THE HONORABLE KATHERINE M. STOLZ PIERCE … · 2017-12-18 · FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT I. INTRODUCTION This case concerns the efforts of the Washington ... “Executive Summary,” Point

WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION’S RESPONSE TO CITY OF LAKEWOOD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, MOTION TO DISMISS, AND CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON Transportation & Public Construction Division

7141 Cleanwater Drive SW PO BOX 40113

Olympia, WA 98504-0113 (360) 753-6126 Facsimile: (360) 586-6847

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

THE HONORABLE KATHERINE M. STOLZ

STATE OF WASHINGTON PIERCE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

CITY OF LAKEWOOD, Petitioner, vs. STATE OF WASHINGTON, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Respondent.

NO. 13-2-07626-3 WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION’S RESPONSE TO CITY OF LAKEWOOD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, MOTION TO DISMISS, AND CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

I. INTRODUCTION

This case concerns the efforts of the Washington State Department of Transportation

(WSDOT) to improve Amtrak service by re-routing a portion of the Amtrak Cascades and

Amtrak Coast Starlight routes from their current route along Puget Sound to a route that more

closely parallels Interstate 5 (I-5). The City of Lakewood (Lakewood) has brought the present

litigation in opposition to the Point Defiance Bypass Project (Project), and has moved the

Court for an order of summary judgment that enjoins WSDOT from proceeding with the

Project based on Lakewood’s claim that WSDOT failed to comply with the State

E-FILEDIN COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE

PIERCE COUNTY, WASHINGTON

February 07 2014 2:21 PM

KEVIN STOCKCOUNTY CLERK

NO: 13-2-07626-3





1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and the Growth Management Act (GMA). For the reasons

provided below, WSDOT asks the Court to deny Lakewood’s motion.

WSDOT also moves the Court for orders of dismissal on Lakewood’s GMA,

declaratory judgment, and writ of review claims, and an order of summary judgment on

Lakewood’s SEPA claim. WSDOT asks the Court to dismiss Lakewood’s petition for a writ of

review and complaint for a declaratory judgment, pursuant to Civil Rule 12(b)(1), on the basis

that neither of these remedies is available to Lakewood because Lakewood’s claims are

reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act. WSDOT asks the Court to dismiss

Lakewood’s claims under the GMA, pursuant to Civil Rule 12(b)(1), because Lakewood has

failed to exhaust its administrative remedies and thus the Court lacks the statutory authority to

hear Lakewood’s GMA claims. Further, WSDOT moves the court for an order of summary

judgment in WSDOT’s favor on Lakewood’s SEPA claims, pursuant to Civil Rule 56(b), on

the basis that WSDOT’s decision to issue a Determination of Nonsignificance pursuant to

SEPA was not clearly erroneous because the administrative record supports the determination

that there are no significant adverse impacts associated with the Point Defiance Bypass Project.

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS A. Summary of the Point Defiance Bypass Project

WSDOT is implementing a program of infrastructure improvement projects along the

Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor, also known as the Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor

Improvement Program. “Executive Summary,” Point Defiance Bypass Project Environmental





1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Assessment (EA), AR 006277 at AR 0062891. The purpose of the Project - one of almost

twenty projects included in the Corridor Improvement Program - is to provide more frequent

and reliable high-speed intercity passenger rail service along the Pacific Northwest Rail

Corridor between Tacoma and Nisqually. Id. The existing alignment around Point Defiance

and along the Puget Sound shoreline, shared by freight and passenger rail traffic, is near

capacity and is therefore unable to accommodate additional high-speed intercity passenger rail

service without substantial improvements. Id.

The Project, also referred to as the Build Alternative, would provide for the rerouting of

Amtrak trains from the current route that runs along the southern Puget Sound shoreline to an

existing rail corridor that runs generally along the west side of I-5 between Tacoma and

Nisqually. EA at AR 006297. The majority of the Point Defiance Bypass route is in or

adjacent to the incorporated cities of Tacoma, Lakewood, and DuPont. Id. The track along the

Point Defiance Bypass route is owned primarily by Sound Transit and Tacoma Rail, with

Burlington Northern Santa Fe owning the southernmost mile of the route. EA at AR 006298.

Currently, an average of two freight trains per day operate on the northernmost portion of the

Point Defiance Bypass route, and as few as two freight trains per week operate on the other

portions of the route. Id. Sound Transit’s Sounder commuter rail service operates eighteen

trains per day between Tacoma and Seattle. Sounder service between Lakewood and Tacoma,

which also utilizes the Point Defiance Bypass route, began in October 2012. Id.

1 References to excerpts from the Administrative Record are identified by the initial AR number of the

document and an abbreviation of the document name, as they appeared in the Administrative Record lodged with this court on October 31, 2013. For example, the title of the document in question is the Point Defiance Bypass Project Environmental Assessment, the first page of the document appears at page 006277 of the Administrative Record, and the cited page of the document appears at page 006289 of the record. The pdf versions of the excerpts filed herewith are text searchable for the convenience of the Court.





1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

The Project consists of four main components: construct 3.5 miles of new track

adjacent to the existing main line; reconstruct and rehabilitate 9.4 miles of the existing main

line; significantly improve five at-grade crossings with wayside horns, gates, improved traffic

signals, sidewalks, median separators, and warning devices; and relocate the Tacoma Amtrak

station to the Tacoma Dome Station at Freighthouse Square. Point Defiance Bypass Project,

Finding of No Significant Impact, (FONSI), AR 007843 at AR 007848.

The wayside horns are a fixed, automated system that would be installed at

intersections to warn people of an approaching train. EA, Appendix F: Traffic and

Transportation Discipline Report, (Traffic DR), AR 006840 at AR 006939. The median

barriers would be installed in the middle of roadways approaching a railroad crossing to

discourage motorists from driving around crossing gates. Id. The sidewalks would comply

with the Americans with Disabilities Act and would include tactile strips to assist the visually-

impaired. Id. The advanced traffic signals, which would include additional vehicle detectors,

would allow synchronized operation of nearby signals to reduce the likelihood of vehicles on

the tracks and to reduce delays following a crossing event. Id. These Project improvements

are in addition to the avoidance and minimization measures WSDOT is obligated to undertake

as part of the environmental commitments in the Finding of No Significant Impact. These

commitments are described in Section II.C of this motion.

Three of the five improved at-grade crossings for the Project are located in Lakewood,

one is on Joint Base Lewis McChord (JBLM), and the fifth is in DuPont. EA at AR 006306.

Both the new track and the reconstructed track would utilize continuously welded rail in order

to reduce noise from passing trains. EA at AR 006304-6306.





1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

The Project would improve intercity rail service by increasing Amtrak Cascades round-

trips from four to six per day, by reducing scheduling conflicts with freight trains, by

decreasing passenger rail trip times, by increasing on-time reliability, and by improving safety

features at crossings. EA at AR 006301. The additional round-trips are necessitated by the

increase in ridership on the Amtrak Cascades route between Eugene, OR and Vancouver, B.C.,

which has gone from fewer than 95,000 passengers per year when service began in 1993 to

more than 750,000 in 2009. Point Defiance Bypass Project Advisory Team Kick Off

Presentation, June 29, 2010, AR 002764 at AR 002767. The Amtrak Coast Starlight service

would also use the Point Defiance Bypass route with one round-trip per day. FONSI at

AR 007849. There would be no change in freight operations as a result of the Project. EA at

AR 006308.

B. Summary of WSDOT’s Environmental Review under the National Environmental Policy Act

The Project is funded primarily by a federal grant administered by the Federal Rail

Administration. As a result, the environmental review process was conducted under the

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42. U.S.C. § 4332 (1970), with the Federal Rail

Administration serving as the NEPA lead agency. Prior to the Federal Rail Administration

grant, the Project had been predominantly state-funded and a different federal agency, the

Federal Highway Administration, had been the lead agency under NEPA. Pursuant to Federal

Highway Administration NEPA regulations, the environmental review process between 2006

and 2009 had been conducted as a Documented Categorical Exclusion under NEPA2.

2 A Documented Categorical Exclusion is used for projects that, based on past experience with similar

projects, do not have significant environmental impacts. 23 C.F.R. § 771.117(a).





1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

When the Federal Rail Administration became the lead agency in 2009, the

environmental review process shifted because the Federal Rail Administration’s regulations do

not provide for the issuance of a Documented Categorical Exclusion. WSDOT and the Federal

Rail Administration first issued a programmatic environmental assessment in September 2009

to analyze the potential impacts of all the projects within the Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor

Improvement Program. EA at AR 006297. Based on that environmental assessment and its

proposed mitigation measures, the Federal Rail Administration issued a Finding of No

Significant Impact for the overall Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor Improvement Program in

2010. Id. Both the Corridor Environmental Assessment and the Finding of No Significant

Impact contemplated subsequent project-level environmental assessments to study in greater

detail the effects of the individual projects. Id.

After the issuance of the Finding of No Significant Impact for the overall Pacific

Northwest Rail Corridor Improvement Program, WSDOT and the Federal Rail Administration

initiated scoping for a NEPA Environmental Assessment process. As Project sponsor and as

the lead agency under SEPA, WSDOT consulted with tribes, local, state, and federal agencies,

and the public to determine the scope of the Environmental Assessment. The Environmental

Assessment ultimately considered three potential alternatives: a Shoreline Alternative, which

would have made improvements to the existing route; the Point Defiance Bypass route; and the

Greenfield Alternative, which consisted of several potential routes, all to the east of the Point

Defiance Bypass route. EA, Appendix A: Alternatives Analysis Discipline Report,

(Alternatives DR), AR 006396 at AR 006405-AR 006409. The Shoreline Alternative and the

Greenfield Alternative were each eliminated from consideration because they were determined





1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

to be impracticable due to technical constraints, high costs, and significant environmental

effects. FONSI at AR 007848. In addition, the Greenfield Alternative would have required

multiple right-of-way acquisitions and residential relocations. Alternatives DR at AR 006406.

As a result, the Environmental Assessment considered only two alternatives: the Build

Alternative, which is the Point Defiance Bypass Project, and the No Build Alternative, which

represents no change from current operations. FONSI at AR 007848.

As part of the Environmental Assessment, WSDOT produced detailed discipline

reports concerning the Project’s impacts on the following areas: air quality; noise and

vibration; transportation; geology and soils; water resource; wetlands; fish, vegetation, and

wildlife; hazardous materials; visual quality; cultural resources; socioeconomics and

environmental justice; land use; public services, utilities, and safety; and energy. These reports

are included as appendices to the Environmental Assessment, EA at AR 006288, and are

included as individual documents in the Administrative Record, beginning at AR 006396.

The Environmental Assessment and supporting discipline reports examined the existing

conditions and then compared those conditions against future conditions with and without the

Project in order to determine whether the Project is likely to cause significant, adverse

environmental impacts. WSDOT used the input from the technical and executive advisory

groups throughout the development of the discipline reports. These discipline reports were

circulated to the members of the technical advisory group for review and comment prior to the

publication of the Environmental Assessment. The following sections of WSDOT’s motion

describe selected discipline reports in greater detail.

//





1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1. Noise Discipline Report To calculate the Project’s impact on noise, WSDOT took noise measurements at

twenty-three sensitive receptors in the Project area, including Mountainview Memorial Park

and Southgate Elementary School. EA at AR 006316. A sensitive receptor is a land use where

noise has the potential to disrupt the activities that take place there, such as a residence, a

school, a church, or a concert hall. EA at AR 006314. WSDOT then modeled the noise levels

that would be generated at these receptors by the construction and operational effects of the

Project. EA at AR 006317.

The Environmental Assessment predicted moderate noise impacts to two of the twenty-

three sensitive receptors, which would be caused by new wayside horns at certain crossings.

Id. But these wayside horns would be quieter than the train-mounted horns currently in use

both on the Amtrak trains and on the freight trains that currently transit the Point Defiance

Bypass route. Id. Noise from wayside horns for Amtrak trains would occur only during

passenger rail operations, which are anticipated to occur in this area between 7:00 a.m. and

10:00 p.m. Id. The Environmental Assessment determined that noise generated by the Project

would not exceed noise impact thresholds set by either the Federal Transit Administration or

the Federal Rail Administration. EA at AR 006320. The Environmental Assessment

concluded that Project operation would not result in significant noise effects on sensitive noise

receptors. Id.

2. Transportation Discipline Report There are a total of 48 intersections along the Point Defiance Bypass route. AR

006257. To calculate the Project’s effect on traffic, WSDOT measured current traffic volumes





1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

at intersections throughout the Project area, and then modeled the traffic volumes at those

intersections in the year 2030 with and without the Project. EA at AR 006320. Intersection

delay is described as a Level of Service. EA at AR 006322. Levels of Service range from A to

F, with A being the least congested and F being the most congested. Id. For the jurisdictions

within the Project area – Tacoma, Lakewood, and DuPont – Levels of Service A through D are

considered acceptable, and Level of Service E or F is considered unacceptable. EA at

AR 006323. Currently all but two intersections in the Project area operate at Level of Service

D or better; two intersections in Lakewood operate at Level of Service F in the afternoon. Id.

Of the 48 intersections, 91.5% (43) will experience no change in traffic Level of

Service during the peak morning hour as a result of the Project, and 87% (41) will experience

no change in traffic Level of Service during the peak afternoon hour as a result of the Project.

AR 006257. Of the remaining five intersections during the morning peak hour, four will

experience an improvement in traffic Level of Service as a result of the Project and only one

will experience a deterioration in traffic Level of Service, by fewer then three seconds per

vehicle. AR 006257. Of the remaining seven intersections during the afternoon peak hour,

four will experience an improvement in traffic Level of Service as a result of the Project and

only three will experience a deterioration in traffic Level of Service, by an average of fewer

than five seconds per intersection. AR 006257. No intersection would be below Level of

Service D as a result of the Project, FONSI at AR 007852, which is considered an acceptable

Level of Service by Tacoma, Lakewood, and DuPont. EA at AR 006323. These results are set

out in detail in tables that appear at page 4-17 of the EA, AR 006327, as well as at AR 006257.





1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

The amount of time that any one train would block an intersection is projected to be

approximately one minute. FONSI at AR 007852. Only one train is projected to transit the

Point Defiance Bypass route during each of the morning and afternoon peak hours, and so no

driver would experience more than one blocked intersection per peak hour. Traffic DR at 95,

AR 006944. With an average blockage time of approximately one minute, any one crossing

would be closed for a total of approximately twelve minutes per day. EA at AR 006370.

3. Socioeconomics Discipline Report

The Environmental Assessment found that certain neighborhoods within the Project

area, such as Tillicum, currently report limited connections to adjacent areas. EA at

AR 006348. This is due to a combination of features, including I-5 and the existing rail

corridor, military installations, and geographic features like American Lake, Gravelly Lake,

and the Tacoma Country and Golf Club. Id.; EA, Appendix O: Land Use Discipline Report,

(Land Use DR), AR 007623 at AR 007664. Connectivity is also influenced by traffic

congestion, primarily at intersections adjacent to I-5. EA at AR 006348.

The Environmental Assessment found that a number of neighborhoods already

experience some isolation because of existing geographical separations, and operation of the

Project may increase these neighborhoods’ sense of isolation during train passings, but these

passings would be very short in duration. EA at AR 006355. The Project would result in more

intersections with delay decreases than delay increases because of the Project’s improvements

to five at-grade crossings, and so community connectivity overall would experience a minor

benefit. FONSI at AR 007854. The Project is not expected to affect property values because





1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

the rail corridor is an existing feature currently in use for both freight and commuter rail

service. EA at AR 006355.

4. Environmental Justice Discipline Report The Environmental Assessment found that the population within the Project area

reflects greater diversities of race, ethnicity, and income than either the existing Puget Sound

route or Pierce County in general. EA at AR 006350. Just under twenty percent of the

population in the Project area is living below the poverty line, whereas twelve percent of the

overall Pierce County population is living below the poverty line. EA at AR 006351.

WSDOT’s environmental review determined that although minority and low-income

populations would experience some increase in noise and vibration effects, those effects would

not be appreciably greater than the effect on non-minority or non-low-income populations in

the vicinity of the Project. EA at AR 006356. Accordingly, WSDOT determined that the

Project would not have a disproportionately high or adverse effect on environmental justice

populations and that the Project therefore meets the provisions of Executive Order 12898 and

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Id.

5. Land Use Discipline Report

The Project corridor encompasses a wide variety of land uses, including industrial,

commercial, residential, transportation and utility, recreational, and educational. EA at

AR 006357. To calculate the Project’s effect on land uses, WSDOT considered the current and

projected land uses, zoning, and development trends within 500 feet on each side of the Point

Defiance Bypass route. Id. This included review of the comprehensive plans for the cities of

Tacoma, Lakewood, and DuPont, as well as Pierce County’s planning policies. Land Use DR





1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

at AR 007646-007647. Lakewood’s comprehensive plan and zoning designations are

summarized in Exhibit 10 of the Land Use DR. AR 007689.

The Environmental Assessment described existing land uses adjacent to the Project

under the general categories of heavy and light industrial, commercial, educational, open space

and recreation, residential, military, and transportation and utility. Land Use DR at

AR 007650. A graphic summary of these uses is set out in a series of maps beginning at

AR 007651. The land use classifications described in the Environmental Assessment were

compiled from multiple sources, including Pierce County, Lakewood, and Tacoma. Id. Within

Lakewood, just over half of the existing land uses are residential, while commercial and

industrial land uses comprise thirty-five percent, vacant lands comprise seven percent, and

miscellaneous uses make up the remaining five percent. AR 007663.

A 2010 inventory identified approximately fifty right-of-way encroachments3 by

commercial or industrial uses along the length of the Point Defiance Bypass route. EA at AR

006358. Only one of the encroachments involves a building, and WSDOT is working with the

owner to resolve the issue. Id. The majority of the encroachments have already been resolved,

and those that are still outstanding will be resolved prior to construction of the Project. Land

Use Discipline Report, AR 007623 at AR 007666.

The Land Use Discipline Report specifically indicates that WSDOT obtained and

reviewed both Lakewood’s Comprehensive Plan and the Tillicum Neighborhood Plan. Land

Use DR at AR 007646. Attachment A to the Land Use Discipline Report cites to and

summarizes key provisions of the Lakewood Comprehensive Plan. AR 007714 – AR 007716.

3 An encroachment is an unpermitted use of the right-of-way.





1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Attachment A specifically cites to Lakewood policies related to rail, including Policy LU-25.4,

Policy LU-27.4, and Policy LU-30.3. AR 007714.

WSDOT considered whether, compared to the No Build Alternative, the Project would

result in more than a moderate effect on land use. The Environmental Assessment determined

that the Project would not displace any existing land uses. EA at AR 006358. The degree to

which the Project would further isolate any population is minor, since the existing railroad

corridor was established in the late 1800s and so most development within the area occurred

within the constraints imposed by existing geographical features, land use patterns, and

transportation systems. Land Use DR at AR 007701. The Environmental Assessment found

no zoning regulation that the Project would violate, nor any that would require modification in

order for the Project to be implemented. Land Use DR at AR 007632. The limited number of

additional trains each day as a result of the Project would be compatible with surrounding land

uses, and effects of the Project on adjacent land uses would be minor. Id.

6. Public Services, Utilities, and Safety Discipline Report WSDOT also considered the potential impacts of the Project on public services,

utilities, and safety within the study area. Public services include police, fire departments,

schools, churches, recreational facilities, and medical facilities. EA at AR 006359. In the

Project area, there are twenty-six schools, fifty-two religious facilities, five medical facilities,

two hospitals, and four cemeteries. Id.

The rail traffic facilitated by the construction of the Project would result in minor

intersection delays that would have the same effect on all public service sectors. EA at





1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

AR 006360. The Project would not displace any public services, and all services would

continue to be available to individuals in the Project area. FONSI at AR 007855.

The accident rate under the Build Alternative is projected to be 3.2 accidents for every

one million train crossings. EA at AR 006360. This is a decrease from the rate of 3.6

accidents per million crossings projected under the No Build alternative. Id. WSDOT will

coordinate with Sound Transit to develop final fencing plans for the Project; specific fencing

locations will be identified during the Project’s final design phase. FONSI at AR 007855.

Additionally, the infrastructure owners - Tacoma Rail, Sound Transit, and Burlington Northern

Santa Fe - are responsible for developing and implementing security measures to reduce the

likelihood of rail trespass. EA at AR 006360.

C. Summary of Environmental Commitments and Improvements Upon completion of the Environmental Assessment, the Federal Rail Administration

issued a Finding of No Significant Impact in February 2013. AR 007843. This process is

described in greater detail in Section II.E of this motion. In addition to concluding that the

Project will not have a significant impact on the environment, the Federal Rail Administration

also specified multiple environmental commitments that WSDOT is obligated to comply with.

The Federal Rail Administration identified these commitments as the practicable means to

avoid and minimize the effects from the Project. FONSI at AR 007857. These commitments

include the use of wayside horns, rather than train-mounted horns, in order to reduce noise

effects; the use of track treatments to reduce the vibration from trains; enhancing vegetative

buffers and screening where the rail line is adjacent to residential and institutional properties;

cooperation between WSDOT and the local jurisdictions to develop traffic control plans that





1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

minimize traffic delays; continuing the Operation Lifesaver program that teaches community

members about track safety; and working with local communities to ensure there are safe

routes that avoid the illegal use of railroad right-of-way for pedestrians and non-vehicular

travel. Although there is some overlap, these commitments are generally in addition to the

Project’s improvements of at-grade crossings, described in Section II.A of WSDOT’s motion.

D. Summary of Outreach Conducted as Part of the Environmental Review Process

WSDOT engaged in an extensive outreach campaign as part of the environmental

review process. This outreach occurred before, during, and after the drafting of the

Environmental Assessment. The outreach process included more than forty meetings with

different stakeholders and constituencies between April 2010 and June 2012. EA at

AR 006385-6386. Of these, twelve meetings were devoted specifically to constituencies in the

Lakewood community. Id.

In the fall of 2012, WSDOT issued a two-page Project fact sheet translated into

Spanish, Korean, Vietnamese, and Russian. EA at AR 006387. In 2007, WSDOT sent an

informational mailing to more than 200 adjoining property owners and other interested parties.

EA at AR 006386. After the draft Environmental Assessment was issued in October 2012,

WSDOT mailed notices of public meetings on the draft Environmental Assessment to 27,000

residents within a quarter mile of the Project area, and translated notices into four different

languages to reach non-English speakers. Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS),

AR 008051. During the subsequent thirty-day comment period, WSDOT provided multiple

means for the public to comment, including a written comment form, e-mail, regular mail, and

at public comment meetings. Id. WSDOT received sixty-two comments in response to the





1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

EA. EA at AR 006387. These comments, and WSDOT’s substantive responses to each

comment, are contained in Appendix R to the Environmental Assessment, which appears in the

Administrative Record beginning at AR 007787.

During Project development between 2010 and 2012, WSDOT drew upon the expertise

of key stakeholders and municipalities within the study area to form two groups, a Technical

Advisory Group and an Executive Advisory Team. EA at AR 006387. Under the Technical

Advisory Group Operating Plan, the Technical Advisory Group’s responsibilities included

assisting WSDOT to identify design options consistent with the Project’s purpose and need,

assisting WSDOT to identify mitigation measures to reduce adverse Project effects, and

assisting WSDOT with review of the relevant discipline reports. EA, Appendix S: Agency

Correspondence (Appendix S), AR 007797 at AR 007799. The Executive Advisory Team

reviewed updates on environmental work performed by Project staff and the Technical

Advisory Group, with an emphasis on potential traffic effects. EA at AR 006387. The City of

Lakewood had a representative on both the Technical Advisory Group and the Executive

Advisory Team. Appendix S at AR 007800-7801. Other members of the Project advisory

team included representatives from Sound Transit, City of DuPont, Pierce County, City of

Tacoma, JBLM, Camp Murray, and the Clover Park School District, which serves students in

the City of Lakewood. EA at AR 006387. The Technical Advisory Team met fifteen times

between June 2010 and March 2012, and the Executive Advisory Team met twelve times

during the same period. EA at AR 006388.

During the two-year public involvement process, modifications to the proposed Project

were suggested, including a stop in Lakewood and grade-separated crossings. FONSI at





1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

AR 007848. In order to be consistent with the trip time element of the Project’s purpose and

need statement, the Project does not propose any additional stops. Id. The Environmental

Assessment’s evaluation of grade separations revealed that current projected future traffic

volumes do not warrant the construction of new grade-separated crossings. Id.

E. Summary of SEPA Incorporation of NEPA Documents

Because the Project receives federal funding, WSDOT and the Federal Rail

Administration first performed an environmental review under the National Environmental

Policy Act. The draft Environmental Assessment for the Point Defiance Project was issued for

comment in October 2012. DNS at AR 008051. After public comments on the draft

Environmental Assessment had been received and answered, the Federal Rail Administration

released the final Environmental Assessment in February 2013. The Federal Rail

Administration then issued a Finding of No Significant Impact for the Project in March 2013,

in which it found that the Project would have no foreseeable significant impact4. FONSI at

AR 007861.

Once the Finding of No Significant Impact and Environmental Assessment had been

issued pursuant to NEPA, WSDOT prepared an Environmental Checklist and a Determination

of Nonsignificance as required by SEPA. Consistent with SEPA, RCW 43.21C.034,

WSDOT’s Determination of Nonsignificance incorporated and relied on the EA and FONSI

produced under NEPA. DNS at AR 008051. Both the Environmental Checklist and the

Determination of Nonsignificance were issued on March 13, 2013. Checklist, AR 008044 at

AR 008050; DNS at AR 008052.

4 The Federal Rail Administration’s decision has not been challenged.





1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

The Determination of Nonsignificance concluded that the Project would improve the

travel times and reliability of the Amtrak Cascades service, reduce train delays, and would

improve the safety of at-grade crossings and nearby intersections by adding wayside horns,

median barriers, sidewalks, pre-signals, and more advanced traffic signal controllers. DNS at

AR 008050. The DNS further concluded that WSDOT had considered the Project’s effects on

minority and low-income populations, and determined that the Project met the provisions of

Executive Order 12898 and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Id. Critical to the issues in

Lakewood’s petition for judicial review, WSDOT determined that an Environmental Impact

Statement was not required because the Project would not have a significant, adverse impact

on the environment. DNS at AR 008051.

III. ISSUES

1. Should the Court dismiss Lakewood’s requests for a declaratory judgment and a writ of review when the Administrative Procedure Act provides the exclusive avenue for judicial review?

2. Should the Court dismiss Lakewood’s claims under the GMA when Lakewood has failed to exhaust its administrative remedies?

3. Was WSDOT’s decision to issue a Determination of Nonsignificance not clearly erroneous because the agency record establishes that there are no significant environmental impacts associated with the Point Defiance Bypass Project?

IV. ARGUMENT

A. The Administrative Procedure Act is the Exclusive Means for Judicial Review of

Agency Action

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), RCW 34.05, provides the exclusive means

for judicial review of agency action, with a few exceptions not relevant here. RCW 34.05.510;

Diehl v. W. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 153 Wn.2d 207, 213, 103 P.3d 193





1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

(2004). “Agency action” is broadly defined under the APA, and includes “the implementation

or enforcement of a statute.” RCW 34.05.010(3). Although the APA specifically excludes

certain actions and statutes from its reach, WSDOT actions such as the Point Defiance Bypass

Project are not among the exceptions. Nor are SEPA or the GMA among the statutes exempt

from the APA. Thus, appeals of this WSDOT action, whether under SEPA or the GMA, are

governed by the APA.

When the parties have filed motions for summary judgment in an APA case, both the

APA standard of review and the summary judgment standard in CR 56 apply. Kettle Range

Conservation Group v. Washington Dep’t of Natural Resources, 120 Wn.App. 434, 456, 85

P.3d 894 (2003). However, in applying CR 56, the court must keep in mind the limited role of

a court in reviewing the administrative record:

Under the APA, it is the role of the agency to resolve factual issues to arrive at a decision that is supported by the administrative record, whereas “the function of the district court is to determine whether or not as a matter of law the evidence in the administrative record permitted the agency to make the decision it did.” Blue Ocean Institute v. Gutierrez, 585 F.Supp.2d 36, 42 (D.D.C. 2008) (applying

NEPA standard of review and federal APA) (quoting Occidental Engineering Co. v. I.N.S., 753

F.2d 766, 769 (9th Cir. 1985)).

The APA provides that “[a] person may file a petition for judicial review . . . only after

exhausting all administrative remedies available within the agency whose action is being

challenged, or available within any other agency authorized to exercise administrative review.”

RCW 34.05.534. Therefore, as “a general rule, when an adequate administrative remedy is

provided, it must be pursued before the courts will intervene.” Orion Corp. v. State,

103 Wn.2d 441, 456, 693 P.2d 1369 (1985). Consequently, unless exceptions apply, the





1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

petitioner’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies will result in dismissal. Ackerley

Commc’ns, Inc. v. City of Seattle, 92 Wn.2d 905, 908–09, 602 P.2d 1177 (1979).

Once the issue of exhaustion is raised, the burden is on the petitioner to prove it has

exhausted administrative remedies. Where the record fails to show that an available

administrative appeal was used, “the court will conclude that no appeal was made” and dismiss

the appeal. CLEAN v. City of Spokane, 133 Wn.2d 455, 465, 947 P.2d 1169 (1997)

(dismissing the appellants’ SEPA claim because they had failed to exhaust the respondents’

SEPA appeal process) (citing Citizens for Clean Air v. City of Spokane, 114 Wn.2d 20, 27, 785

P.2d 447 (1990)).

A challenge to WSDOT’s application of SEPA is properly initiated by filing a petition

for judicial review with the superior court because WSDOT does not provide agency-level

remedies for challenges to WSDOT determinations made under SEPA. By contrast, there is an

administrative appeals process under the GMA, discussed in greater detail below, and that

process must be followed before the challenge may be heard in the superior court.

B. Neither A Declaratory Judgment nor A Writ of Review is Available to Lakewood Because the Agency Action in Question Is Reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act

In its Petition for Judicial Review, Petition for Writ of Review, and Complaint for

Declaratory Relief, Lakewood identified three causes of action: judicial review under SEPA; a

declaratory judgment under Washington’s Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, RCW 7.24;

and a statutory writ of review, RCW 7.16. Under well-settled Washington law, the latter two

remedies are unavailable for any agency action reviewable under the APA. Because both

SEPA and GMA claims are reviewable under the APA, the Court should dismiss Lakewood’s





1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

request for a declaratory judgment and a writ of review.

1. Statutory Writs are Unavailable When an Agency Action Is Reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act

Statutory writs of review are governed by RCW 7.16. A statutory writ of review is

explicitly unavailable to any state agency action reviewable under the Administrative

Procedure Act. RCW 7.16.360. The courts have agreed that a writ is unavailable “where a

right to appeal exists and the failure to appeal is not excused.” Evergreen Washington

Healthcare Frontier LLC v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 171 Wn. App. 431, 452, 287 P.3d

40 (2012), review denied, 176 Wn.2d 1028, 301 P.3d 1048 (2013). In particular, the existence

of an administrative appeal process bars the superior court from issuing a writ. In Davidson

Serles & Associates v. City of Kirkland, 159 Wn. App. 616, 627, 246 P.3d 822, 829 (2011), the

Court of Appeals held that the superior court properly dismissed the plaintiffs’ request for a

writ where the plaintiffs had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies under the GMA.

2. Declaratory Judgments are Unavailable When an Agency Action Is Reviewable Under the Administrative Procedure Act

Declaratory judgments are governed by the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act,

RCW 7.16. Declaratory judgments are explicitly unavailable to any state agency action

reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act. RCW 7.24.146. The courts have

confirmed that a declaratory judgment is not available when the action is reviewable under the

APA, even if the party challenging the state action failed to utilize the APA. Evergreen, 171

Wn. App. at 451.

Appeals of agency actions are governed by the APA. RCW 34.05.510. Both SEPA

and the GMA provide additional guidelines for an appeals process. See RCW 43.21C.075

(SEPA appeals process) and RCW 36.70A.280 - .295 (appeals process under the GMA).





1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

SEPA and GMA claims are reviewable by the courts under the APA. Lakewood’s

present SEPA appeal is governed by the APA. If Lakewood had filed a GMA appeal with the

GMHB and exhausted its administrative remedies, which it has not5, that appeal would also be

reviewable by this Court under the APA. Because both SEPA and GMA claims are reviewable

under the APA, the Court should dismiss Lakewood’s request for a declaratory judgment and a

writ of review pursuant to Civil Rule 12(b)(1).

C. The Growth Management Act and the Administrative Procedure Act Prohibit the Court from Hearing Lakewood’s Challenge under the Growth Management Act Because the Challenge has Not Been Properly Filed with the Growth Management Hearings Board

Under the GMA, the Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB) has exclusive

jurisdiction to determine compliance with the GMA. Stafne v. Snohomish Cnty., 156 Wn. App.

667, 682, 234 P.3d 225 (2010) (citing Woods v. Kittitas Cnty., 162 Wn.2d 597, 614–15, 174

P.3d 25 (2007)). To perfect an appeal under the GMA, the appealing party must file a petition

with the GMHB. RCW 36.70A.290. The GMHB’s exclusive jurisdiction includes claims

alleging that a state agency has failed to comply with the GMA. RCW 36.70A.280.

The GMHB will uphold the action unless it finds that “the action by the state agency,

county, or city is clearly erroneous in view of the entire record before the board and in light of

the goals and requirements of the GMA.” King Cnty. v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt.

Hearings Bd., 142 Wn.2d 543, 552, 14 P.3d 133, 138 (2000) (quotations omitted). A party

aggrieved by a final Board decision may appeal the decision to superior court as provided in

RCW 34.05, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). RCW 36.70A.300(5). In judicial

5 Lakewood has not filed a petition with the GMHB with regard to the Project. Declaration of Danielle

M. Oliver, Exhibit 1.





1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

review under the APA, “[t]he burden of demonstrating the invalidity of agency action is on the

party asserting invalidity.” RCW 34.05.570(1)(a). King Cnty. v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth

Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 142 Wn.2d 543, 552, 14 P.3d 133, 138 (2000).

The only instance in which a superior court may directly review a challenge under the

GMA is where all parties to the proceeding before the GMHB have agreed to direct review in

the superior court. RCW 36.70A.295. But in such an instance, a petition must first have been

filed with the GMHB and all parties must have agreed in writing that the superior court may

directly review the petition. Id. The Washington State Court of Appeals has held that a

superior court may not directly review a challenge that falls within the GMHB’s exclusive

jurisdiction unless the parties have complied with RCW 36.70A.295, on the rationale that to do

otherwise would render RCW 36.70A.295 meaningless. Davidson Serles & Associates v. City

of Kirkland, 159 Wn. App. 616, 628 n.2, 246 P.3d 822 (2011). In this case, Lakewood neither

filed an appeal with the Growth Management Hearings Board, nor obtained a waiver from

WSDOT to proceed directly in superior court. Lakewood’s failure to exhaust administrative

remedies prohibits Lakewood from now obtaining judicial review. RCW 34.05.534.

The majority of Lakewood’s motion for summary judgment consists of the argument

that WSDOT’s Determination of Nonsignificance is deficient because it fails to adequately

consider Lakewood’s comprehensive plan and thus violates the GMA. This argument is

summarized most succinctly at page 7 of the motion: “…regardless of how its environmental

review is styled, WSDOT nevertheless did not meaningfully consider a required factor:

compliance with the City of Lakewood’s Comprehensive Plan, and other related planning

documents.” In fact, Sections III.B and III.C of the motion, pages 7 through 19, focus solely





1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

on the argument that WSDOT did not properly take into account Lakewood’s comprehensive

plan and the related Tillicum Neighborhood Plan. But this argument arises under the GMA;

that is, it is the GMA that Lakewood asserts WSDOT has violated. Thus, Lakewood must

comply with the GMA’s procedures for filing a challenge under the GMA. Because Lakewood

has failed to comply with the GMA’s appeals procedures, and in fact has not even properly

pled a GMA cause of action, the Court should dismiss Lakewood’s GMA claims6.

As discussed above, it is well-settled that all challenges to the GMA must be brought

by filing a petition with the Growth Management Hearings Board. RCW 36.70A.290(1).

Here, Lakewood argues that WSDOT has failed to comply with the GMA’s requirement, at

RCW 36.70A.103, that state agencies comply with local comprehensive plans. City of

Lakewood MSJ at 11. In particular, Lakewood describes over many pages the elements of

various planning documents that it alleges WSDOT failed to consider in issuing the DNS.

Lakewood MSJ at 14-18. Without addressing the merits of Lakewood’s claim, the fact

remains that the requirement to comply with a municipality’s comprehensive plan is purely a

GMA requirement, and as such, Lakewood’s claim that WSDOT has violated this requirement

arises purely under the GMA. The claim must, therefore, be brought according to the

requirements of the GMA’s appeals procedures. Because Lakewood has failed to file its GMA

claim with the GMHB as the Growth Management Act, RCW 36.70A.290(1), clearly requires

that it must do, the Court is prohibited by the APA from reviewing Lakewood’s GMA claims

6 Although Lakewood made an oblique reference to the GMA earlier in its complaint, nowhere in its

prayer for relief did Lakewood put WSDOT on notice that it sought relief under the GMA. Even if Lakewood’s GMA claim were otherwise properly before this Court, which it is not, the Court should dismiss Lakewood’s GMA claim on the basis that it could not be fairly implied from Lakewood’s petition and thus was not properly pled.





1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

due to Lakewood’s failure to exhaust its administrative remedies. RCW 34.05.534. The Court

should dismiss Lakewood’s GMA claims pursuant to Civil Rule 12(b)(1).

1. The Authorities Cited by Lakewood, Including SEPA, Do Not Impose on a State Agency an Independent Requirement to Comply With the GMA

It may be that Lakewood seeks to argue that the requirement to comply with the GMA

arises under some separate statute, such as SEPA, and that Lakewood may therefore be

excused from its failure to comply with the requirement that it bring its GMA claims before the

GMHB. Even assuming that to be Lakewood’s argument, the argument must fail because it is

supported by none of the authorities cited by Lakewood. Because there is no support for this

argument, the Court should reject Lakewood’s GMA claims.

2. RCW 47.79.030 Does Not Create an Independent Duty on the Part of a State Agency to Comply With the GMA

Lakewood first cites to RCW 47.79.030, a sub-section of Washington’s high-speed

ground transportation statute. But that sub-section merely sets forth the guidelines by which

WSDOT is directed to develop a prioritized list of projects to improve passenger rail service; it

does not create an independent, actionable requirement that WSDOT must comply with

Lakewood’s comprehensive plan.

3. The Department of Ecology’s SEPA Handbook Does Not Create an Independent Duty on the Part of a State Agency to Comply with the GMA

Lakewood cites next to the Department of Ecology’s SEPA handbook to support its

argument that WSDOT had an obligation independent of the GMA to comply with

Lakewood’s comprehensive plan. Lakewood MSJ at 10. But a more complete quotation of the

cited passage reveals that it is not directed at WSDOT or any other state agency, rather, it is

specifically directed toward, and applies to, “jurisdictions planning under GMA…”





1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Washington State Department of Ecology, State Environmental Policy Act Handbook, Ch. 7,

§7.1, Publication #98-114 (1998 Updated 2003),

https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/98114.pdf. And under the GMA, only

certain counties and cities, not state agencies, are required to plan under the GMA. RCW

36.70A.040.

4. Washington Case Law Does Not Create an Independent Duty on the Part of a State Agency to Comply With the GMA

Lakewood cites to Chuckanut Conservancy v. Dep’t of Natural Res., 156 Wn. App.

274, 285-86, 232 P.3d 1154 (2010), presumably to support the argument that WSDOT was

required to implement mitigation measures in order to comply with Lakewood’s

comprehensive plan. But the regulation cited by the court in Chuckanut,

WAC 197-11-330(1)(c), merely directs the agency’s responsible official to “consider

mitigation measures” that the agency will implement as part of the proposal, including any

mitigation measures required by comprehensive plans. Here, there is ample evidence that

WSDOT considered the mitigation measures that might be required by the Project, and there is

ample evidence that WSDOT implemented many minimization and avoidance measures.

Traffic DR, AR 006840 at AR 006939; FONSI, AR 007843 at AR 007857-60. Although

Lakewood may not agree with the minimization and avoidance measures taken by WSDOT

that does not mean that WSDOT failed to consider mitigation measures.

Next, Lakewood cites to Cedar River Water & Sewer Dist. v. King Cnty.,

178 Wn.2d 763, 315 P.3d 1065 (2013) for the proposition that there is an overlap between

SEPA and the GMA, and that “those seeking to build essential public facilities . . . are directed

to consider amenities or incentives for neighborhoods or jurisdictions in which the facilities are





1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

sited.” Lakewood MSJ at 19. But the court did not suggest such an overlap between SEPA

and the GMA. Rather, the court simply indicated that mitigation is available under several

different statutory schemes, including the GMA and SEPA, as well as the Local Transportation

Act, RCW 39.92. Further, the court acknowledged that the cited regulation, WAC 365-195-

340, had been expressly repealed. Cedar River Water & Sewer Dist.,178 Wn.2d at 791n.15.

As a result, the repealed regulation no longer has any legal force.

The sub-section quoted by the court in Cedar River that remains in effect, WAC 365–

196–550(6)(e), specifically indicates that “Counties and cities should consider” the extent to

which design conditions can be used to make an essential public facility compatible with its

surroundings. Id. Despite Lakewood’s suggestion to the contrary, the GMA regulation

currently in force does not create -- for those seeking to build an essential public facility -- an

actionable, legal obligation to implement amenities or incentives for the jurisdictions in which

the facilities are sited. Nor does the regulation even apply to state agencies, as indicated by the

use of the phrase “Counties and cities…” WAC 365–196–550(6)(e) (emphasis added).

None of the authorities cited by Lakewood and discussed above give rise to any

independent duty outside of the GMA to comply with the GMA. The Court should reject

Lakewood’s attempt to bootstrap its GMA claims into a claim under SEPA or some other

statute, and should dismiss Lakewood’s GMA claims.

D. WSDOT’s Environmental Assessment and Lakewood’s Motion for Summary Judgment Both Establish That There are No Significant Environmental Impacts

SEPA requires that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) be prepared on proposals

for major actions having a “probable significant, adverse environmental impact.”

RCW 43.21C.031. In conducting the environmental review required by SEPA, the lead agency





1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

first conducts a threshold process to decide whether an action qualifies as a major action

significantly affecting the quality of the environment. Chuckanut Conservancy v. Washington

State Dep't of Natural Res., 156 Wn. App. 274, 285-86, 232 P.3d 1154, 1159 (2010). If all or

part of the proposal or impacts have been analyzed in a previously prepared environmental

document, that analysis may be adopted or incorporated by reference. Id.

At the end of the threshold phase, the agency issues one of three determinations: a

Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS); a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance

(MDNS); or a Determination of Significance (DS). Id. ‘Significant,’ as used in SEPA, means

a reasonable likelihood of more than a moderate adverse impact on environmental quality.

WAC 197-11-794; Davidson Serles & Associates v. City of Kirkland, 159 Wn. App. 616, 635,

246 P.3d 822, 829 (2011). The administrative record accompanying a Determination of

Nonsignificance must demonstrate that “environmental factors were considered in a manner

sufficient to amount to prima facie compliance with the procedural requirements of SEPA,”

Pease Hill Community Group v. Cnty. of Spokane, 62 Wn. App. 800, 810, 816 P.2d 37 (1991),

and that the decision to issue a Determination of Nonsignificance, rather than an

Environmental Impact Statement, was “based on information reasonably sufficient to

determine the environmental impact” of the proposal. Id.

In evaluating the administrative record concerning a Determination of Nonsignificance,

the reviewing court will consider the thoroughness of the investigation conducted by the

agency. For example, the court may consider the extent to which the agency consulted other

agencies and stakeholders, and the extent to which the agency’s investigation demonstrated an

examination of SEPA policies and environmental concerns. Pease Hill Cmty. Group v. Cnty.





1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

of Spokane, 62 Wn. App. 800, 810, 816 P.2d 37, 43 (1991). The court may consider the extent

to which socioeconomic factors were considered. Murden Cove Pres. Ass'n v. Kitsap Cnty., 41

Wn. App. 515, 524, 704 P.2d 1242, 1248 (1985). The court may also consider the extent to

which the agency conducted public outreach, whether through mailings, public meetings, or

some other means. Moss v. City of Bellingham, 109 Wn. App. 6, 23-24, 31 P.3d 703, 712

(2001).

SEPA specifies that an agency’s decision to issue a DNS is to be accorded substantial

weight. RCW 43.21C.090. Washington courts have interpreted this requirement to mean that

the threshold determination to issue a Determination of Nonsignificance, and thus, not to

prepare an Environmental Impact Statement, is reviewed under the “clearly erroneous”

standard. Chuckanut Conservancy, 156 Wn. App. at 286. A finding is clearly erroneous when,

although there is evidence to support it, “the reviewing court on the record is left with the

definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Wenatchee Sportsmen Ass’n

v. Chelan Cnty., 141 Wn.2d 169, 176, 4 P.3d 123 (2000) (internal quotations omitted). If the

reviewing court determines that it is necessary to reverse the Determination of

Nonsignificance, the court must remand to the agency for preparation of an Environmental

Impact Statement and enjoin the agency action until the statement is complete. King Cnty. v.

Washington State Boundary Review Bd. for King Cnty., 122 Wn.2d 648, 667, 860 P.2d 1024,

1034 (1993).

As the party opposing WSDOT’s decision to issue a Determination of Nonsignificance,

Lakewood bears the burden of establishing not only that there are environmental impacts

associated with the Project, but also that the impacts are probable, significant, and adverse. In





1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

its bid to carry that burden, Lakewood identified just three general facts associated with the

Project: the delay that some school buses would experience at some intersections, the

proximity of certain properties to the railroad right-of-way, and the demographic statistics of

some portions of Lakewood. Lakewood MSJ at 20-22. But instead of developing the

argument that any of these facts represented a significant adverse impact, Lakewood ended its

analysis where it began: by merely identifying the fact. As a result, Lakewood has scarcely

identified any impacts at all, much less any probable, significant adverse impacts. Because

Lakewood has failed to establish that the Project will have any probable, significant adverse

impacts, the Court should deny Lakewood’s motion for summary judgment. Because WSDOT

conducted a thorough environmental review establishing that there are no probable, significant

adverse impacts associated with the Project, the Court should grant WSDOT’s motion for

summary judgment.

In evaluating Lakewood’s claims of significant adverse impacts, it may be helpful to

consider those claims against the backdrop of Washington case law regarding what does and

does not constitute a significant impact. The cases that uphold a decision to prepare a

Determination of Nonsignificance or Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance are

characterized by moderate environmental impacts, incorporation of environmental mitigation –

including avoidance and minimization - and thorough environmental review. The cases where

the court struck down the Determination of Nonsignificance are characterized by large,

unmitigated environmental impacts and insufficient environmental review.

For example, the Court of Appeals held that it was not clearly erroneous to issue a

Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance for the conversion to a woodwaste landfill of a





1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

22-acre parcel that had been zoned for agriculture. Pease Hill Cmty. Group v. Cnty. of

Spokane, 62 Wn. App. 800, 810, 816 P.2d 37, 43 (1991). In so concluding, the court

commented favorably on the project’s environmental review, which included obtaining input

from multiple agencies. Id. Similarly, the Court of Appeals upheld the decision to prepare a

Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance for a project that converted a seventy-nine acre

parcel of former forest land to a 172 lot subdivision. Moss v. City of Bellingham, 109 Wn.

App. 6, 23-24, 31 P.3d 703, 712 (2001). The court in Moss noted the comprehensive

environmental review conducted for the project, including extensive comments gathered from

agencies and the public, and numerous public meetings. Id.

In Boehm v. City of Vancouver, 111 Wn. App. 711, 721-22, 47 P.3d 137, 143 (2002),

the Court of Appeals upheld the decision to prepare a Mitigated Determination of

Nonsignificance for the addition of a gas station to an existing Fred Meyer store in Vancouver.

In Boehm, project analysis initially determined that traffic at a nearby intersection would drop

from Level of Service E to a Level of Service F as a result of the project. Id. After traffic

improvement measures were adopted that improved traffic from Level of Service E to Level of

Service C, the court concluded that any adverse impact associated with the project had been

mitigated and thus, there was no significant, adverse impact. Id.

By contrast, the Washington Supreme Court struck down the Determination of

Nonsignificance associated with the decision to grant ASARCO’s aluminum smelter a variance

from the Washington Clean Air Act. ASARCO Inc. v. Air Quality Coal., 92 Wn.2d 685, 704,

601 P.2d 501, 514 (1979). The court noted that the variance would have permitted ASARCO

to emit, among other things, an additional 244 tons of sulfur dioxide per day beyond what





1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

would have been permitted under the Clean Air Act. ASARCO, 92 Wn.2d at 703. The only

environmental review noted by the court was a number of public hearings. ASARCO, Wn.2d at

689. In Sisley v. San Juan Cnty., 89 Wn.2d 78, 87, 569 P.2d 712, 717 (1977), the Washington

Supreme Court held that it was clearly erroneous to prepare a Determination of

Nonsignificance for a ninety-four slip marina and related support facilities in a biologically

unique and sensitive bay on Orcas Island. The environmental review noted by the court in

Sisley consisted of a single request for information to the county planning department and one

public hearing. Sisley, 89 Wn.2d at 81.

In Norway Hill Pres. & Prot. Ass'n v. King Cnty. Council, 87 Wn.2d 267, 278, 552

P.2d 674, 681 (1976), the Washington State Supreme Court held that it was clearly erroneous

to prepare a Determination of Nonsignificance for King County’s approval of a project that

would have converted 52.3 acres of a heavily wooded, unpopulated area into a housing

development with 198 single family homes. In Norway Hill, decided just five years after the

enactment of SEPA, the court held that the project was, on its face, the size and type of

environmental change for which an environmental impact statement “was obviously meant to

apply.” Norway Hill, 87 Wn.2d at 279.

1. School Buses and Other Traffic Will Experience Only a Minor Delay as a Result of the Project

Lakewood correctly notes that bus transit, including school buses, would experience the

same intersection delay and queue lengths as would regular vehicles as a result of the Project.

Lakewood MSJ at 20, citing Point Defiance Bypass Project Traffic Discipline Report at AR

006935. But Lakewood fails to note how short the delay would be. WSDOT’s traffic studies

indicate that road closure time for a train crossing would be approximately one minute or less.





1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

EA at AR 006326. This is approximately equal to the delay caused by the Sounder transit

trains that are already operating in this area. Id. Further, there would be only one Amtrak

train during each of the peak morning and afternoon drive times, so a school bus would not be

delayed more than once by an Amtrak train on any given trip carrying students to and from

school. Traffic DR at AR 006944.

Lakewood also fails to note that, as a result of improved traffic signals installed by

WSDOT as a part of the Project, traffic conditions would improve at four intersections in

Lakewood. EA at AR 006327. A side-by-side comparison of how eight different Lakewood

intersections will perform, with and without the Project, is included in Tables 5 and 6 of the

Environmental Assessment. Id. These tables reveal that delays at four intersections will drop

as a result of the Project, some by almost twenty seconds. Id. In the four intersections where

there will be an increase in delay, the increase will be small: three will experience a delay

increase of fewer than three seconds per vehicle and the fourth will experience an increase of

just over twelve seconds as a result of the Project.

Although the Project will result in delays to traffic when Amtrak trains pass through

Lakewood, those delays are very small. When compared against what Washington’s courts

have determined are significant impacts, these small delays land squarely in the category of

moderate impacts, for which it was appropriate to prepare a DNS.

2. The Majority of Encroachments onto the Right of Way Have Been Resolved, and Those that Remain Will Be Resolved before Construction Begins

Lakewood next notes that there is some encroachment onto the right-of-way and that

other properties have structures that are located close to the right-of-way. As an initial matter,





1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Lakewood fails to provide any cite to the record to support its claim of other properties located

close to the right-of-way. But Lakewood’s more significant omission is that it fails to

articulate that there is a probable, significant adverse environmental impact associated with any

of these properties.

WSDOT’s Environmental Assessment deals with the issue of encroachment in the

Land Use Discipline Report, AR 007623 at AR 007666. As discussed in Section II.B.5 of

WSDOT’s motion, the Land Use Discipline Report reveals that a 2010 WSDOT inventory

identified approximately fifty encroachments. Id. But the majority of these encroachments

have already been resolved, and those that are still outstanding will be resolved prior to

construction of the Project. Id.

Lakewood may be attempting to argue that safety will be compromised as a result of

the Project and the proximity of various properties to the right-of-way. But in fact, the

accident rate will drop as a result of the Project, from 3.6 accidents per million crossings under

the no-build alternative to 3.2 accidents per million crossings under the build alternative.

EA at AR 006370-6371. This improvement in safety is a result of various safety features that

WSDOT will install in connection with the Project, including wayside horns, improved

signage, median barriers so that cars cannot go around crossing gates, sidewalks, pre-signals,

and synchronized signal controllers. EA at AR 006371.

As with the issue of traffic, it is Lakewood’s burden in this appeal not only to identify a

fact, but to then take the next step of demonstrating why that fact represents a probable,

significant adverse environmental impact. Here, Lakewood has failed to establish that any





1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

impact, much less a probable, significant adverse impact, flows from the proximity of certain

properties to the right-of-way.

3. The Lakewood Neighborhood of Tillicum Will Not Experience Significant, Adverse Environmental Impacts as a Result of the Project

Lakewood notes that the Tillicum neighborhood is of “particular concern.” Lakewood

MSJ at 21. Lakewood then recites certain geographic and demographic characteristics of

Tillicum. Id. But once again, Lakewood fails to connect these characteristics with any

probable, significant adverse impact on the Tillicum neighborhood as a result of the Project.

Lakewood may want to argue that the Project will isolate Tillicum from the rest of

Lakewood. But this argument fails on two counts. First, by reason of planning and geography,

Tillicum is already isolated from Lakewood. As Lakewood notes, Tillicum is wholly

landlocked if there is a back-up on I-5. Second, the Environmental Assessment indicates that

the Project’s intersection upgrades and improved signaling would maintain or improve overall

traffic flow. AR 006355. As a result, the overall connectivity for vehicles within Lakewood

would actually improve compared to the No Build alternative. Id. The improved connectivity

would apply to pedestrians and cyclists, as well. Id. There are no impacts to the Tillicum

neighborhood that rise to the level of what the Washington courts have considered to be a

significant, adverse environmental impact.

V. CONCLUSION

WSDOT has undertaken a thorough environmental review to analyze the effects of the

Project. That review has spanned eight years, has sought input from at least twenty-three

tribes, municipalities, and public agencies, and has included more than forty meetings with the

public, agencies, and other interested stakeholders, in addition to almost thirty meetings of the

PointDefianceBypassProjectEnvironmentalAssessment

Preparedfor:U.S.DepartmentofTransportationFederalRailroadAdministration

Preparedby:

AR 006277

PDB 10004767

PointDefianceBypassProjectEnvironmentalAssessment

Submitted pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act

(42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c))

Preparedfor:U.S.DepartmentofTransportationFederalRailroadAdministrationPreparedby:WashingtonStateDepartmentofTransportation

February 22, 2013

Date of Approval Megan White, P.E. Director, Environmental Services Office Washington State Department of Transportation

AR 006281

PDB 10004771

February2013 PointDefianceBypassProjectPagevi EnvironmentalAssessment

Figure 11. Tacoma and Lakewood Neighborhoods..................................................................................................4‐39

Figure 12. Minority Populations by Census Block.....................................................................................................4‐42

Figure 13. Poverty by Census Block...............................................................................................................................4‐43

Figure 14. Existing Land Uses –Incorporated Areas along the Point Defiance Bypass Route.........................................................................................................................................................4‐48

Figure 15. Public Facilities in the Study Area (Panels 1‐10)...................................................................................4‐50

List of Appendices

Appendix A: Alternatives Analysis

Appendix B: Grade Separation Concept Evaluation

Appendix C: Air Quality Discipline Report

Appendix D: Air Quality Discipline Report Erratum

Appendix E: Noise and Vibration Discipline Report

Appendix F: Traffic and Transportation Discipline Report

Appendix G: Railroad Crossing Traffic Effect Analysis at C and D Streets

Appendix H: Geology and Soils Discipline Report

Appendix I: Water Resources Discipline Report

Appendix J: Wetlands Discipline Report

Appendix K: Fish, Vegetation, and Wildlife Discipline Report

Appendix L: Hazardous Materials Discipline Report

Appendix M: Visual Quality Discipline Report

Appendix N: Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice Discipline Report

Appendix O: Land Use Discipline Report

Appendix P: Public Services and Utilities Discipline Report

Appendix Q: Energy Discipline Report

Appendix R: Public Outreach Summary

Appendix S: Agency Correspondence

AR 006288

PDB 10004778

PointDefianceBypassProject February2013EnvironmentalAssessment Pagevii

EXECUTIVESUMMARY

The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) is implementing a program of infrastructure improvement projects along the Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor (PNWRC) also known as the PNWRC Improvement Program. To fund these projects, WSDOT applied and was selected for grant funding through the Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA) High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Program. As part of the PNWRC Improvement Program, when combined with the other component projects, the Point Defiance Bypass route (the Project) would allow for two additional Amtrak Cascades service round trips between Seattle, Washington, and Portland, Oregon with improved reliability and reduced travel time. This Project would also support Amtrak’s longer-distance Pacific Northwest passenger rail service, the Coast Starlight. The PNWRC Improvement Program is made up of approximately 17 component projects. One such component project included in the PNWRC Improvement Program is the Point Defiance Bypass route, which would address deficiencies in the existing rail operations around Point Defiance between Tacoma and Nisqually in Washington State. This Project is the subject of this Environmental Assessment (EA).

To support the obligation of grant funds for the PNWRC improvement program, FRA and WSDOT issued a Tier-1 Programmatic EA analyzing the potential impacts of the projects comprising the PNWRC Program. Based on the analysis of potential impacts and proposed measures to avoid, minimize and mitigate potential impacts in the Programmatic EA, FRA issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) in November 2010. Both the Programmatic EA and the November FONSI anticipated a series of Tier-2 or project-level environmental documents to study the potential impacts of the component projects at a higher level of detail prior to making a decision on implementing a specific component project.

This project-level EA has been prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality NEPA implementing regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1500-1508), the FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (64 FR 28550, May 26, 1999), and the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) (WAC 197-11). FRA is the lead agency under NEPA and WSDOT is the lead agency under SEPA. FHWA and Sound Transit are cooperating agencies under NEPA.

The purpose of the Project is to provide more frequent and reliable high-speed intercity passenger rail service along the PNWRC between Tacoma and Nisqually. In conformity with the decisions under the Tier 1 Programmatic EA, the PNWRC Improvement Program has reduced the overall environmental impacts of providing improved passenger rail service with the use of an existing transportation corridor and associated infrastructure, rather than creating a new corridor.

The Project is needed to address the deficiencies in the existing rail alignment around Point Defiance. The existing alignment (Puget Sound route), shared by freight and passenger rail traffic, is near capacity and is therefore unable to accommodate additional high-speed intercity passenger rail service without substantial improvements. In addition, the existing alignment has physical and operational constraints that adversely affect both passenger and freight train scheduling and reliability.

As part of an alternatives analysis, FRA and WSDOT identified and evaluated several alternatives, including improvements to the Point Defiance Bypass route and No Build Alternative. During the course of the alternatives analysis, only the Point Defiance Bypass route and existing Puget Sound route were determined to be reasonable alternatives. Therefore, the subsequent analysis of alternatives was focused on the remaining reasonable alternatives: the Point Defiance Bypass route (Build Alternative) and the Puget Sound route (No Build Alternative).

AR 006289

PDB 10004779

February2013 PointDefianceBypassProjectPageviii EnvironmentalAssessment

The No Build Alternative would only include the routine maintenance and repair activities necessary to keep the Burlington Northern-Santa Fe (BNSF)-owned line Puget Sound route operational. Under the No Build Alternative there are no other planned capital projects along the Point Defiance Bypass route, so the existing track conditions would remain. The Sound Transit Project, establishing commuter service to the City of Lakewood on the Point Defiance Bypass route, is considered as part of the existing condition for purposes of this analysis.

The Build Alternative would provide for the rerouting of intercity passenger trains from the Puget Sound route that runs along the southern Puget Sound shoreline to an existing rail corridor (the Point Defiance Bypass route) that runs along the west side of Interstate 5 (I-5) between Tacoma and Nisqually. The Project would include railroad track and support facility improvements, and relocation of the Tacoma Amtrak Station to Freighthouse Square in Tacoma. A total of 12 Amtrak Cascade and two Coast Starlight service train trips would use the Point Defiance Bypass route. Components of the Project include:

Construction of a new second track adjacent to Sound Transit’s existing main line between South Tacoma and Lakewood.

Installation of new rails, ties, and ballast on Sound Transit’s existing track between Lakewood and Nisqually.

Improvements at the connection to BNSF’s main line near Nisqually.

Safety improvements at some existing at-grade crossings within the project corridor.1

Relocation of the existing Tacoma Amtrak Station from Puyallup Avenue to the Tacoma Dome Station at Freighthouse Square (the Tacoma Dome Station) in Tacoma. Property acquisition for additional parking west or north of Freighthouse Square is anticipated.

FRA and WSDOT evaluated the anticipated environmental effects of the Build and No Build alternatives, which are summarized in Table Executive Summary-1. Proposed avoidance, minimization measures, and best management practices (BMPs) (Table Executive Summary-2) will be integrated into the Project and will reduce or eliminate anticipated environmental effects.

1 The Point Defiance Bypass route is also referred to as the corridor or project corridor.

AR 006290

PDB 10004780

PointDefianceBypassProject February2013EnvironmentalAssessment Page1‐1

1.0 INTRODUCTIONANDPROJECTDESCRIPTION

1.1 IntroductionThe Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) is implementing a program of infrastructure improvement projects along the Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor (PNWRC) also known as the PNWRC Improvement Program. To fund these projects, WSDOT applied for and was selected for grant funding through the Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA) High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Program. As part of the PNWRC Improvement Program, when combined with the other component projects, the Point Defiance Bypass route (the Project) would allow for two additional Amtrak Cascades service round trips between Seattle, Washington, and Portland, Oregon with improved reliability and reduced travel time. This Project would also support Amtrak’s longer-distance Pacific Northwest passenger rail service, the Coast Starlight. The PNWRC Improvement Program is made up of approximately 17 component projects. One such component project included in the PNWRC Improvement Program is the proposed Point Defiance Bypass route, which is proposed to respond to deficiencies in the existing rail operations around Point Defiance between Tacoma and Nisqually in Washington State. This Project is the subject of this Environmental Assessment (EA).

To support the obligation of grant funds for the PNWRC improvement program, FRA and WSDOT issued a Tier-1 Programmatic EA analyzing the potential impacts of the projects comprising the PNWRC Program. Based on the analysis of potential impacts and proposed measures to avoid, minimize and mitigate potential impacts in the Programmatic EA, FRA issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) in November 2010. Both the Programmatic EA and the November FONSI anticipated a series of Tier-2 or project-level environmental documents to study the potential impacts of the component projects at a higher level of detail prior to making a decision on implementing a specific component project.

This project-level EA has been prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality NEPA implementing regulation (40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1500-1508), the FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (64 FR 28550, May 26, 1999). WSDOT will use FRA’s decision documentation and other supporting documentation to satisfy the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) (WAC 197-11).

1.2 ProjectAreaDescriptionThe Project is located in Pierce County (Figure 1) along an existing approximately 20-mile rail corridor between Tacoma and Nisqually. The northern limit of the Project is TR Junction near the I-5 overcrossing of the Puyallup River and East Bay Street in Tacoma. The southern limit of the Project is at Nisqually Junction where Nisqually Road crosses the Nisqually River.

The Point Defiance Bypass route is an existing railroad corridor that generally parallels and is west of the I-5 transportation corridor and is located within both incorporated and unincorporated areas of Pierce County. Approximately two-thirds of the Project length is located within or adjacent to the incorporated cities of Tacoma, Lakewood, and DuPont. The remainder lies within unincorporated area of Pierce County, the majority of which is occupied by US Joint Base Lewis McChord (JBLM) and Camp Murray National Guard military complexes.

The Point Defiance Bypass route topography is of low relief at the northern end and rises 200 to 400 feet at the southern end. The route is located in a highly developed region surrounded by commercial and residential properties, military bases, and roadways. The Point Defiance Bypass route includes rail tracks supported by ties and a gravel base with managed (sprayed, mowed) vegetation generally occurring at or near the edge of the railroad right-of-way.

AR 006297

PDB 10004787

February2013 PointDefianceBypassProject

Page1‐2 EnvironmentalAssessment

The Point Defiance Bypass route is owned primarily by Sound Transit, and Tacoma Rail with BNSF owning the southernmost mile of the route. Both freight and commuter trains operate along the Point Defiance Bypass route, including freight operators Tacoma Rail, BNSF, and Sound Transit’s Sounder commuter rail service.

Within this corridor,2 Tacoma Rail provides service to its customers on its rail line in Frederickson and other points south of Tacoma. The average freight train traffic between TR Junction and East “D” Street is two trains per day to as few as two trains per week on other portions of the Point Defiance Bypass route. BNSF freight operations are limited to service operating between 100th Street in Lakewood and Nisqually, serving JBLM and the town of Roy via a branch line that extends south from 108th Street in Lakewood. Sound Transit’s Sounder commuter rail service currently leaves the BNSF main line at TR Junction and continues to Freighthouse Square on the Tacoma Rail line. Sound Transit currently operates 18 trains between Freighthouse Square and Seattle each weekday, and also offers occasional special event trains, usually on weekends, to serve sporting and other events in Seattle and Tacoma. Sounder service to Lakewood Station began in October 2012.

2 The Point Defiance Bypass route is also referred to as the corridor or project corridor.

AR 006298

PDB 10004788


2.0 PURPOSEANDNEED

2.1 PurposeoftheProjectAs described above, the Point Defiance Bypass route is part of the larger PNWRC. Within Washington State, the vision for the PNWRC is to “…improve intercity passenger rail service by reducing travel times and achieving greater schedule reliability in order to accommodate growing intercity travel demand…” (WSDOT 2009).

The purpose of the Project is to provide more frequent and reliable high-speed intercity passenger rail service along the PNWRC between Tacoma and Nisqually. In conformity with the decisions under the Tier 1 Programmatic EA, the PNWRC Improvement Program has reduced the overall environmental effects of providing improved passenger rail service with the use of an existing transportation corridor and associated infrastructure, rather than creating a new corridor.

2.2 NeedfortheProjectThe Project is needed to address the deficiencies in the existing rail alignment around Point Defiance. The existing alignment (Puget Sound route), shared by freight and passenger rail traffic, is near capacity and is therefore unable to accommodate additional high-speed intercity passenger rail service without substantial improvements. In addition, the existing alignment has physical and operational constraints that adversely affect both passenger train scheduling and reliability.

Improving intercity passenger rail service in the study area and meeting the Project needs would be accomplished by:

Enhanced Frequency: Increasing Amtrak Cascades round-trips from four to six by 2017 to meet projected service demands.

Improved Reliability: Reducing scheduling conflicts with freight trains that often result in delays, and by minimizing or avoiding operational delays (e.g., drawbridge openings) and weather-related delays (e.g., mudslides), and improving on-time performance from 68 percent to 88 percent.

Enhanced Efficiency: Enhancing the efficient movement of people by decreasing trip times by 10 minutes, and reducing the amount of time passenger trains spend yielding to freight movements.

Improved Safety: Constructing at-grade crossings with upgraded safety features, including wayside horns, median barriers, advance warning signals, and traffic signal improvements.

AR 006301

PDB 10004791


3.0 DESCRIPTIONOFALTERNATIVESAs part of an alternatives analysis process, FRA and WSDOT evaluated three build alternatives: the Point Defiance Bypass route, the Shoreline Alternative, and the Greenfield Alternative to identify the range of reasonable alternatives to carry forward for detailed analysis. A brief description of each build alternative follows:

Point Defiance Bypass route includes railroad track and support facility improvements, and the relocation of Amtrak’s Tacoma Station. Additional detail is provided below in Section 3.2.

The Shoreline Alternative would make improvements along the 26 mile-long Puget Sound route between Nisqually and Tacoma. This alternative consists of adding eight miles of new track and re-aligning 15 miles of existing track.

The Greenfield Alternative includes six routes (Lakewood South Route, Spanaway Route, Lakewood to Tacoma Tunnel Route, Fredrickson Route, Rainer Route, and I-5 Median Route). Although each route has minor differences each would construct a new alignment and reconstruct an existing route.

WSDOT eliminated two of the alternatives (the Shoreline Alternative, and the Greenfield Alternative) from further study. Although either alternative could meet the Project’s purpose and need, each was determined to be impracticable and unfeasible due to technical constraints, high construction costs, and significant environmental effects. Because of these adverse factors, neither alternative was carried forward into this EA for further analysis. Refer to Appendix A for the technical evaluation of the Shoreline and Greenfield Alternatives.

Modifications to the proposed project suggested during the public involvement process for this EA included adding a Cascades station within the Lakewood or DuPont city limits, and constructing one or several grade-separated crossings. However, consistent with the trip time element of the Project’s purposes and need and in order to meet performance standards set by WSDOT, no additional stops are proposed for this Project. However, construction of the Point Defiance Bypass route would not preclude the future construction of a station or stations within the study area if a feasibility study or demand warranted an additional station.

Grade separations were also evaluated for further consideration. The evaluation of grade separations included in Appendix B revealed that current and projected future traffic volumes do not warrant the construction of new grade-separated crossings. The analysis determined that the construction and operation of grade-separated crossings would result in significant environmental impacts to the surrounding community (e.g., noise, property acquisitions, visual impacts from retaining walls, and the increased perception of community isolation, particularly in Tillicum). While not included in this Project for the reasons described in Appendix B, construction of the Build Alternative would not preclude the future construction of grade-separated crossings within the Project Area.

This EA evaluates the Point Defiance Bypass route (the Build Alternative), and the No Build Alternative. Figure 1 shows the northern and southern project limits and the existing station locations in the study area.

3.1 NoBuildAlternativeIf the Project is not built (the No Build Alternative), Amtrak’s Cascades and Coast Starlight passenger train service would continue to use the existing BNSF rail line (Puget Sound route) that runs along the southern Puget Sound shoreline and Point Defiance (Figure 1). The No Build Alternative includes only the minor maintenance and repair activities necessary to keep the existing BNSF line operational and no increase in Amtrak service. Similarly, beyond the improvements already made by Sound Transit to

AR 006303

PDB 10004793

February2013 PointDefianceBypassProjectPage3‐2 EnvironmentalAssessment

establish service between Lakewood and Tacoma, there are no other planned capital projects along the Point Defiance Bypass route, so the existing track conditions would remain.

The existing congestion on the Puget Sound route would continue to constrain passenger operation. Future passenger trains would experience an increase in congestion as the number of trains on the Puget Sound route increases. Amtrak would not use the Point Defiance Bypass route.

With the No Build Alternative, it would be expected that as freight traffic increases, congestion would adversely affect Amtrak service reliability, and the travel time for Amtrak trains between Seattle and Portland would increase. Weather-related cancellations and delays due to mudslides would continue to affect passenger service.

Along the Point Defiance Bypass route, Tacoma Rail and BNSF freight services would continue. Tacoma Rail operates as many as two trains per day on some portions of the Point Defiance Bypass route to as few as two trains per week on other portions of the Point Defiance Bypass route. BNSF operates intermittent freight trains on the Point Defiance Bypass route to serve military transportation needs at JBLM. Freight trains do not travel through the entire length of the Point Defiance Bypass route and would need the permission of both the Surface Transportation Board and Sound Transit to travel on the new grade constructed between East “D” Street and the Tacoma Avenue Overpass. There is currently no plan to open this section of the Point Defiance Bypass route to freight trains. The at-grade crossings at Clover Creek Drive Southwest, North Thorne Lane Southwest, Berkeley Street Southwest, 41st Division Drive, and Barksdale Avenue Southwest would not be upgraded to include modern safety controls.

Sound Transit’s Sounder commuter passenger trains became operational in October 2012 between the Tacoma Dome Station at Freighthouse Square in Tacoma and Sound Transit’s Lakewood Station (on the Point Defiance Bypass route). Once fully functional, Sound Transit would operate as many as 18 Sounder trains per day between Freighthouse Square and the Lakewood Station. For this EA, Sounder service is considered as the existing corridor condition.

3.2 BuildAlternativeThe Project consists of railroad track and support facility improvements to facilitate the rerouting of Amtrak’s intercity passenger rail to the Point Defiance Bypass route, and the relocation of Amtrak’s Tacoma Station. The following sections detail specific components of the Build Alternative.

3.2.1 ConstructNewTrackAdjacenttotheExistingMainLineA new 3.5-mile track adjacent to the existing main line would be constructed from South 66th Street (rail MP 6.9) in Tacoma to between Bridgeport Way Southwest (rail MP 10.4) and Clover Creek Drive Southwest (rail MP 10.9) in Lakewood (Figure 2). This new section of track would be constructed parallel to and generally 15-20 feet west of the existing track center. The new track would consist of continuous welded rail and ballast mats where appropriate to reduce noise and vibration from passing trains.

AR 006304

PDB 10004794


Figure 2. Build Alternative Components

AR 006305

PDB 10004795


3.2.2 ReconstructandRehabilitatetheExistingMainLineStarting just southwest of Bridgeport Way Southwest (rail MP 10.4) in Lakewood, the existing track would be reconstructed to a location southeast of the I-5/Mounts Road Southwest interchange (rail MP 19.8) at Nisqually Junction (Figure 2). This would include:

Removal of the existing track and minor regrading of the existing subgrade to provide a slightly wider, regraded, and compacted stable surface on which to construct a new track.

Installation of new crushed rock ballast, concrete ties (except under the at-grade crossings), and continuous welded rail.

Extension of the wing walls at the rail bridge south of the Mounts Road interchange with northbound I-5.

Relocation/protection of utilities.

Installation of additional railroad train control signal system components.

3.2.3 ImprovementsatGradeCrossingsSeveral grade crossings (Figure 2) would be improved with wayside horns, gates, traffic signals and signage, sidewalks, median separators, and warning devices. These crossings include Clover Creek Drive Southwest, North Thorne Lane Southwest, Berkeley Street Southwest, 41st Division Drive and Barksdale Avenue. Figure 3 illustrates a before and after of the grade crossing improvements at Berkeley Street Southwest. These improvements are typical of those planned for the other grade crossings in the area.

3.2.4 TacomaAmtrakStationRelocationThe existing Tacoma Amtrak Station would be relocated from its Puyallup Avenue location to the Tacoma Dome Station at Freighthouse Square, at 430 East 25th Street in Tacoma. The Freighthouse Square location is positioned to act as a regional transportation center serving the surrounding communities including DuPont, Lakewood, and Tacoma, allowing shorter connections between Amtrak passenger rail and other transit services provided at the Tacoma Dome Station. In addition, Freighthouse Square is already configured to accommodate Sound Transit commuter rail passenger volumes, and has convenient freeway access, making it a suitable station location for the Project.

Relocation to the Tacoma Dome Station would require:

Reconstruction of a portion of the existing Freighthouse Square building to create a passenger ticketing and waiting area, and baggage handling space (approximately 4,800 square feet). Improvements would be ADA compliant.

Reconstruction and extension of the existing commuter rail platform to meet intercity passenger rail needs. The Coast Starlight is 1,235 feet long and would require construction of an additional platform at the parking lot between East “C” and East “D” Street as well as the existing platform at Freighthouse Square.

Additional off-street parking, to be located near Freighthouse Square station on identified properties that are available either for purchase or lease by WSDOT, and made available for exclusive use by Amtrak passengers.

Improving traffic signals to accommodate pedestrian crossings and traffic flow to and from Freighthouse Square.

AR 006306

PDB 10004796


3.2.5 OperationalChangesOperational changes refer to the type, frequency, and speed of rail traffic that can be expected on a daily basis once the Project is completed.

Amtrak’s existing Cascades and Coast Starlight passenger train service would be rerouted from the Puget Sound route to the Point Defiance Bypass route. The Project would also provide for the addition of Amtrak’s Cascades service by increasing the number of round trips provided from four to six, or a total of 12 Cascades service train trips. Amtrak Coast Starlight would also travel on the Point Defiance Bypass route for a total of two service train trips. Train speeds along the route would vary from 30 mph for Sounder trains to an operating speed up to 79 mph for Amtrak trains on this section of the PNWRC.

There would be no change to the operation of freight trains on the Point Defiance Bypass route under the Build Alternative. Tacoma Rail and BNSF would continue to operate as many as two trains per day on some portions of the Point Defiance Bypass route to as few as two trains per week on other portions of the Point Defiance Bypass route. BNSF would continue to operate intermittent freight trains on the Point Defiance Bypass route to serve military transportation needs at JBLM. The Project would not enable freight traffic to move beyond the East “D” Street and Tacoma Avenue Overpass.

3.3 Laws,Regulations,andPermitsFederal, state, and local laws and regulations authorize agencies to issue permits, review plans, or provide consultation regarding potential project impacts. Table 1 identifies the pertinent federal, state, and local permits and consultation required for the Build Alternative. Regulations presented in Table 1 are organized by the primary issuing agency.

AR 006308

PDB 10004798


4.2 NoiseandVibration

4.2.1 StudyAreaandMethodology–NoiseandVibrationThe study area for the noise and vibration analysis is the project corridor, including the station relocation at Freighthouse Square. Noise and vibration effects were evaluated at sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet of the track centerline.

4.2.1.1 NoiseThe existing and future operational noise levels were evaluated based on the methodology outlined in the Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA 2006). Project-related noise impact thresholds are identified in Table 2. Shown in column 1 of Table 2 is the existing noise exposure. The remaining columns show the level of effect (moderate effect or severe effect) for future noise exposure. The future noise exposure is the combination of the existing noise exposure and the additional noise exposure caused by the Project. For example, if the existing noise exposure is 53 dBA for a residential land use (Category 1 or 2), a moderate effect would occur at 55 dBA and a severe effect would occur at 60 dBA. Based on the methodology, existing noise exposure levels were initially measured at selected monitoring sites (Figure 4). From Table 2, noise impact thresholds were then identified for each noise monitoring site. Future noise levels were then modeled using the FTA noise spreadsheet model (FTA, 2006). The future operational noise levels were then compared to the existing noise levels to determine if the project would result in impacts at sensitive receptors. If changes to noise levels did occur they were evaluated to determine if they would exceed the identified FTA noise impact thresholds (Table 2). In general, the higher the level of existing noise, the less potential exists for the project to cause noise impacts.

Sensitive Receptors are land uses where noise has the potential to disrupt the activities that take place there. The noise impact criteria for sensitive receptors depend on land use, designated as Category 1, Category 2 or Category 3. Category 1 includes uses where quiet is an essential element in their intended purpose, such as indoor concert halls or outdoor concert pavilions or National Historic Landmarks where outdoor interpretation routinely takes place. Category 2 includes residences and buildings where people sleep. Category 3 includes institutional land uses with primarily daytime and evening use such as schools, places of worship and libraries.

AR 006314

PDB 10004804


4.2.1.2 VibrationVibration effects from train operations were assessed using the FTA vibration impact assessment procedures (FTA 2006). Estimates of ground-borne vibration are taken by monitoring select representative sites for 24-hours. Those baseline vibration measurements are then compared to the FTA vibration impact thresholds (Table 3) to determine potential effects. If the monitored vibration levels exceed the ground-borne vibration criteria thresholds, then measures are assessed to reduce potential vibration effects. With respect to the noise and vibration construction assessment, because the means and methods of construction will not be known until a contractor is selected; the analysis of construction noise and vibration was based on typical activities and equipment used for construction.

As a reference for the vibration impact thresholds in (Table 3), the existing background building vibration usually ranges from 40-50 VdB, which is well below the range of human perception. Although the perceptibility threshold is about 65-70 VdB, human response (or the percent of people that would typically be annoyed) to vibration is usually not significant unless vibration levels exceed 70 VdB. A vibration level of 70 VdB is typical of the vibration experienced 50 feet from railroad tracks.

Table3.Ground‐borneVibrationImpactCriteria

LandUseCategory

Ground‐borneVibrationImpactLevels(VdB1re:1micro‐inch/sec)

FrequentEvents2

OccasionalEvents3

InfrequentEvents4

Category 1: Buildings where low existing vibration is essential for interior operations

65 VdB 65 VdB 65 VdB

Category 2: Residences and buildings where people normally sleep 72 VdB 75 VdB 80 VdB

Category 3: Institutional land uses with primarily daytime use 75 VdB 78 VdB 83 VdB 1 VdB = vibration velocity units 2 “Frequent Events” is defined as more than 70 vibration events of the same source per day. Most rapid transit projects fall into this category. 3 “Occasional Events” is defined as between 30 and 70 vibration events of the same sources per day. Most commuter trunk lines have this

many operations 4 “Infrequent Events” is defined as fewer than 30 vibration events of the same kind per day. This category includes most commuter rail branch

lines. Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA 2006)

4.2.2 AffectedEnvironment–NoiseandVibration

4.2.2.1 NoiseNoise monitoring was performed at 23 locations noted as “sensitive receptors” in the study area to determine baseline noise levels in relation to the current track operations and noise receivers typical of the study area (Figure 4). Long-term (24-hour) measurements were conducted at 19 of the 23 sites. These locations included residences and other buildings where people normally sleep. Short-term (15-minute) noise measurements were taken at the remaining four sites. These locations were representative of typical recreational, institutional, and commercial land uses with primarily daytime and evening activity. Current noise levels at the 19 residential receptors in the study corridor ranged from 54 to 75 A-weighted decibels (dBA). Noise levels at the four institutional receptors ranged from 49 dBA (Mountainview Memorial Park and Southgate Elementary School) to 69 dBA (Camp Murray) during short-term measurements (Table 2).

Neighborhoods within the study area currently experience noise from train mounted horns on Tacoma Rail freight trains south of Bridgeport Way Southwest, and wayside horns at intersections from

AR 006316

PDB 10004806


Freighthouse Square to Bridgeport Way Southwest.3 No corridor-specific noise measurements for existing wayside horns or train-mounted horns were available for this project.4 Instead, modelled contour lines at the Bridgeport Way Southwest intersection (considered a typical intersection within the study area) were created to show the areas potentially affected by both wayside horn or train mounted horns. With the project, wayside horns would be located at the intersection and based on the modeling, the area affected by wayside noise would be limited to the vicinity of the intersection and noise levels would be as follows:

80 dBA Ldn noise levels would be experienced at up to 28 feet from the intersection for less than a distance of 300 feet along the tracks.

70 dBA Ldn noise levels would be experienced at up to 70 feet from the intersection over a distance of 300 feet along the tracks.

60 dBA Ldn noise levels would be experienced at up to 190 feet from the intersection over a distance of 500 feet along the tracks.

By way of illustration, based on the FRA horn blowing requirements at grade-crossings, train-mounted horns modeled at the intersection would generate noise along the tracks for several thousand feet as the trains approach the intersection, significantly greater than the few hundred feet for wayside horns. With train-mounted horns,

80 dBA Ldn noise levels would be experienced at up to 20 feet from the tracks over a distance of between 2,500 and 3,000 feet along the tracks.

70 dBA Ldn noise levels are experienced at up to 90 feet from the tracks over a distance of 3,000 feet along the tracks.

60 dBA Ldn noise levels are experienced at up to 400 feet from the tracks over a distance of 3,700 feet along the tracks.

4.2.2.2 VibrationVibration levels were monitored for 24-hour periods at two sites representative of the land uses and buildings in the study area (Figure 4): one was the Arsenal/Museum building at Camp Murray (Site #CM2), and the other was at a residence along Kline Street Southwest (Site #3). The existing vibration levels at these locations were measured at 67 and 65 VdB, respectively.5

Additional information regarding affected environment for noise and vibration is detailed in Appendix E (page 31).

3 Wayside horns have been installed at intersections from Freighthouse Square to Bridgeport Way Southwest, such that noisier train-mounted horns need no longer be sounded for this section of the Point Defiance Bypass route. Sounder train noise has been addressed during environmental review and construction. Sound Transit conducted a noise analysis in conformance with FTA’s methodology and requirements and no noise impacts requiring mitigation were identified. (USDOT/ST 2002). 4 No corridor-specific noise measurements for wayside horns or train-mounted horns were conducted as no Cascades trains were running along the Point Defiance Bypass route at the time of the study. 5 The threshold of vibration perception for most humans is around 65-70 VdB; levels from 70-75 VdB are often noticeable but acceptable; and levels greater than 80 VdB are usually considered unacceptable (equivalent to a freight train going by at close range).

AR 006317

PDB 10004807


OperationalEffects–NoiseandVibration

Noise

Noise exposure would be generated by several sources, including passing trains, trains going over special track work (such as joints or frogs), and warning equipment (either wayside horns or on-train horns). Moderate noise impacts are predicted at two sensitive receptors for the Project: Site 6M and Site 16N (Figure 4). Site 6M is located near the at-grade railway crossing on 108th Street Southwest, just east of the intersection of 108th Street Southwest and Lakewood Drive Southwest in the City of Lakewood, Washington. Site 16N is located near the at-grade railway crossing on Bridgeport Way Southwest, just north of the intersection of Bridgeport Way Southwest and Pacific Highway Southwest in the City of Lakewood. Each sensitive receptor represents six residences. The increased noise levels at these sensitive receptors would be caused by new warning devices at signalized at-grade crossings located near the noise-sensitive land uses. Warning devices such as wayside horns (which are proposed as part of the Project) must be heard to be effective and therefore volumes cannot be reduced; however the use of wayside horns by both Amtrak and freight trains would replace train mounted horns with quieter wayside mounted horns that would reduce this particular source of noise. The noise effects from their use would be localized (as compared to on-train horns) and below the maximum noise level of 92 dBA at 100 feet, as set by FRA. Also, there would be no noise effects during common sleeping hours (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) due to the proposed Amtrak Cascades and Coast Starlight schedule (trains will run after 7 a.m. and until 10 p.m). As noise effects to sensitive receptors are below the FTA noise impact threshold for severe effects and wayside train horn volumes are below the maximum noise level allowed by FRA for train-mounted horns, noise effects to sensitive receptors would not be significant.

Vibration

Vibration effects above the FTA vibration impact criteria of 80 VdB for infrequent events are predicted to occur at two sensitive receptors: Site 3 (85 VdB) and Site 11 (82 VdB), representing 5 and 11 residences, respectively, located 25-50 feet from the nearest track (Figure 4). Site 3 is located at the south end of Kline Street Southwest, just north of the existing rail line in the City of Lakewood. Site 11 is located on the south side of Union Avenue Southwest, between Maple Street Southwest and Lake Street Southwest, just north of the existing rail line in the City of Lakewood. Increased vibration levels at these locations are a result of the small distance between the sites and the tracks. Additional impacts resulting from a 3 VdB or more increase over the existing vibration levels in the corridor shared with Sound Transit Sounder service (Lakewood Station to TR Junction) are predicted at Sites 2 (72 VdB), 4 (66 VdB), 5 (70 VdB) and 10 (66 VdB), but these would be below the FTA impact criteria of 80 VdB for infrequent events. Existing condition vibration monitoring was also performed at the Arsenal/Museum building at Camp Murray (Site CM2) and this site is not expected to experience vibration effects under the Build Alternative.

In summary, the Project would have infrequent events as there would be less than 30 vibration events from the same source per day in the study area. This correlates to a FTA vibration impact criteria of 80 VdB throughout the study area for Category 2 (residential) land uses, and 83 Vdb for Category 3 (institutional) land uses7 which would be exceeded at Sites 3 and 11. There would be no vibration effects during common sleeping hours due to the proposed Amtrak Cascades and Coast Starlight schedule (trains will run after 7 a.m. and until 10 p.m). Vibration levels to sensitive receptors would exceed the FTA vibration impact thresholds (80 VdB for Category 2 land uses, and 83 Vdb for Category 3 land uses). However, minimization measures described in Section 4.2.4 would reduce the vibration effects

7 Vibration levels of 80 VdB and 83 VdB would be noticeable to people (similar to a freight train passing by at close range) but would not be severe enough to cause property damage.

AR 006320

PDB 10004810


future traffic volumes on roadways were modeled (both with and without the Project), and those modeled volumes were then used to calculate intersection delay (the average time in seconds vehicles wait before moving through an intersection) and vehicle queue length for major intersections.

The models used measure the effects of railroad operations on surrounding roadways and intersections in the study area. Intersection delay is expressed as a Level of Service (LOS) (Figure 5) using methods established by the Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209. Vehicle queue lengths were analyzed to determine both average and maximum queue lengths. Analysts also evaluated the effects on pedestrian and bicycle traffic by comparing the non-motorized connections proposed with the Build Alternative to existing facilities. Two rail study models were completed as part of the Project, the Service Development Plan – Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor Cascades High-Speed Rail Program (WSDOT 2011a) and the D to 66th Street Operational Analysis Review (WSDOT 2010). Both models include Cascade and Coast Starlight trains.

Figure 5. Level of Service Criteria for Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections

4.3.2 AffectedEnvironment–TransportationThe existing Puget Sound rail route is near capacity and has physical and operational constraints that adversely affect both passenger and freight train scheduling and reliability. Tacoma Rail and BNSF are the operators of freight trains in the study area. Tacoma Rail operates as many as two trains per day on some portions of the Point Defiance Bypass route to as few as two trains per week on other portions of the Point Defiance Bypass route. BNSF operates intermittent freight trains on the Point Defiance Bypass route to serve military transportation needs at JBLM. Any increase in freight train use of the Point Defiance Bypass route would be subject to the terms of the various operating agreements between Sound

LOS ranges from ‘A’ to ‘F,’ with the letter A describing the least amount of congestion and best operations, and the letter F indicating the highest amount of congestion and worst operations.

AR 006322

PDB 10004812


Transit, Tacoma Rail, WSDOT, and Amtrak.9 There are no plans to increase freight on the Point Defiance Bypass route at this time. Tacoma Rail switches railcars while it builds trains in the Barksdale Avenue crossing area. During this switching operation, Barksdale Avenue can be closed to street traffic for several minutes, which affects the movement of vehicular and non-motorized traffic in the City of DuPont.

Roadway LOS was measured for each of the at-grade rail crossing intersections for the peak hours (Figure 6). The results of the study area traffic analysis show that in the 2010 morning peak hour, the study area intersections range from LOS A through D; all acceptable LOS. In the 2010 afternoon peak hour, intersections operate at LOS A through D except for two intersections that operate at LOS F: North Thorne Lane Southwest and Union Avenue Southwest, and Berkeley Street Southwest/Union Avenue Southwest. Queue length analysis of the intersections identified in the cities of Tacoma and Lakewood showed that most intersections currently have at least one movement where queuing causes delays or interference with traffic flow. Additional information regarding queue length is in Appendix F (page 29).

Pedestrians are served by sidewalks along most of the streets in the study area,10 while bike lanes are present on a few of the streets. Pedestrians and bicyclists are permitted to cross the tracks at all at-grade intersections in the study area. Many of the railroad crossings provide sidewalks and paved walkways. For all railroad crossings, the rails are recessed into the pavement, which increases pedestrian and bicyclist crossing safety. In the City of Lakewood, the Lakewood Station Connection Project, a pedestrian overcrossing, is under construction near Lakewood Station. The Lakewood Station Connection Project will provide a pedestrian overpass connecting the Lakewood Station to Kendrick Street on the north side of the Point Defiance Bypass tracks.

Bus service in the study area is provided by Olympia Express (Intercity Transit), Pierce Transit, and Sound Transit. Sound Transit bus routes in the study area provide passenger service between the cities of DuPont, Lakewood, Tacoma, and Seattle. Pierce Transit provides routes connecting Lakewood, Tacoma, and JBLM. Intercity Transit operates Olympia Express routes that connect downtown Tacoma to downtown Olympia. All three bus services utilize a bus transit center located one block north of the Freighthouse Square Station. The Greyhound bus station is located across from the bus transit center. Sound Transit’s Lakewood Station, is located within the study area and includes a side platform and shelters for passengers. A parking garage at the station provides more than 600 commuter parking spaces. Additional information regarding affected environment is in Appendix F (page 29).

9 Operating agreements are between the track owners and the operators. Several operating agreements are in place between the various owners and operators along the Point Defiance Bypass, and include operating agreements between BNSF (owner) and WSDOT, Amtrak, and Tacoma Rail (operators); Sound Transit (owner) and BNSF, Tacoma Rail, WSDOT, and Amtrak; and, Tacoma Rail (owner) and Sound Transit (operator). 10 Pedestrians also use the existing rail tracks and railroad ROW illegally as a means to travel within the area, especially in areas where sidewalks are intermittent or not available.

The peak hours are the time of day when the highest amount of vehicles travel on the roadway network. The morning peak period is 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM and afternoon peak period is 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM.

For study area jurisdictions, LOS D or better is an acceptable standard for intersection function; LOS E or F represents unacceptable intersection function.

AR 006323

PDB 10004813


OperationalEffects

Relocating passenger rail service to the Point Defiance Bypass route would improve travel time of the Amtrak Cascades service by 10 minutes because of the shorter distance (approximately six miles shorter) and because the trains will operate at higher speeds on the less congested tracks, and would improve on-time performance by avoiding potential delays from freight trains on the existing route. Additionally, trains traveling on the Point Defiance Bypass route would avoid some operational delays affecting reliability and travel time currently experienced on the Puget Sound route from landslides, weather-related delays and closures, and drawbridge openings. The Amtrak Cascades schedule would also be coordinated with Sound Transit to preserve the line capacity needed for Sound Transit to operate existing commuter rail service. Table 4 details the existing and future rail operations on the Point Defiance Bypass route.

Freight trains on the Puget Sound route would not be affected by relocating passenger trains to the Point Defiance Bypass route but could experience a slight benefit by removing passenger rail operations from the Puget Sound route.

Table4.ExistingandFutureDailyRailOperationsAlongtheProjectRailLine

NoBuildAlternative

(Existing)BuildAlternative

(Future)

Freight(TRandBNSF) 211 212

SoundTransit 26 26

Cascades 0 12

Starlight 0 2

Totals 28 42

No new at-grade highway or rail crossings are planned and no at-grade road crossings would be closed with the Build Alternative. The addition of Amtrak passenger service to the Point Defiance Bypass route would increase the number of short-term roadway blockages by 14 from train crossings throughout the day and during the morning and evening peak hour, compared to the No Build Alternative. The 2030 morning and evening peak hour roadway volumes are the same for the No Build and Build Alternatives, but the additional blockages would cause an increase in the overall time roadways are blocked for the Build Alternative. The average additional blockage time per crossing for the Project is approximately one minute during the morning and afternoon peak hour.

In 2030, queue lengths are anticipated to increase slightly with the addition of Amtrak Cascades service for the Build Alternative. The road closure time for a train crossing would be similar to crossing closures for Sounder trains (approximately one minute or less). The anticipated maximum queue length increase would be approximately two to four more vehicles compared to the No Build Alternative because of signal control system enhancements incorporated into the Build Alternative. At some locations, the queue length, when compared to the No Build Alternative, would be reduced because signal improvements needed for safety would also optimize the movement of vehicle travel (for example, “free” right or left turns would be available when crossing traffic is stopped due to a train crossing).

11 Tacoma Rail and BNSF are the operators of freight trains in the project study area. Tacoma Rail operates as many as two trains per day on some portions of the Bypass route to as few as two trains per week on other portions of the Bypass route. BNSF operates intermittent freight trains on the Point Defiance Bypass route to serve military transportation needs at JBLM. This condition applies to the Build and No Build Alternative. 12 Any increase in freight train use on the Point Defiance Bypass route in the future would be subject to the terms of the operating agreement between Sound Transit, Tacoma Rail, WSDOT, and Amtrak. There are no plans at this time to increase freight trains on the Point Defiance Bypass route. Any increases in freight train use on the Puget Sound route would be determined by BNSF.

AR 006326

PDB 10004816


The Build Alternative would reduce the number of intersections exceeding the LOS D standards set by local jurisdictions and WSDOT from nine to eight, compared to the No Build Alternative. The Build Alternative would improve substandard LOS conditions at the locations summarized in Table 5.

Table5.Year2030IntersectionsImprovedbytheBuildAlternative

Intersection

AMPeakHourLOSandDelay(sec./veh.)

PMPeakHourLOSandDelay(sec./veh.)

NoBuildAlternative

BuildAlternative

NoBuildAlternative

BuildAlternative

North Thorne Lane Southwest and I-5 Southbound Ramps

E (70.3) D (44.3) D (40.7) C (30.9)

North Thorne Lane Southwest and I-5 Northbound Ramps

E (75.2) E (70.7) F (91.3) E (74.8)

Berkeley Street Southwest and Union Avenue Southwest

F (102.2) F (83.5) F (64.1) D (42.9)

Barksdale Avenue/Locust Road and I-5 Northbound Ramps

E (62.5) E (57.6) E (56.0) E (55.8)

With the Build Alternative, several intersections experience minor impacts resulting in decreased LOS but would continue to meet LOS A through D standards (Table 6). The remaining intersections would experience some change in delay (seconds per vehicle) but no LOS changes.

Table6.Year2030IntersectionsExperiencingaDecreaseinLOSbytheBuildAlternative

Intersection

AMPeakHourLOSandDelay(sec./veh.)

PMPeakHourLOSandDelay(sec./veh.)

NoBuildAlternative

BuildAlternative

NoBuildAlternative

BuildAlternative

Steilacoom Boulevard Southwest and Lakeview Avenue Southwest

No LOS change

No LOS change

A (9.9) B (10.2)

Berkeley Street Southwest and I-5 northbound ramps

No LOS change

No LOS change

C (29.8) D (41.9)

41st Division Drive and I-5 southbound ramps No LOS change

No LOS change

A (9.7) B (11.9)

Barksdale Avenue and DuPont-Steilacoom Road B (19.4) C (22.2) No LOS change

No LOS change

Bus transit would experience the same intersection delay and queue lengths at intersections as vehicles with the Build Alternative. The Build Alternative would not affect the location of bus stops or provide other transit service enhancements.

While stopped at Freighthouse Square, the Coast Starlight train would extend beyond the existing station platform and across East C Street and East D Street. The blockage of these two streets would affect vehicular traffic during the time the Coast Starlight is at the station (dwell time of approximately six minutes). Infrequently, the Coast Starlight stop may coincide with an event at the nearby Tacoma Dome. During an event at the Tacoma Dome, the dwell time of the Coast Starlight train at Freighthouse Square would result in a decline of LOS to below LOS D (Appendix G, page 6). The temporary blockage of these two streets would result in a decline of LOS to below LOS D during an event at the Tacoma Dome. Minimization of operational effects on traffic as a result of the Coast Starlight dwell time at Freighthouse Square, and during a Tacoma Dome event, would include implementation of a detour plan that could include static signs identifying the detour routes, dynamic message signs that identify the detour routes during a train blockage, lane striping and controller modification. FRA and WSDOT would provide

AR 006327

PDB 10004817


analysis. The study area also includes the station relocation at Freighthouse Square. A half mile on either side of the Puget Sound and Point Defiance Bypass route centerlines was defined, because this area would contain the direct and indirect effects that could be attributed to the Build and No-Build conditions. The Puget Sound route is included in the EJ study area for consideration of any effects on EJ populations from the No Build Alternative, which would include the continued use of the existing Puget Sound route for Amtrak service.

Census data were gathered for all of Pierce County and evaluated for representation of minority and low-income populations. Literature searches, field visits were also gathered to determine community demographics related to elderly people, people with disabilities, Limited English Proficiency, low income, and minority populations. Within the defined study area, demographic and community characteristics, including connectivity and cohesion were evaluated and EJ communities were identified. The EJ analysis was conducted in conformity with Executive Order 12898 and the US Department of Transportation Updated Environmental Justice Order 5610.2(a), which set forth a policy to consider the principles of environmental justice in agency programs, policies and activities. In addition, as required by Executive Order 12898, FRA and WSDOT are actively pursuing public involvement and outreach efforts, including providing information and opportunities for input from LEP populations, with materials translated into Spanish, Korean, Vietnamese and Russian. EJ populations within the project corridor were contacted as part of the larger information distribution efforts. A number of outreach events occurred within EJ population centers, including Lakewood’s Tillicum Community Center and South Tacoma’s South Park Community Center. Public involvement is further discussed in Section 5.0, Coordination and Consultation.

4.12.2 AffectedEnvironment–SocioeconomicsandEnvironmentalJusticeSocioeconomics

Community Characteristics. The community characteristics in the study area vary widely as the existing and proposed rail corridors traverse industrial, commercial, and residential areas.

Community Connectivity and Cohesion. In general, connectivity through neighborhoods in the study area is good, although there are some neighborhoods (Tillicum, Woodbrook, and Nyanza neighborhoods) that have reported limited connections to adjacent areas. The limited connection, and thus some isolation is due to transportation features such as I-5 and the rail corridor, military installations (i.e. JBLM) as well as natural geographic features such as Gravelly Lake and American Lake (Figure 11). Connectivity is also affected by traffic congestion between the neighborhood and adjacent areas within the Point Defiance Bypass route. This is primarily related to congestion at intersections adjacent to I-5, especially during peak travel times, affecting the general public and emergency services such as fire, police, and ambulance services. Permitted access points along the Point Defiance Bypass route occur at at-grade crossings, where there can be some public safety risk to pedestrians or unsafe traffic movements. Currently, there are some locations where pedestrians cross the tracks illegally, and not all at-grade rail crossings are improved with crossing areas. There have been two accidents in the Point Defiance Bypass route in the last 12 years at intersections when automobiles were driven through the closed intersection when a train was passing.

A low-income person is defined as an individual whose household income falls below the federal poverty guidelines, as defined by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. For 2011, the federal poverty guideline for a household of four was $22,350. A minority is an individual who identifies themselves as Black; Hispanic; Asian American; or American Indian/Alaskan Native.

AR 006348

PDB 10004838


The neighborhoods within the study area currently experience noise from train mounted horns on Tacoma Rail freight trains and wayside horns at intersections from Freighthouse Square to Bridgeport Way Southwest. 20

Economics. The unemployment rate in Pierce County is 9.6 percent compared to 9.0 percent for Washington, and 9.3 percent for the US (ESD-WA 2011). Economic trends show that Pierce County is expected to continue to grow in population and economic activity into the future at modest rates. Government, including JBLM, is a major employer in Pierce County, and the planned increase in personnel stationed at JBLM would likely continue the growth trend.

According to the Pierce County Assessor-Treasurer, property values have declined county-wide with an average value decline from 2010 to 2011 of about 7 percent for residential and commercial properties (Pierce County 2011). A review of real estate market information indicates there is still a depressed real estate market with foreclosures and short sales dragging prices down, along with poor consumer confidence (Realty Times 2011, News Tribune 2011). However, there are indications that property values and sales could trend upward in 2012. Generally older stock houses (pre-1950s) without a view of Puget Sound were priced lowest, with newer houses, those with views of the Puget Sound, and historic homes being priced higher.

Public Services and Facilities. As shown in Figure 15, within the study area, there are 26 public and private schools in three school districts, several medical facilities, two hospitals, 11 recreational facilities, and two facilities for disadvantaged people in the study area. There are 52 religious facilities and four cemeteries. Pierce Transit and Sound Transit provide public transportation services. Public services and utilities in the study area are further described in Section 4.14, Public Services, Utilities, and Safety and the Public Services and Utilities Discipline Report (Appendix P, page 15).

EnvironmentalJustice

Census tract data from the 2010 Census was used to assess minority and income characteristics in the study area (for the Puget Sound route and Point Defiance Bypass route), which were then compared to statistics for Pierce County as a whole. This comparison of data allows for the identification of areas that may have a high concentration of minority or low-income residents, the first step in an Environmental Justice evaluation. A summary of this analysis is presented below; the Socioeconomic and Environmental Justice Discipline Report (Appendix N, page 21) provides additional information.

Minority. The population in the Point Defiance Bypass portion of the study area reflects a greater diversity of race, ethnicity, and income than either the existing Puget Sound route or Pierce County (Table 13). High percentages of minority populations relative to Pierce County are noted on Figure 12 as areas with greater than 60 percent minority populations in the Lakeview, South End, Eastside neighborhoods. High percentages of low-income populations (greater than 40 percent) relative to Pierce County include portions of the Tillicum/Woodbrook neighborhoods and downtown Tacoma (Figure 13).

Limited English Proficiency. Proficiency in English was reviewed for the study areas to gauge LEP populations. The data indicates that the LEP populations were not concentrated in specific areas within the study areas. There are more LEP populations in the Build Alternative study area. The populations of people with disabilities and the elderly in the study areas are similar to county-wide statistics.

20 Wayside horns have been installed at intersections from Freighthouse Square to Bridgeport Way Southwest, such that noisier train-mounted horns need no longer be sounded for this section of the Point Defiance Bypass route. Sounder train noise has been addressed during environmental review and construction. Sound Transit conducted a noise analysis in conformance with FTA’s methodology and requirements and no noise impacts requiring mitigation were identified. (USDOT/ST 2002).

AR 006350

PDB 10004840


Table13.PopulationandRace/EthnicityStatistics21

PointDefianceBypassRoute

PointDefianceBypass

Route(%)PugetSound

RoutePugetSoundRoute(%)

PierceCounty

PierceCounty(%)

White 66,824 59.6 98,376 74.7 590,040 74.2

Black or African American 14,567 13.0 10,079 8.1 53,998 6.8

American Indian and Alaska Native 2,268 2.2 1,971 1.7 10,879 1.4

Asian 8,426 7.2 7,633 5.8 47,501 6.0

Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander 2,445 2.2 1,053 0.9 10,588 1.3

Two or More Races 10,274 8.8 8,510 6.5 54,347 6.8

Some Other Race 7,457 6.9 2,895 2.4 27,872 3.5

Total Hispanic or Latino22

17,453 16.2 10,305 7.9 72,849 9.2

Total Population23 112,261 100.0 130,517 100.0 795,225 100.0

Low-Income. Table 14 shows persons below the poverty level for the Puget Sound route, the Point Defiance Bypass route, and Pierce County. The data indicates that for persons living below the poverty level, the Puget Sound route study area is similar to Pierce County as a whole. The census tracts comprising the Point Defiance Bypass route have a greater concentration of persons at or below the poverty level when compared to Pierce County. Figure 13 maps the census tracts where the greatest concentrations of persons at or below the poverty level are located. There are several areas in the Point Defiance Bypass study area with higher percentages of low-income households south of the Sound Transit Lakewood Station. The Tillicum and Woodbrook neighborhood areas also have a higher percentage and a greater density of low-income households, on either side of I-5. The Puget Sound route has a low percentage of low-income households and no communities that would be considered EJ communities.

Table14.PovertyStatus24

AreaPugetSound

RoutePointDefianceBypassRoute

PierceCounty

Population for Whom Poverty Status is Determined 130,039 110,408 748,122

Living Below Poverty Level 17,600 21,883 86,468

Living Below Poverty Level (%) 13.5% 19.8% 12%

Additional information regarding affected environment is in Appendix N (page 21).

21 2010 100% Data Tables (Block Group; P7) 22 Total population of Hispanic or Latino for which races were tallied 23 Total populations, not Hispanic or Latino for which races were tallied 24 2005-2009 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (Census Tract)

AR 006351

PDB 10004841


OperationalEffects

Socioeconomics

Community Characteristics. The Build Alternative would not cause a direct change in the demographics, land use patterns, neighborhoods, or other related community characteristics. The Build Alternative would continue to use the existing railroad right-of-way, which was constructed in 1873 and 1891, and has been in service since. When compared to conditions without the Project (No Build), operation of the Build Alternative would not alter community characteristics.

Community Connectivity and Cohesion. The increased number of trains (14 additional train crossings per day in addition to up to 18 Sounder trains) under the Build Alternative would reduce connectivity during train crossings of local roads; however upgrades to the intersections and signaling would overall maintain or improve traffic flow; therefore, improving connectivity compared to the No Build Alternative. Intersection and signal improvements would improve connectivity and safety for pedestrians, bicyclists and vehicles as well as improve traffic flow for some intersections, which is more fully discussed in Section 4.3 (Transportation). The Build Alternative would have minor effects to emergency service vehicles, public access and safety as a result of increased train traffic on track intersecting local roads. Institution of the Operation Lifesaver program, as discussed in Section 4.14, Public Services, Utilities, and Safety, would help reduce this effect.

The Tillicum, Woodbrook, and Nyanza neighborhoods would continue to experience some isolation because of the lack of existing non-vehicular pathways and trails. The operation of the Project may increase residents’ feelings of isolation in a few neighborhoods during train pass-bys, which would be very short in duration. Upgrades to the intersections and signaling would overall maintain or improve traffic flow; therefore, improving connectivity and safety for pedestrians, bicyclists and vehicles as well as improve traffic flow for some intersections. Therefore, with the Project and the proposed traffic improvements, community connectivity would experience a minor benefit.

While there would be increased train noise levels as Amtrak trains are added to the corridor, the noise from train pass-bys would not be the most significant new source of noise. With the project, there would be wayside horns added from Lakewood to Nisqually, like those installed with the Sound Transit extension of service to Lakewood. Wayside horns have a much lower noise effect than train-mounted horns. Although there would be an increase in noise levels, the noise analysis demonstrates that the noise level effects to sensitive noise receptors would be moderate. There would be a corollary benefit from the use of wayside horns, which would be that freight trains from Lakewood to Tacoma would no longer sound their train mounted horns through intersections equipped with wayside horns, which would reduce this particular source of noise in the communities. There would be no effect in community cohesion due to noise.

Economics. Economic effects would be associated with property values of adjacent residential and business properties. Property values tend to increase in the vicinity of stations and decrease for properties located adjacent to tracks, however the findings on decreased property value are not conclusive (Rudick 2001). The Project is not anticipated to affect property values given that the rail corridor already exists, is used for freight and commuter service, and measures to minimize or eliminate noise and vibration would be implemented by the Project. Operation of the Project would result in a minor benefit to the limited freight operations due to safety improvements at crossings, and the replaced rail infrastructure at the southern end. Tacoma Rail may gain improved access to Tacoma suppliers. No additional freight traffic is anticipated. The use of the corridor by freight is negotiated through multiple operating agreements with the rail owners, Sound Transit, Tacoma Rail, and BNSF. Freight movements are independent of the Sound Transit and Amtrak operations along the Point Defiance Bypass route. There would be no change

AR 006355

PDB 10004845


to the operation of freight trains on the Point Defiance Bypass route under the Build Alternative. Tacoma Rail and BNSF would continue to operate as many as two trains per day or as few as two trains per week. BNSF would continue to operate intermittent freight trains on the Point Defiance Bypass route to serve military transportation needs at JBLM.

Public Services. No public services would be displaced by the Project and would continue to be available to individuals in the study area. Operational effects would be similar for all the public service sectors, including schools, emergency services, access to medical centers and government offices, and transit. The most common effect is intersection traffic delays due to the addition of the Amtrak service, which could delay public services, including school bus service. Additional information on this effect is presented in Section 4.3 (Transportation), Section 4.14, Public Services, Utilities, and Safety.

Additional information regarding operational effects is in Appendix N (page 35).

EnvironmentalJustice

FRA and WSDOT evaluated the environmental effects of the Project to determine whether the anticipated effects would be experienced differently for Environmental Justice populations than by the community as a whole. Each environmental descriptor considered in this EA was reviewed for potential disproportionate effects on Environmental Justice populations, and following that evaluation, vibration and noise were identified as those areas with the potential to affect Environmental Justice populations. The findings are presented below.

Two sites where potential vibration effects would be above the FTA vibration impact criteria of 80 VdB are also identified as areas with a high percentage of minority/ethnic and low-income populations. Site 3 is located at the south end of Kline Street Southwest and Site 11 is located on the south side of Union Avenue Southwest. These populations would experience minor vibration effects under the Build Alternative. Additional impacts resulting from a 3 VdB or more increase over the existing vibration levels in the corridor shared with Sound Transit Sounder service (Lakewood Station to TR Junction) were predicted at Sites 2, 4, 5 and 10. These four sites also exhibit a high percentage of minority/ethnic populations.

Minority/ethnic and low-income populations would also experience moderate project related noise effects at two noise monitoring sites. Moderate noise impacts are predicted at Site 6M and Site 16N. Site 6M is located near the at-grade railway crossing on 108th Street Southwest, just east of the intersection of 108th Street Southwest and Lakewood Drive Southwest in the City of Lakewood. Site 16N is located near the at-grade railway crossing on Bridgeport Way Southwest, just north of the intersection of Bridgeport Way Southwest and Pacific Highway Southwest in the City of Lakewood. Both sites exhibit a high percentage of minority/ethnic and low-income population.

The transfer of passenger rail service from the existing BNSF main line route to the proposed route may decrease noise, and to a lesser extent traffic delays, along the existing BNSF main line route. These effects may result in a negligible benefit to persons living along the Puget Sound Route.

The effects described above would affect low-income and minority/ethnic populations, however the effects would not be appreciably more severe or greater in magnitude than the effect on non-minority or non-low-income populations in the vicinity of the project. Therefore, no disproportionately high or adverse effect on EJ populations would result from the Project and the Project meets the provisions of Executive Order 12898, as it is supported by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.

Additional information regarding operational effects is in Appendix N (page 35).

AR 006356

PDB 10004846


4.12.4 MinimizationMeasures–SocioeconomicsandEnvironmentalJusticeAlthough the Build Alternative would not have a significant effect on socioeconomics and EJ requiring mitigation, effects associated with construction and operational activities would be reduced by minimization measures which are summarized in the topical areas. See project measures for air quality, noise and vibration, transportation, hazardous materials, and public services, utilities, and safety.

4.13 LandUse

4.13.1 StudyAreaandMethodology–LandUseThe study area includes the existing railroad right-of-way along the Point Defiance Bypass route and land uses within 500 feet of each side of the route, including the station relocation at Freighthouse Square. Land uses were identified in the context of existing and planned land uses and zoning, Shoreline Management Act and Critical Area Ordinance designations, resource lands (agricultural, timber, and mineral), and development trends. Land uses were evaluated by comparing effects of the alternatives on existing land uses, regulations, and trends and determining if the alternatives would result in more than a moderate effect due to incompatibility with adjacent land uses and/or inconsistency with land use plans, and relocation and displacement of a substantial number of housing units or commercial uses. Park and recreation facilities were also identified along the Point Defiance Bypass route.

Section 6(f)(3) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (LWCFA)provides protection for parks that were acquired or developed with LWCFA grants. Because parks and recreation areas often receive LWCFA assistance, Section 6(f) applies to any federal agency action. Because no acquisition of parks, recreation areas, wildlife and waterfowl sites or property is proposed as a part of the Project, Section 6(f) provisions do not apply to the Project. Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act of 1966 (49 USC 303) is discussed in Section 4.11.

4.13.2 AffectedEnvironment–LandUseThe Puget Sound route portion of the study area includes a mix of land uses, including park, residential, forestry, shoreline, wildlife refuges, industrial, and open areas. The Point Defiance Bypass route portion of the study area is an existing railroad corridor, approximately two-thirds of which are located within or adjacent to the incorporated cities of Tacoma, Lakewood, and DuPont. Within this corridor are industrial, commercial, residential (single and multifamily), transportation and utility, vacant, and other land uses such as open space, recreation, and educational (Figure 14). An estimated 25-30 percent of land within the urban-developed portion of the study area is identified for redevelopment according to land use plans. The remainder lies within an unincorporated area of Pierce County, the majority of which is occupied by JBLM and Camp Murray National Guard military complexes. There are no resource lands25 in the study areas.

25 Resource lands include those lands used or have physical characteristics that make them ideal for agricultural, forestry or mineral extraction purposes.

AR 006357

PDB 10004847


Figure 14. Existing Land Uses –Incorporated Areas along the Point Defiance Bypass Route

Throughout the existing rail corridor, several adjacent land uses occupy portions of the railroad right-of-way with parking lots, outside storage, fences, and two buildings. Some occupied areas have leases with the railroad right-of-way owner. A 2010 inventory identified approximately 50 right-of-way encroachments by commercial or industrial uses. All of these encroachments have been resolved.26

There are 21 park and recreational resources within the study area. Additional information regarding affected environment is in Appendix N (page 17).

4.13.3 EnvironmentalConsequences–LandUse

4.13.3.1 NoBuildAlternative–LandUseMinor maintenance and upgrades to the Puget Sound track would not affect surrounding land use. Existing conditions and land use would persist under the No Build Alternative along the Point Defiance Bypass Route.

4.13.3.2 BuildAlternative–LandUse

ConstructionEffects

Construction activities associated with the Build Alternative would not displace any existing land uses or acquire additional property aside from potential acquisitions adjacent to Freighthouse Square and for parking in that vicinity. The Project would not affect park or recreation resources (including historic sites, see Section 4.10, Cultural Resources). Additional information regarding construction effects are described in Appendix O (page 67).

OperationalEffects

Overall, the Build Alternative is consistent with adopted land use policies. Land use adjacent to the Point Defiance Bypass route would be affected by the increased speeds and more frequent trains traveling through the communities and the potential effect on future development, however the rail corridor would continue to be compatible with surrounding land uses. Effects of the Build Alternative to adjacent land use would be minor. The Project would not affect park or recreation resources (including historic sites,

26 Resolution of encroachments occurred as part of ongoing negotiation between ST and property owners, in collaboration with the WSDOT rail program.

AR 006358

PDB 10004848


see Section 4.10, Cultural Resources). Additional information regarding operational effects is in Appendix O (page 65).

4.13.4 MinimizationMeasures–LandUseNo adverse effects to land use would occur as part of the Build Alternative; therefore, no minimization measures are proposed.

4.14 PublicServices,Utilities,andSafety

4.14.1 StudyAreaandMethodology–PublicServices,Utilities,andSafetyThe study area is a half mile on either side of the Puget Sound route, Point Defiance Bypass route and the station relocation at Freighthouse Square. Multiple sources were used to collect information on the location and routing of public service providers and utilities. These sources include publically available data and mapping, 2010 Census data, and information obtained from local jurisdictions.

4.14.2 AffectedEnvironment–PublicServices,Utilities,andSafetyPublic services include police, fire, schools, churches, recreational facilities, and medical facilities. Utilities can be provided by public or private entities and include water, sewer, storm drainage, electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications. In the study area corridor for the Build Alternative, there are 26 public and private schools within the study area from the 3 school districts: Tacoma, Clover Park, and Steilacoom Historical. All three school districts provide busing through the study area. There are 5 medical facilities, 2 hospitals (Saint Clare Hospital and Madigan Army Medical Center), 11 recreational facilities, and 2 facilities for disadvantaged people in the study area. Fifty-two religious facilities were identified, as were four cemeteries in the study area. Pierce Transit and Sound Transit provide public transportation services. Police services are provided by the City of Tacoma, City of Lakewood, and City of DuPont. The Puyallup Tribe police provide police services for the tribal properties. Fire services are provided by the City of Tacoma, West Pierce Fire and Rescue, and the City of DuPont. JBLM provides police and fire services on military installations only. The 10 panels represented in Figure 15 show the public facilities in the study area.

Private and public utilities in the study area include water, wastewater, stormwater, telephone, cable, internet, electricity, and gas. Solid waste facilities and services are provided by the City of Tacoma, City of Lakewood, City of DuPont, and JBLM. The facilities and services include solid waste handling, recycling, and yard debris, and household hazardous waste facility.

Over the 5 year period from October 2006 through September 2011, three at-grade crossing collisions have occurred between roadway vehicles and trains on the Puget Sound route and one on the Point Defiance Bypass route (http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/OfficeofSafety/default.aspx). Additional information regarding affected environment is in Appendix P (page 15).

AR 006359

PDB 10004849


4.14.3 EnvironmentalConsequences–PublicServices,Utilities,andSafety

4.14.3.1 NoBuildAlternative–PublicServices,Utilities,andSafetyThe public services and utilities in the study area would remain unchanged by the minor maintenance and repair activities associated with the No Build Alternative. Existing conditions and public services and utilities would persist under the No Build Alternative.

Under the No Build Alternative, 3.6 accidents are anticipated for every million train crossings based on the expected number of average daily train crossings and predicted annual accident frequencies.

4.14.3.2 BuildAlternative–PublicServices,Utilities,andSafety

ConstructionEffects

While construction of track upgrades along most of the corridor would have little or no effect on public services or safety, construction would cause traffic delays during intersection construction. Delays for emergency vehicles and school and public buses would be similar to typical construction-related traffic discussed in 4.3, Transportation. Potential utility conflicts and relocation needs have been identified from the Clover Creek Drive intersection to the southern terminus of the Point Defiance Bypass route. As part of construction, FRA and WSDOT would relocate, deepen, and/or harden utilities within the railroad right-of-way. Additional information regarding construction effects are detailed in Appendix P (page 37).

OperationalEffects

Operational effects would be similar for all the public service sectors, including schools, emergency services, access to medical centers and government offices, and transit. The most common effect is intersection traffic delays due to the addition of the Amtrak service. Traffic delays are anticipated to be minor as the intersections typically clear (time required to clear vehicles from the intersection after the train has passed) within one to two cycles of the traffic signal (or 3-5 minutes during peak traffic hours), as described in 4.3, Transportation. Train or track malfunctions could cause an unanticipated intersection closure but these are not common, typically of short duration, and detours would be available. Relocation of the Tacoma Amtrak station to the Tacoma Dome at Freighthouse Square would have minor effects to public services or utilities related to the potential for increased traffic.

No effects are anticipated for utilities as utility owners requiring access to buried or aerial utilities for maintenance and upgrades because access would be provided.

FRA and WSDOT do not anticipate that the Project would increase trespass on rail right-of-way; however increased passenger rail traffic may cause more opportunities for trespassers on rail right-of-way to interact with trains, causing potential safety issues. In addition to state and federal safety requirements, the infrastructure owner is responsible for developing and implementing security procedures to reduce the likelihood of rail trespass. These security procedures implement and follow the BNSF Railway’s Transportation Security Administration: 24 Security Action Items flyer, 49 CFR 1580: TSA Rail Regulations Regarding Rail Security Sensitive Materials, Sound Transit’s Safety and Security Plan, and the system safety program plans for both BNSF Railway and Tacoma Rail.

With the Build Alternative, 3.2 accidents for every million train crossings are anticipated. This accident rate would be a decrease in accidents from the No Build Alternative (3.6 accidents per million train

At an average closure time of less than one minute per crossing, gates would be closed for less than 12 minutes per day.

AR 006370

PDB 10004860

melissam3

Highlight


crossings). The Build Alternative would also improve safety at several existing at-grade crossings by adding the following improvements:

Signage: “Do Not Stop On Tracks” signs would be installed at the crossings.

Wayside Horns: This automated warning system would be installed at rail/roadway at-grade crossings to warn people of an approaching train.

Median Barriers: Median barriers would be installed in the middle of the roadway approaching the railroad tracks to discourage vehicles from driving around the railroad crossing gates.

Sidewalks: Sidewalks provide an ADA-accessible route over the tracks. Additionally, tactile strips provided with the improvements alert the sight-impaired to changes ahead.

Pre-signals: Pre-signals control vehicle traffic approaching a railroad crossing and minimize queuing across the at-grade railroad crossing.

The Build Alternative would also install more advanced signal controllers at North Thorne Lane Southwest, Berkeley Street Southwest, 41st Division Drive, and Barksdale Avenue. The more advanced signal controllers synchronize operations of nearby signals to reduce the likelihood of vehicles on the tracks. Additional information regarding operational effects is detailed in Appendix P (page 37).

4.14.4 MinimizationMeasures–PublicServices,Utilities,andSafetyAlthough the Build Alternative would not have a significant effect on public utilities, services, and safety requiring mitigation, effects associated with construction activities would be reduced by the following minimization measures:

FRA and WSDOT will coordinate and communicate with public service providers, including school districts, emergency service organizations, and agencies such as Sound Transit to ensure they are fully informed of construction progress and identify ways to minimize delays.

Coordination with utility owners to determine conflicts and determine a suitable resolution to avoid or minimize disruption. This would include coordination with the local fire department if there would be effects to fire suppression water and/or pressure.

Post construction schedules near affected crossings and provide the information to local newspapers for publication or to the local jurisdictions for distribution by mail to residents and businesses in the area. Project construction updates could also be posted on WSDOT’s project website.

Minimization measures for potential traffic delays and access issues are discussed in Section 4.3 (Transportation).

In terms of safety, FRA and WSDOT would continue the Operation Lifesaver program training on track safety for community members and continue to work with communities to ensure there are safe routes that avoid the illegal use of the railroad right-of-way for pedestrians and non-vehicular travel. Infrastructure owners would continue to develop and implement security procedures to reduce the likelihood of rail trespass.

4.15 Energy

4.15.1 StudyAreaandMethodology–EnergyThe study area for this analysis includes the Puget Sound and Point Defiance Bypass routes and the station relocation at Freighthouse Square. Construction energy use was calculated using the California Department of Transportation (CalTrans) methodology that correlates project cost information to project

AR 006371

PDB 10004861

melissam3

Highlight

melissam3

Highlight

melissam3

Highlight


5.0 COORDINATIONANDCONSULTATIONAgency coordination and public involvement for the Project were conducted and are summarized in the following sections. Appendix R contains the details of agency correspondence.

5.1 PublicInvolvementAppropriate coordination of outreach with the public, community organizations, stakeholders, and other interested parties is critical to the successful adoption and implementation of the Point Defiance Bypass Environmental Assessment. Opportunities for public involvement on the Project begin with the scoping process and other outreach efforts before a decision concerning the Project is made. Table 19 identifies the briefings and public outreach efforts conducted for the Project between spring 2010 and summer 2012. Materials provided at these events and briefings included electronic PowerPoint presentations, Project maps, photos and videos, fact sheets and illustrated Project timelines.

Table19.SummaryofPublicInvolvementActivities

MeetingDate Audience TopicDiscussed

08-06-2012 Joint Legislative staff Briefing – Street tour of the project and update on EA status.

07-18-2012 South Tacoma Neighborhood Public outreach – status report and overview of study areas.

03-21-2012 South Tacoma Neighborhood Council

Public outreach – general overview and status report.

11-29-2011 Gyro Club of Tacoma Public outreach – general overview and status report.

09-22-2011 Broadway Tacoma Farmers Market

Public outreach – general project information.

09-20-2011 Tacoma City Council Briefing – update on the status of the EA.

09-11-2011 South Tacoma Farmers Market Public outreach – general project information.



08-31-2011 Alternatives Open House Public outreach – update on preferred route milestone and current progress.



08-23-2011 DuPont City Council Briefing – update on the status of the EA.


08-16-2011 Pierce County Council Briefing – update on the status of the EA.

08-15-2011 Lakewood City Council Briefing – update on the status of the EA.


03-29-2011 Lakewood Pacific Neighborhood

Public outreach – update on the status of the EA.

03-02-2011 Pierce County Building and Construction Trades Council

Public outreach – discussion of types of work that will be available to contractors.

03-01-2011 Steilacoom Town Council Briefing – general project information.

02-09-2011 Debra Entenman, Rep. Adam Smith’s office

Briefing – general project information.

AR 006385

PDB 10004875

melissam3

Highlight

melissam3

Highlight

melissam3

Highlight

melissam3

Highlight


Table19.SummaryofPublicInvolvementActivities

MeetingDate Audience TopicDiscussed

02-02-2011 RAMP Public outreach – discussion on effects of Project to surrounding businesses.

01-14-2011 Coffee with the Mayor Public outreach – update on the status of the EA.

01-06-2011 Tillicum/Woodbrook Neighborhood Assoc.

Public outreach – update on the status of the EA.

01-04-2011 Tacoma City Council Briefing – update on the status of the EA.

11-17-2010 Lakewood Planning Committee Briefing – update on the status of the EA.

11-15-2010 Tillicum Community Public outreach – Open House featuring status update on the EA.

11-04-2010 Tacoma Univ. District Public outreach – Open House partnering w/ Sound Transit featuring general project information on Point Defiance and D to M Street project.

10-28-2010 Lakewood United Public outreach – update on the status of the EA.

10-26-2010 DuPont City Council Briefing – update on the status of the EA.

10-18-2010 Tillicum Citizens Advisory Committee


09-30-2010 Rep. Tami Greene Briefing – general project information.

09-20-2010 Lakewood City Council Briefing – update on the status of the EA.



09-08-2010 KOMO Radio listeners Public outreach – general project information.

08-19-2010 Sen. Mike Carrell Briefing – general project information.

08-18-2010 Camp Murray, WSDOT Briefing – EA update and discussion on the Camp Murray Gate relocation.

08-18-2010 South Tacoma Neighborhood Council


08-17-2010 Claudia Thomas – Lakewood City Councilmember


08-03-2010 National Night Out Public outreach – general project information.

08-03-2010 Sen. Murray’s staff Briefing – general project information.

07-09-2010 Sen. Murray’s staff Briefing – general project information.

06-22-2010 Rep. Dicks’ staff Briefing – update on the status of the EA.

05-21-2010 Rep. Smith’s staff Briefing – update on the status of the EA.

05-11-2010 JTC Rail Tour Briefing – Point Defiance Tour.

04-28-2010 Port of Tacoma Briefing – Panel of transportation and industry leader discussion of supply chain challenges.

04-15-2010 Gov. Gregoire’s communications staff


Other outreach efforts included a four-page project folio mailed in November 2007 to over 200 adjoining property owners and interested parties. Updated Project information is also available on the Project web site at <http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/Rail/PNWRC_PtDefiance/>.

AR 006386

PDB 10004876

melissam3

Highlight

melissam3

Highlight

melissam3

Highlight

melissam3

Highlight

melissam3

Highlight

melissam3

Highlight

melissam3

Highlight

melissam3

Highlight

melissam3

Highlight


A two-page Project fact sheet was translated into four languages in the fall of 2012, including Spanish, Korean, Vietnamese, and Russian. Per the Clover Park School District’s annual report (page 3), the top 5 student ethnicities as represented in student enrollment are: White; Hispanic; African American; Multiple ethnicities; Asian American. These ethnicity numbers align with 2010 census data within the project corridor as reported in the socioeconomic discipline report. School district data is a valid data source for the Project, as the district includes most of Lakewood and South Tacoma.

The handout was translated to Spanish as Hispanics make up the largest non-white ethnicity. The handout was also translated to Korean and Vietnamese based on observations that these two languages are the primary non-English communication form for business and social signage (e.g., garage sale and ‘lost pet’ signs posted on utility poles) within the project corridor. The handout was translated to Russian based on Lakewood’s translated materials for the recent Tillicum sewer improvement project (Lakewood published those materials in English, Spanish, and Russian). Availability of translated material was also posted on the Project’s online website.

The EA was issued by FRA and WSDOT for public review on October 9, 2012 for a period of 30 calendar days (comment period closed on November 9, 2012). A total of 62 comments on the EA were received from individuals or agencies, including comments from one federal agency, two state agencies, one regional agency, and five local agencies.

5.2 AgencyCoordinationTo provide meaningful engagement and to maintain steady progress on the Project, key stakeholders and municipalities within the study area were asked to sign the Point Defiance Bypass Project Technical Advisory Group Operating Plan and be part of two advisory teams: a Technical Advisory Group and an Executive Advisory Team. The Technical Advisory Group provides technical review and feedback on the Point Defiance Bypass Project Environmental Assessment, and to submit recommendations for review by the Executive Advisory Team. The Executive Advisory Team meets regularly to review and comment on updates to transportation analyses and other environmental work produced by project staff and technical advisory team – specifically focusing on potential traffic effects. The Operating Plan is presented in Appendix R. The advisory team partners include:

Federal Railroad Administration

Washington State Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration

Sound Transit

City of Lakewood, WA

DuPont, WA

Pierce County, WA

City of Tacoma, WA

Joint Base Lewis-McChord

National Guard

Clover Park School District

WSDOT provides regular updates and receives input from the governor’s office, Washington State U.S. Senators and Representatives, and Washington legislators. Meetings with both the Technical Advisory Team and Executive Advisory Team have been held since 2010 (Table 20).

AR 006387

PDB 10004877

melissam3

Highlight

melissam3

Highlight

melissam3

Highlight

melissam3

Highlight

melissam3

Highlight

melissam3

Highlight


Table20.SummaryofAdvisoryTeamMeetings

TechnicalAdvisoryTeamMeetings ExecutiveAdvisoryTeamMeetings

June 29, 2010 July 15, 2010 July 29, 2010 August 12, 2010 August 26, 2010 September 23, 2010 October 21, 2010 January 20, 2011 March 17, 2011 May 19, 2011 June 16, 2011 October 18, 2011 November 15, 2011 January 19, 2012 March 29, 2012

June 29, 2010 August 5, 2010 September 9, 2010 October 7, 2010 November 4, 2010 February 3, 2011 April 7, 2011 June 2, 2011 July 7, 2011 December 1, 2011 January 9, 2012 March 29, 2012

In December 2011, FRA sent letters to the chairpersons of the Nisqually Tribe, Snoqualmie Nation, Puyallup Tribe, Squaxin Island Tribe, and the Yakama Nation, initiating formal government-to-government consultation and advising of the change in the Project’s termini. None of the tribes accepted the invitation to consult; however, several expressed interest in or support of the Project.

In compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), FRA and WSDOT completed a biological evaluation to document potential Project effects to ESA-listed species and designated critical habitats. The assessment indicated that the Project would be constructed entirely with the existing right-of-way of the established rail corridor within a developed region with high ambient noise and human activity levels. The assessment concluded that the Project would have no effect on any federally-listed terrestrial species or any designated critical habitat, or on any federally-listed aquatic species or any Essential Fish Habitat under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996. FRA provided copies of this correspondence to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the NMFS in July 2012. Concurrence from NMFS was received on August 23, 2012. Consultation letters are presented in Appendix S.

In compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, FRA and WSDOT submitted a no adverse effect determination letter to SHPO. Concurrence on the no adverse effect determination was received on September 26, 2012 from SHPO. The consultation letters are presented in Appendix S.

AR 006388

PDB 10004878

Appendix A: Alternatives Analysis

AR 006396

PDB 10001583

2

Point Defiance Bypass: Purpose and NeedThe purpose of the project is to provide more frequent and reliable high-speed intercity passenger rail service between Tacoma and Nisqually. This project addresses the deficiencies in the existing rail alignment around Point Defiance. The project needs are to enhance rail service frequency, reliability, efficiency and safety. The existing alignment, shared by freight and passenger rail traffic is near capacity and is therefore unable to accommodate additional high-speed intercity passenger rail service without substantial improvements. In addition, the existing alignment has physical andoperational constraints adversely affecting both passenger and freight train scheduling and reliability. See the Shoreline Technical Memo for an analysis of the technical and economic feasibility of improving the existing alignment.

Specific elements of the project needs include:

� Enhanced frequency: Increase Amtrak Cascades round-trips from four to six by 2017 in order to meet projected service demands.

� Enhanced efficiency: Enhance the efficient movement of people by reducing the amount of time passenger and freight trains spend yielding to other freight movements.

� Improved reliability: Reduce or eliminate passenger rail service interruptions caused by natural factors (e.g., landslides) or operational limitations (e.g., drawbridge closures).

� Improved safety: Construct at-grade crossings with improved safety features including wayside horns, median barriers, advanced warning signals, and traffic signal improvements.

Description of Greenfield Alternative

During the project’s October 2010 Technical Advisory Group (TAG) meeting, the TAG brainstormed a rough alignment (the Greenfield Alternative). The Technical Advisory Group member jurisdictions consist of the City of Tacoma, City of Lakewood, City of Dupont, Pierce County, Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Clover Park School District, Washington National Guard – Camp Murray, Sound Transit, and WSDOT. Based on suggestions by TAG members following the meeting and additional research, WSDOT staff developed several variations of the rough alignment for analysis. The following sixroutes were analyzed as part of the Greenfield Alternative. See Appendix B for the location of the routes.

Greenfield Alternative - Lakewood South Route

The Greenfield Alternative – Lakewood South route would construct a new alignment and reconstruct an existing route. This alternative leaves the BNSF main northeast of the Olympia/Lacey station, travels east on a new alignment to just north of Roy, then

AR 006405

PDB 10001592

3

turns north and follows the existing BNSF route to Lakewood and continues on the baseline route to the Freighthouse Square vicinity.

The length of the improved route is approximately 29 miles with 10 miles of track on a new alignment, 10 miles of reconstruction of the existing alignment, and 9 miles on the baseline route. The overall route would be single track with a four mile-long segment of double track required between Roy and Lakewood. The 10 miles of reconstruction includes subballast, ballast, concrete ties, and continuously welded rail. Two existing curves slightly over two degrees totally about 0.4 mile would need to be realigned to two degrees or less. Two public at-grade crossings between Roy and Lakewood would be upgraded with new flashing lights and gates.

Included with the improvements would be new track, new connections to the BNSF main, rebuilt track, centralized traffic control, grade crossings, new Nisqually River Valley bridge, and other miscellaneous items.

This alternative would require a number of right-of-way acquisitions and residential relocations.

The estimated cost of this alternative ranges from $238 million to $792 million and is included in the Appendix A.

Greenfield Alternative - Spanaway Route

The Greenfield Alternative – Spanaway route would construct a new alignment and reconstruct an existing route. This alternative leaves the BNSF main northeast of the Olympia/Lacey station, travels east on a new alignment to just north of Roy, then turns northeast and follows the existing Tacoma Rail Mountain Division route to just south of the junction of State Highway 507 and State Highway 7. The alignment then travels north on a new alignment through the Spanaway/Brookdale area to a point where the Tacoma Rail Mountain Division line passes over State Highway 512 where it rejoins the existing rail line to the Freighthouse Square vicinity.

The length of the improved route is approximately 30 miles with 19 miles of track on a new alignment and 11 miles of reconstructed existing alignment. The overall route would be single track with a four mile-long segment of double track required somewhere in the vicinity of the new segment through the Spanaway/Brookdale area. The 11 miles of reconstruction includes subballast, ballast, concrete ties, and continuously welded rail. Ten existing curves, as sharp as six degrees, and totaling about 1.7 miles would need to be realigned to two degrees or less. Twenty-four (24) public at-grade crossings would be upgraded with new flashing lights and gates.

Included with the improvements would be new track, new connections to the BNSF main, rebuilt track, centralized traffic control, upgraded existing grade crossings, new Nisqually River Valley bridge, and other miscellaneous items.

AR 006406

PDB 10001593

4

This alternative would require a number of right-of-way acquisitions, residential relocations, and commercial relocations.

The estimated cost of this alternative ranges from $361 million to $1.2 billion and is included in the Appendix A.

Greenfield Alternative - Fredrickson Route

The Greenfield Alternative – Fredrickson route would construct a new alignment and reconstruct an existing route. This alternative leaves the BNSF main northeast of the Olympia/Lacey station, travels east on a new alignment to just north of Roy, then turns northeast and follows the existing Tacoma Rail Mountain Division route over State Highway 507 and on to Fredrickson. The existing alignment then turns and follows the existing Tacoma Rail Mountain Division route north – northwest to the Freighthouse Square vicinity.

The length of the improved route is approximately 32.5 miles with 10.5 miles of track on a new alignment and 22 miles of reconstructed existing alignment. The overall route would be single track with a four mile-long segment of double track required somewhere between Fredrickson and State Highway 512. The 10.5 miles of reconstruction includes subballast, ballast, concrete ties, and continuously welded rail. Fifteen (15) existing curves, as sharp as six degrees, totaling about 2.9 miles would need to be realigned to two degrees or less. Thirty-three (33) public at-grade crossings would be upgraded with new flashing lights and gates.

Included with the improvements would be new track, new connections to the BNSF main, rebuilt track, centralized traffic control, upgraded existing grade crossings, new Nisqually River Valley bridge, and other miscellaneous items.

This alternative would require a number of right-of-way acquisitions and residential relocations.


Greenfield Alternative - Rainier Route

The Greenfield Alternative – Rainier route would reconstruct an existing route. This alternative leaves the BNSF main near Offutt Lake (south of Olympia/Lacey station),which is not consistent with Amtrak’s service objectives for the rail corridor. This alternative then follows the existing Tacoma Rail Mountain Division route through Rainier, McKenna, and Roy paralleling State Highway 507, then crossing over State Highway 507, and on to Fredrickson. The existing alignment then turns and follows the existing Tacoma Rail Mountain Division route north – northwest to the Freighthouse Square vicinity.

AR 006407

PDB 10001594

5

The length of the improved route is approximately 44 miles. The overall route would be single track with a four mile-long segment of double track required somewhere between Fredrickson and State Highway 512 and another four mile-long segment between Rainier and Yelm. The reconstruction includes subballast, ballast, concrete ties, and continuously welded rail. Fifteen (15) existing curves, as sharp as six degrees, and totaling about 2.9 miles would need to be realigned to two degrees or less. Forty-six (46) public at-grade crossings would be upgraded with new flashing lights and gates.

This route travels south of Centennial Station in Olympia/Lacey, and would therefore require the relocation of this station, possibly to the towns of Rainier or McKenna. The effects and costs of this station relocation not analyzed in this option.

Included with the improvements would be new track, rebuilt track, centralized traffic control, updated existing grade crossings, and other miscellaneous items.


Greenfield Alternative – Lakewood to Tacoma Tunnel Route

The Greenfield Alternative – Lakewood to Tacoma tunnel route would construct a new alignment through a new tunnel and reconstruct an existing route. This alternative follows the Pt. Defiance bypass route from Nisqually to Lakewood, then leaves the BNSF main near Lakewood, travels northeast on a new alignment through a 39’ diameter, four-mile-long tunnel to north of Midland, then turns north and follows the existing Tacoma Rail Mountain Division route north – northwest to the Freighthouse Square vicinity.

The length of the improved route is approximately 20 miles with 4.1 miles of track on a new alignment and 15.9 miles of reconstruction of the existing alignment. The overall route would be single track with a four mile-long segment of double track required through the tunnel. The reconstruction includes subballast, ballast, concrete ties, and continuously welded rail. Ten existing curves, as sharp as 6 degrees, and totaling about 1.7 miles would need to be realigned to two degrees or less. Twenty-four (24) public at-grade crossings would be upgraded with new flashing lights and gates.

Included with the improvements would be new track, new connections to the BNSF main, rebuilt track, centralized traffic control, upgraded existing grade crossings, new tunnel, and other miscellaneous items.

This alternative would require right-of-way acquisitions, residential relocations, and commercial relocations.

The estimated cost of this alternative ranges from $2.4 billion to $7.9 billion and is included in the Appendix A.

AR 006408

PDB 10001595

6

I-5 Median Route

The I-5 median route would construct a new alignment in the median of I-5 between Tacoma and Nisqually. The route would be approximately 18 miles. The existing median width varies between 13 feet and 300 feet, with the majority of the spacesvarying between 20 feet to 40 feet. There is a two mile section in the vicinity of the I-5/41st Division Dr. S. interchange that is approximately 60 feet wide. There is also a 2.5 mile section at the most southern end of the route that varies between 55 feet and 300feet. An approximate 60 foot median would be required to construct the new alignmentat grade. Due to the limited amount of space within the median, this alternative was not analyzed beyond an evaluation of the existing median widths.

Relationship between Point Defiance Bypass Route and GreenfieldAlternativesThe Point Defiance bypass route is located inland in Pierce County, and extends roughly 28 miles from the Freighthouse Square vicinity in Tacoma, through Lakewood and to Centennial Station in Olympia/Lacey, where it connects with the BNSF main line(see Figure 1). See Appendix A for a comparison of the Greenfield Alternative routes and the Point Defiance Bypass route. Below is a summary of major differences between the bypass route and Greenfield Alternatives:

1) The bypass route from Freighthouse Square to Centralia Station is approximately 49.8 miles. The Point Defiance bypass route will decrease travel time when compared to the baseline (the baseline is the time it takes for the Amtrak Cascades to travel between Nisqually Junction and the Tacoma station using the current BNSF mainline along the shoreline (the “Shoreline Route”)) .The length and travel impact of the Greenfield Alternative routes between Freighthouse Square and Centennial Station are as follows:

a. Lakewood South Route – approximately 55.1 miles (5.3 miles longer than the bypass route) - decreases travel time when compared to the current route

b. Spanaway Route – approximately 56.1 miles (6.3 miles longer than the bypass route) - decreases travel time when compared to the current route

c. Fredrickson Route – approximately 58.6 miles (8.8 miles longer than the bypass route) - increases travel time when compared to the current route (does not meet purpose and need)

d. Rainier Route – approximately 58.3 miles (8.5 miles longer than the bypass route) - increases travel time when compared to the current route (does not meet purpose and need)

e. Lakewood to Tacoma Tunnel Route – approximately 49.7 miles (0.1miles shorter than the bypass route) - decreases travel time when compared to the current route

2) With the exception of the Rainier Route, the Greenfield Alternative creates newalignments and the impacts associated with pioneering those new alignments.The bypass route upgrades an existing line for passenger train use.

AR 006409

PDB 10001596

Appendix F: Traffic and Transportation

Discipline Report

PDB 10002027

AR 006840

Point Defiance Bypass Project

Transportation Discipline Report

September 2012

PDB 10002029

AR 006842

Point Defiance Bypass Project September 2012 Transportation Discipline Report Page 1

Summary

What do we know about the Project?

Who is leading the Project and who are the Project partners?

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is the federal project lead and the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) is the lead state agency for the proposed high-speed rail Project. In leading, WSDOT and FRA sought input from the public and the following Project partners (most are jurisdictions in which the Project is located):

· City of DuPont · City of Lakewood · City of Tacoma · Pierce County · Sound Transit · Clover Park School District · Joint Base Lewis McChord (JBLM) · Camp Murray · Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)

Where is the Project located?

The Project is located in Pierce County (see Exhibit 3) along an approximately 20-mile existing corridor.1 The northern limit of the Project is at TR Junction near the Interstate 5 (I-5) overcrossing of the Puyallup River and East Bay Street in Tacoma. The southern limit of the Project is at Nisqually about one-third of a mile due north of where Nisqually Road crosses the Nisqually River. How would the Project change the rail network?

The Project would improve railroad track and support facilities, and relocate the Tacoma Amtrak Station. Following are the five major components of the Project:

· Construct a new track adjacent to the existing main line between South Tacoma and Lakewood

1 The three owners of the proposed Project corridor are Sound Transit, Tacoma Rail, and BNSF.

PDB 10002037

AR 006850

September 2012 Point Defiance Bypass Project Page 2 Transportation Discipline Report

· Reconstruct and rehabilitate the existing main line track · Improve the connection to the main line near Nisqually · Construct improvements at existing at-grade crossings to

improve safety features and allow high-speed rail operations · Relocate the Tacoma Amtrak Station to the Tacoma Dome

Station at Freighthouse Square in Tacoma No new at-grade highway or rail crossings are planned within the study area. No at-grade crossings would be closed with the Project. How would passenger rail operations change with the Project?

With the Project, Amtrak would increase the frequency of daily passenger trains through the study area by adding two more daily trips. This increase is possible because Amtrak would shift service onto the Bypass Route, which would have the following effects:

· Between TR Junction and East “D” Street in Tacoma, the addition of Amtrak expanded service would increase daily train trips from 28-42.

· Between East “D” Street and South “M” Street in Tacoma, the addition of Amtrak expanded service would increase daily train trips from 16-30.

· Between South “M” Street and the Sound Transit Layover Facility, the addition of Amtrak expanded service would increase daily train trips from 30-44.

· Between the Sound Transit Layover Facility and the Sound Transit Lakewood Station, the addition of Amtrak expanded service would increase daily train trips from 20-34.

· South of the Sound Transit Lakewood Station to the BNSF connection, where Sounder commuter rail stops, train frequency would increase from two trips daily (existing freight trains) to 16 trips.

Exhibit 1 summarizes the rail service changes with the Project by segment.

Train trip: A train trip is defined as the movement between one station or point and another, not as a round trip; for example, a train traveling from Tacoma to Portland would be one trip and the return trip from Portland to Tacoma would be another. A round trip is made up of two trips.

PDB 10002038

AR 006851


Exhibit 1. Existing and Future Daily Rail Operations Along the Project Rail Line

Project Rail Line Segment

Freight2 Sound Transit Sounder Amtrak Cascades Amtrak Coast

Starlight

Existing Proposed Existing/

Startup 2012 Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed

TR Junction to East “D” Street (Tacoma)

2 2 263/18 26 None 12 None 2

East “D” Street to South “M” Street (Tacoma)4

None None None/10 14 None 12 None 2

South “M” Street to Sound Transit Layover Facility5

2 2 None/10 14 None 12 None 2

Sound Transit Layover Facility to Lakewood Station6

2 2 None/207 28 None 12 None 2

Lakewood Station to BNSF Connection

2 2 None None None 12 None 2

Proposed passenger train service on the Point Defiance Bypass Route would be the predominant use of the line, with only two freight trains daily. In contrast, the Point Defiance Bypass Route track would have more mobility for freight movements if high-speed passenger rail traffic was moved to the Bypass Route. How would freight rail operations change with the Project?

With the Project, freight rail service on the water-level Point Defiance Bypass Route would encounter less congestion. On the Point Defiance Bypass Route, the two freight trains daily would encounter more rail congestion because of Amtrak passenger rail traffic. Why is the Project being considered?

Amtrak provides service today using the Puget Sound Route along the Puget Sound coastline (the No Build Alternative). However, this existing rail alignment through the study area is near capacity and Amtrak ridership has been growing. Physical and operational constraints adversely affect both passenger and freight train scheduling and reliability. FRA and WSDOT developed the Project in response to deficiencies in the existing rail alignment around Point Defiance. The Project’s purpose is to

2 Tacoma Rail operates one round trip along the S. “M” Street/BNSF Connection route on a less-than-daily schedule, and the BNSF occasionally operates trains for JBLM. 3 Eighteen daily round-trips from Seattle, including four non-revenue trips (four trains in the morning and the afternoon) from the “L” Street yard to the Tacoma Dome Station 4 There will be no freight trains between E. “C” Street and S. Chandler Street. 5 The Sound Transit layover facility is located between 100th Street SW and Steilacoom Boulevard SW, and is used to store Sounder trains overnight and clean their interiors. 6 The Sound Transit Lakewood Station is located at 11424 Pacific Hwy SW. 7 Ten of these trips will be non-revenue trips from the Sound Transit layover facility to the Lakewood Station.

PDB 10002039

AR 006852


Chapter 5 – Potential Project Effects

For the Project, the Project team compared the effects that would occur with the No Build and the Build alternatives. This chapter describes direct long-term operational effects of the Project, as well as the short-term and long-term construction effects, and potential cumulative effects. The following definitions have been provided to deepen the reader’s understanding of a project’s effects under NEPA:

· Indirect effects: An indirect effect is a reasonably foreseeable effect caused by a project but that would occur in the future or outside of the project study area.

· Direct effects: Changes inside the study area are considered direct effects.

· Cumulative effects: The sum of effects on the environment which results from the incremental impact affect of a project when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or nonfederal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative effects can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time.

The discussion that follows addresses these different types of effects.

How would the Project affect freight travel?

Rail Freight

The No Build Alternative would continue to affect freight rail mobility along the Puget Sound Route and at its junctions with the Bypass Route as it does today. The Build Alternative would relocate the Amtrak Cascades train service from the BNSF rail line along Puget Sound to the proposed Bypass Route between Nisqually Junction and Freighthouse Square. Because freight would continue to travel on that BNSF rail line, freight travel on that line would not be negatively affected by the Project and would experience a slight benefit because of less congestion. Freight rail on the Bypass Route would experience more congestion; however, less freight movement occurs on the Bypass Route, resulting in less effect to freight and a slight improvement overall.

PDB 10002121

AR 006934


Road Freight

Road-based freight would experience similar intersection delay and queue lengths at study area intersections that vehicles and bus transit would experience with the Project.

How would the Project affect passenger rail services?

The No Build Alternative would continue with passenger rail service on the BNSF line where it would be negatively affected by freight operations. Passenger rail service would have a limited ability to expand service and would continue to be delayed by freight operations. The Build Alternative would relocate the Amtrak Cascades train service from the BNSF rail line along Puget Sound to the proposed Bypass Route between Nisqually Junction and Freighthouse Square. This would improve travel time of the Amtrak Cascades service by ten minutes because of the shorter distance and faster train speeds (approximately 6 miles shorter), and would improve on-time performance by avoiding potential delays from freight trains on the existing route. Additionally, trains traveling on the Bypass Route avoid some operational delays affecting reliability and travel time currently experienced on the Puget Sound Route from landslides, weather-related delays and closures, and drawbridge openings). With the Build Alternative, Amtrak Cascades would use the rail line also used by Sound Transit’s Sounder commuter rail service. The Amtrak Cascades schedule would be coordinated with Sound Transit to preserve the line capacity needed for Sound Transit to operate commuter rail service and minimize effects.

How would the Project affect bus transit?

The No Build Alternative would not affect bus transit. Because there are no HOV or transit-only lanes on streets in the study area, bus transit, including school buses for local school districts, would experience the same intersection delay and queue lengths at study area intersections as vehicles with the Project. The Build Alternative would not affect the location of bus stops or provide transit service enhancements, but would increase the delay for routes crossing the Project route at study area intersections.

PDB 10002122

AR 006935


The Build Alternative would increase the number of roadway blockages from train crossings throughout the day and during the morning and evening peak hour, compared to the No Build Alternative.

How would the Project affect safety at rail crossings?

Improved Crossing Locations

The Project would improve safety at several existing at-grade crossings by adding the following improvements (refer to Exhibit 3 in Chapter 1):

· Signage: “Do Not Stop On Tracks” signs would be installed at the crossings.

· Wayside horns: A wayside horn system is an automated warning system that is installed at a rail/roadway at-grade crossing to warn people of an approaching train.

· Median barriers: Median barriers are installed in the middle of the roadway approaching the railroad tracks to discourage vehicles from driving around the railroad crossing gates.

· Sidewalks: Sidewalks provide an ADA-accessible route over the tracks. Additionally, tactile strips provided with the improvements alert the sight-impaired to changes ahead.

· Pre-signals: Pre-signals control vehicle traffic approaching a railroad crossing and minimize queuing across the at-grade railroad crossing.

Intersection Signal Improvements

The Project would install more advanced signal controllers at the following crossing areas:

· North Thorne Lane Southwest · Berkeley Street Southwest · 41st Division Drive · Barksdale Avenue

The more advanced signal controllers would allow synchronized operation of the nearby signals to reduce the likelihood of vehicles on the tracks, especially at railroad crossings where trains are not as frequent in the south end of the study area. These improvements would include additional vehicle detectors and enhanced traffic management that would reduce the delay following a train crossing event. Exhibit 57 summarizes the changes that are currently proposed in more detail. FRA and WSDOT will bench test the signal controllers proposed

PDB 10002126

AR 006939


Quiet Zones

The Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings; Final Rule (Parts 222 and 229 of title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)) describes what quiet zones are and how they can be used in transportation systems. Quiet zones are segments of rail lines where locomotive horns are not routinely sounded when trains approach crossings. Communities can establish quiet zones to reduce noise from train crossings provided that appropriate safety measures are taken to minimize the potential effect on travel safety at highway-rail grade crossings. The public authorities involved with a public highway-rail grade crossing must agree on the establishment of the quiet zone (49 CFR §222.37). Public authorities may establish quiet zones by providing supplemental safety measures at all of the crossings in the quiet zone to mitigate the reduction in safety experienced with the silencing of locomotive horns. Four-quadrant gate systems and gates with medians or channelization devices are examples of supplement safety measures that can be applied to create quiet zones. Wayside horns may be used in lieu of locomotive horns at any highway-rail grade crossing equipped with an active warning system including flashing lights and gates (at a minimum). Grade crossings equipped with wayside horns are also considered as crossings with supplemental safety measures when measuring the length of quiet zones, but not when calculating risk indices. Wayside horns focus the warning sound directly towards street traffic at crossings, which can reduce noise effects without a quiet zone being established. Wayside horns also negate the requirement for advance warning signs advising travelers that trains do not sound horns at crossings.

No Build Alternative

Under the No Build Alternative, no quiet zones would be established.

Build Alternative

Under the Build Alternative, no quiet zones would be established; however, the crossing improvements that would be made with the Project (median separators and wayside horns) would improve the eligibility of communities to establish quiet zones.

How would the Project affect local traffic operations?

The one additional train crossing (Amtrak Cascades train) during the morning and afternoon peak hours associated with the Build Alternative would mostly cause a slight change in traffic congestion for the overall

PDB 10002131

AR 006944

Appendix O: Land Use

Discipline Report

PDB 10002810

AR 007623


Land Use Discipline Report

September 2012

PDB 10002812

AR 007625

September 2012 Point Defiance Bypass Project Page 2 Land Use Discipline Report

What are the effects to land use by the Bypass Route component of the Project?

Implementation of the Project would re-route high speed rail traffic away from the Puget Sound shoreline to an existing interior route used by freight and commuter trains, and would upgrade and improve the existing railroad crossings and infrastructure. Generally, new rail facilities like a station can have positive effects like increased land values and development density, and redistribution of development to areas near the station. The re-development around the Lakewood Sound Transit Station is an example. Incompatibility with adjacent land uses

Implementation of the Project would affect adjacent land uses by the high speed and more frequent trains traveling through the communities. However, the train passbys would occur in only short durations at any given point along the corridor (approximately 12 minutes per day in total). An estimated 25-30 percent of the adjacent lands within the urban-developed portion of the study area are identified for redevelopment potential regardless if the Project is implemented. Future development in these areas would have considered the proximity to an existing freight corridor. Noise, vibration, transportation, public services, visual and socioeconomic effects have been identified in other discipline reports which may indirectly or directly affect adjacent land uses which range from residential to industrial. The potential effects identified were minimal to moderate. Inconsistency with adjacent land use plans and zoning regulations

The Project is consistent with adopted plans and would implement adopted policies reviewed for this report. No policy or zoning regulation was found that the Project would violate or require regulatory or development standard amendments to be adopted in order to implement the Project. Continued growth, development, and re-development in the study area would occur as forecasted and planned for in land use and transportation plans. Limited redevelopment may occur near the relocated Tacoma Amtrak Station, which would occur in accordance with governing land use plans and zoning regulations.

PDB 10002819

AR 007632


What Information was researched?

The research and analysis conducted for this report follows the procedures outlined in the WSDOT Environmental Procedures Manual (June 2011), Chapter 450 (Land Use) and includes the following elements:

Existing Land Uses Planned Land Uses (Comprehensive and/or Planned Use Plans and

Policies) and Future Conditions SMA Environment and CAO Designations Development Trends

How was information collected and how was the analysis conducted?

Information and analysis on existing and planned land uses was based on the review of the FRA and WSDOT study area maps, preliminary drawings, aerial photographs, inventories, WSDOT and Internet Geographic Information System (GIS) data obtained from local agencies, and of land use regulations, plans, and zoning codes. Additionally, a windshield survey conducted on March 10, 2011. The aerial photographs, GIS data, plans, and zoning codes were used to analyze existing conditions and evaluate potential effects that could result from the Project. The plans and codes were also reviewed to evaluate the project’s relationship to and consistency with existing regulations, goals, and policies. Comprehensive plan goals and policies, and zoning and SMA/CAO regulations reviewed for this report were generally obtained online from the following agency websites:

City of Tacoma o Comprehensive Plan o Tacoma Dome Area Plan o Zoning Code o Shoreline Management o Critical Areas

City of Lakewood o Comprehensive Plan o Tillicum Neighborhood Plan o Zoning Code o Shoreline Management o Critical Areas

City of DuPont o Comprehensive Plan

PDB 10002833

AR 007646

melissam3

Highlight

melissam3

Highlight

melissam3

Highlight

Point Defiance Bypass Project September 2012 Land Use Discipline Report Page 15

o Zoning Code Pierce County

o Countywide Planning Policies o Comprehensive Plan o Zoning Code o Shoreline Management o Critical Areas Ordinance

Military Areas o Joint Base Lewis McChord Growth Coordination Plan,

Land Use Appendix Other

o Puget Sound Regional Council, Vision 2040

How does this report relate to previous environmental studies completed for the Project?

This discipline report builds upon and updates a previous technical memorandum that was completed in August 2007. Development of this report also included the review of the following environmental and land use analyses recently completed for rail related projects within or related to the study area:

Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor, Washington State Segment – Columbia River to the Canadian Border, Finding of No Significant Impact, USDOT FRA and WSDOT (December 2010)

Sound Transit Lakewood-to-Tacoma Commuter Rail D-M Street Improvement Project, Tacoma WA, Finding of No Significant Impact (December 2, 2009)

Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor. Washington State Segment – Columbia River to the Canadian Border. Program Environmental Assessment (September. 2009)

Sound Transit D Street to M Street Commuter Rail, NEPA Environmental Assessment, FRA (September 9, 2009)

Point Defiance Bypass Project, Environmental Summary, WSDOT (May 2008)

Sound Transit Lakewood-to-Tacoma Commuter Rail D-M Street Improvement Project, Tacoma WA, NEPA Environmental Assessment (May 2008)

Sound Transit Lakewood to Tacoma Commuter Rail and SR-512 Park and Ride Expansion NEPA/SEPA Final Environmental Impact Statement, US FTA, Sound Transit, The Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority, Sections 2.9, 3.9 and 4.9 (May 2002)

PDB 10002834

AR 007647


Chapter 3 – Affected Environment

This section provides an overview of existing land uses in the study area for the Project which is shown in Exhibit 2. The information reviewed was used to evaluate potential effects to these existing land uses. Under the existing conditions, Amtrak passenger trains use the BNSF Puget Sound route (No Build Alternative) which is primarily used as a freight corridor. As described in Chapter 1, the Project route would use an existing rail corridor comprised of the Prairie and American Lake rail lines constructed in 1873 and 1891. The proposed route is also primarily used as a freight corridor except for the area north of the Lakewood Station which also used by commuter rail. The existing land use characteristics of the existing route (No Build Alternative) were not analyzed in detail, but the uses generally consist of a mix of park, residential, forestry, shoreline, wildlife refuges, and open areas adjacent to an existing railroad corridor. These uses would not change if the Project is not built. Most of the existing route is located along the Puget Sound shoreline.

What are the general existing land use characteristics of the study area for the Project?

The 20-mile-long study area can be described as an existing railroad corridor that generally parallels and is west of the I-5 transportation corridor and is located within both incorporated and unincorporated areas. Approximately two-thirds of the Project length is located within or adjacent to the incorporated cities of Tacoma, Lakewood, and DuPont. The remainder lies within unincorporated area of Pierce County, the majority of which is occupied by US Joint Base Lewis McChord (JBLM) and Camp Murray National Guard military complexes. The study area is approximately 2,563 acres in size and is generally comprised as follows:

60 percent lies within incorporated areas of the Cities of Tacoma and Lakewood (34% and 26%, respectively)

40 percent lies within unincorporated Pierce County 24 percent of lies within a designated military reservation located

within both incorporated and unincorporated areas (percentages

PDB 10002836

AR 007649


exceed 100 because much of the military reservation is within unincorporated Pierce County).

The existing land uses that are adjacent to the Project are generally categorized as:

Heavy and light industrial and manufacturing Commercial – including retail, office, restaurant, and services Educational – including elementary and middle schools, technical,

and post-secondary/college Open space and recreation – including open areas and drainages; Single- and multi-family residential US military reservation – including residential, commercial, and

operational/training areas Transportation and utility– including transportation system rights

of way, electrical substations and/or other utility support structures or improvements.

Further description of the existing land uses located within the unincorporated and incorporated areas are provided below and are shown in Exhibit 3, Panels 1-10.

PDB 10002837

AR 007650


Exhibit 3. (Panels 1-10) Existing Land Uses

Note: Depicts existing land uses within the municipality of Tacoma.

PDB 10002838

AR 007651


Burlington Northern rail yard). Other uses include: Tacoma Goodwill Industries, Tacoma Mall, Pierce County government offices, and a Superfund site. This segment also includes the I-5/I-705 and I-5/US 16 interchanges. Adjacent uses and structures within this segment are generally in close proximity to the existing rail corridor. Exceptions that have greater setbacks to nearby buildings or have vegetated open areas between the railroad tracks and adjacent uses are from East Bay Street/East “R” Street to northern terminus and also from Tacoma Avenue South to South “M” Street.

Station Relocation

The land uses adjacent to the existing Tacoma Amtrak Station are similar to those near Freighthouse Square due to the proximity of the two sites. These land uses include the Sound Transit station, restaurants, retail shops and vacant shops.

South 66th Street, Tacoma, to South 80th Street, Lakewood

Land uses on both sides of the existing railroad corridor in this segment include industrial, commercial and vacant lots. What are the characteristics within the city limits of Lakewood?

For the segment of the study area that lays within the city limits of Lakewood, the majority (53 percent) of existing land uses is residential (single- and multi-family). Commercial and industrial land uses comprise 35 percent. Vacant lands comprise 7 percent, and Transportation/Open space/Recreation and public facilities/right-of-way comprise the remaining 5 percent. Exhibit 3 (Panels 4-7) shows the location of the existing land uses located within Lakewood.

South 80th Street to 100th Street Southwest

The majority of land uses between South 80th Street and 100th Street Southwest are mostly commercial uses mixed with some industrial uses. Mt. View Memorial Park (cemetery) is located west of the Project between South 74th Street and Steilacoom Boulevard Southwest. Pierce Transit is located east of the Project, north of 199th Street Southwest. Southgate Elementary School abuts the Project on the west side near 100th Street Southwest. Lakeview Way Southwest borders the rail corridor on the west side.

100th Street Southwest to Berkeley Street Southwest

Continuing south of 100th Street Southwest, the majority of land uses on both sides of the rail corridor are single- and multi-family residential to

PDB 10002850

AR 007663


almost 112th Street where commercial uses begin again on the east side. Lakewood Elementary School is located west of the corridor. The Sound Transit Lakewood Station and parking facility is located north of Bridgeport Way Southwest, as is St. Clare Hospital. Nearing Bridgeport Way Southwest, commercial uses are on both sides of the rail corridor. South of Bridgeport Way Southwest, commercial uses continued on the east side to Pacific Avenue Southwest and Forest Glen Lane Southwest area. The Tyee Park Elementary School is located on the west side of the corridor. Near Pacific Avenue Southwest, the rail corridor is located closer to the I-5 transportation corridor with the military base on the other side of I-5. The Tacoma Country and Golf Club is located east of the rail corridor and parallels the railroad and I-5 corridors for approximately one mile. Just past Lake Street Southwest, commercial uses begin again on the west side of the corridor to just past the Lakewood city limits at Berkeley Street Southwest.

What are the existing land uses within the unincorporated areas of Pierce County?

Review and quantification of the existing land uses within Pierce County was limited due to the extent of the military reservation and limited data. According to the WSDOT GIS Workbench and Pierce County GIS data, 50 parcels totaling 1,000 acres exist within this portion of the study area. It is assumed that the large tract of land containing the military bases is counted as only one or a few parcels. The actual number or percentages of the different uses were not compiled. Exhibit 3 (Panels 7-10) shows the location of the existing land uses located within unincorporated Pierce County as identified by Pierce County GIS data.10 Berkeley Street Southwest to Southern Terminus at Nisqually

South of the Lakewood city limits (Berkeley Street Southwest), the rail corridor is located within the unincorporated area of Pierce County. The majority of land uses on both sides of the study area are military reservation, undeveloped forest land, and open space and recreation, including the Fort Lewis Military Golf Course.

Review of aerial photographs and JBLM planning documents identify commercial services and residential military uses within the designated military reservation located adjacent to the rail corridor. The analyses

10 Pierce County 2011

PDB 10002851

AR 007664


What adjacent existing land uses may affect the Project?

Throughout the existing rail corridor, several adjacent land uses occupy portions of the railroad right-of-way with parking lots, outside storage, fences and two buildings. Some occupied areas have leases with the underlying railroad right-of-way owners: Sound Transit and BNSF. A 2010 WSDOT inventory identified approximately 50 encroachments by commercial or industrial uses. Since the original investigation, many of these encroachments have been resolved through leases and removing the encroachment. Only one of the encroachments involves a building, and WSDOT is working with the owner to resolve the issue. The remaining 18 unabated locations involve parking and storage areas and are anticipated to be resolved prior to construction of the Project.

What resource lands were identified within the study area?

Resource lands include those lands used or have physical characteristics that make them ideal for agricultural, forestry or mineral extraction purposes. In the study area and near the southern terminus of the Project (Rail MP 17), the WSDOT GIS Workbench identifies lands as Farmland of Statewide Importance.15 The Pierce County Zoning Code designation for these lands is Agricultural Resource Land which includes lands that are primarily devoted to commercial production of agricultural products.16 These designated agricultural lands are outside of and separated from the existing railroad corridor by the I-5 corridor. There are no other designated agricultural resource lands identified within the study area. In addition, there are no areas designated as mineral or forestry resource lands identified within the study area.17

What shorelines and critical areas were identified within the study area?

This section provides an overview of shorelines and critical areas identified within the study area of the Project. Additional information on these natural features can be found in the Water Resources, Wetlands, and Fish, Wildlife, and Vegetation discipline reports also prepared for the Project. What streams or shorelines are located in the study area?

The study area is traversed by five streams. These natural features qualify as shorelines or critical areas, and proposed developments in or near these

15 Natural Resource Conservation Service Agency designation 16 Pierce County 2011 17 WSDOT GIS Workbench

PDB 10002853

AR 007666


Is the Project consistent with the policies and regulations adopted by the City of Tacoma?

The Tacoma Amtrak Station relocation portion of the Project would be a permitted use according to the Tacoma Zoning Code. Any new building, parking facility or renovation must comply with applicable building code and development standards adopted by the City of Tacoma. Similar to an interstate highway or major arterial city street, the proposed railroad corridor upgrade and increased operational use does not fall into a typical land use category governed by a local zoning code. Rather, the siting of these facilities and planning of transportation networks must be coordinated with land use patterns in the area along with applicable regional and local transportation goals and policies. The Project is consistent with adopted plans and would implement policies adopted by the City of Tacoma. No policy was found that would deem the Project inconsistent with these adopted plans and regulations. Based on this review, the Project is consistent with the comprehensive plan and zoning regulations adopted by the City of Tacoma.

What are the planned use and zoning policies and regulations adopted by the City of Lakewood that apply to the Project?

The study area lies within several comprehensive plan and zoning designations adopted by the City of Lakewood which are summarized in Exhibit 10. In this segment, the land use designations that apply to the study area are a mix of industrial, open space, commercial, residential and right-of-way overlay. Generally, commercial and industrial districts are identified north of the Sound Transit Lakewood Station, while both commercial and residential districts are located south of the Lakewood Station. The City of Lakewood zoning designations that apply for this segment of the study area are shown in the maps series provided in Exhibit 8 (Panels 4-7). Adopted key goals and polices are identified in Attachment A.

PDB 10002875

AR 007688

melissam3

Highlight

melissam3

Highlight


Exhibit 10. City of Lakewood –Applicable Planned Use and Zoning Designations

Designation Comprehensive Plan39 Zoning40

Project Segment / Area Project Footprint Adjacent Project Footprint Adjacent

City of Lakewood Industrial, Open Space, Corridor Commercial, Over (Residential Estate), Single Family and ROW

Same as footprint, plus: Industrial; Commercial); Residential; Other(e.g. open space)

Commercial (C1, C2, TOC); Residential (R2, R3, Other (ROW, OSR2)

Same as Comprehensive Plan

According to the Lakewood Zoning Code, Chapter 18A.400 Transportation is defined as a public or private service like a train station or ferry dock. This section also classifies passenger rail stations as a Level 2 Transportation use.41 Railroad corridors are not specifically defined as a “land use,” which is similar to a road or highway corridor.

Is the Project consistent with the policies and regulations adopted by the City of Lakewood?

A portion of the Project and existing railroad corridor near Gravelly Lake Drive is located within residential and neighborhood business district designations. Similar to the discussion of the City of Tacoma’s regulations above, the Project would upgrade and increase use of an existing railroad corridor and right-of-way that predates the City of Lakewood’s incorporation in 1996. The existing railroad corridor was an integral component of subsequent land use planning efforts by Lakewood. The Project does not fall into a typical land use category governed by a local zoning code. Rather, the siting of these types of transportation facilities and planning of transportation networks must be coordinated with land use patterns in the area along with applicable regional and local transportation goals and policies. The City of Lakewood submitted comments to WSDOT in 2010 during the NEPA scoping process and stated that the Project would have potential

39 Lakewood 2006 40 C1-Commercial; C2-Commercial; TOC – Transit Oriented Commercial; I1 – Industrial; IBP – Industrial Business Park; R1 and R2 – Residential Estate; R3 and R4-Single family Residential; MR – Mixed Residential; OSR2-Open Space Recreation 2; NC2- Neighborhood Commercial; PI – Public/Institutional 41 Lakewood Municipal Code, Section 18A.400 states: Definition of Transportation: “The provision of public or semi public transportation services. Examples include parking garages, park-and-ride lots, commercial parking lots, bus shelters, bus stations, bus transfer centers, passenger rail stations, ferry docks, and other types of public and quasi-public transportation facilities”. Section 18A400 defines Level 2 Transportation Uses as: “Transportation uses serving community and regions, such as passenger rail and bus stations, parking facilities, including park-and-rides, and weigh stations.”

PDB 10002876

AR 007689


effects on land use, development patterns, adjacent commercial and industrial buildings and leases, and consistency with adopted plans. Additional information can be found in Chapter 5, Project Effects, and the other discipline reports prepared for the Project. The Project would not include any other activities within the City of Lakewood other than the addition of a section of double track and rehabilitation of the existing rail line. No policy was found that would deem the Project inconsistent with the plans and regulations adopted by the city of Lakewood. Based on this review, the Project is consistent with the policies and plans adopted by the City of Lakewood.

What are the planned use and zoning policies and regulations adopted by Pierce County that apply to the Project?

The study area lies within several comprehensive plan and zoning designations adopted by Pierce County that apply to the unincorporated portion of the study area. Exhibit 11 lists the land use and zoning designations of the railroad corridor that lie within this segment. The Pierce County zoning district locations are shown in Exhibit 8 (Panels 7-10). The Pierce County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning designations for the unincorporated areas are Rural Military Land, Urban Military Land, Agricultural Resource Land, Reserve 5, and Rural 10. The majority of both the project corridor and I-5 transportation corridor are located within the Reserve 5 designation which is described as rural areas planned for eventual incorporation into an urban growth area of an incorporated nearby city. Agricultural Resource designation is found near the southern end of the Project near Rail MP17. Exhibit 11. Pierce County – Applicable Planned Use and Zoning Designations

Designation Comprehensive Plan Zoning

Project Footprint and Adjacent Project Footprint and Adjacent

Pierce County Agricultural Resource Land Agricultural Resource Land

Pierce County Rural 10 Rural 10

Pierce County/Military Reservation Rural Military Land Rural Military Land

Pierce County Reserve 5 Reserve 5

Pierce County/Military Reservation Urban Military Land Urban Military Land

The Pierce County Zoning Code, 18A.33.190 Military Lands designation applies to the military reservations located within Pierce County. This designation acknowledges the consistency and coordination required

PDB 10002877

AR 007690


properties proposed for acquisition is parking. Therefore, this acquisition would not displace housing or commercial units. The Project would not displace any additional existing land uses or acquire additional property. Therefore, no effect to residential or commercial uses would result. Extensive community disruption that effects adjacent land uses

Implementation of the Project would affect adjacent and planned land uses by the high speed and more frequent trains traveling through the communities. However, the estimated daily 12 minute total delay of traffic at crossings is not significant. In addition, many of the crossings would be upgraded and local connectivity ultimately improved over existing conditions. The topography of the Project area, the existing railroad corridor, and I-5 currently separates portions of communities, such as the Tillicum neighborhood, and also parts of the JBLM. The degree to which the Project further isolates the population is minor55 as the existing railroad corridor which was established in the late 1800s pre-dated much of the subsequent land development, as well as the I-5 corridor established in the 1960s. Existing development within the study area occurred within the constraints imposed by these existing geographic features, land use patterns, and transportation systems, and guided future development in the implementation of GMA plans.

What are the indirect and cumulative effects to land use by the Bypass Route component of the Project?

Indirect Effects

The Project is located within an existing rail corridor and urbanized area. FRA and WSDOT considered whether the Project would facilitate an increase in growth or development in the Project area. FRA and WSDOT determined that the project is not likely to directly or indirectly affect growth or land use patterns in the cities of Lakewood, DuPont, or Tacoma. As there would be no new Amtrak stops within the corridor, individuals utilizing passenger trains would continue to travel through the study area to their destinations, in the same way as the current Amtrak inter-city passenger train service. Generally, inter-city passenger rail transports passengers between well-defined urban centers, rather than other commuter rail or mass-transit modes which may transport passengers from an urban center to suburban areas. Growth and development in the study area would occur as forecasted and planned by each jurisdiction regardless of Project implementation as transportation is only one of the many

55 WSDOT 2012

PDB 10002888

AR 007701


References

Deborah Johnson ([email protected]), “Proposed WSDOT Point Defiance Bypass Project,” e-mail messages, September 9, October 28, November 2 and 22, 2011.

DuPont 2011. Municipal Code, Title 25, Land Use Code. 2002. http://www.mrsc.org/wa/dupont/index_dtsearch.html. Accessed September 9, 2011.

DuPont 2011a. City of DuPont Comprehensive Land Use Plan. November 2011. http://www.ci.dupont.wa.us/files/library/75f93a8137572a85_o.pdf. Accessed September 9, 2011.

Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Office of Planning, Environment and Realty 2005. Section 4(f) Policy Paper: Project Development and Environmental Review. March 1, 2005.

FRA 2011. US Department of Transportation FRA Record of Decision DesertXpress High Speed Passenger Train. http://www.fra.dot.gov/rpd/downloads/ROD_FINAL.pdf. Accessed August 9, 2011.

FRA 2011a. Compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act in Implementing the High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program. http://www.fra.dot.gov/Downloads/RRDev/hsipr_nepa_guidance_081309Final.pdf. Accessed February 24, 2012.

Lakewood 2000. Lakewood Comprehensive Plan. July 2000.

Lakewood 2006. Lakewood Municipal Code. 2006.

Lakewood 2011. Tillicum Neighborhood Plan. June 2011.

Lakewood 2012 http://www.cityoflakewood.us/news. Accessed February 29 2012.

Levinson, David. 2010. Economic Development Impacts of High-speed rail. University of Minnesota – Twin Cities. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1736327. Accessed February 29, 2012.

Marc Amrine ([email protected]), e-mail message November 8, 2011.

Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington 2011. http://www.mrsc.org/wa/courts/index_dtSearch.html. Accessed September 13, 2011.

Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. 1998. Integration of Land Use Planning with Multimodal Transportation. Planning National Cooperative Highway Research Program. Transportation Research Board

PDB 10002896

AR 007709

melissam3

Highlight

melissam3

Highlight

melissam3

Highlight

melissam3

Highlight

melissam3

Highlight

melissam3

Highlight

Point Defiance Bypass Project September 2012 Land Use Discipline Report Page A-1

Attachment A

Key Land Use and Related Transportation Goals and Policies

Jurisdiction Goal or Policy No. Description

Regional

Puget Sound Regional Council, Vision 2040

MPP-T-19 Coordinate regional planning with railroad capacity expansion plans and support capacity expansion that is compatible with state, regional, and local plans.

Pierce Countywide Planning Policies

13 The County, and each municipality in the County, shall provide the following facilities to encourage alternatives to automobile travel and/or to reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled (modal split, trip generation and trip length):

13.1 structural alternatives (public transit [fixed guideway/rail systems, buses, paratransit services]; construction of new high-occupant vehicle lanes; limitations on highway/roadway construction; carpool/vanpool facilities; non-recreational bicycle/pedestrian facilities);

13.2 non-structural/regulatory alternatives (growth management [concurrency; urban growth areas]; road/congestion pricing; auto-restricted zones; parking management; site design; ridesharing incentives).

Pierce County

Comprehensive Plan

19A.30.210 Joint Land Use Study.

The Joint Land Use Study (JLUS) is a collaborative planning effort involving the military installations of Fort Lewis, McChord AFB and Camp Murray (Washington National Guard) and ten local governments surrounding these military installations. Its broad goal is to encourage each jurisdiction to practice compatible development and redevelopment in each affected jurisdiction that balances sustaining the local military missions with long-term community land use needs. It is the responsibility of the participating jurisdictions to ensure that JLUS recommendations are taken into account when developing land use plans and other related planning documents.

Comprehensive Plan

19A.80.060 Transit

H.) Transit Access. Pierce County encourages transit access by:

1. Improving bicycle and pedestrian access to proposed transit centers, rail stations and bus stops.

Comprehensive Plan

19A.80.090 Other Motorized Transportation

F. ) Rail Service Preservation and Enhancement. Encourage local communities, the Washington State Department of Transportation, railroads, labor groups and shippers to work together to:

1. Improve passenger and freight rail service;

2. Identify and preserve rail lines which currently provide transportation and economic benefits to Pierce County;

3. Coordinate and implement passenger and freight rail service preservation projects consistent with a regional transportation program; and

4. Consider localized rail service as a means of public transportation

PDB 10002900

AR 007713

September 2012 Point Defiance Bypass Project Page A-2 Land Use Discipline Report


Pierce County

Comprehensive Plan

19A.80.090 Other Motorized Transportation

G. Preserving Rail Rights-Of-Way. Strongly encourage the preservation of rail rights-of-way for future rail or other transportation purposes. Actions to preserve rail rights-of-way include:

1. Identification of abandoned or to be abandoned rail lines and rights-of-way in conjunction with the state, local communities, railroads, labor groups, and shippers;

2. Assessment of potential uses of rights-of-way for different forms of motorized and nonmotorized travel in order to preserve and implement their highest and best transportation use;

3. Allocation of funds by the state for the purpose of identified rail lines and rights-of-way; and

4. Amendment of RCW (Revised Code of Washington) Chapter 47.76 by the state to implement the December 1988, Washington State Rail Development Commission recommendations, which would modify "rail banking" practices, the acquisition of abandoned corridors, the interim and future use of rights-of-way, and funding procedures.

City of Tacoma

Tacoma Dome Plan Immediate Strategy. 2001 T-29

Encourage Amtrak to make necessary track improvements to co-locate Amtrak station with Sound Transit commuter rail station.

Tacoma Dome Plan Long-Term Development Concepts (2005-2015) #3

Relocation of Amtrak intercity passenger rail service from the BN line to the Chehalis Western rail line – co-locating with commuter rail line.

Tacoma Dome Plan Land Use and Development Strategy # 38

If commuter rail extends to Lakewood, consider relocating Amtrak Station to Freighthouse Square to share facilities with commuter rail.

Comprehensive Plan

Implementation Strategy,

Action 3.4

Support a frequent and convenient bus, rail, and streetcar network to magnify the impact of planning for movement as pedestrians and Bicyclists.

City of Lakewood

Comprehensive Plan

Policy LU-17.3 Promote Lakewood Station District for medical and other businesses serving the regional market.

Policy LU-25.4 Provide incentives for redevelopment of the Lakewood Station area to capitalize on growth and visibility associated with the commuter rail station.

Policy LU-27.4 Improve pedestrian and vehicular connections across the railroad tracks, Pacific Highway Southwest, and I-5.

Goal LU-68 In areas, consider the continuation of nonconforming uses that support other specified goals such as economic development, housing, etc., on a flexible basis.

Policy LU-30.3 Protect prime industrial sites from encroachment by incompatible uses such as housing and unrelated retail activity.

2.3.2 Single-Family

The Single-Family designation provides for single-family homes in support of established residential neighborhoods. This designation is the primary residential designation in the city.

PDB 10002901

AR 007714

melissam3

Highlight

melissam3

Highlight

melissam3

Highlight

Point Defiance Bypass Project September 2012 Land Use Discipline Report Page A-3


2.3.7 Corridor Commercial

The commercial corridors along I-5, South Tacoma Way, Pacific Highway Southwest, and Union Avenue are examples of Lakewood’s dominant pattern of strip commercial development. The geographic relationship of the corridors to major road networks and the Lakewood Station promotes employment, services, retail, and business/light industrial uses linked to access to major transportation networks. While the continuous linear alignment is a unifying element, each corridor presents varying challenges and opportunities.

City of Lakewood

2.3.14 Open Space and Recreation

The Open Space and Recreation designation provides for public open spaces and recreational uses such as state and municipal parks, preserves, and trails, as well as privately owned facilities such as golf courses, Lakewood Gardens, and cemeteries. Local and regional recreation opportunities are included within this designation. Of special note is the Chambers Creek Properties Master Site Plan, a joint effort of Pierce County and the cities of Lakewood and University Place to develop the Chambers Creek canyon for limited, passive recreation uses. The designation promotes the conservation of public and private sensitive or critical natural resource areas and areas of local interest as open space.

2.3.10 Industrial Industrial lands are the working area of Lakewood, integrated into the community economically and environmentally while maximizing a regional economic presence based on Lakewood’s geographic position. Properties with an Industrial land-use designation are expected to provide family wage jobs to residents and tax revenues to the City. The Industrial designation provides for regional research, manufacturing, warehousing, concentrated business/employment parks, and other major regional employment uses. Industrial lands depend on excellent transportation and utility infrastructure and freedom from encroachment by incompatible land uses.

2.3.1 Residential Estate

The Residential Estate designation provides for large single-family lots in specific areas where a historic pattern of large residential lots and extensive tree coverage exists. Although retaining these larger sized properties reduces the amount of developable land in the face of growth, it preserves the historic identity these “residential estates” contribute to the community by providing a range of housing options, preserving significant tree stands, and instilling visual open space into the urban environment. Most importantly, the Residential Estate designation is used to lower densities around the lakes and creek corridors in order to prevent additional effects from development upon the lake and creek habitat and Lakewood Water District wellheads.

Maintenance of these lower land-use densities in certain areas west of the lakes also helps maintain reduced traffic volumes and reduce additional traffic safety conflicts in the east-west arterial corridors. These roads are among the most stressed transportation routes in the city, with expansion opportunities highly constrained due to the lakes.

3.12 Nonconformities

Lakewood is a largely built-out urban area. The historic pattern of land use has occurred in a haphazard manner in many portions of the community. As the City continues to implement its plan for the future, some

PDB 10002902

AR 007715

melissam3

Highlight

September 2012 Point Defiance Bypass Project Page A-4 Land Use Discipline Report


existing development will no longer conform to this plan and regulations. Existing development may fail to conform in terms of the way the land is being used, compared to uses allowed under the area's zoning ("nonconforming uses"), or it may fail to conform to specific development standards such as setbacks, height, bulk, signage, or other regulatory aspects ("other nonconformities"). This section outlines the City’s intent in addressing nonconformities of both types.

3.6 Military Lands

Goal LU-35

Recognize that military installations, where federal or state, are unique in character with operations and support structures not typical of civilian land uses.

Military Lands

LU 35.02

The Official Federal Military Installation Master Plans (established in accordance with applicable federal regulations and Joint Planning Agreements) addressing land use, infrastructure and services for the portions of the military installations within the city are adopted by reference to this plan as autonomous subarea plans.

PDB 10002903

AR 007716

Appendix S: Agency Correspondence

PDB 10002984

AR 007797

Point Defiance Bypass Project Technical Advisory Group – Operating Plan

Page 1

Technical Advisory Group Mission: The Technical Advisory Group provides an effective and efficient interagency advisory role to the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Project Team during the design phase of the Point Defiance Bypass Project. The Technical Advisory Group is composed of representatives from the cities of DuPont, Lakewood, and Tacoma; Pierce County; the Clover Park School District; Joint Base Lewis-McChord (JBLM); Camp Murray; and Sound Transit; as well as WSDOT’s ARRA Cascades Rail Program. Other stakeholder agencies and additional WSDOT personnel may assist this team on an as-needed basis.

The Technical Advisory Group has been charged with the following: • Assist WSDOT with the identification of design options that are consistent with the project’s

purpose and need; • Help review those design options in order to determine which options are locally preferred, for

inclusion in the Environmental Assessment; • Assist WSDOT with the identification of mitigation measures to reduce adverse project effects,

and to identify those mitigation measures which are locally preferred; • Assist WSDOT with the review of relevant project discipline reports and to provide timely

feedback on those reports; • Provide WSDOT with a timely review of the Environmental Assessment during the formal

review period; • Identify opportunities for partnerships between WSDOT and local, state, tribal, and federal

jurisdictions that result in an improved project.

Technical Advisory Group Goal: The Technical Advisory Group’s goal is to foster excellent project design by proactively involving affected stakeholders and jurisdictions. By bringing together individuals from different agencies early in the project, WSDOT expects to work collaboratively to address member organizations’ concerns, and move quickly through the NEPA/SEPA documentation process.

Technical Advisory Group Roles and Responsibilities:

• The member organizations may require multiple participants on the Technical Advisory Group. Agency and jurisdiction members will provide one primary, and one or more alternate representative(s) to participate in Technical Advisory Group meetings. If a primary member is unable to attend, a fully briefed alternate will take his/her place.

• Technical Advisory Group members will work proactively to identify project risks, and assist in developing management strategies for risks associated with engineering design and environmental impact(s).

• Technical Advisory Group members are encouraged to identify strategic partnership opportunities at the earliest opportunity.

• Members agree to conduct concurrent or group reviews of the project designs and documentation when required. Project reviews will focus on identifying issues and concerns early

Technical Advisory Group – Operating Plan

PDB 10002986

AR 007799

melissam3

Highlight

melissam3

Highlight

melissam3

Highlight

melissam3

Highlight

melissam3

Highlight

melissam3

Highlight

melissam3

Highlight

melissam3

Highlight


Page 2

in the process with an emphasis on finding fatal flaws. Members agree to resolve any issue(s) quickly and cost effectively.

• Technical Advisory Group members will keep their executive management informed on project issues; clearly identify their organization’s area of responsibility to the Technical Advisory Group; and provide input for early resolution of issues, concerns, and conflicts within their jurisdiction.

Primary Technical Advisory Group Member / Alternate Affiliation Larry Mattson (Chairperson)/Dave Smelser WSDOT Dean Moberg FHWA Peter Zahn City of DuPont Dan Penrose/Jeff Gonzalez City of Lakewood Chris Larson City of Tacoma Mike Galizio/Jesse Hamashima Pierce County Delphie Nielsen/Michael Forsythe Clover Park School District Larry Mickel/Steven Perrenot JBLM Minh Vo Camp Murray Jodi Mitchell/Jason Suzaka Sound Transit Steve Kim WSDOT Technical Advisory Group Operating Guidelines: The Technical Advisory Group will follow these guidelines to promote effective meeting/task management:

• Team members or their alternates will participate fully, will have the authority to represent their organization, and will keep their respective organization executives informed of project progress.

• Meeting notes will be kept and reviewed for each meeting. • Team members will acknowledge problems, and deal with them in an open and timely fashion. • Team members will strive to complete homework assignments on time and come to meetings

prepared to address items on the agenda. Assignments and due dates will be made at the end of each meeting. Team members will set reasonable due dates for assignments.

• Team members will keep their roles and agency mission in perspective when discussing project issues.

• Technical sub-committees may be formed to work on specialty issues (for example, issues involving local business/socioeconomics).

• Team members will resolve issues within their power to solve and re-direct those issues that cannot be solved in a timely manner. If issue resolution is necessary, team members will strive to follow the “Conflict Identification and Resolution” process identified in this operating plan.

• Departing members will recommend an appropriate team member to replace them. The departing member or a designated team mentor will allocate the time necessary to bring a new member up to speed.

PDB 10002987

AR 007800

melissam3

Highlight

melissam3

Highlight


Page 3

WSDOT Project Team Role: The WSDOT Project Team will:

• Deliver the project in accordance with the endorsed Technical Advisory Group Operating Plan. • Actively communicate progress on the project to the Technical Advisory Group and other

agencies to inform them of any changes. • Work to understand the agencies’ and jurisdictions’ needs and expectations. • E-mail meeting agendas and handouts in advance of the meeting date. • Send meeting notes out within two weeks of the meeting. Notes will consist of the highlights of

the meeting, recap of discussions, action items, and commitments made. • Provide decision-makers and other stakeholders with information and documentation

developed by the project team and/or Technical Advisory Group that is needed to support a timely decision.

Conflict Identification and Resolution: The Technical Advisory Group will work to resolve any conflicts with integrity and respect, and will strive for consensus during the decision-making process. If consensus cannot be achieved and conflict results, the involved parties will meet with each other and apart from the group to try to resolve the conflict on their own. If consensus still cannot be achieved, the involved parties shall elevate the issue to their next higher authority for resolution.

Executive Team The Executive Team provides a direct communication forum between WSDOT executives and the responsible executives for jurisdictions through which the project travels. The Executive Team meets monthly or as-needed in order to receive project updates. While most conflicts will be resolved at the Technical Advisory Group meetings, the Executive Team may be involved in limited conflict resolution as well. The four primary purposes of the Executive Team are to:

• Review & comment on technical advisory group mitigation recommendations • Provide feedback to the technical advisory group • Collaborate to finalize recommendations • Provide recommendations for the EA document

Members of the Executive Team Affiliation Dawn Masko, Assistant City Manager City of DuPont Andrew Neiditz, City Manager City of Lakewood Dave Bugher, Director of Community Development City of Lakewood Brian Zeigler, Director of Public Works Pierce County Eric Beckman, Rail Program Manager Sound Transit Ray Miller, Administrator for Business & Operations Clover Park School District Thomas Knight, Garrison Command Joint Base Lewis-McChord Dean Moberg Federal Highway Administration Jerry Lenzi, Chief Engineer, Engineering & Regional Operations WSDOT

PDB 10002988

AR 007801

melissam3

Highlight

melissam3

Highlight

melissam3

Highlight

melissam3

Highlight

melissam3

Highlight

melissam3

Highlight

melissam3

Highlight


Page 4

Dave Dye, Chief Operating Officer/Deputy Secretary WSDOT Ron Pate, Cascades High-Speed Rail Program Manager WSDOT Kevin Dayton, Olympic Region Administrator WSDOT Technical Sub-Committees If needed, the Technical Advisory Group will identify any necessary technical sub-committees and potential sub-committee members.

Technical Sub-Committee Expectations: Technical sub-committees will meet as needed. The primary purpose of each technical sub-committee will be to review project alternatives, and provide feedback on risks and opportunities related to their discipline to the Technical Advisory Group. WSDOT decision makers will use information provided by the technical sub-committees to make informed project decisions.

PDB 10002989

AR 007802

PDB 10002990

AR 007803

Point Defiance

For further information or questions on the Point Defiance Bypass Project Technical Advisory Group. please contact:

David Smelser

Larry Mattson

ARRA Cascades Rail 360-705-6916 (work) 360-515-6688 (cell) [email protected] Project Coordination Manager

Point Defiance Bypass 509-577-1922 (work) 509-930-4464 (cell) [email protected] Environmental Manager

City ofTac m~

AA '¢...\ ~ Clover P rk School District

OInt Base Lewis-McChord

Point Defiance Bypass Project Technical Advisory Group - Operating Plan

Page 5

melissam3

Rectangle

melissam3

Rectangle

PDB 10003030

AR 007843

U.S. Department of Transportation



FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

February 2013

PDB 10003034

AR 007847

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) is implementing a program of infrastructure improvement projects along the Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor (PNWRC) also known as the PNWRC Improvement Program. The PNWRC Improvement Program is made up of approximately 17 component projects. To fund these projects, WSDOT applied and was selected for grantfunding through the Federal Railroad Administration's (FRA) High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Program.

One such component project is the Point Defiance Bypass Project (the Project or Build Alternative), WSDOT has proposed to respond to deficiencies in the existing rail operations around Point Defiance between Tacoma and Nisqually in Washington State. As part ofthe PNWRC Improvement Program, when combined with the other component projects, this Project would allow for two additional round trips of the Amtrak Cascades service between Seattle, Washington, and Portland, Oregon with improved reliability and reduced travel time. This Project would also support Amtrak's longer-distance Pacific Northwest passenger rail service, the Coast Starlight.

FRA and WSDOT prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) to analyze and document whether the Project would have significant effects on the environment. This Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is made based on the information in the EA and has been prepared by FRA and WSDOT to comply with the National Environniental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C § 4321) (NEPA), FRA's Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (64 Fed. Reg. 28545, May 6, 1999), and other related laws. WSDOT will use FRA's decision documentation and other supporting documentation to satisfY the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEP A) (WAC 197-11). The final version of the EA is available to the public on FRA's website at http://www.fra.dot.govlPagelP0212 and WSDOT's Project website at: http:Uwww.wsdot.wa.gov!Projects!Rail!PNWRCPtDefiance!environmentalassessment.htm

2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED

As described above, the Project is part of the larger PNWRC. Within Washington State, the vision for the PNWRC is to " ... improve intercity passenger rail service by reducing travel times and achieving greater schedule reliability in order to accommodate growing intercity travel demand ... "

The purpose of the Project is to provide more frequent and reliable intercity passenger rail service along the PNWRC between Tacoma and Nisqually.

The Project is needed to address the deficiencies in the existing rail alignment around Point Defiance. The existing alignment (Puget Sound route), shared by freight and passenger rail traffic, is near capacity and therefore unable to accommodate additional intercity passenger rail service without substantial improvements. In addition, the Puget Sound route has physical and operational constraints that adversely affect both passenger train scheduling and reliability.

3.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

As part of an alternatives analysis process, FRA and WSDOT evaluated three build alternatives: the Point Defiance Bypass route, the Shoreline Alternative, and the Greenfield Alternative to identifY the range of reasonable alternatives to carry forward for detailed analysis. A brief description of each build alternative follows:

• The Point Defiance Bypass route includes railroad track and support facility improvements, and the relocation of Amtrak's Tacoma Station.

• The Shoreline Altelllative would make improvements along the 26-mile-long Puget Sound route between Nisqually and Tacoma. This alternative consists of adding 8 miles of new track and realigning 15 milesof existing track.

Point Defiance Bypass Project Finding of No Significant Impact

February 2013 Page 1

PDB 10003035

AR 007848

• The Greenfield Alternative includes six routes (Lakewood South Route, Spanaway Route, Lakewood to Tacoma Tunnel Route, Fredrickson Route, Rainer Route, and 1-5 Median Route). Although each route has minor differences each would construct a new alignment and reconstruct an existing route.

Two of the alternatives (Shoreline Alternative and Greenfield Alternative) were eliminated from further study as each was detennined to be impracticable and unfeasible due to technical constraints, high construction costs, and significant environmental effects.

Modifications to the proposed Project were suggested during the two-year public involvement process, including adding a Cascades station within the Lakewood or DuPont city limits, and constructing one or several grade-separated crossings. Consistent with the trip time element of the Project's purposes and need and in order to meet performance standards set by WSDOT, no additional stops are proposed. The evaluation of grade separations, as described in the EA, revealed that current and projected future traffic volumes do not warrant the construction of new grade-separated crossings.

Two alternatives are considered in the EA, the No Build Alternative and the Build Alternative.

3.1 No Build Alternative Under the No Build Alternative, Amtrak's Cascades and Coast Starlight passenger train service would continue to use the existing Puget Sound route. The No Build Alternative includes only the minor maintenance and repair activities necessary to keep the existing Puget Sound route operational but with no extensive infrastructure improvements.

Along the Point Defiance Bypass route, the Tacoma Rail and Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) freight services would continue. The at-grade crossings at Clover Creek Drive Southwest, North Thorne Lane Southwest, Berkeley Street Southwest, 41 st Division Drive, and Barksdale Avenue Southwest would not be upgraded.

Sound Transit's Sounder commuter passenger trains became operational in October 2012 between the Tacoma Dome Station at Freighthouse Square in Tacoma and Sound Transit's Lakewood Station (on the Point Defiance Bypass route) with up to 18 Sounder trains per day.

3.2 Build Alternative The Project consists of railroad track and support facility improvements to facilitate the rerouting of Amtrak's intercity passenger rail to the Point Defiance Bypass route, and the relocation of Amtrak's Tacoma Station. The fol~owing details specific components of the Build Alternative (Figure I).

Construct New Track Adjacent to the Existing Main Line - A new 3.5-mile track adjacent to the existing main line would be constructed from South 66th Street (Rail milepost [MP] 6.9) in Tacoma to between Bridgeport Way Southwest (Rail MP 10.4) and Clover Creek Drive Southwest (Rail MP 10.9) in Lakewood.

Reconstruct and Rehabilitate the Existing Main Line - Starting just southwest of Bridgeport Way Southwest (Rail MP 10.4) in Lakewood, the existing track would be reconstructed to a location southeast of the 1-5/Mounts Road Southwest interchange (Rail MP 19.8) at NisquaUy Junction.

Improvements at the At-grade Crossings - Five highway-rail grade crossings would be improved with wayside horns, gates, traffic signals and signage, sidewalks, median separators, and warning devices. These crossings include Clover Creek Drive Southwest, NOlih Thorne Lane Southwest, Berkeley Street Southwest, 41 st Division Drive and Barksdale Avenue.

Tacoma Amtrak Station Relocation - The existing Tacoma Amtrak Station would be relocated from its Puyallup Avenue location to the Tacoma Dome Station at Freighthouse Square, at 430 E. 25th Street in Tacoma. This work includes platfonn modifications to accommodate longer Coast Starlight trains. The proposed Freighthouse Square station would provide the same or more



PDB 10003036

AR 007849

parking spaces than are currently available at the Tacoma Amtrak Station. Parking would be located on a parcel near Freighthouse Square that either has parking available for lease or which can be purchased and developed into a parking lot for exclusive use by Amtrak passengers. In addition to this proposed parking, there would be some available on-street parking near the station.

Operational Changes - Amtrak's existing Cascades and Coast Starlight passenger train service would be rerouted from the Puget Sound route along the Puget Sound shoreline to the Point Defiance Bypass route. The Project would also provide for additional Amtrak Cascades service by increasing the number of roundtrips provided per day from 4 to 6, or a total of 12 Cascades service train trips. Two (roundtrip) Amtrak Coast Starlight train trips per day would travel on the Point Defiance Bypass route. Train speed would increase from the current 30 miles per hour (mph) for Sounder trains to a maximum operating speed of79 mph for all passenger trains.



PDB 10003039

AR 007852

4.4 Transportation During construction, some Tacoma Rail freight service would be rerouted to available Tacoma Rail tracks when portions of the Point Defiance Bypass route (south of Lakewood) are out of service. WSDOT would coordinate with Tacoma Rail to maintain continued freight access during construction. Sounder train service would not be affected by construction because the trains operate on adjacent tracks.

Construction vehicles would increase traffic delay during construction. Temporary lane closures and occasional weekend road closures would be required to rebuild the track and install safety improvements at the at-grade crossings. Traffic control plans for these closures would include signage and prior notice to alert local and 1-5 drivers of the work. Construction activities would similarly disrupt and delay transit, pedestrians and bicyclists, and parking temporarily.

Relocating passenger rail service to the Point Defiance Bypass route would have a beneficial transportation effect by improving travel time of the Amtrak Cascades service by 10 minutes due to the shorter distance (approximately 6 miles) and because the trains will operate at higher speeds (up to 79 mph) on less congested tracks. Further benefits include improved reliability of the Cascades service by avoiding potential delays from freight trains on the Puget Sound route. Freight trains on the Puget Sound route would not be affected by relocating passenger trains to the Point Defiance Bypass route but could experience a slight benefit by removing passenger rail operations from the Puget Sound route.

No new at-grade highway or rail crossings are planned and no existing at-grade road crossings would be closed with the Build Alternative. The addition of Amtrak passenger service to the Point Defiance Bypass route would increase the number of shOli-tenn roadway blockages from train crossings throughout the day. The additional blockages would cause an increase in the overall time roadways are blocked for the Build Alternative by approximately I minute during the morning and afternoon peak hour. Roadway blockage by additional train crossings would also increase queue length by 2 to 4 vehicles. At some locations, the queue length would be reduced because of signal improvements.

The Build Alternative would reduce the number of intersections exceeding the Level of Service (LOS) D standards set by local jurisdictions and WSDOT from nine to eight. With the Build Alternative, several intersections experience minor impacts resulting in decreased LOS but would range between LOS A through D. The remaining intersections would experience some change in delay (seconds per vehicle) but no LOS changes.

While stopped at Freighthouse Square, the Coast Starlight train would extend beyond the existing station platform and across East C Street and East D Street. During an event at the Tacoma Dome, the dwell time of the Coast Starlight train at Freighthouse Square would result in a decline of LOS to below LOS D. The temporary blockage of these two streets would result in a decline of LOS to below LOS D during an event at the Tacoma Dome. Minimiz.ation of operational effects on traffic as a result of the Coast Starlight dwell time at Freighthouse Square, and during a Tacoma Dome event, would include implementation of a detour plan that could include static signs identifYing the detour routes, dynamic message signs that identifY the detour routes during a train blockage, lane striping and controller modification.

The Tacoma Amtrak Station relocation to Freighthouse Square would improve pedestrian connections between Amtrak passenger rail and transit services provided at the Tacoma Dome Station (Sounder, Tacoma Link light rail, and bus transit). The Build Alternative would also improve sidewalks thus improving pedestrian access and safety. Pedestrians and bicyclists would experience similar intersection delays as vehicles with the Build Alternative. Freight trains on the Puget Sound route could experience a slight benefit with the shift of passenger rail service from the Puget Sound route.

4.5 Geology and Soils The Build Alternative would not have a significant effect on geology or soils. Use of construction best management practices (BMPs) would minimize soil disturbance and erosion during construction. Operation of the Build Alternative would 110t affect existing geologic hazard areas.



PDB 10003041

AR 007854

4.11 Cultural and Historic Resources The Build Alternative would have no adverse effect on cultural or historic resources present in the area of potential effect (APE), including Native American traditional cultural or ceremonial places or resources. Several historic properties have been identified in the APE, but the Build Alternative would not affect any attributes that make the properties eligible to the National Register of Historic Places. Federallyrecognized tribes and the Washington State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) were consulted, as required by Section 106 ofthe National Historic Preservation Act. The SHPO concurred with the determination of no adverse effect on cultural and historic resources (see Appendix A).

4.12 Section 4(t) Resources Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 protects certain park and recreational lands, refuges, and historic sites from being "used" in transportation projects carried out or funded by modal administrations of the u.S. Department of Transportation, including FRA. Section 4(f) resources include any publicly-owned public park, recreation area, wildlife or waterfowl refuge, or any publicly- or privately-owned historic site. No properties eligible for protection under Section 4(f) are present within the study area and therefore no Section 4(f) uses would result from the Project.

4.13 Socioeconomics . The Build Alternative would have minor temporary effects on neighborhoods and businesses adjacent to

the railroad corridor during construction, including localized increases in noise and air emissions from construction activities. In general, during construction localized traffic circulation and accessibility to neighborhoods and businesses would be disrupted by construction of improvements at the at-grade crossings. However, the operation oflocal businesses would not be disrupted, since most construction would occur within the railroad right-of-way, away from intersections and business access locations. Construction of the Build Alternative would affect access to some public services during construction. Construction employment for the Build Alternative would be small and specialized, so there would be a minor benefit for employment and gross income.

Project Operation would have the following effects on the socioeconomic elements presented below:

Community Characteristics. The Build Alternative would not cause a direct change in the demographics, land use patterns, neighborhoods, or other related community characteristics.

Community Connectivity and Cohesion. The increased number of trains (up to 14 per day in addition to up to 18 Sounder trains) would reduce connectivity during train crossings of local roads. However upgrades (intersection and signal improvements) to 5 at-grade crossings would improve connectivity and safety for pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles as well as improve traffic flow for some intersections. The Tillicum, Woodbrook, and Nyanza neighborhoods would continue to experience some isolation because of existing geophysical separations and limitations to authorized non-vehicular access across or along the railroad tracks. Operation of the Project may increase residents' feelings of isolation in a few neighborhoods during train pass-bys, which would be very short in duration. However, overall the Project would result in more intersections with delay decreases than delay increases. Therefore, with the Project, and the proposed traffic improvements, community connectivity would experience a minor benefit.

Although there would be an increase in noise levels, the noise analysis demonstrates that the noise level effects on sensitive noise receptors would be moderate. There would be a corollary benefit from the use of wayside horns by both Amtrak and freight trains from Lakewood to Tacoma. Replacing train-mounted horns with quieter wayside-mounted horns would reduce this particular source of noise in the communities. There would be no effect in community cohesion due to noise.

Economics. The Project is not anticipated to affect property values. The rail corridor is an existing feature with portions currently used for freight and commuter service. Measures to minimize or eliminate noise and vibration would be implemented by the Project. Operation ofthe Project would result in a mitior benefit to the limited freight operations due to safety improvements at crossings, and the replaced rail



PDB 10003042

AR 007855

infrastructure at the southern end. Tacoma Rail may gain improved access to Tacoma suppliers. Freight movements are independent of the Sound Transit and Amtrak operations along the Point Defiance Bypass route. There would be no change to the operation of freight trains on the Point Defiance Bypass route under the Build Alternative. Tacoma Rail and BNSF would continue to operate as many as two trains per day or as few as two trains per week. BNSF would continue to operate intermittent freight trains on the Point Defiance Bypass route to serve military transportation needs at Joint Base Lewis McCord (JBLM).

4.14 Environmental Justice FRA and WSDOT evaluated the construction and operational environmental effects of the Project to determine whether Environmental Justice (EJ) communities would experience disproportionately high or adverse impacts. Minority/ethnic and low-income populations were identified at locations where noise and vibration effects are predicted. While the potential noise and vibration effects would affect lowincome and minority/ethnic populations, the effects would not be appreciably more severe or greater in magnitude than the effect on non-minority or non-low-income populations in the vicinity of the Project. Therefore, FRA and WSDOT detennined no disproportionately high or adverse effect on EJ populations would result from the Project and the Project meets the provisions of Executive Order 12898, and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.

4.15 Land Use Construction activities associated with the Build Altemative would not displace any existing land uses or acquire additional property aside from potential acquisitions adjacent to Freighthouse Square for parking. Such acquisitions would occur consistent with State and Federal law. Operationally, the Build Altemative is consistent with adopted land use policies. Operational effects on existing and planned land uses would result from the Tacoma Amtrak Station relocation by enhancing the accessibility to and between the modes of transportation in the downtown Tacoma area. The rail corridor would continue to be compatible with surrounding land uses. Relocation of the Cascades and Coast Starlight service to the Tacoma Dome Station at Freighthouse Square is consistent with adopted plans specific to the revitalization and redevelopment of the Tacoma Dome neighborhood and enhancing the pedestrian connection between rail services, with the goal to create economic opportunities at local, statewide, and multi-state levels by the increased reliability and frequency of altemative modes of transportation.

4.16 Public Services, Utilities, and Safety Temporary traffic delays for emergency vehicles and school and public buses would occur during construction. Access for emergency response services would be maintained during construction. During Project operation, the addition of Amtrak services would result in minor intersection traffic delays that would result in similar effects on all public service sectors. No public services would be displaced by the Project and all services would continue to be available to individuals in the study area.

No effects are anticipated for utilities as the Project would relocate, deepen or harden utilities within railroad right-of-ways, and access for utility maintenance and upgrades would be provided to utility owners.

With the Build Altemative, 3.2 accidents for every million train crossings are anticipated. This accident rate would be a decrease in accidents from current operations along the Puget Sound route (3.6 accidents per million train crossings). The Build Alternative would also improve safety at 5 existing at-grade crossings by adding signage, wayside homs, median barriers, sidewalks, pre-signals, and more advanced signal controllers. WSDOT has not yet developed fencing plans for the project. These will be developed during final design and in collaboration with Sound Transit. .



PDB 10003044

AR 007857

Table 1.Cumulative Effects of the Project

Resource Cumulative Effect

Energy The long-term energy use associated with the Project would be reduced from current conditions. Thus, there would be a beneficial cumulative effect on energy from the Project.

Public Services, A slight beneficial cumulative effect would result since the improvements made to the intersection Utilities, and Safety signals would not occur without the Project.

Transportation The reasonably foreseeable future projects would improve traffic conditions in the study area. Therefore, the Build Alternative, when considered with the reasonably foreseeable future actions, would not result in significant cumulative effects on transportation.

Socioeconomic and In conjunction with the Project's intersection and signaling improvements and other reasonably Environmental foreseeable future projects, there would be a slight beneficial cumulative effect on community Justice connectivity near the Berkeley Street Southwest intersection. Connectivity north of Bridgeport Way

Southwest would be unchanged. The lack of connecting streets and non-motorized access across the railroad tracks, combined with increased train activity with the Project, would result in a minor contribution to the isolation associated with the cumulative effects of past and present land use and transportation patterns in the Tillicum, Wood brook, and Nyanza neighborhoods.

Climate Change The results of WSDOT's recent vulnerability assessment show the section of 1-5 along the Project to have low vulnerability to climate-related threats. WSDOT is coordinating with Sound Transit on a vulnerability assessment of all Sound Transit facilities, and the project corridor appears resilient to future climate-related effects.

7.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Opportunities for public involvement on the Project begin with the scoping process and other outreach efforts that took place between spring201 0 and summer 2012. Materials provided at these events and briefings included electronic PowerPoint presentations, Project maps, photos and videos,fact sheets, and illustrated Project timelines. FRA and WSDOTs efforts for the EA included outreach to a wide variety of stakeholders along the Project corridor, including meetings with state and local agencies, neighborhood associations, farmers markets, city councils, and elected officials.

The EA was issued by FRA and WSDOT for public review on October 9,2012 for a period of 30 calendar days (comment period closed on November 9, 2012). A total of62 comments on the EA were received from individuals or agencies, including comments from 1 federal agency, 2 state agencies, I regional agency, and 5 local agencies. Copies and responses to the comments are included in Appendix B.

8.0 ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS The environmental commitments described below have been identified as the practicable means to avoid and minimize effects from the Project.

Table 2. Environmental Commitments

Resource Commitments

Air Quality • Spraying water and operating water trucks on haul roads to reduce dust and particulate matter (PM1o) emissions.

• Covering and/or wetting materials on-site and during transport, or providing adequate freeboard (space from the top of the material to the top of the vehicle) to reduce PM10 emissions.

• Providing wheel washers to remove PM that vehicles would otherwise carry off-site.

• Removing PM (mud and windblown dust) deposited on paved roadways.

• Properly maintaining construction equipment with required pollution-control devices.



PDB 10003045

AR 007858



Noise • Ensure all construction activities comply with local noise regulations, including no nighttime work unless a variance is obtained.

• Use artificial barriers (e.g. baffles, or stockpiles of construction materials) to shield against construction noise.

• Strategically place stationary equipment, such as compressors and generators, to reduce effects on noise-sensitive receivers during construction.

• During construction, equip each internal combustion engine with a manufacturer-recommended muffler.

• Use vibratory or hydraulic insertions for pile driving, or use drilled shafts in place of pile driving at locations determined during final design.

• During operations, use wayside horns at the at-grade crossings to limit the sounding of on-train horns and reduce the area exposed to train warning sounds.

Vibration • Use of track treatments (such as resiliently supported ties, or ballast mats) to reduce the vibration transmitted to the ground and reduce vibration effects on below FTA vibration impact criteria.

Transportation • Development of a traffic control plan with local jurisdictions to minimize traffic delays and periodic' lane or access revisions during construction of at-grade crossing improvements.

• Development of framework with Tacoma Rail and BNSF to ensure rail freight deliveries meet customer needs during construction.

• WSDOT will coordinate with local jurisdictions regarding the construction schedule, construction areas, and detour routes during Project development to minimize community disruption including for events such as the US Open.

• Implementation of a detour plan that may include static signs identifying detour routes and/or dynamic message signs that identify the detour routes during a train blockage at Freighthouse Square.

• FRA and WSDOT would provide additional modeling detail and design at the C and D Street intersections as part of the Final Design process.

Geology and Soils • Preparing and following a Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control (TESC) Plan to implement proper erosion control and surface water runoff BMPs.

• Paving or permanently restoring disturbed areas as soon as possible.

• Designing temporary excavation slopes to prevent surface sloughing and shallow landsliding.

• Designing all fill and pavement areas to drain away from construction areas and prevent ponding of water and softening of subgrade soils.

• Limiting cut slopes to 2 horizontal feet to 1 vertical foot (2H:1 V) or using retaining walls, and including permanent drainage facilities designed for anticipated water flows.

Water Resources • Prepare and implement a Construction Storm water Pollution Prevention Plan (CSWPPP) to serve as the overall construction storm water minimization plan. The CSWPPP would include provisions for prevention and management of spills in both construction and staging areas, and control sediment from ground disturbing activities.



PDB 10003046

AR 007859



Wetlands • Clearing limits would be clearly marked and protected with construction fencing.

• Various sediment control BMPs would be used to remove sediment prior to any stormwater runoff leaving the site.

• Exposed soils would be stabilized to prevent erosion (i.e., hydroseeding, straw wattles).

• A temporary erosion control blanket would be placed immediately after seeding, fertilizing, and mulching.

• All on-site pollutants, including waste materials and demolition debris, would be handled and disposed in a manner that does not cause contamination of stormwater.

• On-track vehicle/machinery maintenance and fueling locations would be established away from aquatic resources.

• Anyon-site fuel storage would have secondary containment equal to 150 percent of storage capacity.

• All waste oils and machinery fluids would be removed by a maintenance vehicle when they are generated. No waste oils or fluids would be stored on-site.

• Application of chemicals such as fertilizers and pesticides would be conducted in a manner and at application rates that would not result in loss of chemicals to stormwater runoff.

• Highly turbid or contaminated dewatering water would be handled separately from stormwater and not allowed to enter local drainage systems.

Fish, Wildlife, and • Confine construction activities to the minimum area necessary. Vegetation • Develop and implement a TESC Plan and CSWPPP for clearing, vegetation removal, grading,

ditching, filling, embankment compaction, or excavation. The BMPs in the plans would be used to control sediments from ground-disturbing activities.

• For construction activities that occur within 200 feet of surface water or wetland habitat as identified by the Project biologist, use BMPs to ensure that no foreign material, such as railroad ballast or other material, is side cast, and to control and prevent sediments from entering aquatic systems.

• Native species would be used for reseeding where possible.

• Minimize removal of native vegetation to the greatest extent possible.

Hazardous Materials • Performing site-specific hazardous material investigations where and when necessary.

• Preparing and implementing a project-specific hazardous material management plan.

• Preparing and implementing a CSWPPP.

• Preparing and implementing a TESC Plan, including dust control measures as described for Air Quality.

• Preparing and implementing a Spill Prevention, Containment, and Countermeasures Plan (SPCCP).

• Coordinating with Ecology during acquisition and construction for work completed within the environmental restrictive covenant at Freighthouse Square.

Visual Quality • Maintain existing vegetation at the edge of the railroad right-of-way to screen the rail line at locations determined during final design and in coordination with the rail line owners (Tacoma Rail, BNSF, and Sound Transit).

• Enhance vegetative buffers and screening where the rail line is adjacent to residential and institutional properties at locations determined during final design and in coordination with the rail line owners.

• WSDOT will coordinate with Pierce County and other local jurisdictions regarding the construction schedule, construction areas, and detour routes during Project development to minimize community disruption including for events such as the US Open attendees.



PDB 10003047

AR 007860



Cultural Resources • Prepare an inadvertent discovery plan and obtain approval from the Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) prior to construction. If during construction, unanticipated cultural deposits, artifacts, or human remains are encountered, work in the vicinity would be halted and local law enforcement officials and DAHP staff would be contacted immediately.

Public Services, • WSDOT will coordinate and communicate with public service providers, including school districts, Utilities, and Safety emergency service organizations, and agencies such as Sound Transit to ensure they are fully

informed of construction progress and identify ways to minimize delays.

• Coordination with utility owners to determine conflicts and a suitable resolution to avoid or minimize disruption. This would include coordination with the local fire department if there would be effects on fire suppression water and/or pressure.

• Post construction schedules near affected crossings and provide the information to local newspapers for publication or to the local jurisdictions for distribution by mail to residents and businesses in the area. Project construction updates could also be posted on WSDOT's project website.

• Continue the Operation Lifesaver program training on track safety for community members and continue to work with communities to ensure there are safe routes that avoid the illegal use of the railroad right-of-way for pedestrians and non-vehicular travel.

Energy Measures to reduce energy use would be employed during construction, which would also reduce GHG emissions:

• Limited equipment idling.

• Encouraging construction workers to carpool.

• Locating staging areas near work sites.

• Scheduling the delivery of materials during off-peak hours to allow trucks to travel to the site with less congestion and at fuel-efficient speeds.

Operationally, additional fuel efficiency would be realized with the use of the new models of locomotives that are 10 to 12 percent more energy efficient than currently used locomotives.



PDB 10003048

AR 007861

9.0 CONCLUSION

As described in the EA and further in this FONSI, the Project would improve travel time of the Amtrak Cascades service by 10 minutes and decrease train delays, allowing for more frequent and reliable intercity passenger rail, which would be a benefit for Amtrak operations and passenger rail riders along the PNWRC. The Project would also result in a slight benefit to freight trains on the Puget Sound route from removing passenger mil from the Puget Sound route.

The improvement of several at-grade crossings would improve safety by adding signage, wayside horns, median barriers, sidewalks, pre-signals, and more advanced signal controllers. Upgrades to intersections and signaling would maintain or improve overall traffic flow at substandard intersections. Replacing train-mounted horns with quieter wayside-mounted horns would reduce this particular source of noise in the communities.

Relocating the Tacoma Amtrak Station to Freighthouse Square would improve pedestrian connections between Amtrak passenger rail and transit services provided at the Tacoma Dome Station (Sounder, Tacoma Link light mil, and bus transit).

The FRA finds that the Point Defiance Bypass Route Project EA satisfies the requirements ofFRA's NEPA "Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts" (64 FR 28545, May 26, 1999) and NEPA (42 USC § 4321) and the Project would have no foreseeable significant impact on the quality of the human or natural environment provided it is implemented in accordance with the commitments identified in this FONS!. As the Project sponsor, WSDOT is responsible for ensuring all environmental commitments identified in Section 8.0 above are fully implemented. The EA provides sufficient evidence and analysis for FRA to determine that an environmental impact statement is not required for the Project as presented.


FRA Contact:

Colleen Vaughn Environmental Protection Specialist Federal Railroad Administration

Office of Railroad Policy and Development West Building, Mailstop 20

1200 New Jersey Avenue S.E. Washington, DC 20590 .

List of Preparers:

Larry Mattson, WSDOT Carol Lee Roalkvam, WSDOT Leandra Cleveland, HDR Engineering, Inc. Meagan Ostrem, HDR Engineering, Inc.


Date I I


AR 008044

WAC 197-11-960 Environmental checklist.

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Purpose of checklist:

The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21 C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required

Point Defiance Bypass Project required a federal decision subject to the National Environmental Policy Act, an environmental assessment (EA) needed to be prepared. SEPA Rules allow use of an EA in place of a DNS. This checklist is being used to document the fact that the EA addresses the elements of the environment that are included in the checklist.

A BACKGROUND

1. Name of proposed project Point Defiance Bypass Project

2. Name of applicant: Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT)

3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person Carol Lee Roalkvam 310 Maple Park Avenue SE Olympia, WA 98504-7331 360-705-7126

4. Date checklist prepared

March 11, 2013

5. Agency requesting checklist Washington State Department of Transportation 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable) Construction of the project would begin in 2015 and would be finished in 2017

7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain WSDOT is implementing a program of infrastructure improvement projects along the Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor (PNWRC). To fund these projects, WSDOT applied for and was selected for grant funding through the Federal Railroad Administration's High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program. The PNWRC Improvement Program would improve the reliability of service and allow for two additional Amtrak Cascades service round trips between Seattle, Washington, and Portland, Oregon. PNWRC improvements would also support Amtrak's longer-distance Pacific Northwest passenger rail service, the Coast Starlight. The PNWRC Improvement Program is made up of approximately 17 component projects. The Federal Railroad Administration issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) in November 2010 on the PNWRC Improvements based on a programmatic environmental assessment (completed in September 2009). In advancing the corridor improvements, WSDOT and FRA collaborated on developing project-level environmental documents to assess the potential im pacts of the com ponent projects along the corridor.

One of the component projects is the Point Defiance Bypass Project, which would address deficiencies in the existing passenger rail operations around Point Defiance between Tacoma and Nisqually in Washington State.

8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal Point Defiance Bypass Project Environmental Assessment prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for U. S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration (issued for public review October 1 , 2013, revised February 22, 2013 and issued with federal decision - FONSI - March 1, 2013).

PDB 10000007

AR 008045

TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR

AGENCY USE ONLY

Note that the Project Environmental Assessment and its supporting technical reports are posted on-line http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/Rail/PNWRC PtDefiance/ProjectEnvironmental.htm and CDs are available by contacting the WSDOT Rail Office at (360) 705-7900.

9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes. explain At the time this checklist was prepared, no permits were pending for other proposals directly affecting the property covered by this project. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, ifknown See Pages 3-7 and 3-8 of the EA

11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. See Pages 3-2 through 3-6 of the EA

12. Location of the proposal See Page 3-3 of the EA, Figure 2

B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS

1. Earth a. General description of the site See Page 4-19 of the EA See Pages 14-23 of the Geology & Soils Discipline Report (DR)

b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? See Page 4-19 of the EA

c. What general types of soils are found on the site See Page 4-19 of the EA

d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe See Page 4-19 of the EA, Table 7

e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill

New fill: Approximately 60,000 cubic yards; Grading: Approximately 90,000 cubic yards See Pages 31-32 of the Geology & Soils DR for sources offill

f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe See Page 4-19 of the EA; See Pages 29-30 of the Geology & Soils DR

g. About what percent ofthe site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)?

New impervious surface: Approximately 15,000 square feet; See Page 30, 32 of the Water Resources DR h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any See Page 4-20 of the EA

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? See Pages 4-2 and 4-3 of the EA; See Pages 27-29 of the Air Quality DR, specifically Exhibit 5 on Page 29 for operational quantities

b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe

See Page 4-3 of the EA

1) Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any See Page 4-3 of the EA

Water a Surface

PDB 10000008

AR 008046

TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT

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

EVALUATION FOR

AGENCY USE ONLY

See Pages 4-21 and 4-22 of the EA, specifically Table 8 and Figure 7; See Pages 19-23 of the Water Resources DR 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 See Page 4-23 of the EA; See Pages 29-30 of the Water Resources DR for the work over or adjacent to

3) Estimate the amount offill 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 offill materiaL

See Page 4-27 of the EA;

4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities ifknown

No

5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan See Page 4-21 to 4-23 of the EA; See pages 24-25 of the Water Resources DR

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 See Page 4-23 of the EA;

Ground 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water?

See Page 4-23 of the EA;

2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any

See Page 4-23 of the EA; c Water runoff (including stormwater)

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 See Page 4-23 of the EA; See Pages 33-34 of the Water Resources DR

2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe See Page 4-23 of the EA; See Pages 31-34 of the Water Resources DR

d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and nmoff water impacts, if any See Page 4-23 of the EA; See Pages 35-37 of the Water Resources DR

4. Plants a. Types ofvegetation found on the site See Pages 4-24,4-26 of the EA; See Pages 21-23 of the Fish, Wildlife, and Vegetation DR

b. What kind and amount ofvegetation will be removed or altered?

See Page 4-27 of the EA; See Page 24 of the Fish, Wildlife, and Vegetation DR

c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site See Page 4-26 of the EA; See Page 23 of the Fish, Wildlife, and Vegetation DR

d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any

See Pages 4-27 and 4-33 of the EA; See Page 26 of the Fish, Wildlife, and Vegetation DR; and Pages 53-54 of the Visual Quality DR

5. Animals known to be on or near the site

See Pages 4-25,4-26, and 4-27 of the EA; See Pages 17-21 of the Fish, Wildlife, and Vegetation DR

b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site

PDB 10000009

AR 008047


See Pages 4-25,4-26, and 4-27 of the EA; See Pages 17-21 of the Fish, Wildlife, and Vegetation DR

c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain See 4-26 of the EA. The site is an existing rail line adjacent to Interstate 5. It is not part of a known migration route. Most of the terrestrial habitat in the proposed Project vicinity is fragmented and provides poor habitat for most wildlife species, except those that have adapted to urban areas. Lakes and other surface waters that surround the proposed Project are utilized by waterfowl which fly between waterbodies, but these aerial migration routes, due to high existing baseline disturbance, will not be affected during construction or subsequent operation of the passenger rail service.

d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any

EVALUATION FOR

AGENCY USE ONLY

See Page 4-27 of the EA; Federal resource agencies concurred with no effect on listed species, See Appendix S: Agency Correspondence.

6. Energy and natural resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the

completed project's energy needs? See Page 4-62 of the EA; See Page 13 of the Energy Discipline Report (DR)

b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? 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

See Pages 4-62 and 4-63 of the EA; See Pages 14-18 of the Energy DR

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 See Pages 4-28 through 4-31 of the EA; See Pages 37-42 of the Hazardous Materials DR

1) Describe special emergency services that might be required See Page 4-31 of the EA

2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any See Page 4-31 of the EA; See Pages 55-63 of the Hazardous Materials DR

b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project?

See Page 4-6 and 4-7 of the EA; See Page 31 of the Noise & Vibration DR 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short

tenn or a long-tenn basis See Pages 4-8 and 4-10 of the EA; See Noise & Vibration DR

3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any See Page 4-11 of the EA; See Pages 55-57 of the Noise & Vibration Discipline Report

8. Land and shoreline use a \\!hat is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? See Page 4-47 of the EA; See Pages 17-33 of the Land Use DR b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe See Page 4-47 of the EA

c. Describe any structures on the site See Pages 3-2 to 3-4 and 4-35 of the EA

d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? See Page 4-47 of the EA

e. \\!hat is the current zoning classification of the site? See Page 4-47 of the EA; See Pages 43-55 of the Land Use DR f What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? See Page 4-47 of the EA; See Pages 43-55 of the Land Use DR

PDB 10000010

AR 008048


g. If applicable, what is the current slioreline master program designation of the site? See Pages 34-36 of the Land Use DR

h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify See Pages 34-38 of the Land Use DR

i. Approximately liow many people would reside or work in the completed project? See Page 4-44 to 4-46 of the EA; j. Approximately liow many people would the completed project displace? See Page 4-44 and 4-48 of the EA (no displacements are anticipated); See Pages 38-39 of the SocioEconomic/Environmental Justice DR

k Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any See Page 4-44 and 4-48 of the EA

1 Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any

See Page 4-48 of the EA; See Pages 54-62 of the Land Use DR

9. Housing a. Approximately liow many units would be provided, if any? Indicate wliether liigli, middle, or low

income housing Does not apply, housing is not part of this project

b. Approximately liow many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate wliether high, middle, or low-income liousing

See Page 4-44 and 4-45 of the EA; See Pages 38-39 of the SocioEconomic/Environmental Justice DR c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any Does not apply, no adverse impacts are anticipated

10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest lieiglit of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal

exterior building material(s) proposed? See Pages 4-32 and 4-33 of the EA

b. What views in the immediate vicimty would be altered or obstructed? See Page 4-32 of the EA; See Pages 41-51 of the Visual Quality DR c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any See Pages 53-54 of the Visual Quality DR See Page 4-33 of the EA

11. Light and glare a. What type ofliglit or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Sources of light produced by the project could include: headlights from the trains' engines; streetlights (luminaires) and/or security lights from a new parking facility near Freighthouse Square; headlights from vehicles using the new parking facility; luminaires and/or security lights from a loading /unloading platform for the Amtrak Cascades passenger trains; and new luminaires and flashing red warning lights at the following at-grade intersections: Clover Creek Drive Southwest; North Thorne Lane Southwest; Berkeley Street Southwest; 41st Division Drive; and Barksdale Avenue. Amtrak hours of operation will be after 7 a.m. and until 10 p.m.

b. Could liglit or glare from the finislied project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? The light produced by the new luminaires, security lights, train headlights, and flashing red warning lights are all safety features that must be seen in order to be effective. Glare that may be produced by passing trains is temporary in nature since the trains would be present for only a short amount of time.

c. What existing off-site sources of liglit or glare may affect your proposal? No existing off-site sources of light or glare should affect the project.

d. Proposed measures to reduce or controlliglit and glare impacts, if any

EVALUATION FOR

AGENCY USE ONLY

PDB 10000011

AR 008049


Since a train engine's headlights and the flashing red warning lights at at-grade intersections are safety features that must be seen in order to be effective, and since the hours of operation will limit the amount of light produced by train headlights during hours of darkness, no measures to reduce or control this these sources of light are proposed. Freighthouse Square and the new loading/unloading platform for the Amtrak Coast Starlight passenger trains would be located within the Tacoma Dome Area, which the City of Tacoma has zoned as UCX-TD (Urban Center Mixed-Use District). The new parking facility and new loading/unloading platform would be designed to conform with the City of Tacoma's Municipal Code for this district. Because of this, light and/or glare from the project should not be significant safety hazards, nor would views be significantly affected.

12. Recreation a. \\!hat designated and infonnal recreational opportLmities are in the immediate vicinity? Pages 449 through 4-59 of the EA See the Public Services & Utilities DR b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe See Pages 447 and 448 of the EA; See Page 38 of the Public Services & Utilities DR

c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportLmities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any

Does not apply, no adverse impacts are anticipated

13. Historic and cultural preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation

registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe

EVALUATION FOR

AGENCY USE ONLY

Washington State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) concurrence is contained in Appendix A of the FONSI. Additional information is on Pages 4-35 and 4-36 of the EA

b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site

See Page 4-35 of the EA

c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any See Page 4-36 of the EA

14. Transportation a. IdentifY public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing

street system. Show on site plans, if any See Page 3-3 of the EA; See Traffic & Transportation DR

b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop?

See Page 4-13 of the EA; See Pages 29-32 of the Traffic & Transportation DR

c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate?

See Page 4-14 through 4-18; Page 444; and Page 448 of the EA; See Transportation DR

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)

See Pages 3-3 and 34 of the EA

e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe

See Page 1-1 to 1-3 of the EA

f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur

See Page 4-16 of the EA; See Pages 88-89 of the Traffic & Transportation DR g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any See Page 4-18 of the EA; See Pages 167-168 of the Traffic & Transportation DR

15. Public services

PDB 10000012

AR 008050

TO ilL ('OM 1'1 I ,11,)) IIY APPLICANT

u. Would the project result in un increased need for public services (lor exumple: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools. other)? If so. !!enerally describe.

See Pages 4-60 to 4-61 of the EA

b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services. if any. See Page 4-61 of the EA

16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas. water, refuse service,

telephone. sanitary sewer. septic system. other. See Page 4-49 of the EA; See Pages 33-35 of the Public Services & Utilities DR

b. DescJibe 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.

See Page 4-60 of the EA; See Pages 37-42 of the Public Services & Utilities DR

C. SIUNATURI

IVAI .IIATI()N 1,( )1{

A<i1·Nl'Y USI ONLY

The above answers are lrue and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand lhat the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision.

Signature:

Date Submitted:

PDB 10000013

AR 008051

Washington State Deparbnent of Transportation

DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE AND ADOPTION OF EXISTING

ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS

March 13, 2013

Description of current proposal: The proposed project consists of railroad track and support facility improvements to facilitate rerouting Amtrak's intercity passenger rail to the Point Defiance Bypass route and relocating the existing Tacoma Amtrak Station. Specific actions include:

• Constructing new track adjacent to the existing main line from South 66th Street in Tacoma, to between Bridgeport Way Southwest and Clover Creek Drive Southwest in Lakewood;

• Reconstructing and rehabilitating the existing main line from just southwest of Bridgeport Way Southwest in Lakewood, to a location southeast of the Interstate 5/Mounts Road Southwest interchange at Nisqually Junction;

• Improving several grade crossings within the proposed project area, and; • Relocating the existing Tacoma Amtrak Station from its current Puyallup Avenue location, to the

Tacoma Dome Station at Freighthouse Square in Tacoma.

Proponent: Washington State Department of Transportation

Location of current proposal: The proposed project is located within the incorporated and unincorporated areas of Pierce County along an existing approximately 20-mile rail corridor between Tacoma and Nisqually that generally parallels and is west of the Interstate 5 (1-5) transportation corridor. The northern limit of the proposed project is TR Junction near the 1-5 overcrossing of the Puyallup River and East Bay Street in Tacoma. The southern limit of the proposed project is at Nisqually Junction where Nisqually Road crosses the Nisqually River.

Title of documents being adopted and relied on: Point Defiance Bypass Project National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Environmental Assessment (EA); NEPA Finding of No Significant Impact (FONS/); SEPA Environmental Checklist.

Date adopted documents were prepared: • NEPA Environmental Assessment: February 22, 2013 • NEPA Finding of No Significant Impact: March 1, 2013 • SEPA Environmental Checklist: March 13, 2013

Description of documents (or portion) being adopted: The Point Defiance Bypass Project NEPA Environmental Assessment and NEPA Finding of No Significant Impact are being adopted in their entirety. Staff also prepared a document using the SEPA checklist to show where each topic is addressed in the NEPA documents. Where the SEPA checklist contains questions not specifically addressed in the NEPA EA, additional information is provided. The SEPA checklist will circulate with this notice.

The documents are available electronically: At the project website www.wsdot.wa.gov/projects/rail/pnwrc ptdefiance/

The Compact Disk (CD) containing the NEPA documents and their appendices is available at no cost by contacting the State Rail and Marine Office at (360) 705-7900.

Hard copies can be viewed at WSDOT's Headquarters Building, 310 Maple Park Avenue SE, Olympia, WA 98501, Monday through Friday between 8 am and 4:30 pm.

Public and Agency Review: The scope of the environmental review was determined by FRA and WSDOT after considering input from the public and agencies. Chapter 5 of the EA summarizes the public outreach as well as local government and tribal consultation efforts conducted for the Project between spring 2010 and fall 2012. Coordination efforts included input from technical and executive advisory team meetings and direct agency interaction.

PDB 10000005

AR 008052

The EA was issued by FRA and W SOOT for public review on October 9, 2012 for a period of 30 calendar days (comment period closed on November 9,2012). WSDOT mailed notices of public meetings to 27,000 residents within a quarter mile of the proposed project. WSDOT translated notices in four languages to reach non-English speakers. During the comment period, the public was invited to provide input through various methods, such as a written comment form, court reporter, e-mail, and mail. WSDOT and FRA explained that both agencies would review and respond to all comments received during the 30-day EA comment period. The joint agency response to the 62 comments received is contained in the environmental decision document issued by FRA (FONSI Appendix B).

WSDOT is relying on the NEPA documentation and concurs with the findings contained in the Federal Rail Administration's decision document. The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c).

As described in the EA and FRA's decision document, an EIS is not required because the construction and operation of the project will not significantly harm the environment. The adopted documents show that the project would improve travel time of the Amtrak Cascades service, decrease train delays, and allow more frequent and reliable intercity passenger rail along the corridor. The project would also improve the safety of at-grade crossings and nearby intersections, adding way-side horns, median barriers, sidewalks, pre-signals, and more advanced signal controllers. Upgrades to intersections and signaling would maintain or improve overall traffic flow at existing substandard intersections. Relocating the Tacoma Avenue Amtrak Station to Freighthouse Square would improve multimodal connections. WSDOT and FRA considered the project's effects on low-income and minority populations and determined that there is no disproportionately high or adverse effect, and that the project meets the provisions of Executive Order 12898 and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.

WSDOT has identified and adopted these documents as being appropriate for this proposal after independent review. These documents meet WSDOT's environmental review needs for the current proposal and will accompany the proposal to the decision maker.

Ifthe documents being adopted have been challenged (WAC 197-11-630), please describe: The documents have not been challenged.

This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on the proposal for 14 days from the date on which this DNS is being issued. Comments can be sent to [email protected] or mailed to WSDOT Rail Office, P.O. Box 47407, Olympia, WA 98504-7407

Comments must be submitted by March 26, 2013.

Name of agency adopting documents: Washington State Department of Transportation

Responsible official: Megan White, PE

Position/title: Director. WSDOT Environmental Services

Phone: 360-705-7482

Address: 310 Maple Park Avenue SE Olympia, WA

Date: March 13, 2013

Contact person, if other than responsible official: Carol Lee Roalkvam (360) 705-7126

PDB 10000006