr, /? t✓ Ann R. Uhrich Chief, Environmental and Processing Section United tates Department of the nterior ;(r FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Ecological Services y_ 3704 Griffin Lane SE, Suite 102C //-11-,-,-2-19 Lc,. -61,11 S''. 2 Olympia, Washington 98501-2192 (206) 753-9440 FAX: (206) 753-9008 January 12, 1995 Phil Birk DAS Construction 1012 Elliott Ave. W Suite 330 Seattle, WA 98119 FWS Reference: 1 -3 -95 -TA -135 Dear Mr. Birk: 2°' el G6'9* This is in response to your letter dated May 11, 1994, and received in this office on December 13. Enclosed is a list of candidate species (Attachment A) that may be present within the area of the proposed South 102nd Street Bridge Renovation on the Duwamish River in King County, Washington. We are providing this information to assist you in determining possible impacts to species of federal concern. Should there be future federal agency involvement with this project (through funding, permitting, licensing, or other authorization), then the involved federal agency will be required to assure that its responsibilities under Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), are met. We are also enclosing an outline of those responsibilities for your information (Attachment B). Candidate species may occur in the vicinity of the project. Should a species become officially listed before completion of your project, and should there be federal involvement with your project at that time, the involved federal agency will be required to reevaluate its responsibilities under the Act. Candidate species are included simply as advance notice to federal agencies of species which may be proposed and listed in the future. However, protection provided to candidate species now may preclude possible listing in the future. • • In addition,please be advised that federal and state regulations may require permits in areas where wetlands are identified. You should contact the Seattle District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for federal permit requirements and the Washington State Department of Ecology for state permit requirements. We appreciate your concern for endangered species. If you have any questions regarding the Act, please contact Jim Michaels or Jodi Bush of this office at the letterhead phone/address. Sincerely, David C. Frederick State Supervisor jb/dm SE/1-3-95-TA-135/King Enclosures c: WDFW, Region 4 WNHP, Olympia 2 ATTACHMENT A LISTED AND PROPOSED THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES AND CANDIDATE SPECIES WHICH MAY OCCUR WITHIN THE VICINITY OF THE PROPOSED SOUTH 102ND STREET BRIDGE RENOVATION PROJECT ON THE DUWAMISH RIVER, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON (T23N R04E SO4) FWS Reference: 1 -3 -95 -TA -135 LISTED None PROPOSED None CANDIDATE The following candidate species may occur in the vicinity of the project: Northwestern pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata marmorata) Northern red -legged frog (Rana aurora aurora) Spotted frog (Rana pretiosa) 3 ATTACHMENT B • • FEDERAL AGENCIES' RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER SECTIONS 7(a) AND 7(C) OF THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF 1973, AS AMENDED SECTION 7(a) - Consultation/Conference Requires: 1. Federal agencies to utilize their authorities to carry out programs to conserve endangered and threatened species; 2. Consultation with FWS when a federal action may affect a listed endangered or threatened species to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by a federal agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. The process is initiated by the federal agency after it has determined if its action may affect (adversely or beneficially) a listed species; and 3. Conference with FWS when a federal action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a proposed species or result in destruction or an adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. SECTION 7(c) - Biological Assessment for Construction Projects * Requires federal agencies or their designees to prepare a Biological Assessment (BA) for construction projects only. The purpose of the BA is to identify any proposed and/or listed species which is/are likely to be affected by a construction project. The process is initiated by a federal agency in requesting a list of proposed and listed threatened and endangered species (list attached). The BA should be completed within 180 days after its initiation (or withinsuch a time period as is mutually agreeable). If the BA is not initiated within 90 days of receipt of the species list, please verify the accuracy of the list with our Service. No irreversible commitment of resources is to be made during the BA process which would result in violation of the requirements under Section 7(a) of the Act. Planning, design, and administrative actions may be taken; however, no construction may begin. To complete the BA, your agency or its designee should: (1) conduct an onsite inspection of the area to be affected by the proposal, which may include a detailed survey of the area to determine if the species is present and whether suitable habitat exists for either expanding the existing population or potential reintroduction of the species; (2) review literature and scientific data to determine species distribution, habitat needs, and other biological requirements; (3) interview experts including those within the FWS, National Marine Fisheries Service, state conservation department, universities, and others who may have data not yet published in scientific literature; (4) review and analyze the effects of the proposal on the species in terms of individuals and populations, including consideration of cumulative effects of the proposal on the species and its habitat; (5) analyze alternative actions that may provide conservation measures; and (6) prepare a report documenting the results, including a discussion of study methods used, any problems encountered, and other relevant information. Upon completion, the report should be forwarded to our Endangered Species Division, 3704 Griffin Lane SE, Suite 102, Olympia, WA 98501- 2192. * "Construction project" means any major federal action which significantly affects the quality of the human environment (requiring an EIS), designed primarily to result in the building or erection of human -made structures such as dams, buildings, roads, pipelines, channels, and the like. This includes federal action such as permits, grants, licenses, or other forms of federal authorization or approval which may result in construction. • ri ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Contr.o. Epic File No. Lrl'5--r0 Fee $ 325 Receipt No. A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Duwamish Bridge Rehabilitation 2. Name of applicant: Sabey Corporation 3. Address and phone .number of applicant and contact person: Phil Birk Sabey Corporaion, 101 Elliott Avenue West, Suite 330, Seattle, WA 98119 4. Date checklist prepared: 1/13/95 5. Agency requesting Checklist: City of Tukwila 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Construction: June 1995 - September 1995 • 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes,. explain. No 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. _ Sabey Corp. letter to Washington State Dept. of Fisheries dated 12/94 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property. covered by your propoal? If yes, explain. No RECEIVED JAN 1 31995 (iOIV1lViu " -2- DEVELOPMENT • • 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal. U.S. Coast Guard Bridge Permit Corps. of Engineers Permit - Nationwide 3 - not required City of Tukwila Public Works Permits City of Tukwila Shoreline Substantial Development Permit 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe_ certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. Section E requires a complete description of the objectives and alternatives of your proposal and should not be summarized here. The scope of work involves lowering the profile and bringing the bridge to current AASHTO HS20-44 standards. The existing bridge deck and horizontal support beams will be removed and, utilizing the existing,piling, a new steeland concrete structure will be provided. See attached plans. There is no filling or dredging required and the rehabilitation work will have no significant impact on the human environment. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If.a. proposal would.occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if. reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required :to duplicate maps or. detailed plans ;submitted with any permit ' appl i ca- tions related to this checklist. South 102nd/South 104th Streets at the Duwamish River. Map included - Exhibit A 13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? Do not know. -3- TO Bi, COMPLETED BY APPLICANO B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth 110 Evaluation for Agency Use Only a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, othe Waterfront flanking Duwamish River b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? 45° c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils; specify them and note any prime farmland. Mixture of sand and clay d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so. describe. Not within 100' of the bridge on either side.of the river bank. The Geotechnical Engineer is recommending . new riprap on tale east bank and adding to existing riprap on,the west bank 20' either side of the bridge structure., This project wig not impact shoreline. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quanti- ties of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Minimal grading to lower and align bridge approaches. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Unlikely g• About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Impervious surfaces unchanged -4- ti 411 Evaluation for h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Install silt fence if required 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Some dust and exhaust during construction only b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. No c.: Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Normal dust control measures during construction 3. Water a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year- round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. Yes.- Duwamish River.- Flows into Puget Sound (Elliott Bay) -5- Agency Use Only • 411, Evaluation for Agency Use Only 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Yes - Bridge restoration over river. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would- be affected. Indicate- the source of fill material. None 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quan- tities, if known. No 5) Does" the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. Yes. See Exhibit B 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No • Evaluation for Agency Use Only b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quan- tities, if known. No 2) Describe waste materials that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sour- ces, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.) Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve.. Does not apply . Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Unchanged. All stormwater from bridge and approaches will be channeled to existing stormwater system. -7- • • Evaluation for Agency Use Only 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. See Response 3.C.1 d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: Does not apply 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other shrubs grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants:. cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation x None b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? None c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None -8- 410 • Evaluation for Agency Use Only d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: None 5. Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: Ducks mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver,. other: None fish: bass, .almon trout, herring, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Applicant has requested this information from Washington State Dept. of Fisheries and Wildlife c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Do not know d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: N/A 6. Energy and Natural Resources 410 Evaluation for Agency Use Only a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solor) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. None b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No c. What kinds .of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: None 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. No 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environ= mental health hazards, if any: None necessary -10- • Evaluation for Agency Use Only b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? None 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short- term or a long-term basis (for example: traf- fic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Normal noise associated with construction - during construction only. Typically 7:00 am to 6:00 pm. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: None 8.- Land and Shoreline Use a. What .is the.current use of the site and adjacent properties? Bridge structure b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No c. Describe any structures on the site. Existing wooden bridge structure on wood pile trestle. Asphalt roadway. -11- • Evaluation for Agency Use Only d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? Yes. Existing bridge deck/roadway. Wood pile trestle shortened (lowere . e. What is the current zoning classification of the Site? M2 - Heavy Industrial f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? M7 - Heavy Tnc1nstrial If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Do not know g• h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Yes. Shoreline i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? None j. Approximately how many people. would the completed project displace?' None k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is com- patible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: Comply with existing land use ordinances. -12- • • Evaluation for Agency Use Only 9. Housing ,a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing? None b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eli- minated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing. None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None 10. Aesthetics a. What . .is the tallest height' of any proposed .structure(s); 7not including antennas; what is the -.principal exterior building material(s) proposed? ± 15' above ordinary high water (approx. 20' lower than existing structure). See Exhibit C b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Views enhanced by reducing mass of existing bridge. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Normal load design practices. -13- • Evaluation for Agency Use•Only 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time ofday would it mainly occur? Bridge to remain lighted at night by light fixtures on standards or mounted to spandrels similar to existing structure. b. Could light or glarefrom the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No. Will improve safety. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal?None d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: None 12. Recreation a. What designed and informal recreational oppor- tunities are in .the immediate vicinity? Fishing, running track b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be_ provided by the project or applicant, if any: N/A -14- • i Evaluation for Agency Use Only 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or pro- posed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. No b. Generally describeany landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None 14. Transportation a.: Identify public streets and highways serving the site;. and describe proposed accss to the existing streetsystem. .Show on site plans, if any. S. 102nd Street - Existing (private). Provides access to East Marginal Way to East and West Marginal Way to West. b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Closest site t 700' at East Marginal Way. c. How many parking spaces would the -completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? None -15-. Evaluation for Agency Use Only d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, -not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). No. Only to bridge roadway. See Exhibit B e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. None g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transpor- tation impacts, if any: None 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. No b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Hone Will improve fire access to Oxbow properties from East Marginal W. -16- • Evaluation for Agency Use Only 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: e ec rici (ffitural g sa j 6t_eb refuse service, elephone) sanitary sewer, septic system, other. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Electricity - Puget Power Natural Gas - Washington Natural Gas Co. Telephone - U.S. West Water - City of Tukwila C. Signature The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decis'.•n. Signature: Date Submitted: Phil R. Birk, Sabey Corporation January 13, 1995 PLEASE CONTINUE TO THE NEXT PAGE. -17- TO'SE COMPLETED BY APPLICAI• • Evaluation for Agency Use Only D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not imple- mented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, ani- mals, fish, or marine life? Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, ani- mals, fish, or marine life are: -18- • • Evaluation for. Agency Use Only 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resourses are: 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, inclduing whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? • Evaluation for Agency Use Only Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts area: How does the proposal conform to the Tukwila Shoreline Master Plan? 6. How would .the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demandis) are: 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. • 0 Evaluation for Agency Use Only 8. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what poli- cies of the Plan? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are: -21- TO. BE COMPLETED BY APPLIC410 -1 E. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR ALL PROJECT AND NON PROJECT PROPOSALS Evaluation for Agency Use Only The objectives and the alternative means of reaching. the objectives for a proposal willbe helpful in reviewing the aforegoing items. of the Environmental Checklist. This information provides a general overall perspective of the proposed action in the context of the environmental infor- mation provided and the submitted plans, documents, suppor- tive information, studies, etc. 1. What are the objective(s) of the proposal? To rehabilitate existing bridge to flatten roadway profile and modernize bridge, and to improve emergency services to Oxbow sites. 2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these objectives? . Total bridge replacement. Which is not desired nor necessary due to the good condition of the piling and would create potential negative impact, on the environment. 3. Please,compare the alternative means and indicate the preferred course of action: Rehabilitating existing bridge greatly reduces environmental impacts. -22- V .0 �. • • •, -h Evaluation for Agency Use Only 4. Doesthe proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what poli- cies of the Plan? None Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are: N/A -23- • A EY CORPORATION December 28, 1994 Commander John Mikesill I I Thirteenth Coast Guard District l i Federal Building I 915 - 2nd Avenue Seattle, WA 98174-1067 —RE: Permit Application for Duwamish Bridge Renovation Dear Sir: Application is hereby made by the Sabey Corporation at 101 Elliott Avenue West, Suite 330, Seattle, WA for approval by the Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, of the location and plans of an existing wood bridge structure to be modified across the Duwamish Waterway in Tukwila, WA, 6.5 miles above the mouth of the waterway. Attached is a vicinity map. Funding and Governing Agencies: Federal funds will not be utilized. Federal agencies which must grant approvals, easements, or other actions for this project include Army Corps of Engineers under their Nationwide 3 Permit. The City of Tukwila is the local governing agency. Owner Authorization: Enclosed is a letter of authorization from the Boeing Company dated December 21, 1994, the owner of the structure. Adjacent Property Owners: The owners of the adjacent property are The Boeing Company and a Desimone Trust. Scope of Work: The scope of work involves lowering the profile and bringing the bridge to current AASHTO HS20-44 standards. The existing bridge deck and horizontal support beams will be removed and, utilizing the existing piling, a new steel and concrete structure will be provided. See attached plans. There is no filling or dredging required and the rehabilitation work will have no significant impact on the human environment.. COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE COMPANY 101 Elliott Avenue W. • Suite 330 • Seattle, WA • 98119 206'281.8700 Fax: 206/282.9951 Telex: 401480 DEC El '94 11:22 ERICKSON & DRRKSHIRE 206 4555076 P.4/4 Seattle, WA e8124-2207 BOE/IVa • December 21, 1994 Sabey Corporation •101 Elliot Avenue W Suite 330 Seattle, Washington 98119 Attention: David Sabey Gentlemen: This will confirm that The Boeing Company has authorized Sabey Corporation to meet with the City of Tukwila, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and any other governmental authorities having jurisdiction, for the purpose of discussing the building permits and other governmental authorizations which may be required in order to renovate the existing Boeing -owned bridge which crosses the Duwamish Waterway at 102d Street South. This letter may be shown to such governments and governmental agencies as you deem appropriate in this connection. By authorizing these discussions, The Boeing Company does not intend to commit itself to any expenditures or liabilities in connection with any proposed renovations of such bridge. Please contact Gerald Bresslour of Boeing's Law Department on 655-2405 if you have any questions regarding this letter. Very truly yours, THE BOEING COMPANY By: A. W. Carter Jr. Vice President Facilities & Continuous Qu = ity Improvement 20135.22s,Oa/122094 RECEIV r) • -JAN 1 3 1995 COM ` pEVELOt'ry+s.... LOW-LEVEL BRIDGE TO DEVELOPMENT CENTER DEVELOPMENT CENTER PARKING 01111111111111% RECEIVE® 2 41995 ®6`4gICO"F:MENT BRIDGE LOCATION PLAN SAIL 1'=200=0' re 50 100 leo 200 290 400 BOEING ACCESS ROAD S®BEY CORPORATION ODOM. ISM WI 13 JANUARY 95 BOE/NG OXBOW/DUWAMISH RIVER OLD BRIDGE RENOVATION 9AA.K IILL 911I15GC LOCATION PLAN ILL CAO\OLe04902Ip0021 f*50• 251021.192IDo0 2914 pm.. it 900 409 R. 805 MAO.m 9AnK MAMA A0.1 EXHIBIT A • NOTE: CROSSHATCHED AREAS INDICATES AREAS OF EXCAVATION. APPROXIMATELY 200 C.Y. OF SOIL (SAND/CLAY) WILL BE REMOVED AND EXPORTED TO AN APPROVED SITE. GENERAL NOTES O RENOVATE EXISTING BRIDGE STRUCTURE TO PROVIDE LOW, FLAT PROFILE. CONSTRUCTION TO BE CONCRETE AND STEEL ON EXISTING PILING. O RE -ALIGN ACCESS LANE TO 5. 702ND. AVE. O RIVER BANK STABILIZATION PER GEOTECH. ENGINEERS RECOMMENDATION. JHIII //. AT FACE OF BRIDGE). • SEE BRIDGE ELEVATION DRAWING A2.0, (TAKEN • NEW BRIDGE STRUCTURE TO REPLACE EXISTING ON EXISTING PILING. EXIST. DEBRIS DEFLECTORS SEW STRUCTURAL ON . ROADWAY Oj4 EXIST. •'LING. z, /, SCHEMATIC BRIDGE PLAN SCALE </ 1"=60'-0" ria 20 40 60 80 100 160' S. BE' OORPORATIoi ta"u1..11 "ac"." xout 18 JANUARY 65 BOE/ASG OXBOW/DUWAMISH RIVER OLD BRIDGE RENOVATION 0A...q MIL BRIDGE no. BRIDGE SECTION 1Y0 CA11021ANFR\e _srcll nmR. ACK11 — 4114 pA.w n: ROB p011110 R RHS A1.0 EXHIBIT B /. too YR.DE5/GN FLOOD EL4J a•/4,000c/a 2. ' MEAN H/GHER H/GH WATER, EL.4. 85' HIGHEST TIDE EL. 9.0': .5' MEAN HIGH WATER EL.4.24' MEAN SEA LEVEL EL. 0.0' MEAN (HALF) TIDE EL. 0.5' . MEAN LOW WATER EL. -3.24' MEAN LOW LOW WATER EL, -6%0' LOWEST T/05 EL. -10.5'3' .5' 01'O11 0016 160 YF, PV,i6til 11.4P N.G. VO. /929 '1"' 14,15' 9b-0 Q II 1, II el,. 1-1:9" __ II_ — ill_ it I �~-- _ — li 1 —GL I'F.15' GL. 16— Tr �� '—' '�—'7= --II �_ _ _ _ -.-__-.1---r-1.-----47--(-:---2-:----1FL Iq.75 1I _1 —il, —II rT=' _i 1 1� 4� /-11 1010" IATUN( IN FOFMA.I ON Pf ivtA is , , ly ��F�f$MM /9n, Aff1W � V( I`WI�D °At YV Pf v -. 1, [L.I'F•89 i EXlybnl& 6fww&E > Tom t6MouhUPP EL 130' I' 0' N Il' -G' 151-0'X 15%01' 15'-0" 1151,01' 15.0 I2,0• © ® IC ® © Q ®® Ib.39 11.60 10.1/2 it.49 14,44 Lb49 Z .34- =011 (eL.11:15) 0 0.0 fNVer pools).- 912"0" oolJ"` 910"0" Irv' 15-0' 15'-0" I9'-0" 15'1" 30"0" ( (Ft/ir; k1I6 YluNlr - ivr. O- Q C /l IL 13 t 21.4b 2-%t» u',15 L449 ZLb3 /9511 , r11"G Cvr FIAT ley LOOKING SOUTH SCHEMATIC BRIDGE ELEVATION SCALE 1"=30'-0" 0 10' 20' 30' 40' 50' B0' SCBE CORPORATIo1 w"b6ltTMfTh yn 17 JANUAR( iS mac BOE/ASG OXBOW/DUWAMISH RIVER OLD BRIDGE RENOVATION 11.11111111111111111 pu.. BILL SCHERATIC BRIDGE ELERATIOn mD NTmlDAYR1WRA MD, • '."4L, "f A114 l * rr, BOB 9400 R. 805 _,_c •W[R A2.0 EXHIBIT C 2.-0e y 24.-0' 12' 5' 51-0' Y5 --/ • PRECAST PRECAST VEHICLE BARRIER.. PEDESTRIAN BARRIER CAST -IN-PLACE PRECAST CURB ELEMENT VEHICLE BARRIER Y/ PRECAST PLANK DECK CAST-IN—PLACE w/ ASPHALT TOPPING SIDEWALK / CURB ELEMENT • \5IM5FACE NEW STEEL COLLARS EXISTING— WOOD PILES EE LONGITUDINAL STEEL BEAMS TRANSVERSE STEEL GIRDERS SCHEMATIC BRIDGE DECK SECTION SCALE 1/4"=1'-0" 0 1 2 5 10 16 SBE cDRPORATIo1 mmorrEmomsca STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS CART NOPCZYNSKI h CO. 155 108TH. AVC. N.C.JIO� BCl1FVUC WA 984004 TEL X455-7144 AX. X455-2091 5U* 13 JANUARY 95 BOE/ArG OXBOW/DUWANISII RIVER OLD BRIDGE RENOVATION SYN. 1111.a SCHCYATIC BRIDGE DECK SECTIO. lU EA0,01eO.•1pRCPOe4Eq PLOT NORCI .IneR 4914 06m 9r. 909 cAralgo Rn RH5 .+.0.m It A3.0 EXHIBIT D