NOTICE OF Date of Decision: 6/21/2018 DECISION · 2018. 6. 22. · This decision will be final on...

C I T Y O F T A C O M APlanning & Development Services Department

747 Market St, Rm 345 | Tacoma, WA 98402

NOTICE OF

DECISION

Date of Decision: 6/21/2018

Last date to request reconsideration: 7/5/2018

Decision Final: 7/6/2018

Decision:

Applicant:

Location:

Application No.:

Proposal:

Reconsideration: Any person having standing may request reconsideration of

the Director's decision, based upon errors of procedure or fact, by submitting a

request in writing to Planning and Development Services at the address

below. Requests must be received by 5:00 p.m. on the noted date.

Appeal to Shoreline Hearings Board: If no reconsideration request is timely

filed, the decision shall become final and shall be transmitted to the Deparment

of Ecology. Upon receipt of the final decision, Ecology shall conduct a 21-day appeal period. The Decision may be appealed by any person aggrieved by the granting, denying or rescinding of a permit on shorelines of the state pursuant to RCW 90.58.140, who may seek review from the shorelines hearings board by filing a petition for review.

Information on filing an appeal of a Shoreline Substancial Development Permit may be

obtained by contacting the State of Washington Environmental and Land Use Hearings

office at www.eho.wa.gov or PO Box 40903 Olympia, WA 98504-0903, 360-664-9160,

[email protected]

Staff Contact: Shirley Schultz, Principal Planner, 747 Market St, Room 345, (253) 591-5121, [email protected]

Environmental Review: Per SEPA, WAC 197-11-340, the Lead Agency has issued an environmental determination for the project. For further information

regarding SEPA, please contact the project applicant.

For further information regarding the proposal, log on to the website at

tacomapermits.org and select "Public Notices". The case file may be viewed in

Planning and Development Services, 747 Market Street, Rm 345.

Approved, subject to conditions

WA Dept of Transportation - Marcus CujioPO Box 47740, Olympia, WA 98504-07440

1901 Puyallup Ave, parcel 4715023600 (referenceonly)Interstate 5 Milepost 134.16 to Milepost 136.61

LU18-0022

Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for the

construction of a new southbound structure over

the Puyallup River and demolition of the existing

5/456E and 5/456W bridges over the Puyallup River.

To request this information in an alternative format, please contact Planning and Development Services by phone at (voice)

253-591-5030. TTY or STS users please dial 711 to connect to Washington Relay Services

City of Tacoma

Planning & Development Services Department

747 Market St. Rm 345

Tacoma, WA 98402

NOTICE OF DECISION

City of Tacoma Planning and Development Services Report And Decision

SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL File No. LU18-0022 DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICANT: Jeff Sawyer

Washington Dept of Transportation 5720 Capitol Blvd SE – PO Box 47440 Olympia, WA 98504-7440

SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is a requesting a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for proposed expansions to Interstate 5 at the crossing of the Puyallup River to accommodate High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes. Proposed is a change in roadway alignment to the southbound lanes of Interstate 5, as well as a precast girder bridge with 2 piers within the City of Tacoma “S-9” Shoreline District – Puyallup River. LOCATION: The project is located on the Puyallup River northwest of the I-5 Puyallup River Bridge. DECISION: The requested permits are Approved subject to conditions. NOTE: Last day to request reconsideration July 5, 2018.

This decision will be final on July 6, 2018 and will be transmitted to the Department of Ecology at that time, provided no requests for reconsideration are timely filed as identified in APPEAL PROCEDURES of this Report and Decision. Upon receipt by Department of Ecology, a 21-day appeal period will begin. For additional information concerning this land use permit please contact:

Shirley Schultz Planning and Development Services

747 Market Street, Room 345, Tacoma, WA 98402 253-591-5121 or [email protected]

SUMMARY OF RECORD The following exhibits and attachments constitute the administrative record:

Attachments

A. Vicinity Maps B. Site Plan and elevations C. Technical Memorandum, Shannon Brenner

Exhibits1:

A. JARPA (February 2, 2011), JARPA Addendum (September 6, 2011) B. JARPA drawings, including wetland delineation C. SEPA Determination of Non-Significance, Adoption of EIS D. Preliminary Section 401 Water Quality Certification, Puyallup Tribe of Indians

FINDINGS Proposal: 1. The applicant is requesting a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit to accommodate

expansions to Interstate 5 at the crossing of the Puyallup River.

2. The proposed project will include the following components:

• Installation of ground improvements on the Puyallup River Levee; • Construction of a temporary work trestle with pilings in the Puyallup River and above the

Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM); • Installation of scour protection on the levee/banks of the river; • Construction of a realigned southbound bridge over the Puyallup River; and • Demolition of the existing bridge.

3. The new bridge will consist of a precast girder bridge with two piers located within City of Tacoma jurisdiction. The piers will be constructed with six shafts, each approximately 12 feet in diameter, for a total in-water footprint of 679 square feet.

4. The scour protection revetment will consist of approximately 8,235 square feet of riprap on the east bank and 10,482 square feet on the west bank to protect the Corps of Engineers levees.

5. Upon completion, the bridge will connect to existing and realigned portions of Interstate 5, and will include additional High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes, as well as an improved road geometry.

Project Site: 6. The site is located along the Puyallup River, in the S-9 Shoreline District – Puyallup River.

The intent of the S-9 District is “to permit recreational development of the riverfront while allowing industrial development of adjacent upland areas, and to encourage continued preservation of Clear Creek, its associated wetlands and related ecosystems.”2

7. Further, the Environmental Designation of the site is “urban conservancy”, the intent of which is “to protect and restore the public benefits and ecological functions of open spaces,

1 All exhibits are contained in File No. LU18-0022. They are referenced and incorporated herein as though fully set forth. 2 See TMC 13.10.9.11

File No. LU18-0022 WSDOT SB Puyallup River Bridge Page 2 of 9

natural areas, restoration sites, and other sensitive lands where they exist within the City, while allowing a variety of compatible uses.”3

8. The Puyallup River, which bisects the project area, is a Shoreline of Statewide Significance and also a Stream of Local Significance (Type S). The project has identified ESA listed species and potential impacts as a result of the work and has undergone review by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service.

9. The area upland of the Mean High Water Line is within the City of Tacoma’s jurisdiction; all the waters of the river and the bedlands below the MHWL is within the jurisdiction of the Puyallup Tribe of Indians. The City of Tacoma has no review authority for work taking place below the MHWL.

10. The property upon which the bridge will be built is the right-of-way of the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT).

11. The property above which the bridge will be built is owned by several parties. The project area includes rights-of-way for WSDOT, City of Tacoma, and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad. The proposed bridge also passes over the Puyallup River Levee.

12. The project site is generally flat to sloping toward the river. It is interrupted by roadway and railway beds, and by the Puyallup River Levee, man-made structures which change the topography.

13. The site consists primarily of road and rail ways, including the existing Interstate 5, Bay Street (State Route 167), the railroad, and the levee road.

14. Vegetation on the site consists of minimal grasses surrounding the roadways. The Puyallup River Levee is regularly maintained (graded and mowed) by the Corps of Engineers.

15. The site also contains critical areas as identified in a 1995 Wetland Delineation for the entire project area, which was subsequently updated and verified between 2006 and 2008. Two wetlands, Wetland “X” and Wetland “Y” are associated with the Puyallup River and within the City’s jurisdiction. Refer to Exhibit B.

Surrounding Area: 16. The site is bounded by the Puyallup River to the northeast and east, Bay Street (southbound

State Route 167) to the south, and by Interstate 5 to the northwest and west.

17. Fife is located to the northeast, across the Puyallup River. Unincorporated Pierce County is located approximately a 1/3 of a mile to the southeast.

18. Formal pedestrian access to and along the site does not exist due to the limited-access nature of the roadways and the intervening railway. Access to and along the Puyallup River Levee is restricted.

19. There are no residential uses in the area, nor are there any significant views in the vicinity.

Notification and Comments: 20. Public notice was mailed to neighboring property owners and interested parties on March 1,

2018, allowing thirty days of public comment regarding the proposal. Staff responded to clarification questions but no public comments were received.

21. The application was routed to City staff and other interested agencies; no comments were received in response.

3 See TMC 13.10.5.5.4


Additional Information 22. In accordance with WAC 197-11-610, the Washington State Department of Transportation,

acting as lead agency for the environmental review, adopted their NEPA review to satisfy SEPA requirements. WSDOT conducted an Environmental Assessment (EA) and issued a Finding of No Significant Impact in 1999, and subsequently conducted a supplemental EA in 2009. Again, a FONSI was issued.

23. As part of the entire project planning and construction, the applicant has created an off-site advance mitigation area, approximately 0.9 miles to the southeast of the proposed bridge location at the Clear Creek-Riverside site.

24. The Tacoma Shoreline Master Program (TSMP) provides the following policy guidance regarding road and railroad construction:

a. Proposed transportation facilities are required to be planned, located, and designed in such a manner that routes will have the least possible adverse effect on unique or fragile shoreline features and will not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions or adversely impact existing or planned water-dependent uses and public access.

b. Transportation system plans shall include pedestrian, bicycle, and public transportation facilities and be consistent with the Complete Streets Design Guidelines and the Non-Motorized Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan where applicable.

c. Where proposed transportation facilities will cut off access to the shoreline, pedestrian overpasses shall be built to provide access.

d. Vehicle and pedestrian circulation systems shall be designed to minimize clearing, grading and alteration of topography and natural features. Roadway and driveway alignment shall follow the natural contours of the site and minimize width to the maximum extent feasible. Elevated walkways should be utilized to cross wetlands.

e. …. f. When it is required for new roadways including arterials to be within shoreline

jurisdiction, the absolute minimum necessary amount of improved right-of-way shall be developed for vehicular modes of travel.

g. When they are necessary, crossings shall co-locate using existing crossings where feasible. New crossings shall be by the most direct route possible.

h. … i. Roads and railroads along public shoreline areas shall provide for safe pedestrian and

bicycle circulation through the shoreline area. Pedestrian circulation shall be provided to the shoreline unless the access meets the criteria in TSMP 6.5.2(C)(6).

25. In addition, specific regulations for all shoreline development are set forth in TMC13.10.6, related to the following:

• Setbacks • Signage • Parking • Archaeological and Cultural Preservation • Public access • Critical area and vegetation preservation • Views and Aesthetics • Water quality

26. In regards to the road and transportation policies of the TSMP, the project will comply with applicable development standards found in TMC 13.10.175.B.18 – Road and Railroad Construction and TMC 13.10.175.B.19 – Shoreline Stabilization:


• Materials to be used for scour protection are appropriate; • Where possible, the site will be revegetated. Planting opportunities are limited because

plantings on the levee are restricted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; • The work will meet all Washington State and Puyallup Tribe standards for water quality

under WSDOT’s NPDES permit.

27. Further, the Director finds:

• This is an existing freeway alignment; no new major highway is being proposed at the site, and there is no alternative to crossing the river.

• The roadway will be designed to meet all stormwater quantity and quality requirements to prevent erosion. The scour protection measures will help protect the banks of the Puyallup River.

• Construction debris will not enter the river. • The goal of the improvements (increasing the HOV lanes) is to reduce pollution by

providing more efficient travel. • In addition, the presence of the HOV lanes should encourage multiple-occupant

vehicles, thus overall reducing pollution and fuel consumption.

28. In regards to the regulations applicable to all development within the shoreline:

• Setbacks, Signage, and Parking are not applicable to this project; • Archaeological and Cultural Preservation have been addressed through the EIS process

and formal consultation; • Public access is not proposed because the existing transportation infrastructure, over

which the new bridge will be constructed, is not conducive to open public access due to rail traffic and lack of safety measures on the levee;

• Views and aesthetics will not be affected by the project, which is largely the same as the existing infrastructure. The height of the bridge is approximately 53 feet above the river; TMC 13.10.9, Table 2 states that “District specific height limitations shall not apply to bridges in the shoreline. Bridges should be kept to the minimum height necessary and shall provide a view study to determine whether the structure will cause any significant impacts to public views of the shoreline.”

29. The project will comply with applicable standards for environmental protection set forth in TMC 13.10.175.A.2. The applicant’s code analysis is included in the JARPA (Exhibit A).

• Best Management Practices will be followed to minimize erosion; • The project will meet all water quality standards and requirements of the applicant’s

NPDES, as well as Puyallup Tribe permitting for water quality. (See Exhibit D)

30. With regards to critical areas, vegetation, and water quality, the plans and project proposal were reviewed by Shannon Brenner, Environmental Specialist and subject matter expert for the Planning and Development Services Department. The Director would note that substantial weight is given to Ms. Brenner’s review of the proposal for potential effects on critical areas; her comments are included in Attachment C.

31. Based upon Ms. Brenner’s review, the Director finds that, if constructed per the provided plans and with the proposed best management practices, the proposal requires no further review or mitigation under TMC 13.10.

32. As a recipient of federal funding, the applicant has undergone formal consultation with National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding both the Endangered Species Act and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act – Essential Fish Habitat.


33. Any conclusion hereinafter stated which may be deemed a finding herein is hereby adopted as such.

CONCLUSIONS Jurisdiction

1. The Director of Planning and Development Services has jurisdiction in this matter. See TMC 13.05.030.

Burden of Proof 2. The applicant bears the burden of proof to demonstrate the proposal’s consistency with: the

policies of the TSMP, including its implementing regulations set forth in TMC Chapter 13.10; the policies of the Shoreline Management Act (SMA); the criteria set forth in the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) for the approval of Shoreline Substantial Development and Variance Permits; the policies of the Comprehensive Plan – Environmental Policy Element; and other applicable ordinances of the City.

Applicable Regulations 3. WAC 173-27-150 allows that:

(1) A substantial development permit shall be granted only when the development proposed is consistent with: (a) The policies and procedures of the act; (b) The provisions of this regulation; and (c) The applicable master program adopted or approved for the area. Provided, that

where no master program has been approved for an area, the development shall be reviewed for consistency with the provisions of chapter 173-26 WAC, and to the extent feasible, any draft or approved master program which can be reasonably ascertained as representing the policy of the local government.

(2) Local government may attach conditions to the approval of permits as necessary to assure consistency of the project with the act and the local master program.

4. Road, railroad, and bridge construction is a permitted use within the S-9 Shoreline District – Puyallup River, subject to the applicable development standards. Shoreline/bank stabilization is also a permitted activity within the S-9 Shoreline District. See TMC 13.10.9, Table 2.

Findings Adopted as Conclusions

5. Any finding hereinafter stated which may be deemed a conclusion is hereby adopted as such.

Shoreline Substantial Development Permit 6. Provided it is conditioned appropriately, the construction of a new freeway bridge and

associated improvements will be generally consistent with the stated intent of the S-9 Shoreline District – Puyallup River. The proposal complies with applicable development standards. The project is generally consistent with the objective of the urban environment in which the project is located.

7. The requests are also consistent with the policies of the SMA and with the applicable provisions of the City’s Comprehensive Plan.

8. There is currently no formal public access provided at the site, and none is proposed. The


site is developed with transportation infrastructure not conducive to open public access due to vehicle traffic, rail traffic, and the lack of safety measures on the levee.

9. TMC 13.10.175.A.2 sets forth the requirements for environmental protection. Impacts to the shoreline will be minimized by project design, and temporary and permanent impacts will be mitigated at a restoration site further upriver.

10. TMC 13.10.7.10 sets forth the requirements for parking in the S-9 District. The proposal creates no need for parking other than intermittent parking for inspection. Therefore no parking is provided.

11. Since signs are not proposed, the sign standards for developments within the City’s shoreline do not apply to this project.

DECISION Based upon the above findings and conclusions, the applicant’s request for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit is Approved, subject to the following conditions:

Conditions: 1. The authorization(s) granted herein is/are subject to all applicable federal, state and local

laws, regulations, and ordinances. Compliance with such laws, regulations, and ordinances are conditions precedent to the approvals granted and are continuing requirements of such approvals. By accepting this/these approvals, the applicant represents that the developments and activities allowed will comply with such laws, regulations, and ordinances. If, during the term of the approvals granted, the developments and activities permitted do not comply with such laws, regulations, or ordinances, the applicant agrees to promptly bring such developments or activities into compliance.

2. BMPs and TESC measures outlined in the submittal must be used to prevent deleterious material and debris from entering waters of the state.

3. A copy of the approved Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and United States Army Corp. of Engineers approval must be provided to the City of Tacoma prior to issuance of building or clearing/grading permits and/or prior to the start of work.

4. WSDOT must submit yearly mitigation monitoring reports to the City of Tacoma Planning and Development Services Department for a minimum of 5 years demonstrating that the mitigation at Clear Creek-Riverside is meeting performance standards.

Advisory Notes: 1. The decision set forth herein is based upon representations made and information

submitted, including development plans and proposals, submitted to the Land Use Administrator. Any substantial change(s) or deviation(s) in such development plans, proposals, or conditions of approval imposed shall be subject to the approval of Director of Planning and Development Services, and may require additional permitting and public notification and comment.

2. This permit may be rescinded pursuant to RCW 90.58.140(8) of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 and Section 13.10.330 of the Tacoma Municipal Code in the event the permittee fails to comply with any condition thereof.

3. Construction shall be commenced within two (2) years after the effective date of the permit. Local government may, however, authorize a single extension for a period not to exceed


mailto:[email protected]

SUMMARY OF DECISION TRANSMITTED this 21st day of June, 2018 via first class or electronic mail to the following: All property owners within 400 feet of the subject site New Tacoma Neighborhood Council Eastside Neighborhood Council Neighborhood Planning Team Members: Ian Munce and Carol Wolfe NOTE: Pursuant to RCW 36.70B.130, you are hereby notified that affected property owner(s) receiving this notice of decision may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes consistent with Pierce County’s procedure for administrative appeal. To request a change in value for property tax purposes you must file with the Pierce County Board of Equalization on or before July 1st of the assessment year or within 30 days of the date of notice of value from the Assessor-Treasurer’s Office. To contact the board, you may call 253-798-7415 or by e-mail at www.co.pierce.wa.us/boe.

APPEAL PROCEDURES RECONSIDERATION: Any person having standing under the ordinance governing this application and feeling that the decision of the Director is based on errors of procedure or fact may make a written request for review by the Director within fourteen (14) days of the issuance of the written order. This request shall set forth the alleged errors, and the Director may, after further review, take such further actions as deemed proper, and may render a revised decision. A request for RECONSIDERATION of the Director’s decision in this matter must be filed in writing with Planning and Development Services, Room 345, Third Floor, Tacoma Municipal Building, 747 Market Street, Tacoma, WA 98402, on or before July 5, 2018. Should no reconsideration be requested, this Decision will be considered final and will be mailed via certified mail to the Department of Ecology on July 6, 2018. APPEAL TO SHORELINE HEARINGS BOARD: The decision of the Director of Planning and Development Services may be appealed by any person aggrieved by the granting, denying, or rescinding of a permit on shorelines of the state pursuant to RCW 90.58.140, who may seek review from the shorelines hearings board by filing a petition for review within twenty-one (21) days of the date of filing of the decision as defined in RCW 90.58.140(6), which states that the “date of filing” is “the date of actual receipt by the department of the local government's decision”. Information on filing an appeal of a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit may be obtained by contacting the State of Washington’s Environmental and Land Use Hearings Office at www.eho.wa.gov, or PO Box 40903, Olympia WA 98504-0903, 360-664-9160, email: [email protected]


'" ·-... _\., ..

f I

----- - - --' ' DA TUM ' ' - - -

198'-3"

[

OLD NB BRIDGE NO. 5/456E (TO BE REMOVED)

- -- --

' "' "- , ' ' ' '

/ : 00 YR. MRI ELEV. 20.5'

-- - - - - ---- - - - -- - -

~

-- -

I

I

I

I

I -

I

IE

SEC.10 & 11 T. 20 N., R. 3 E., W.M. CITY OF TACOMA/CITY OF FIFE

1588'-3" BK. OF

167'-6"

PROPOSED SB BRIDGE NO. 5/456W

··-... _____ _

EXISTING NB BRIDGE NO. 5/456E (TO REMAIN)

PLAN - SOUTHBOUND BRIDGE PIERS 4, 5, & 6 BEA~ING = N65°32'37"W

~

"'-~~

,n;!:.,1; "' . ffiNijj

a:~ ct: "' ·en CJ

I

I

I F I

/100 YR.: RI ELEV.18.8'

2 YR. MRI ELEV. 14.2' /~HWM ELEV. 12.6'

'v ~

I ___ /..._~- -- - - - -- -- --- -- - ------ I -- - - - --- - - -- - -

' ' ' '

/ /

/ /

/ -

'

-

' '

< \

\

' '

--

' '

--- -s::..-

' ' ' '

' \

'

"' "'-

\

. co .... Ol Ol .

~ci:>t8 "' . Cl: N ....I UJ UJ -< . a. ,I- a: "' 1cn Cl

I

I

~ I I F I I

I

I

I

I

I -- - ~ - I + I I I I I I I I I NAV D 1988

r '-1--, I

~ - - - -- -- - - - -~-- --- - - - -- -- --~~--,~ . I

v , 1 I PC GIRDER (WF100G) CONT. FOR L.L. LOADING: HL-93 ELEVATION

'- /:, /

SOUTHBOUND BRIDGE NOT TO SCALE

FILE NAME Q:\Seattle\2015\A 15.0089103\CADD\Microstationldgn\P4219_SH_BG_004.dgn

TIME 9:39:42 AM REGION STATE FED.AID PROJ.NO. .I l DA TE 12/22/2017 NO. 'IJ PLOTTED BY huy.le 10 WAS '-6" DESIGNED BY s. BENNION JOB NUMBER B AB' A ~ A"

.. E~N~TEn,R~E~D~B~Y-;-~H~·~LE~-=~~~~t-~~~~~~~~~~~~~---Jf-~~+---+~4~2~1~9~+-~~~~~~---1 erger !l'llVl CHECKED BY J. JIMENEZ PROJ. ENGR. B. CLARKE

REGIONAL ADM. J. WYNANDS REVISION DATE

CONTRACT NO.

BY

LOCATION NO, 1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1200 Seattle, WA 98101 (206) 357-5600 FAX: (206) 357-5601

P.E. STAMP BOX

~ • Washington State Department of Transportation

\ \

\ \ \ \ \ \

\ 1 I

' \

'

\ \

'

'

\ \ -1----

\

" ' \

' ' ' '

' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

' - -~z ~ ...I

0 20 40

-

SCALE IN FEET

---- - - --- --- ---GROUN~ - L~::7 - -

-----

EXISTING AT RIGHT CURB LINE

1-5: PORTLAND AVENUE TO PORT OF TACOMA ROAD - SOUTHBOUND HOV

MILE POST 132.88 TO 138.82

CONCEPTUAL BRIDGE PLAN - SB HOV

<

----

Pl.AN REF NO

BG4

SHEET

149 OF

154 SHEETS

The elevation at the top of the bridge here is 65.98 - 12.6 (OHWM elev) = 53.38 feet.The elevation of the bridge peaks approx. 6 inches higher over the Fife shoreline, but with the ground elevation also being higher, the relative height of the bridge is max over the River @ 53 feet above OHWM.

ZobellT

Highlight

ZobellT

Highlight

;u

"D o

m

m ;u

::c

z

~e m

-I

om

O

· "

;u

C

"D

mr

2! ~

G)

-I

~1::!1~

2 ril

iii m

)>

z

< C

)>

zm

mm

Zm

l>

Z cc eJ

C

r G>

~

C -I

C

>

;:u

tD

tD

tD

tD

-< -<

m

..a.

C

-< -<

~

::r

'-CD

'-::C

"'lc

~ "'0

N

••

.•

.

. ~-

. ~

::;n

-r-m

CD

-<

r-~

m m

;;:; :z

iii

N

••

(D

-.. .,

Z

;p m

Z

;a

z

z ~

'""'a

~ >

..

....

;i::

;;:;

~ ~

J>;,,

: m

-

Zm

N

0 Sl

z U

I I fi I

I I

I I~

~ iii

0 z ~ -I

m - tD

-<

8 :.

~ ~

....,

z ~

_.

e

~ "°

; ~

~

8 g z ~

'Nib'

~

,-,..

,t

~!8

\J

J

t:;: .. i

'D:n

(D

- .,, m

C

)> c "1:

J e z 9

g ;i::

;;·

cl S' ... 0 :, ;;:

lea

:, ~ II: 'tu

G) 'o c:, UI

Q.

lea

:,

i~se

~

g;u,

~®

o~~

('[)

~gi ~

H \

J(-

~

ro

.;::

::::

~

~

,,..,..

~ 8 ~

w ~ § n 0 z n m ~

C >

r- CICI

::!!

C

C,

m .,, >

z V,

CICI

:::c ~

i "2 ;::i.

:e 3

Ill

CD

(I) ~!~-1-~ ... 0 Il

l:::

,

i en

"C

l S'

o

_

6r CD

C!

: 0 :::

,

~T

n

u,

o··

s: ~ .,

, -

0 r-

,a

m

-I

.,,

,a >

~g

z -I

C

C

W I

:J>

!'-)

V,

<

oo O

m

oo C

Z

-t

-IC

0

:::C

m

CICI

-I

.... o

o

we

~ z.

,,

00

C

0 ....

, ,a

:::c

-I

oo

<

.,,

au:~u

:= ;;!

...

. 0

!:i

CICI ~

C, ~

u, ~ !

U)

00

00 s: m

r m

~ -I - 0 z I

z u,

S

o

-i

C

0 -I

en

:::C

~

OJ

J;; 0 C

z C

OJ

::!!

C

C') m

.,,1.,,

00

:::a

. C')

r

. :::a

re

,m

0

:::a

)>

2:E

z.

,,

C')

~

.. 0

0 :::c

C')

r u,10

WQ

z -I

.

----

-~I

D~·

-·-·

-·-~

(

" \.

__

__

__

_

~ ~~

::oz

GiG>

:C

G)

-1:;

o ()

0

cc

::oz

coo

,...,...

zz

mm

\

m

t~~=~~

=~~·~·-

·-·-·-·-

·j·-·-·

I .,,

I I I I I

\ \ -t

\

)>

\ ~8

I I I

I

\ _

;:

\_2

I I I I

<N

m

"'

::o··

:-1°'1

()

;:

,...-

?J;z

-r----

\ I

C

t--~

I C

I

-0

I ::0

I

a I I I II

I

D~.~-~

~:~·-·-

·-·-·-·-

·f ,,-·-

1 f

-I

\. _

__

_ _

N

0 ~

0 ::0

I m

( )

I I I I I I I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ I \

<-I>

m

~

~~

();:

,..

.-?J

;z

r,------

~\

v_

·-·-

·-·~

·-

r '----

\ 0 I

~ I

iii

I -t

z G>

::0 ~ z z G> ~ ,... ,...

itP

IER

7

ST

A

24

0+

53

.13

G

R E

L 6

6.47

'

itP

IER

8

::OC

/l om

)>

m

0(/

)

i::c

-<Hl

G>

-t

mco

o

z

;:~

m

.,,

-to

~:

:o

ST

A

24

1+

97

.05

G

R.

EL

66.

34'

;:: ::0

m

~ Cll

::0

0 .,, m

z ()

m

£P

IER

9

ST

A

24

3+

70

.05

G

R E

L 6

5.4

5'

£P

IER

1

0

"tl"

tl

mm

::u ::u

en

.....

00

•

IJJ

.!Dm

Q

O)>

::u

o,z

)>

C)

C')

:,i;

II

oz

"Tl C

J\

U1 0

"tlW

)>

~

<w

.....

. -I

:

en:E

m

)>

-I

IJJ

m

)>

::u z C

) II z 0\

0\ 0 w ~

w

O? :E

ST

A

24

5+

33.1

3

GR

EL

63

.89

'

.,, r )>

z u,

0 C

-I

:::c

OJ

0 C z C

OJ

/•

,,,_.

\ \

\ A

,'l)

,...,-.:o

" ...

y

..... ~··(;>

·····

..... u· .

/ ......

i 5

....... /· ...

....

fflc'Ji

/

. m

r;: .. /

~-,J..

',.. :--I

r ..

.. /<> :r

:~

<:·~}i~

'' -';

.·

". ,'

11

;11

1 :

//

/ /

;,•/

/ /

'/ ,

/ /

, /

/ ,

/ /

/ /

/ /

/ /

/

/ / /

/

, , /

//

/

';1

ii

/ /,

//,

/ ,

/ ,

/ '

, /

/ /

/ /

/ /

/

-0

Q,

'<~

m

::

00

:-

l"T

1

MA

TCH

LI

NE

15

58

240+

31

SE

E .

SH

EE

T B

G4

zm

ox

~~

(J ~z

g;

G>

-Z

-t

Cll

• 0

.·

::o~.

-· .·~

g .~

m

.. ·3

ui

(/) m

,....

z .·

m.·

.·1::

; .(

/

I I (

u,·

o

,,

--·-. ...:..

-I I

"i:

12'

10'

LN.

SH

.

/ /

/ ,

/ , /

/, /

/ , /

/ , /

/ , /

/, /

/, /

/

.·2-

b /

,~/

//

<:)

~

/,

/ /

Ul"

"C

/ /

~O

/

I I

I /

u,C

/l I

I I

/ /

~g

j /

I I

I I

/ ,

I I

I I

/ C/

l ,

/ )

I

~ I

:,

{//

////

'/,

221

W'

/ /

0 .-

/ /

A

G)

,J

/ ~

/ r;;;

,v m

' •

/ /

/ /

/ /

/~,l>f

// //

) //

/~/

"V/

/ /

/ /

/ /

,Co

/ /

/ /

I I// 1

, /

/ /

/ /

/ /

/ /

/ /

/ // /

,'1

,/ //

/ //

/ // /

//

, //

/ / ~

/ / // /

, //

/ /

/ / /

/ ,'1

/ / /

/ /

1,

11

// // /

~ ff'

;///

/ /

/ /

/ /

/

// //

, ///#

/ // /

'1,r;;;,

/ /

/ /

/ /

/ ,

/ /// //// ,

'/ /

p L

I/

, /

/ , ....

/ /

/ _,

/ /

/ •I

\,)

/ /

,,.11,,

,~ //

/ .--

, /

,-.,J

/

. /

/ /

/

/,

,·

1'

-\

/ .. ,

..

I ,>,

. .,,~

,1

-?i;

. ~

'/

/ ~ /

,/;

/ ·>

v .:;;,,;

, //

.,,y

/ /."

C

Y

.-/

m

R-· .

i ;;

,;

'

z ~-:."

' o

/,

a .~

-g.~

'I

.,, '

m

"·

·'5

'I

' ~

·O

'I

-o,

/ .·

Y

I l>

' /,

/ /

.~~

, <

/

:·~

,~

•

-t

/ ,,_

~

' (/

)

,,

-.J,'

~

,}'

~ -ti

. /

, I

-t

/

'/

,0

,, ,, , C

ll ;;

,; ,f

0

,f/

,.,,t"'

'~'

,f <

/

/,'

-t

/

/ ("

/ /

//

(/)

/ /

/ m

/

1..17

/ /~/

; /

/t'

//

/ ,'

/ /

/ ,

,I

/ /

, I

/ /1

/

// //

/ i,

/ //

/

/ /

//

/ J

/ /

f /

,~

/

/ ,

/ /

, //

/

, /

/ ,

/ /

/ ,

/ ,

/ /

/ /

'

C/)

m

0 ..a

. 0

..a.

=i -

I -<

. N

oo

"1

1 ;z

"11

:::ti

-·

"11

w

mm

:e is:

/ ,'

/

, /

, /

, , , , ,

/ /

/ //

#

/I ,

-;-:;:

h,

~

/ / /

Ni!

::!!c

·1t it)

t'·.....

/ •

••

',y_,,,

••

//

C')

. <./,:

/ _:(

~ m

,• /

/ . I/

I,

, .·

,/

. /'

.. ·· /

/

/

/ /

/ /

/

/ /

, /

, / ,

//,, /

.

/ /

(S'

/,' /

,

,

/ /

/ ,

/ /

, /

/ /

, /

, /

, /

/

, I

I :1:

:, I

I i{i

i' :, :ii

"-I

;;

,,.-

-""'

,1

I ,J;

/, /

/ /,

/ //

,/

""' /

/, /

" ;;

, /'

/ '

I ,!

I

1//

,/

//.

// ,

/ /

// ,

/

, /

//

//

/ /

/ /

, /

/ //

/ ,

//

, /

// ,'

/ , /

/

, /

, /

/ ,

/ , /

/

, /

, /

/ ,

/ ~,

/ /

·l:l>' /

/

/ }

/ /

/ /

)"

/

I/'

<,:

,///

, /

, ,gJ

Q /

/,

/ /

-1Z

r /

/ /

,-t

/,

/ //

Po·,

' ,

, /

/::O

"TI,

/

' / /

/ . ;:

// li~

~l _

__ _;~

~++-

----

--f-f

f--r-:--r

t~~

/

/ /

.-/

· I

I /,//

,~

'r

I '

1 I/

/ /

, /

:

,,,

/ // 'f ]1:'<

/ /;,:

/ /

. /

,/r

/,

/ I

BA

CK

O

F P

AV

T

SE

AT

A

BU

T }o

/;/ /;

, ./

/ /~······

··········

ST

A

245+

41.4

6 /

/ ,

/ Ii

G

R E

L 6

3.7

9'

. / j

co

C/l-

OC

ll m

l> l>

l>

<()

-t

~;,

; V

, 0

I C

l

(/)

0 >

r m

N

c:,

z .,, m

m ...

... c:,

Ji

22

I!

0

... .J...

J ~

I )>

) ::g

I I I I

::0 ~ (

) ::c

mo

Z"T

1 -t

I I I I I I I I I \

\~\

I I

I I

I I

I ' '

I

City of Tacoma Planning and Development Services Department

Technical Memorandum

TO: LU18-0022 FROM:

Shannon Brenner, Environmental Specialist

SUBJECT

WSDOT I-5/ Portland Avenue to Port of Tacoma Road Shoreline Development Permit

DATE June 14, 2018

Findings 1. I have reviewed the supporting documents and information in file LU18-0022. Washington

State Department of Transportation is asking for a Shoreline Substantial Development permit to southbound HOV project. The project will replace the southbound Puyallup River Bridge with a new bridge on a different alignment. The old bridge will be demolished.

2. This review is limited to impacts to wetlands and the Puyallup River stream buffer located landward of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) as the bed and banks below OHWM of the Puyallup River are owned by the Puyallup Tribe of Indians.

3. The Puyallup River is a Type “S” water with salmonids. The project has identified ESA listed species and potential impacts as a result of the work and has undergone review by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service.

4. Two wetlands, Wetland X and Y, located within the City of Tacoma will be impacted. Wetland X and Y are small linear riverine wetlands located along the bench of the levee for the Puyallup River. This portion of the Puyallup River is confined and separated from its floodplain by the levee reducing off-channel and side-channel habitat. The lower mainstem channel is used primarily as a migration corridor. The maintenance of the levee and limitations on vegetation by the USACE has severely impacted the riparian vegetation reducing organic input and prey organisms. The USACE vegetation guidelines only allow for grasses to grow on the levee.

5. The wetlands are rated as Category III wetlands under the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington and provide low to moderate levels of nutrient and toxic removal, flood flow alteration, erosion control and shoreline stabilization, production and export of organic matter, and general fish habitat.

6. Wetland X will have approximately 011 acres of temporary impacts. Temporary impacts are from a temporary work trestle during construction and demolition of existing bridges. Wetland Y will have approximately 0.02 acres of permanent and 0.12 acres of temporary impacts. Indirect impacts from the project have been included as permanent direct impacts.

7. Permanent impacts to the river buffer within the city of Tacoma are approximately 0.29 acres. Temporary stream buffer impacts will occur with removal of the old bridge.

8. Impacts from shading are not expected to change. The existing wetlands and buffer vegetation have established and persisted with the existing bridge and the new bride will be approximately the same height.

9. The impacts to the riverine wetlands and stream buffer are to accommodate a bridge for I-5

LU18-0022 WSDOT I-5/Portland Avenue to Port of Tacoma Road Page 2 of 3

which due to location of the Puyallup River and alignment of I-5 cannot be avoided with an alternative route.

10. Avoidance and minimization measures that were incorporated include TESC techniques to minimize sediment input, drainage design to avoid wetlands, and media filter drains, and fish protection. The project as a whole avoids impacts to 87 percent of the total wetland acreage delineated within the project area. Unavoidable impacts will occur to approximately 13 percent of the total wetland acreage. Because the project will be replacing a bridge that must be located within the general alignment of I-5, impacts cannot be entirely avoided.

11. The condition of the area and management of the levee within the WSDOT right-of-way corridor along the Puyallup River does not provide a suitable area for mitigation of the riverine wetland impacts. When on-site mitigation is not available, off-site mitigation is allowed under TMC 13.10. WSDOT conducted an extensive screening process to locate potential off-site mitigation sites. The screening criteria focused on location within the same basin as the impacts, potential to replace lost function and values, habitat connectivity, and reliable hydrology. Many sites identified within the City limits of Tacoma were not a suitable size or did not have adequate sources of water for riverine wetland creation. The Clear Creek-Riverside (CCR) site was finally chosen. This site is currently flooded by Clear Creek which contains sensitive Puget Sound Chinook salmon as well as other fish species. Clear Creek drains to Swan Creek which discharges to the Puyallup River via a tide gate. The CCR mitigation site, while not located along the main stem of the Puyallup River, is located in the historical floodplain of the Puyallup River and will provide off-channel habitat.

12. Impacts will be mitigated by re-establishing Category II riverine wetlands and restoring disturbed riparian uplands at CCR. The mitigation will occur in advance of impacts. The riverine wetlands will have on average a high potential to provide hydrology functions, and a moderate potential for water quality and habitat functions. Re-established wetlands will be mitigated at a ratio of 2:1 meeting the required mitigation ratios in TMC 13.10.6.4.5.

13. Temporary river buffer impact areas will be restored. Permanent river buffer impacts from the new bridge structure will be mitigated at CCR and off-set by removal of the existing bridge and restoration of the area with native grasses. The stream buffer mitigation meets the requirements of TMC 13.10.6.4.6. In most situations it is not appropriate to mitigate buffer impacts off –site as the purpose of the buffer is to support the critical area it surrounds and mitigating buffer impacts off-site does not protect the critical area it is meant to support. However, while the riverine wetlands and riparian stream buffers are valuable and much needed habitat along the mainstem of the Puyallup River, the condition of the wetlands and buffer at the project location it is limited due to their location along a levee and USACE limitations on vegetation and structure. The purpose of the levee is to contain the river which disrupts the hydrology of the river and alters the geomorphic structure and plant composition that would naturally occur. The continued management of the levee does not provide a suitable area for re-creating riverine wetlands and riparian habitat.

14. The project has addressed mitigation sequencing as required under TMC 13.10.6.4.2.C. All impacts cannot be avoided for the replacement of the bridge. While on-site mitigation is preferred, the applicant has demonstrated why that is not feasible and has detailed the screening process for choosing the location and mitigation as required under TMC 13.10.6.4.2.C. Impacts will be mitigated at an off-site location that will likely provide greater critical area functions and the mitigation has been completed prior to disturbance.

15. The wetland mitigation plan provides detailed information and includes performance standards and monitoring per the requirements TMC 13.10.6.4.2.D.

LU18-0022 WSDOT I-5/Portland Avenue to Port of Tacoma Road Page 3 of 3

Recommended Conditions I recommend the project be approved with the following conditions:

1. BMPs and TESC measure outlined in the submittal must be used to prevent deleterious material and debris from entering waters of the state.

2. A copy of the approved Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and United States Army Corp. of Engineers approval must be provided to the City of Tacoma prior to issuance of building or clearing/grading permits.

3. WSDOT must submit yearly mitigation monitoring reports to the City of Tacoma Planning and Development Services Department for a minimum of 5 years demonstrating that the mitigation at CCR is meeting performance standards.

NOTICE OF Date of Decision: 6/21/2018 DECISION · 2018. 6. 22. · This decision will be final on...

Documents

Transcript of NOTICE OF Date of Decision: 6/21/2018 DECISION · 2018. 6. 22. · This decision will be final on...