Section 4(f) Resources Subject to Use · 2012-09-26 · Historic Sites Section 4(f) applies to all...

224 Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation

Section 4(f) Resources Subject to Use

Washington Street Boat Landing –Cut & Cover and Elevated Structure Alternatives Only

McGraw Kittenger Case Building –Cut & Cover and Elevated Structure Alternatives Only

Alaskan Way Viaduct

Alaskan Way Seawall –Cut & Cover and Elevated Structure Alternatives Only

Western Building – Bored Tunnel Alternative Only

Exhibit 4(f)-1

Battery Street Tunnel

Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Project 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 225

Exhibit 4(f)-2

Resources Subject to Use Under Section 4(f)

Removed Physically Altered

NameLocation

Owner Section 4(f) Status PrimaryFunction

Alaskan Way ViaductAbove Alaskan Way on waterfront

PublicWSDOT

National Register Eligible Transportation

Alaskan Way SeawallAlong Alaskan Way

PublicCity of Seattle

National Register Eligible

Battery Street TunnelUnder Battery Street betweenFirst Avenue and Denny Way

PublicWSDOT or City of Seattle

National Register Eligible Transportation

S. Washington StreetBoat LandingS. Washington Street at Alaskan Way

City of Seattle Pergola StructureNational Register

ViewsRelaxationFishing

McGraw Kittenger Case Blu Canary/MGM Building2330 First Avenue

Private National Register Eligible

Western Building619 Western Avenue

Private Contributing Building in National Register-Listed Pioneer Square Historic District

Retail/Office

Seattle Maintenance YardBroad Street & Sixth Avenue45KI958

PublicCity of Seattle

REMO

VED

Cut & Cover Tunnel Alternative

PHYSICALL

Y ALT

ERED

Elevated Structure Alternative

REMO

VED

Bored Tunnel Alternative

PHYSICALL

Y ALT

ERED

REMO

VED

PHYSICALL

Y ALT

ERED

BACKGROUND

This evaluation addresses how the Alaskan Way ViaductReplacement Project (the project) is responding to afederal environmental law known as Section 4(f), whichprotects parks, recreation areas, historic and culturalresources, and nature refuges.

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), theWashington State Department of Transportation(WSDOT), and the City of Seattle are proposing to replacethe Alaskan Way Viaduct because it is likely to fail in anearthquake. The viaduct is located in downtown Seattle,King County, Washington. The viaduct structure needs tobe replaced from approximately S. Royal Brougham Wayto the Battery Street Tunnel. Alternatives to replace theviaduct within its existing corridor were previouslyconsidered in a 2004 Draft Environmental ImpactStatement (EIS) and a 2006 Supplemental Draft EIS.

The section describes Section 4(f) of the U.S. Departmentof Transportation Act and explains the role of Section 4(f)in FHWA’s decision-making. It also summarizes several keyterms, concepts, and legal standards. This is followed bythe draft Section 4(f) evaluation for the project.

1 What is Section 4(f)?Section 4(f) refers to a federal law that protects publicpark and recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges,and historic sites. Section 4(f) applies to transportationprojects that require the approval of the U.S. Departmentof Transportation—example, a highway project that usesfederal funds. Congress established Section 4(f) as part of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966(49 USC 303).

DRAFT SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION


FHWA and the Federal Transit Administration have issuedjoint regulations to implement their responsibilities underSection 4(f). The regulations can be found at 23 CFR Part774. These Section 4(f) regulations were comprehensivelyupdated in March 2008 to reflect amendments to Section 4(f) that were made in August 2005 as part of theSafe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient TransportationEquity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU).

FHWA has provided further guidance for implementingSection 4(f) in its “Section 4(f) Policy Paper,”¹ and incertain other guidance documents, available athttp://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/4f/index.asp.

2 What is a “Section 4(f) resource”?A Section 4(f) resource is a “publicly owned land of apublic park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowlrefuge of national, State, or local significance, or land ofan historic site of national, State, or local significance.”

Parks, Recreation Areas, and RefugesSection 4(f) applies to parks, recreation areas, and wildlifeand waterfowl refuges only if they are “significant” and arelocated on publicly owned lands. In most cases, theresource is presumed significant as long as the resource islocated on publicly owned land.

Historic SitesSection 4(f) applies to all “significant” historic sites,regardless of whether they are publicly or privately owned.Section 4(f) regulations further define an historicproperty as “a prehistoric or historic district, site, building,structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion in,the National Register. This includes properties oftraditional religious and cultural importance to an Indiantribe or Native Hawaiian organization that are included in,or are eligible for inclusion in, the National Register.” In general, a historic site is presumed to be significant forpurposes of Section 4(f) if the site is listed in ordetermined eligible for the National Register of HistoricPlaces (NRHP). FHWA identifies such historic sitesthrough a consultation process that is required under a

separate law, known as Section 106 of the NationalHistoric Preservation Act.

3 What is a “use” of a Section 4(f) resource?Section 4(f) restricts the authority of the U.S. Departmentof Transportation (in this case, FHWA) to approvetransportation projects that “use” land from Section 4(f)resources. As defined in Section 4(f), a “use” occurs whena project permanently incorporates land from a Section4(f) property, even if the amount of land used is very small.In addition, a use can result from a temporary use of landwithin a Section 4(f) property, unless the temporary usemeets specific criteria that allow an exception to a use. Ause also can result from proximity effects—such as noise,visual impacts, or vibration—if those effects “substantially”impair the protected features of the property. A use that results from proximity effects is known as a

“constructive use.”

4 How can FHWA approve an alternative that uses aSection 4(f) resource?

There are two different ways that FHWA can approve theuse of a Section 4(f) resource for a transportation project.

Finding of “De Minimis Impact”FHWA can approve the use of a Section 4(f) resource if itfinds that the project would result in a “de minimis impact”on that resource. For historic sites, de minimis impactmeans that FHWA has determined, in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800, that no historic property is affected bythe project or that the project will have ‘‘no adverse effect’’on the historic property in question. For parks, recreationareas, and wildlife and waterfowl refuges, a de minimisimpact is one that will not adversely affect the features,attributes, or activities qualifying the property forprotection under Section 4(f).

Finding of “No Feasible and Prudent AvoidanceAlternative” and “Alternative with the Least Overall Harm”FHWA also can approve the use of a Section 4(f) resourceby preparing a Section 4(f) evaluation. This approach isused in situations where impacts on the Section 4(f)resource are not de minimis. Unlike a de minimis impact

finding, a Section 4(f) evaluation requires considerationof alternatives to the use of the Section 4(f) resource. TheSection 4(f) regulations establish a two-step process forconsidering alternatives:

• Avoidance Alternatives. First, FHWA must determinewhether there is any “feasible and prudentavoidance alternative.” An avoidance alternative thatis not feasible and prudent can be rejected. If thereis any feasible and prudent avoidance alternative,FHWA cannot approve an alternative that uses aSection 4(f) resource.

• Alternatives to Minimize Harm. If feasible and prudentavoidance alternatives are not available, FHWA mustconsider alternatives to minimize harm resultingfrom the use of the Section 4(f) resource. In thissituation, FHWA’s regulations require it to select thealternative that causes the “least overall harm.”

Based on this analysis of alternatives, FHWA can approvethe use of a Section 4(f) resource if it finds that:

• There is no feasible and prudent alternative thatcompletely avoids the use of any Section 4(f)properties and the alternative with the least harm toSection 4(f) resources has been selected.

and

• The project includes all possible planning tominimize harm to all of the Section 4(f) properties.

These findings, and the supporting analysis consideringthe relative importance of the Section 4(f) resources, mustbe included in a Section 4(f) evaluation. The Section 4(f)regulations require these findings to be presented first in adraft Section 4(f) evaluation, which is provided to the U.S. Department of Interior and other agencies forcomment. After considering any comments, FHWA canissue a final Section 4(f) evaluation.

1 FHWA. 2005.


5 What factors must FHWA consider when determiningwhether an avoidance alternative is “feasible andprudent”?

The Section 4(f) regulations (23 CFR 774.17) list thefactors that FHWA must consider when determining the prudence and feasibility of an avoidance alternative.An alternative is not feasible if it cannot be built as amatter of sound engineering judgment. An alternative isnot prudent if:

i. It compromises the project to a degree that it isunreasonable to proceed with the project in light ofits stated purpose and need;

ii. It results in unacceptable safety or operationalproblems;

iii. After reasonable mitigation, it still causes:

a) Severe social, economic, or environmentalimpacts;

b) Severe disruption to established communities;

c) Severe disproportionate impacts to minority orlow-income populations; or

d) Severe impacts to environmental resourcesprotected under other federal statutes;

iv. It results in additional construction, maintenance,or operational costs of an extraordinary magnitude;

v. It causes other unique problems or unusual factors;or

vi. It involves multiple factors in paragraphs (i)through (v) of this definition, that while individuallyminor, cumulatively cause unique problems orimpacts of extraordinary magnitude.

6 What factors must FHWA consider when determiningwhich alternative causes “least overall harm”?

The regulations list specific factors that FHWA mustconsider when determining which alternative causes the

“least overall harm.” See 23 USC 774.3(c)(1). These factorsinclude:

i. The ability to mitigate adverse impacts to eachSection 4(f) property (including any measures thatresult in benefits to the property);

ii. The relative severity of the remaining harm, aftermitigation, to the protected activities, attributes, orfeatures that qualify each Section 4(f) property forprotection;

iii. The relative significance of each Section 4(f)property;

iv. The views of the official(s) with jurisdiction overeach Section 4(f) property;

v. The degree to which each alternative meets thepurpose and need for the project;

vi. After reasonable mitigation, the magnitude of anyadverse impacts to resources not protected bySection 4(f); and

vii. Substantial differences in costs among thealternatives.

These factors are considered when comparing alternativesthat all would use one or more Section 4(f) resources.

7 What does Section 106 consultation involve, and howdoes it relate to this Section 4(f) evaluation?

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Actrequires federal agencies to consider the effects of theirundertakings on historic properties (includingarchaeological resources) that are listed in or eligible forlisting in the NRHP. The NRHP is administered by theNational Park Service (NPS).

Parties Involved in Section 106 ConsultationCompliance with Section 106 involves consultationbetween the federal action agency (for example, FHWA)and the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). Otherparties may also be involved in Section 106 consultation.The project sponsor (for example, WSDOT) typically playsan active role in the consultation process. Theconsultation also includes Indian tribes, and may includehistoric preservation groups, and property owners.

Steps in Section 106 ConsultationSection 106 consultation includes the following majorsteps:

1 Determining an area of potential effects;

2 Identifying any historic properties that are listed inor eligible for the NRHP within that area ofpotential effects;

3 Determining the project's effect on any listed oreligible historic properties; and,

4 If the project has an adverse effect, negotiatingmitigation with the consulting parties anddocumenting the mitigation in a Memorandum ofAgreement.

Criteria for Determining National Register EligibilityTo be listed in or eligible for inclusion in the NRHP,properties must meet one or more of the followingcriteria:

• Criterion A. The property is associated with eventsthat have made a significant contribution to thebroad patterns of our history.

• Criterion B. The property is associated with the livesof persons significant in our past.

• Criterion C. The property embodies distinctivecharacteristics of a type, period, or method ofconstruction, or that represent the work of a master,


or that possess high artistic values, or that representa significant and distinguishable entity whosecomponents may lack individual distinction.

• Criterion D. The property has yielded, or may belikely to yield, information important in prehistoryor history. This criterion is generally associated withbelow-ground (archaeological) resources.

Relationship Between Section 106 and Section 4(f)This Section 4(f) evaluation builds on the project’s Section 106 compliance efforts. These two laws haveseveral important linkages:

• Identifying Historic Resources. Agencies use theSection 106 process to identify historic propertiesthat are listed in or eligible for the NRHP and todocument the characteristics that contribute to thehistoric significance of those properties. Anyproperties that are listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP are subject to the requirements of Section 4(f).

• Determining Adverse Effects. The Section 106 processincludes an assessment of each alternative’s effectson historic properties. Specifically, Section 106requires the federal action agency to determinewhether the project would have any “adverse effects”on historic properties. These findings play twoimportant roles in Section 4(f).

— First, when an alternative directly uses land froma historic site, a finding of “no adverse effect” inthe Section 106 process can support a finding ofde minimis impact under Section 4(f).

— Second, when an alternative avoids a use of landor physical alteration of a resource but hasproximity impacts on a historic site (for example,noise impacts), a finding of “no adverse effect”under Section 106 usually results in a findingthat there is “no constructive use” under Section 4(f).

• Minimization of Harm. The Section 106 processrequires consultation to determine what can bedone to minimize or mitigate the adverse effects.This consultation typically results in a bindingmemorandum of agreement, in which the federalaction agency commits to implement measures tominimize and/or mitigate impacts. Commitmentsmade in the Section 106 process may also satisfy therequirement under Section 4(f) to minimize harmresulting from the use of the historic property.

What is the process for parks and other Section 4(f)resources?The Section 4(f) evaluation also builds on the overall EISanalysis and related public and agency involvementactivities to identify Section 4(f) resources and evaluatepotential uses. This includes the analysis of park andrecreation effects, as sources of proximity effects fromchanges in visual, noise and vibration, or traffic conditions.WSDOT and FHWA also consult directly with the agencieswith jurisdiction over Section 4(f) resources, such as thepublic entities that own a specific park or recreationproperty, helping to confirm the ownership, importantcharacteristics, and boundaries of a resource. Theconsultation process also helps develop documentationrecords with these other jurisdictions.

DRAFT SECTION 4 (F ) EVALUATION

The remainder of this chapter serves as the draft Section4(f) evaluation for this project. The evaluation isorganized as follows:

1. Agency Involvement. This section describes theinvolvement of the U.S. Department of the Interior, theWashington SHPO, and other agencies in the preparationof this Section 4(f) evaluation.

2. Purpose and Need. This section summarizes the purposeand need of the project. The lead agencies have updatedthe project’s purpose and need since issuing the previousSupplemental Draft EIS in 2006. For additional detail,refer to Chapter 1, Question 6 in this Supplemental Draft EIS.

3. Alternatives Considered. This section provides a basicdescription of the three alternatives that are the primaryfocus of this Supplemental Draft EIS and this draft Section4(f) evaluation. For more detailed descriptions of thesealternatives, refer to Chapter 3. This evaluation also brieflyreconsiders alternatives that were dismissed in the 2004 Draft EIS² and 2006 Supplemental Draft EIS³ andrelated planning in order to assess their potential to avoidSection 4(f) properties or minimize harm.

4. Section 4(f) Resources. This section identifies the Section4(f) resources that would result in a use by one or morealternatives. These resources and other Section 4(f)resources located in the project area are also described inAppendix J of the Supplemental Draft EIS.

5. Bored Tunnel Alternative. This section describes theimpacts of the Bored Tunnel Alternative on Section 4(f)resources. For each resource, it determines whether thisalternative would result in a “use” of the resource. Wherethere would be a use, it considers the potential for a de minimis impact finding. Where the impact would notbe de minimis, it considers potential variations on thisalternative to avoid or minimize harm to the resource.

6. Cut-and-Cover Tunnel Alternative. This section covers thefindings regarding Section 4(f) uses for the Cut-and-CoverTunnel Alternative.

7. Elevated Structure Alternative. This section covers thefindings regarding Section 4(f) uses for the ElevatedStructure Alternative.

8. Other Alternatives. This section considers otheralternatives, including those previously dismissed in theNational Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process andrelated planning, to determine whether any of them havethe potential to avoid or minimize harm to Section 4(f)resources, in comparison to the three alternatives that arecurrently being considered.

9. Overall Comparison of Alternatives. This section comparesthe three alternatives to one another to determine which

2 WSDOT et al. 2004.

3 WSDOT et al. 2006.


of them causes the “least overall harm” based on thefactors listed in Section 774.3(c)(1) of the Section 4(f)regulations. It identifies the Bored Tunnel Alternative asthe alternative that causes the least overall harm.

10. Conclusions. This section summarizes the conclusions ofthe draft Section 4(f) evaluation. It finds that there is nofeasible and prudent alternative that completely avoids theuse of Section 4(f) property. It also finds that the BoredTunnel Alternative is the alternative that causes “leastoverall harm” and also finds that the Bored TunnelAlternative incorporates all possible planning to minimizeharm to Section 4(f) resources.

1 Agencies Involved in Developing This Section 4(f)Evaluation

Section 4(f) requires consultation with the U.S.Department of the Interior and with other federal, state,and local agencies and tribes with jurisdiction over theresources that could be affected. The entire EIS analysisand its public, tribal, and agency involvement programand related documentation contribute to the Section 4(f)evaluation.

For the Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Project, thefocus of the coordination has been on agencies withjurisdiction over the area’s many public parks andrecreation facilities and its historic and cultural resources.There are no nature refuges in the project area that couldbe affected.

Throughout the development of the project and its EIS,representatives from FHWA, WSDOT and the SeattleDepartment of Transportation have coordinated with NPSand State, County, and City parks and recreationdepartments on public parks and recreation resources inthe project area.

In conjunction with the Section 106 process, the followingparties have worked together to determine historic andcultural resources and impacts:

• The SHPO at the Washington State Department ofArchaeological and Historic Preservation (DAHP)

• The City of Seattle Preservation Officer

• Tribal governments: Muckleshoot Indian Tribe,Snoqualmie Indian Tribe, Suquamish Tribe, TheTulalip Tribes, Confederated Tribes and Bands ofthe Yakama Nation, and the Duwamish Tribe (anon-federally recognized tribe).

Park and Recreation ResourcesPark and recreation facilities in the project area have beenidentified with the cooperation of Seattle Parks andRecreation, the Port of Seattle, and the SeattleDepartment of Planning and Development. Local plansand guidelines that address park and recreation policiesand provide a framework for the evaluation of use wereconsulted in development of this report. A complete list ofresources is provided in the 2004 Draft EIS, 2006Supplemental Draft EIS, and this Supplemental Draft EIS,Appendix J. All park and recreation facilities within threeto five blocks of the proposed project alternatives wereidentified for further analysis of their effects. Appendix J,Part B of this Supplemental Draft EIS provides furtherdetail on the resources identified as being eligible forprotection under Section 4(f).

Historic PropertiesHistoric properties have been identified through theSection 106 consultation process. The locations of historicproperties in the project area are shown in Chapter 4,Exhibit 4-19 of this Supplemental Draft EIS. Detailed mapsare also provided in Appendix J, Section 4(f)Supplemental Materials, Exhibits 1 through 3.

The lead agencies in consultation with the Section 106consulting parties defined an area of potential effects thatextends horizontally one block on each side of alternativealignments (including both surface or tunnel features), aswell as around the existing viaduct structure. In the areasof potential effects they identified properties that are listedin or eligible for the NRHP; evaluated alternatives to assess

potential adverse effects; and considered measures toavoid, minimize, and mitigate adverse effects. Records ofthis consultation are included in the 2004 Draft EIS,Appendix L; in the 2006 Supplemental Draft EIS,Appendix L; and in this Supplemental Draft EIS,Appendix I, Section 106: Historic, Cultural, andArchaeological Resources Discipline Report.

National Park ServiceNPS is a bureau within the U.S. Department of the Interior.The lead agencies (FHWA, WSDOT, and the City)consulted with NPS through project scoping,correspondence, and in meetings with NPS staff duringthe development of the 2004 Draft EIS and the 2006 Supplemental Draft EIS. The project will continue to coordinate with NPS as it continues toward thedevelopment of the Final EIS.

2 Purpose and Need of the Proposed ActionSince the 2006 Supplemental Draft EIS, the lead agencieshave revised the project’s purpose and need to reflectchanged conditions and other developments in thecorridor.

The Alaskan Way Viaduct is seismically vulnerable and atthe end of its useful life. To protect public safety andprovide essential vehicle capacity to and throughdowntown Seattle, the viaduct must be replaced. Becausethis facility is at risk of sudden and catastrophic failure inan earthquake, FHWA, WSDOT, and the City of Seattleseek to implement a replacement as soon as possible.Moving people and goods to and through downtownSeattle is vital to maintaining local, regional, and statewideeconomic health. FHWA, WSDOT, and the City of Seattlehave identified the following purposes and needs theproject should address.

The purpose of the proposed action is to provide areplacement transportation facility that will:

• Reduce the risk of catastrophic failure in anearthquake by providing a facility that meets currentseismic safety standards.


• Improve traffic safety.

• Provide capacity for automobiles, freight, and transitto efficiently move people and goods to and throughdowntown Seattle.

• Provide linkages to the regional transportationsystem and to and from downtown Seattle and thelocal street system.

• Avoid major disruption of traffic patterns due to lossof capacity on SR 99.

• Protect the integrity and viability of adjacentactivities on the central waterfront and in downtownSeattle.

For further discussion of these needs, refer to Chapter 1 ofthis Supplemental Draft EIS.

3 Alternatives ConsideredThis draft Section 4(f) evaluation focuses on the threealternatives currently being considered for the project:

• Bored Tunnel• Cut-and-Cover Tunnel• Elevated Structure

This draft Section 4(f) evaluation also considers otheralternatives, including those that were previouslyconsidered and dismissed, as well as other potentialalternatives or design options, to assess their potential toavoid or minimize harm to Section 4(f) resources. See thediscussion below, “Other Alternatives Considered to Avoidand Minimize Harm.”

Bored Tunnel AlternativeThe Bored Tunnel Alternative would replace SR 99between S. Royal Brougham Way and Roy Street (seeExhibit 2-1 in Chapter 2 of this Supplemental Draft EIS).The alternative includes constructing a tunnel that wouldreplace the viaduct and the Battery Street Tunnel. TheBored Tunnel Alternative would construct a tunnel

beginning near S. King Street, curving away from thewaterfront at S. Washington Street and aligned below FirstAvenue near University Street. It would travel under First Avenue to Stewart Street, going east to connect toAurora Avenue near Mercer Street. The south portal ofthe tunnel would be located north of S. Royal BroughamWay and immediately west of the existing viaduct; thenorth portal would be located at Harrison Street and Sixth Avenue N. and join Aurora Avenue near MercerStreet. Local street improvements in the south and northportal areas would be combined with new access points toSR 99, increasing connectivity throughout theneighborhoods. As part of the development of the newfacility, the existing viaduct would be demolished and theBattery Street Tunnel decommissioned, but they wouldremain in use for most of the construction period for theSR 99 replacement facility.

This alternative requires construction of new tunneloperations buildings at the south and north ends of thetunnel. The tunnel operations buildings would provideventilation for the tunnel and also provide for othercontrol systems, including fire and life safety systems thatmeet current standards. The structures would each beabout a block in size and about 65 feet tall, with 30-footvents extending above. The south tunnel operationsbuilding would be constructed in the block bounded byS. Charles Street, S. Dearborn Street, First Avenue S., andAlaskan Way. The north tunnel operations building wouldbe between Harrison and Republican Streets, west of SR 99.

This alternative also would improve access to SR 99 nearthe south and north portals and improve SR 99’sconnections with the surrounding street grids. Streetimprovements near the south portal would improve theAlaskan Way surface street and would add a wide multi-usepath on one side of that street. The newly configuredAlaskan Way surface street would have one or two newintersections connecting to one or two new cross-streets(S. Charles and/or S. Dearborn Streets, depending on thesouth portal area option selected).

Street improvements in the north portal area would occurgenerally between Denny Way and Harrison Street. Manyof the streets and intersections adjacent to the northportal would be improved or reconnected. One of theprimary changes is that the street grid between Denny Wayand Harrison Street would be connected by restoringAurora Avenue over the top of SR 99 and connecting John,Thomas, and Harrison Streets as cross streets. MercerStreet would become a two-way street and would bewidened from Dexter Avenue N. to Fifth Avenue N. BroadStreet would be filled and closed between Ninth Avenue N.and Taylor Avenue N.

For a more detailed description of the Bored TunnelAlternative, refer to Chapter 5 of this Supplemental Draft EIS.

Cut-and-Cover Tunnel AlternativeThe Cut-and-Cover Tunnel Alternative would develop acut-and-cover or lidded tunnel to replace the Alaskan WayViaduct (see Exhibit 2-2). The alternative would begenerally along the alignment of the existing viaduct andAlaskan Way. At the south end, it would transition fromthe section of SR 99 replaced by the S. Holgate Street to S. King Street Viaduct Replacement Project, which iselevated, to descend to a cut-and-cover tunnel section. Atthe north end, the tunnel would rise to connect to theexisting SR 99 Battery Street Tunnel. This would requirelowering the southern end of the Battery Street Tunneland making other safety and structural improvementsthrough the entire length of the tunnel; however, theseimprovements to the Battery Street Tunnel would notupgrade the alignment to current WSDOT standards. Thisalternative would also provide improvements to betterconnect SR 99 and local streets in the area from DennyWay to Aloha Street. From Denny Way to RepublicanStreet, SR 99 would be lowered in a retained cut withThomas and Harrison Streets crossing over Aurora Avenue.Mercer Street would continue to cross under AuroraAvenue but would be reconfigured to a two-way street. Inaddition, Roy Street would be regraded to connect toSR 99.


The Cut-and-Cover Tunnel Alternative was examined indetail in the 2006 Supplemental Draft EIS and itsaccompanying draft Section 4(f) evaluation. The analysisof this alternative has been updated in this SupplementalDraft EIS. For a summary description of the Cut-and-CoverTunnel Alternative, refer to Chapter 3 of thisSupplemental Draft EIS; the 2006 Supplemental Draft EISprovides additional detail.

Elevated Structure AlternativeThe Elevated Structure Alternative would develop a new,wider, double-level aerial structure to replace the existingAlaskan Way Viaduct (shown in Exhibit 2-2). The southernsection would connect to the section of SR 99 replaced bythe S. Holgate Street to S. King Street ViaductReplacement Project. It features a double-level stackedstructure through most of the central waterfront,transitioning to a side-by-side structure as it climbs the hillto the Battery Street Tunnel. The Elliott and WesternAvenues ramp configuration for the Elevated StructureAlternative would be the same as the existing ramps. SR 99would then pass over Elliott and Western Avenues. TheBattery Street Tunnel would be retrofitted to provideseismic and other structural improvements through theentire length of the tunnel, including other fire and lifesafety improvements, and the vertical clearance would beincreased to 16.5 feet by lowering the existing roadway.However, these improvements to the Battery Street Tunnelwould not upgrade the alignment to current WSDOTstandards. New ventilation buildings would be locatedabove each Battery Street Tunnel portal. This alternativewould also provide improvements to better connect SR 99and local streets in the area from Denny Way to AlohaStreet, similar to those described for the Cut-and-CoverTunnel Alternative.

The Elevated Structure Alternative was also examined indetail in the 2006 Supplemental Draft EIS and itsaccompanying draft Section 4(f) evaluation. The analysisof this alternative has been updated in this SupplementalDraft EIS. For a more detailed description of the ElevatedStructure Alternative, refer to Chapter 3 of thisSupplemental Draft EIS.

4 Section 4(f) ResourcesThe project area includes a rich array of historic resources.The Area of Potential Effects (APE) for the Section 106analysis contains portions of two districts that are listed inthe NRHP: the Pioneer Square Historic District and thePike Place Market Historic District. It also includesmultiple properties outside of the districts that are NRHP-eligible.

The following Section 4(f) resources would have impactsthat would constitute a use by one or more alternatives. Allof the properties affected are historic resources that arealso being reviewed under the project’s Section 106process, and WSDOT and FHWA have concluded that theimpacts to these properties would result in an adverseeffect to historic resources under Section 106:

• Alaskan Way Viaduct and Battery Street Tunnel• Alaskan Way Seawall• McGraw Kittenger Case (Blu Canary/MGM) Building• The Western Building in the Pioneer Square Historic

District • Archaeological Site 45K1958 (Seattle Maintenance

Yard Site)

The resources that are subject to a Section 4(f) use byone or more of the project alternatives are shown in

Exhibit 4(f)-1 and Exhibit 4(f)-2 (see pages 224 and 225).

Exhibit 4(f)-3 and Exhibit 4(f)-4 (see pages 238 and 239)show a series of other Section 4(f) resources that havebeen evaluated for their potential to have a Section 4(f)use by one or more of the alternatives as a result ofidentified environmental effects including proximityeffects or construction. WSDOT and FHWA areconcluding that these effects do not constitute a use under Section 4(f), either because the effects do notconstitute a Section 4(f) use, or because the use qualifiesfor an exception under Section 4(f) regulations. See eachof the alternatives discussions that follow for more aboutthese resources and the reasons why FHWA and WSDOTare concluding that no Section 4(f) use is anticipated.

The project area has a large number of other Section 4(f)resources, including parks resources and other historicand archaeological resources that have no use of land, nophysical alternations, and minor to no proximity impacts.These properties have all been reviewed for potential useas well as proximity effects, including noise, visual ortraffic effects, both long term and during construction.WSDOT and FHWA have concluded that these effectswould be minor and would not substantially impair theprotected features of the properties. Appendix J of thecurrent Supplemental Draft EIS and Appendix N of the2006 Supplemental Draft EIS document detail the Section4(f) resources that have been evaluated for proximityeffects and potential constructive uses under Section 4(f)for the project alternatives. Those appendices alsodocument the project’s lack of impacts to properties thathave received funding from the federal Land and WaterConservation Fund.

Alaskan Way Viaduct and Battery Street TunnelThe Alaskan Way Viaduct and Battery Street Tunnel havebeen determined eligible for listing in the NRHP as asingle resource. Because they are physically separate, havedifferent characteristics, and are affected differently by thealternatives, they are discussed here individually. TheAlaskan Way Viaduct and Battery Street Tunnel are eligiblefor the NRHP under Criterion A for their association withbridge and tunnel building in Washington in the 1950sand under Criterion C for their type, period, materials,and methods of construction.

The Alaskan Way Viaduct is the only multi-span concretedouble-level bridge in the state. It is also significant for itsrole in the development of the regional transportationsystem and of Seattle’s waterfront.

The Battery Street Tunnel is significant under Criterion Abecause of its association with tunnel building inWashington in the 1950s and as the first tunnel designedand built by the City of Seattle Engineering Department. Itis also significant under Criterion C for the type, period,materials, and methods of construction. It was designedand built to minimize disruption to street traffic and to


minimize the risk to adjacent buildings. In addition to itsengineering importance, it is significant for itscontribution to the development of the localtransportation system, connecting SR 99, built in the 1930s,with the Alaskan Way Viaduct, completed in the 1950s.

Alaskan Way SeawallThe Alaskan Way Seawall is eligible for listing in the NRHPunder Criterion A for its association with development ofthe central waterfront from the early 1900s to the mid1930s. It is also significant under Criterion C for the type,period, materials, and methods of construction. It wasdesigned and built by the Seattle Engineering Departmentusing a unique piling and platform design.

McGraw Kittenger Case (Blu Canary/MGM) BuildingThis structure is at the southwest corner of Battery Streetand Second Avenue, near the Battery Street Tunnel southportal. It is the most architecturally interesting and mostintact of a set of buildings that were part of Seattle’s localfilm distribution system beginning in the 1930s. The smallart deco building was constructed in the 1930s for theAlexander Myers Company. From 1936 until the 1950s, itwas the regional film distribution center for Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer.

Western BuildingThis six-story warehouse building at 619 Western Avenue,constructed in 1910, is a contributing resource to thePioneer Square-Skid Road National Historic District(referred to here as the Pioneer Square Historic District). The reconstruction of the Pioneer Square districtafter the Great Fire of 1889 marked a period of economicand industrial growth as the City extended from theoriginal heart of Seattle and into the former tidal flats ofElliott Bay. While less ornate than other warehousebuildings in the district, it remains an intact example ofutilitarian warehouses constructed of reinforced concreteand featuring large multi-light windows.

As a contributing resource to the Pioneer Square HistoricDistrict) in the NRHP, the property is part of a largerhistoric area that comprises the district. It is also within a

local preservation district encompassing the area ofSeattle’s original downtown. The area began to bedeveloped in 1852. It was largely rebuilt in a 2-year periodafter the devastating Great Fire of 1889 and expanded intothe filled tidal flats to the west of the original downtown.The district features late nineteenth century brick andstone buildings and is one of the nation’s best survivingcollections of the “Chicago Style” of Romanesque Revivalstyle urban architecture. It was established as a NationalHistoric District in 1970. The district is generally boundedby Columbia and Cherry Streets to the north, Alaskan Wayto the west, Fourth Avenue S. to the east, and to the southas far as S. Royal Brougham Way.

Washington Street Boat LandingThe Washington Street Boat Landing is both a parkproperty and a historic resource. It has been determinedeligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion C for itsdesign characteristics. It is on City of Seattle right-of-way atthe end of S. Washington Street. The pergola isindividually listed in the NRHP. The park facility consistsof the pergola and an additional feature, the dock, whichhas included a float and ramp to connect with the pergola.This facility has been operated by the Seattle Parks andRecreation Department for public open space andincludes benches as well as being operated as temporarymoorage. However, the floats typically were removed inwinter to avoid possible storm damage. The floats were notreplaced in the summer of 2001, after the Nisquallyearthquake, due to the need for replacement of pilingsand because the investment was deemed unwise due touncertainty about future plans for the viaduct and seawall.

Site 45KI958 (Seattle Maintenance Yard Site)This historic archaeological resource site was discoveredduring investigations for the Bored Tunnel Alternative,and it is located near the north portal near Harrison Street.The site contains stratified remains of residential andcommercial structures dating to the first half of thetwentieth century. The remains are under 15 to 20 feet offill that was placed on the site and surrounding areas inthe 1920s and 1930s when Denny Hill was regraded andfill was distributed throughout the south Lake Union area.

The site has potential to yield information on residentiallife, commerce, and trade that is not available from writtensources. The site also has an underlying peat layer, whichindicates that it has the potential to contain prehistoricarchaeological resources. While WSDOT and FHWA haveconducted an archaeological investigation in one sectionof the site, allowing them to confirm the presence ofremnants of structures, the depth of fill does not safelyallow extensive investigation.

WSDOT and FHWA anticipate the site is NRHP-eligibleunder Criterion D for its potential to yield informationabout early development in Seattle, but its value is in thedata that may be recovered and likely does not depend onbeing preserved in place. If this is the case, the site wouldmeet the conditions needed for an exception to a Section4(f) use, as established by 23 CFR 774.13(b), except that itdoes not yet have written agreement from the SHPO.However, since there is a limited amount of archaeologicalinformation that can be collected prior to construction,the SHPO may not be able to concur with thedetermination of eligibility or comment on whether the site’s value requires protection in place prior to the completion of the Final EIS for this project. For thisreason, construction activities within the site are beingevaluated as a Section 4(f) use.

5 The Bored Tunnel Alternative

SummaryThe Section 4(f) resources with a use by the Bored TunnelAlternative are shown on Exhibit 4(f)-1 (page 224).

The Bored Tunnel Alternative would require the use ofthe Alaskan Way Viaduct and the Battery Street Tunnel. Inaddition, it has the potential to cause moderate to highlevels of settlement that could severely damage theWestern Building in the Pioneer Square Historic District.Through the Section 106 process, WSDOT and FHWAhave determined that this would result in an adverse effectto the building and would be a Section 4(f) use. TheWestern Building would experience settlement thatWSDOT’s engineering assessment rates as “very severe,”


causing settlement that would likely damage majorstructural and architectural elements of the building andincreasing concerns about the building’s instability, givenits poor existing structural condition. If settlement andstructural damage cannot be reduced throughpreventative measures, the property may requiredemolition to avoid collapse.

This alternative also would require the removal of soilswithin two historic archaeological sites: the DearbornSouth Tideland site and a current Seattle MaintenanceYard Site in the Denny Regrade area, near the north portal.For the Dearborn South Tideland site, these activities donot constitute a use because Section 4(f) regulations in 23 CFR 774.13(b) provides an exception for sitesdetermined valuable chiefly for data recovery and that donot warrant preservation in place; concurrence from theSHPO is required and has been obtained for the Dearbornsite. Therefore, avoidance options are not needed for theDearborn site.

The Seattle Maintenance Yard Site is also potentiallyeligible for an exception to a use, since investigations byWSDOT and FHWA to date indicate it is likely to bevaluable for data recovery without requiring preservationin place. However, the site is currently covered byextensive fill, limiting the extent of investigation that canbe conducted safely prior to construction. The leadagencies in consultation with DAHP anticipate making thedetermination of the site’s archaeological significance byfurther investigations conducted during construction,under the terms and conditions to be established by theproject’s Section 106 Memorandum of Agreement. Since aSection 4(f) use exception cannot be assumed, the SeattleMaintenance Yard Site is evaluated with a use by the BoredTunnel Alternative.

Alaskan Way ViaductWould this alternative result in a use of this resource?The Bored Tunnel Alternative is located to the east of theexisting viaduct, so complete demolition is not needed toconstruct a replacement. However, given the existingviaduct’s inherent structural limitations and high risk of

failure during a seismic event, and the fact that itsfunctions would be replaced by the bored tunnel, it wouldnot be prudent to leave it in place. This would involveunacceptable public safety risks. Because the demolitionwould occur as part of the construction project, it isassumed for purposes of this analysis that the BoredTunnel Alternative results in the use of the viaduct.

Can this alternative be modified to avoid the use or tominimize the harm resulting from the use?As described above, it is not prudent to avoid demolitionof the Alaskan Way Viaduct.

What measures to minimize harm to this resource have beenincorporated into this alternative?Measures to minimize harm to the Alaskan Way Viaductinclude documenting the historic attributes of the viaduct in accordance with Historic American EngineeringRecord (HAER) standards. The lead agencies havecompleted HAER documentation (includingphotography) for the viaduct and have submitted theHAER report to NPS. Additional interpretive programs areplanned as further mitigation, and will be further definedin the Final EIS.

Battery Street TunnelWould this alternative result in a use of this resource?The Bored Tunnel Alternative would replace the functionsof the Battery Street Tunnel. If the Bored TunnelAlternative is constructed, the Battery Street Tunnel wouldbe decommissioned. Decommissioning means that thetunnel would be closed to traffic, sealed to public access,and filled, possibly with debris from the demolishedAlaskan Way Viaduct. Therefore, this alternative wouldresult in a use of the Battery Street Tunnel.

Can this alternative be modified to avoid the use or tominimize the harm resulting from the use?The Bored Tunnel Alternative replaces the functions ofthe Battery Street Tunnel. Therefore, the Bored TunnelAlternative in any form would render the Battery StreetTunnel unnecessary. Because it would no longer be

needed, the Battery Street Tunnel would be closed totraffic.

Keeping the tunnel open for nonvehicular use may bepossible, but it was not designed for other uses and wouldbe very costly to retrofit due to the need for majorstructural and seismic improvements as well as appropriatehealth and safety improvements that would be requiredfor nonmotorized uses. These improvements would alsoinvolve major alterations to the tunnel and would stillresult in a Section 4(f) use. Further, the current proposalto fill the tunnel with debris from the Alaskan Way Viaductwould avoid the need to retrofit the tunnel to reduce therisk of collapse in a major seismic event, and it alsoreduces the construction-related traffic, noise, and highcosts of transporting the remains of the demolishedviaduct to another site.

What measures to minimize harm to this resource have beenincorporated into this alternative?Measures to minimize harm to the Battery Street Tunnelinclude documenting the historic attributes of thestructure in accordance with HAER standards. The leadagencies have completed HAER documentation(including photography) for the tunnel as well as theviaduct and have submitted the HAER report to NPS.Additional interpretive programs are planned as furthermitigation and will be further defined in the Final EIS.

Western BuildingWould this alternative result in a use of this resource?The Bored Tunnel Alternative would damage or alter theWestern building during construction as a result of verysevere settlement risks to the structure during tunneling.WSDOT and FHWA have concluded that major structuraldamage to the building is unavoidable and would result inan “adverse effect” under the Section 106 process. Whilethe adverse effect is most directly to the Western Building,it is a contributing resource in the Pioneer Square HistoricDistrict, and therefore the effect and a potential use of aSection 4(f) property would apply to the building as partof the district.


The loose fill soils beneath the Western Building have ahigh potential for causing settlement damage.Engineering evaluations of the building found it to be invery poor structural condition due to settlement,deterioration of its wooden pile foundation, the effects ofthe Nisqually earthquake, and general deterioration overtime. The building today has many large cracks in columnsand large visible cracks on external walls, in most otherstructural and interior walls, and on the ground floor slab.Some cracks or gaps are 5 inches or more wide and extendthrough several floors of the building. There are visiblevariations in building settlement resulting in floor slopesof up to 5 percent, and there are gaps between floors and walls.

WSDOT’s engineering review of the property indicatesthat due to these existing structural deficiencies, thebuilding today could experience major damage or collapsewith another major seismic event. The engineering reviewhas identified an extensive series of measures that wouldbe needed to help reinforce the foundation, strengthensoils, and underpin and stabilize the building. Themeasures themselves also require further design, but theycould visually alter the building to a degree that it wouldno longer be eligible as an historic resource, such as ifsubstantial exterior supports were required. Further, theengineering review found that there would still be a highrisk that these measures would not be sufficient to preventmajor structural damage or to avoid the risk of collapse ofthe building. Because the building has many existingstructural deficiencies, the protective measures themselvescould destabilize the building and cause its collapse.Collapse could also occur if a seismic event occurredbefore or during the time the stabilization and protectionmeasures were in place. These issues also raise concernsfor the safety of workers involved in the work necessary tostabilize the building.

The instability of the building also precludes the potentialfor moving the building, which could not be done with thebuilding intact, nor would it allow methodical disassemblyand reassembly of the building.

As design and construction planning progress, WSDOTwill continue to examine options for addressing theWestern Building. However, for public safety reasons,WSDOT would need to acquire this property within thePioneer Square Historic District and close the buildingduring construction. While WSDOT is still investigatingmeasures to reinforce or otherwise protect the building,WSDOT may find that it needs to demolish the WesternBuilding prior to construction to preserve public safetyand surrounding property because other preventativemeasures would not effectively control the risk of collapse.

Therefore, this draft Section 4(f) evaluation identifies ause of the Western Building within the Pioneer SquareHistoric District, given the potential for settlement effectsthat could damage or impair the building to levels thatmay not be safe or reparable. The identified use of theresource also recognizes demolition of the WesternBuilding may be necessary as a measure to preserve publicsafety and minimize risk to surrounding historic structuresin the district, including the adjacent Polson Building,which is also a contributing building to the historic district.

Can this alternative be modified to avoid the use or tominimize the harm resulting from the use?Several variations of the Bored Tunnel Alternative havebeen considered in an effort to avoid the Western Building.These variations include:

• Starting the tunnel farther south• Moving the alignment to the east• Moving the alignment to the west• Using other construction methods• Changing the size or type of tunnel being constructed

There are many engineering constraints and other factorsthat limit the opportunities to shift this alternative awayfrom the Western Building. The tunnel alignment and itssize are driven primarily by geotechnical conditions,highway and tunnel design standards, and projectconstraints to the north, south, east, and west. Afterthorough consideration, potential variations that wouldreduce or avoid impacts to the Western Building have

been rejected. The discussion below identifies the reasonsfor rejecting these variations as being either not prudentor feasible or because they do not avoid the use of Section4(f) resources.

Shift alignment to the west. The location of the southerntunnel portal was identified to avoid other majorfoundations and buildings, including the existing AlaskanWay Viaduct structure immediately west. Moving thealignment to the west of the Western Building wouldpotentially require closing the Alaskan Way Viaduct. Itwould also require a substantial deviation from geometricstandards for the bored tunnel, affecting factors such asgrades, site distance, and other features important to thesafe and effective operation of the tunnel. With the earlierclosure of the Alaskan Way Viaduct before a replacementfacility is available, there would be higher environmentaland transportation impacts throughout the downtown areaduring the construction period. WSDOT and FHWA haveconcluded that the deviation in geometric standards forthe highway in the new tunnel would carry unacceptablesafety risks to traffic operations. As improved safety is a keyelement of the project’s purpose and need; and thisoption would fail to address critical safety factors, it is notconsidered prudent.

Shift the tunnel alignment to the east to avoid the WesternBuilding. The project has extensively reviewed thepotential for using other tunnel alignments to the east.This includes an earlier alignment for the bored tunnelthat placed a tunnel portal near First Avenue S. and S. Charles Street. This location would have involved aSection 4(f) use of the Triangle Building, a historicproperty that is also part of the Pioneer Square HistoricDistrict, and it would have affected at least 11 otherhistoric structures within the Pioneer Square HistoricDistrict. The extent of potential damage for the earlieralignment was more severe than for the current alignment.This would have constituted higher levels of Section 4(f)uses, and would not be an avoidance measure. The projectalso reviewed the potential for aligning the tunnel evenfarther east, but this area is occupied by several blocks ofbuildings, which include multistory structures and other


Section 4(f) resources. Construction period settlementaffecting historic properties and other buildings wouldhave remained an issue, particularly in the Pioneer SquareHistoric District where the tunnel alignment would haveremained shallow. The net effect of shifting the tunnelalignment east would be to increase the use of Section 4(f)resources, and therefore would not be a prudentavoidance option.

Increase the depth of the tunnel. Deepening the tunnel wouldresult in unacceptable grades to the north and south foreffective connections to surface streets, making it notprudent. A greater depth also would not be likely toreduce the potential for settlement to the WesternBuilding given soil and groundwater conditions and thebuilding’s currently weakened foundation and structuralcharacteristics. Therefore, it is not likely to avoid theSection 4(f) use.

Use other construction methods. The project is alreadyincorporating innovative methods for initiating the tunnelconstruction to help minimize construction impacts. TheCut-and-Cover Tunnel Alternative reflects the other mostcommonly used construction method for a major tunnel.Because it involves open excavation, this method is mostappropriate where right-of-way is potentially available,such as where the Alaskan Way Viaduct is currently located.The alignment identified for the Bored Tunnel Alternative,which is designed to allow the viaduct to remain in placeuntil the replacement is built, would not be appropriateusing a cut-and-cover method. Open excavation throughthe Pioneer Square Historic District would carry muchhigher costs, traffic impacts, property impacts, historicresource and archaeological impacts, utility impacts, andlong-term construction disruption than any of the other identified alternatives. For these reasons, otherconstruction methods were not considered prudent.

Change the size or type of tunnel being constructed. During thedevelopment of the bored tunnel concept, severalvariations were considered, including a twin bored tunnel,each containing two lanes, as well as hybrids that couldreturn to the surface north of Pioneer Square. However,

none of these options would avoid the underlyinggeotechnical and soil stabilization issues present in thearea of the Western Building and the Pioneer SquareHistoric District. Other smaller tunnels with fewer lanes orwith reduced shoulders were not considered to be prudentbecause they did not provide sufficient capacity to replacethe existing viaduct facility or meet current safetystandards, and therefore would not meet the project’spurpose and need.

What measures to minimize harm to this resource have beenincorporated into this alternative?As described above, the lead agencies have performeddetailed engineering assessments of the measures that theproject could incorporate to help minimize harm to the Western Building in the Pioneer Square HistoricDistrict. However, because of the extraordinary extent ofmeasures that would be required to preserve the WesternBuilding, and the lead agencies are also examining othermeasures to minimize harm due to the potential loss ofthe Western Building as a contributing property within thePioneer Square Historic District. These potential measuresare currently being developed through Section 106consultation with the SHPO, the City of Seattle, and others.If protective and preventative measures prove sufficient toreduce structural damage to the building, all repairs andrestoration work would be done in compliance with TheSecretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation.

Other measures may be determined based on Section 106measures to be identified for this resource.

Site 45KI958 (Seattle Maintenance Yard Site)Would this alternative result in a use of this resource?The Bored Tunnel Alternative would require excavation ofthis site to allow construction of the new tunnel portal andrelated ramps, structures, and roadways connecting tolocal streets and to the existing SR 99 facility to the north.WSDOT and FHWA are presuming this archaeological sitewill be determined eligible, and construction activity andthe redevelopment of the site as a transportation facilitywould result in an adverse effect under Section 106. If thesite is found to be eligible but its value is in the data that

may be recovered and does not depend on beingpreserved in place, the property would qualify for anexception for the use of these types of archaeologicalproperties in 23 CFR 774.13(b), with documentation fromthe SHPO.

Can this alternative be modified to avoid the use or tominimize the harm resulting from the use?Several variations of the Bored Tunnel Alternative’s northportal access features have been considered in an effort toavoid this archaeological site. However, the variationswould introduce other construction, safety, or operationalfactors that jeopardized the ability of the Bored TunnelAlternative to satisfy the project’s purpose and need, orthey had a high potential for affecting other Section 4(f)resources or worsening overall environmental effects. As inthe southern portion of the tunnel, the north tunnelalignment and the portal location are driven primarily bygeotechnical conditions, highway and tunnel designstandards, opportunities to connect to the local streetsystem and existing portions of SR 99, and the need tominimize construction period effects by maintainingtraffic on SR 99 during much of the construction period.The variations identified include the following:

• Placing the portal to the south. To avoid thearchaeological site or other properties that have asimilar potential to contain historic archaeologicalresources from early twentieth century development,the portal would need to be placed at least two blocks to the south, which would requiresubstantially increased grades and bring the tunnelcloser to the surface in other areas. The resultinggeometry would affect operating conditions andcreate safety concerns for the tunnel. The revisedvertical alignment would likely undermine ordirectly affect portions of the existing Battery StreetTunnel, which would likely need to be closed duringconstruction, eliminating a primary benefit of theBored Tunnel Alternative. Raising the verticalprofile of the tunnel would also introduce a higherpotential for ground settlement and other impacts


to historic properties, other structures, and majorutilities.

• Moving the portal to the east or north. Other locationsto the east or north would also be likely to containhistoric archaeological resources as well asprehistoric resources, and would be unlikely toavoid a Section 4(f) use. The Seattle MaintenanceYard Site is not extensively developed, whichminimizes property, displacement, or major utilityimpacts. The site also provides the opportunity tomeet standards for roadway connections to theexisting SR 99 to the north as well as otherconnections to local streets, while also allowing SR 99 traffic to be maintained during several yearsof construction. If the tunnel were moved to theeast, such as to Dexter Avenue, the environmentaleffects to property and traffic would be substantiallyhigher. This location would require removal ofseveral blocks of developed property to make thenecessary connections to SR 99 and improvementsto Sixth Avenue and other east-west streets.Extending the portal to the north would havesimilarly worsened effects, with fewer opportunitiesto reconnect the street grid, and a similar or higherpotential to encounter other archaeological sitesfrom Seattle’s early development.

• Moving the portal to the west. Moving the tunnel to the west would still involve construction within theSeattle Maintenance Yard Site, and would not avoida Section 4(f) use. Several other features essential tosafety and improved traffic circulation and access to and from the portal and nearby streets eithercould not be made or would directly conflict with amajor new development complex for the GatesFoundation, as well as the Bored TunnelAlternative’s Mercer Street features.

What measures to minimize harm to this resource have beenincorporated into this alternative?Since the Seattle Maintenance Yard Site (45KI958) has notyet been determined eligible for listing in the NRHP,

additional investigations would be undertaken at this sitein conjunction with construction. The results of thisinvestigation would determine the NRHP eligibility of thesite. If WSDOT determines that the site is NRHP eligibleand DAHP concurs, data recovery would be undertaken torecover the information that qualifies the site for theNRHP. In concert with the investigation of 45KI958,additional archaeological investigation would also beundertaken in other areas within the footprint of the cut-and-cover trench where peat deposits and extanthistoric surfaces have been identified. If archaeologicaldeposits are discovered and are determined eligible forthe NRHP, data recovery would also be undertaken atthese locations. The Archaeological Treatment Plan wouldprovide the details of this investigation and potential datarecovery. During construction, archaeological monitoringwould be required for ground disturbing activities thatwould intersect the elevation of peat deposits and extanthistoric surfaces identified during geoarchaeologicalinvestigations. Methods for monitoring would be detailedin the Archaeological Treatment Plan.

Other Historic BuildingsWould this alternative result in a use of other resources withinthe Pioneer Square Historic District?The Bored Tunnel Alternative has the potential to causesettlement resulting in severe to very severe damage to thePolson Building, and very slight damage to the 1 YeslerBuilding; both buildings are part of the Pioneer SquareHistoric District.

Polson BuildingThis six-story warehouse building at 61 Columbia Streetwas constructed in 1910 and is immediately north of theWestern Building. The building was designed by CharlesSaunders and George Lawton, who designed several otherwarehouses in the district as well as other notablebuildings in Seattle. It is significant because it was part ofthe reconstruction of the Pioneer Square District in theoriginal heart of Seattle and the former tidal flats of Elliott Bay.

The potential settlement damage to the Polson Buildingwas rated “severe to very severe.” However, this building isin good structural condition, and with protective measuresprior to construction, along with high levels of monitoringduring construction, would prevent major structuraldamage and the remaining structural and aestheticdamage could be repaired.

The tunneling activities beneath this building have thepotential to cause settlement that could result in severe tovery severe damage, including damage to architecturalfinishes and distortion of windows and doors. WSDOT andFHWA have concluded that without protective measuresand additional mitigation, the structural and architecturaldamage to this building would result in an adverse effectto the property under Section 106. However, because thisbuilding is in better structural condition than the WesternBuilding, preventative and protective measures areavailable to minimize the structural damage.

The Bored Tunnel Alternative would include acomprehensive program of protection measures for thePolson Building, beginning prior to tunnel construction.These measures would include detailed survey andphotographic assessments of the building’s conditionbefore construction. Measures to protect and stabilize thebuilding would include the use of various soilimprovement and grouting techniques to improve soil strength or compensate for ground loss due toexcavation. Protective measures also may includeunderpinning or strengthening other elements of thebuilding’s foundation to prevent settlement. Structuralretrofits prior to construction could also help reducedamage during settlement.

While construction is under way and as construction iscompleted, the building would be monitored for any signsof damage. If damage does occur, all restoration andrepair work would be done in compliance with theSecretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation.This and other potential mitigation actions will be definedthrough the Section 106 process, in consultation with theSHPO, and the City of Seattle Historic Preservation Office,


with participation by other interested parties such as thePioneer Square Preservation Board and the SeattleLandmarks Preservation Board.

With these measures for protection, repair, andrehabilitation of the building, the lead agencies expect theproperty to retain the qualities, features, and attributesthat qualify it as a Section 4(f) resource.

The building is expected to remain in use duringconstruction, and no temporary or permanent acquisitionof the building would occur. Therefore, no Section 4(f)use would result. A constructive use would also not occur,since the building would remain a contributing resourcewithin the Pioneer Square Historic District, retaining itsassociation to the surrounding district, and maintainingthe warehouse building features and characteristics thatalso are part of its historic significance. Other proximityeffects, including the short-term effects of constructiondisruption for areas surrounding the building, are also notexpected to result in a substantial short- or long-termimpairment to the building or remove the characteristicsthat qualify it as a Section 4(f) resource, and would notresult in a constructive use.

Other long-term effects of the Bored Tunnel Alternativeare considered to be beneficial because the Bored TunnelAlternative would remove the existing viaduct and itsvisual and operating impacts to the setting and views of thePolson Building and the Pioneer Square Historic District.

1 Yesler BuildingThis three-story brick building in the Pioneer SquareHistoric District could have very slight structural damagedue to ground settlement. As described for the PolsonBuilding, the Bored Tunnel Alternative would includesimilar measures to prevent or minimize structural damage,including monitoring and protection during construction.Any damage to the building would be repaired andrestored in compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’sStandards for Rehabilitation. WSDOT and FHWA havepreliminarily determined that this effect would be “not

adverse” under Section 106; therefore, no Section 4(f) useis anticipated.

Would this alternative result in a Section 4(f) use of otherHistoric Buildings?No other historic buildings beyond the Pioneer SquareHistoric District are expected to result in a Section 4(f)use. The lead agencies have conducted a pre-constructionassessment of all buildings that may be affected by tunnelsettlement. Structural engineers have inspected everybuilding within the anticipated settlement zone(approximately one block on each side of the proposedalignment).

Based on these investigations, WSDOT has identified thepotential for minor levels of settlement damage (rated asslight or very slight) affecting the following historicbuildings shown on Exhibit 4(f)-3 and listed in Exhibit 4(f)-4. These buildings qualify as Section 4(f)resources because they are on or determined eligible forthe NRHP. In conjunction with the Section 106 process,WSDOT and FHWA have preliminarily determined thatthe effects to these buildings would be “not adverse”, andthat no Section 4(f) use would occur.

• Maritime Building – 911 Western Avenue• Federal Building – 901 First Avenue• National Building – 1000 Western Avenue• Alexis Hotel/Globe Building – 1001 First Avenue• Arlington South/Beebe Building – 1015 First Avenue• Arlington North/Hotel Cecil – 1015 First Avenue• Grand Pacific Hotel – 1115 First Avenue• Colonial Hotel – 1123 First Avenue• Two Bells Tavern – 2313 Fourth Avenue• Fire Station No. 2 – 2334 Fourth Avenue• Seattle Housing Authority – 120 Sixth Avenue N.

As described for the Polson Building and the 1 YeslerBuilding, the Bored Tunnel Alternative would includecomprehensive protection measures to ensure that thesebuildings do not incur permanent damage fromconstruction of the bored tunnel.

All restoration and repair work in these buildings willcomply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards forRehabilitation, which would avoid impacts due toalteration of each building’s historic attributes. Throughthe Section 106 process, the actions to protect and repairthese properties will be further developed throughconsultation and agreements with the SHPO, the City ofSeattle Historic Preservation Officer, with participation byother interested parties such as the Seattle LandmarksPreservation Board.

The Bored Tunnel Alternative would not involve thepermanent incorporation of land from these properties,and protection and repair activities would not change theownership of the land. If the SHPO concurs with the “notadverse” determinations proposed by the lead agencies, aSection 4(f) use of these properties would not occur.SHPO concurrence with a Section 106 “not adverse”determination would also help support a finding thatprotection and restoration efforts for these propertiesmeet requirements for a temporary occupancy exceptionsto a use, as provided under 23 CFR 774.13(d). SHPO, asthe official with jurisdiction over these Section 4(f)resources, must agree in writing that the effects are minorand do not temporarily or permanently affect the historiccharacteristics of the buildings. FHWA and WSDOT alsoanticipate that the protection and repair activities for thebuildings would be temporary and less than the timeneeded for the overall project construction.

The properties with potential settlement effects listed inExhibit 4(f)-3 were evaluated for potential constructive useas a result of construction effects or other project effects.However, the historic attributes of all of the propertieswould be maintained given commitments to protect thebuildings during construction and to repair potentialdamage consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’sStandards for Rehabilitation. Therefore, no constructiveuse is anticipated for the properties in Exhibit 4(f)-3 witheffects that are anticipated to be determined “not adverse”under Section 106, as well as the larger set of historicresources that WSDOT and FWHA have determined wouldhave “no effect” under the Bored Tunnel Alternative.


1 Yesler Building

Polson Building

Two Bells Bar & Grill

Fire Station # 2

Seattle Housing Authority

Maritime Building

Federal Building

National Building

Colonial Grand Pacific (Colonial, left, Grand Pacific, right)

Arlington South (Beebe Building)

Arlington North (Hotel Cecil)

Alexis Hotel (Globe)

Resources Evaluated for Potential Constructive Use

Exhibit 4(f)-3

* Constructive use determinations have not been made.

FHWA will make determinations in consultation with

Headquarters office.


Additional details on each property are provided inAppendix J, Section 4(f) Supplemental Materials.

Archaeological Resources Affected During ConstructionOne archaeological property within the APE has beenidentified as having the potential to be disturbed duringconstruction of the Bored Tunnel Alternative.

Dearborn South Tideland SiteThe Dearborn South Tideland Site is a historicarcheological resource that contains foundations,structural, and other materials from commercial andindustrial development that occurred between 1895 and 1910 on filled tidelands. FHWA and WSDOT havedetermined that the sites is considered eligible underCriterion D for its potential to yield information aboutearly development in Seattle, but its value is in the datathat may be recovered and does not depend on beingpreserved in place. Section 4(f) regulations provide anexception for the use of these types of archaeologicalproperties in 23 CFR 774.13(b), with documentation fromthe SHPO.

The Bored Tunnel Alternative would require removal ofsoils from the Dearborn South Tideland Site, but this siteis valuable chiefly for data recovery and does not warrantpreservation in place, and the SHPO has concurred withthis finding. Therefore, under FHWA’s Section 4(f)regulations, it is exempt from Section 4(f), and there is norequirement to consider avoidance alternatives andincorporate all possible planning to minimize harm. Theproject is still developing mitigation measures for the Dearborn South Tideland Site. Mitigation measureswill be defined in more detail in consultation with theSHPO through the Section 106 process, resulting in amemorandum of agreement that would be signed prior tothe completion of the Final EIS. The likely mitigationmeasures would include a data recovery program, whichwould be undertaken prior to construction.

Other Archaeological SitesAdditional sub-surface exploration would be undertakenin areas identified as highly sensitive for archaeological

Exhibit 4(f)-4

Resources Evaluated for Use and Found to Be Not Subject to Use Under Section 4(f)

Name (Historic Name)Address

Historic Status Key Characteristics Potential Effect Proposed Protection and Impact Minimization Actions

Section 106 Effects Determination

Section 4(f) Evaluation Results*

1 Yesler Way Pioneer Square Historic District(contributing building)

Three-story brick-clad building constructed in 1911 as a hotel. Significant for its part in the reconstruction ofthe Pioneer Square Historic District (Criterion A) and forthe building type and characteristics (Criterion C).

Very Slight Building damage dueto ground settlement

Level 3 Monitoring, Possible compensation grouting.

Not adverse No use.No constructive use anticipated.

Polson Building61 Columbia Street

Pioneer Square Historic District(contributing building)

Six-story warehouse building, constructed in 1910.Significant for its part in the reconstruction of thePioneer Square Historic District (Criterion A) and for the building type and characteristics (Criterion C).

Severe to Very Severe buildingdamage due to ground settlement

Level 3 Monitoring, Compensation grouting, Foundation strengthening.

Adverse No use.No constructive use anticipated.

Maritime Building911 Western Avenue

Eligible for National Register Built in 1910. Largely intact example of early 20thcentury warehouses. Significant under Criterion A as awork by prominent Seattle architect (Houghton) andengineers (Stone and Webster), and Criterion C, for thewarehouse building type and characteristics.

Slight building damage due toground settlement

Level 3 Monitoring, Compensation grouting.


Federal Building901 First Avenue

Listed in the National Register Completed in 1933. 7- and 8- story Art Deco brick andterra cotta building. Significant for Criterion A, as thefirst Seattle building designed for federal offices, and for Criterion C, for building type and characteristics.




National Building1000 Western Avenue

Listed in the National Register Completed in 1904. A 6-story brick building designed for the Northern Pacific Railroad. Significant underCriterion A for its role in Seattle’s development, and forCriterion C for building type and characteristics.




Alexis Hotel (Globe)1001 First Avenue

Listed in the National Register Part of the “First Avenue” group developed as a block.Significant under Criterion A as a work by noted architect (Umbrecht) and as part of Seattle development after the Great Fire, and for Criterion C, for building type and characteristics.




Arlington South (Beebe Building)1015 First Avenue

Listed in the National Register Developed in 1901. Part of the “First Avenue” groupdeveloped as a block. Significant under Critierion A as a work by noted architect (Umbrecht) and as part ofSeattle development after the Great Fire, and forCriterion C, for building type and characteristics.




Arlington North (Hotel Cecil)1015 First Avenue

Listed in the National Register Completed in 1904. Part of the “First Avenue” groupdeveloped as a block. Significant under Criterion A as a work by noted architect (Umbrecht) and as part ofSeattle development after the Great Fire, and forCriterion C, for building type and characteristics.




Colonial Grand Pacific (Grand Pacific)1119 First Avenue

Listed in the National Register Designed in 1901. Part of the “First Avenue” group,significant under Criterion A as a work by noted architect (Umbrecht) and as part of Seattle development, and for Criterion C, for building type and characteristics.




Colonial Grand Pacific (Colonial)1123 First Avenue

Listed in the National Register Part of the “First Avenue” group, significant underCriterion A as a work by noted architect (Umbrecht) and as part of Seattle development, and for Criterion C,for building type and characteristics.




Two Bells Bar & Grill2313 Fourth Avenue

Eligible for National Register Designed in 1923, small commercial building eligible for listing in the Listed in the National Register HP under Criterion C as a Tudor-inspired small commercialbuilding, designed by noted local architect (Stoddard).




Fire Station #22334 Fourth Avenue

Eligible for National Register Built in 1920. The City’s oldest fire station still in use.Significant under Criterion A for its association with the city’s development and its fire department, andunder Criterion C as an example of finely detailedindustrial architecture and a work by Seattle's mostprominent municipal architect (Huntington).




Seattle Housing Authority120 Sixth Avenue N

Eligible for National Register Constructed in 1954. Eligible for listing in the Listed inthe NRHP under Criterion C as an example of Modern office building design of the 1950s. Originallyknown as the Northwestern Mutual Life building.





deposits prior to construction. The construction schedulewould be designed to accommodate evaluation andmitigation of significant archaeological sites found duringconstruction in areas inaccessible for examination prior toconstruction. Construction would proceed in compliancewith a memorandum of agreement developed to guideinternal WSDOT notification protocols and consultationwith the SHPO, the tribes, and consulting parties upondiscovery of archaeological material or human remains.All of these measures would meet Section 106requirements of the Memorandum of Agreement andwould be explicitly outlined in the Historic PropertiesTreatment Plan developed for the project.

6 The Cut-and-Cover Tunnel Alternative

SummaryThe Cut-and-Cover Tunnel Alternative would require theuse of the Alaskan Way Viaduct, the Battery Street Tunnel,the Alaskan Way Seawall, the McGraw Kittenger CaseBuilding, and the Washington Street Boat Landing.

Alaskan Way ViaductWould this alternative result in a use of this resource?The Cut-and-Cover Tunnel Alternative is located directlyon the existing location of the Alaskan Way Viaduct.Therefore, it would result in a use of the viaduct.

Can this alternative be modified to avoid the use or minimizethe harm resulting from the use?Construction of this alternative requires removal of theviaduct. The alternative cannot be modified to avoid the use of this resource.

What planning to minimize harm has been incorporated intothe project?Minimization of harm for this alternative would be thesame as with the Bored Tunnel Alternative. As describedfor the Bored Tunnel Alternative, the measures tominimize harm would include documenting the viaduct inaccordance with HAER standards.

Battery Street TunnelWould this alternative result in a use of this resource?The Cut-and-Cover Tunnel Alternative would includesubstantial modification of the Battery Street Tunnel tomeet seismic design criteria and improve safety. Theseimprovements would involve the removal of existinghistorically significant features of the tunnel, including thetiled walls. Therefore, this alternative would result in a useof the Battery Street Tunnel.

Can this alternative be modified to avoid the use or tominimize the harm resulting from the use?The alternative requires the continued use of the BatteryStreet Tunnel to connect to the termini of the project.Continued use of the Battery Street Tunnel is only possibleif the necessary upgrades are made so that the tunnelmeets current safety standards. Therefore, if thisalternative is implemented, it is not possible to avoidupgrades that alter the existing features of the Battery Street Tunnel.

What measures to minimize harm to this resource have beenincorporated into this alternative?The same historic documentation measures used for theBored Tunnel Alternative are included in this alternative.

Alaskan Way SeawallWould this alternative result in a use of this resource?The Cut-and-Cover Tunnel Alternative would replace theseawall from S. Washington Street up to Broad Street.Between S. Washington Street and Union Street, theexisting seawall would be replaced by the outer wall of the tunnel. From Union Street to Broad Street, the seawallwould be rebuilt by improving the soils and replacing theexisting seawall in most locations. Therefore, thisalternative would result in a use of the seawall.

Can this alternative be modified to avoid the use or minimizethe harm resulting from the use?Construction of this alternative requires replacement ofthe seawall. The alternative cannot be modified to avoidthe use of the seawall.

McGraw Kittenger Case (Blu Canary/MGM) BuildingWould this alternative result in a use of this resource?The Cut-and-Cover Tunnel Alternative would need toexcavate under the building to improve the Battery StreetTunnel. This would require braces and supports for theedge of the building to support it during construction.This was determined an “adverse effect” through theSection 106 consultation process, and therefore wasconsidered a Section 4(f) use in the 2006 SupplementalDraft EIS Appendix N, Part A.

Can this alternative be modified to avoid the use or minimizethe harm resulting from the use?Other design options, such as not widening a curve at theBattery Street Tunnel portal, have been considered butwould not improve existing safety concerns and thereforewould not satisfy the project’s purpose and need. Further,the walls of the Battery Street Tunnel are structurallydeficient and must be replaced. This cannot beaccomplished without an adverse effect to this building.

What measures to minimize harm to this resource have beenincorporated into this alternative?The project would include measures to protect thebuilding during construction and to restore or repair anypossible damage, consistent with the Secretary of theInterior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. These measureswould ensure that alterations to the building do notpermanently affect its historic significance or its long-termeconomic viability and maintenance. Therefore, a Section4(f) use could be avoided if acquisition of the building isnot needed during construction and the “not adverse”determination under Section 106 was accompanied bymeasures that would preserve the characteristics thatqualify the building as eligible for the NRHP. However, thelead agencies have not yet determined if occupation of thebuilding can be maintained during construction; if itcannot, an acquisition would be necessary and a Section4(f) use would still occur.


Washington Street Boat LandingWould this alternative result in a use of this resource?The Cut-and-Cover Tunnel Alternative would affect theWashington Street Boat Landing pergola, which is also ahistoric resource. Construction of this alternative woulddisplace the pergola, and it would then be relocated to anearby site at the foot of S. Washington Street. Additionaldiscussion of this alternative’s effect on this site wasincluded in the 2006 Supplemental Draft EIS Appendix N,Part A. Therefore, this alternative would result in a use ofthe Washington Street Boat Landing park.

Can this alternative be modified to avoid the use or minimizethe harm resulting from the use?The reconstruction of the seawall coupled with thedevelopment of the cut-and-cover tunnel involves majorconstruction within a large linear area both along theshore and immediately offshore. No modifications havebeen identified that would avoid the temporary relocationof the pergola.

What measures to minimize harm to this resource have beenincorporated into this alternative?The relocation of the pergola and the boat landingprovides protection during construction and includesrestoration of the historic pergola, consistent with theSecretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation.The boat landing would also be restored to allow its returnto public use.

7 The Elevated Structure Alternative

SummaryThe Elevated Structure Alternative would require the useof the Alaskan Way Viaduct and Battery Street Tunnel, theAlaskan Way Seawall, the McGraw Kittenger Case Building,and the Washington Street Boat Landing. The uses aresubstantially identical to the uses resulting from the Cut-and-Cover Tunnel Alternative, because the ElevatedStructure Alternative would be in the same location as theexisting viaduct, requiring its removal, and it also wouldrequire replacing the seawall to provide support for the

soils surrounding the foundation of the new elevatedstructure.

8 Other Alternatives Considered to Avoid and Minimize Harm

WSDOT began the planning and alternatives evaluationprocess for the replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct in2001. Nearly 100 different approaches to the project havebeen considered since that time, covering six groups ofimprovements, including improvements to the viaduct, tothe Battery Street Tunnel, to the seawall, to roadways, andfor multimodal systems. These formed the basis for fivealternatives that were considered in the 2004 Draft EIS, inaddition to a No Build Alternative:

• Rebuild• Aerial• Surface• Tunnel• Bypass Tunnel

In preparing the current Supplemental Draft EIS, the leadagencies updated and confirmed their findings, resultingin the removal of alternatives considered prior to the 2006 Supplemental Draft EIS.⁴ Following a public vote in2007, which rejected both elevated and cut-and-covertunnel replacements of the viaduct, in 2008 the leadagencies conducted the Partnership Process, a publicevaluation of scenarios that took a systems-level approachto SR 99 replacement solutions.

Through the Partnership Process, three hybrid scenarioswere considered, each incorporating an element with thepotential to address the need for an SR 99 replacement,supported by other projects and strategies at the systemlevel:

• I-5, Surface, and Transit Hybrid• Elevated Bypass Hybrid• Twin Bored Tunnel/Single Bored Tunnel Hybrid

In the following sections, the Section 4(f) evaluationbriefly summarizes the primary reasons that other

alternatives, including potential new alternatives orvariations, as well as alternatives no longer beingconsidered in the current EIS process, do not constituteprudent or feasible avoidance alternatives to Section 4(f)uses, or because they do not represent an opportunity tofurther minimize harm compared to the existing EISalternatives.

No Build AlternativeUnder the No Build Alternative, there would be noconstruction project to replace the existing Alaskan WayViaduct within the termini of this project. Nonetheless, forsafety reasons, the Alaskan Way Viaduct would need to beclosed and eventually removed; the Alaskan Way Seawallwould need to be repaired or replaced; the Battery StreetTunnel would require safety upgrades; and the pergola atthe Washington Street Boat Landing would likely need tobe moved as part of the repair or replacement of theseawall. Therefore, No Build would not be an avoidancealternative because there would still be impacts to theseSection 4(f) resources even if FHWA does not proceedwith a federally funded transportation project involvingreplacement of the existing Alaskan Way Viaduct.

In addition, the uncertainty of when the SR 99 closurewould be needed would make this alternative imprudentbecause it would hamper the lead agencies’ ability toprovide for an orderly program to preserve public safetyand replace capacity or develop and implement programsto minimize construction and demolition period impacts.This alternative would leave SR 99 vulnerable to seismicevents for an undetermined amount of time, withcontinued public safety concerns as well as a highpotential for major transportation, community, and otherenvironmental impacts.

Rebuild AlternativeThe Rebuild Alternative (considered in the 2004 DraftEIS) proposed replacing the viaduct with a structuresimilar to what is there today; it did not include safety-related alterations to the Battery Street Tunnel. Thisalternative was refined into the current Elevated StructureAlternative. It did not avoid uses of Section 4(f) resources, 4 Parametrix. 2010.


including the Alaskan Way Viaduct, the Alaskan WaySeawall, and the Washington Street Boat Landing. Thisalternative was also eliminated from consideration forfeasibility reasons because it did not provide the ability tomeet WSDOT design standards, which are essential to achieving the safety and capacity improvements neededby the project, and it had higher construction period andlong-term impacts than other alternatives. FHWA andWSDOT have concluded that it does not constitute aprudent and feasible Section 4(f) avoidance alternative.

Surface AlternativeThe Surface Street Alternative would replace the viaductwith an at-grade roadway, which would have three lanes ineach direction between Yesler Way and Pike Street, andtwo lanes in each direction north of Pike Street. TheBattery Street Tunnel was to be improved with modernizedsafety and operational features, and there would beimprovements to surface streets in the South Lake Unionand Seattle Center areas.

The 2004 Draft EIS found that while the surface streetalternative offered cost advantages and allowed the visualreconnection between the waterfront and downtown, ithad the worst congestion impacts of any of the alternativesconsidered. It also would have required the removal of theviaduct and modifications to the Battery Street Tunnel,both of which are Section 4(f) resources, and thereforewould not provide a Section 4(f) avoidance alternative. Itwas subsequently dropped from further considerationbecause of these factors. In addition, the Battery StreetTunnel’s design deficiencies would not be improved, thealternative would lower capacity in the transportationsystem, it would not improve safety conditions in thetunnel, and it had higher construction period and relatedenvironmental impacts. All of these factors have ledFWHA and WSDOT to conclude that the SurfaceAlternative does not constitute an alternative to avoidSection 4(f) use, and it also would not provide a “leastharm” alternative compared to the overall effects of thethree alternatives currently considered in thisSupplemental Draft EIS.

Tunnel and Bypass Tunnel AlternativesThis set of alternatives proposed replacing the viaduct witha tunnel, and they have been modified to result in the Cut-and-Cover Tunnel Alternative that is still underconsideration. As with the current Cut-and-Cover TunnelAlternative, these alternatives do not avoid the use ofSection 4(f) properties, with uses including the AlaskanWay Viaduct, the Alaskan Way Seawall, and theWashington Street Boat Landing. These earlier alternativeswere removed from further consideration by the projectbecause they were superseded by the Cut-and-CoverTunnel Alternative, which added measures to addressBattery Street Tunnel safety and design deficiencies.

Partnership Process ScenariosI-5, Surface, and Transit HybridThis scenario would replace SR 99 with a pair ofnorthbound and southbound one-way streets, modifyingWestern Avenue and Alaskan Way, coupled with additionaltransit investments serving downtown along with aprogram of I-5 improvements to improve operations. Thisscenario was not advanced as a project alternative becauseit did not address Battery Street Tunnel design deficiencies,it reduced transportation capacity and mobility, itincreased travel times, and it caused several years ofconstruction period impacts, particularly to transportationwhen no replacement to the loss of SR 99 capacity wouldbe available. It also did not avoid the use of Section 4(f)resources.

Elevated Bypass HybridThis scenario would replace SR 99 with two side-by-sideelevated roadways along the waterfront, coupled withimprovements to I-5 and additional transit investmentsserving downtown. This scenario was not advanced as aproject alternative because it would still involve the use ofSection 4(f) resources; it would carry similar noise, visual,and barrier impacts as the existing viaduct; it did notaddress design deficiencies for the Battery Street Tunnelthat are critical to the improved safety conditionsidentified in the project’s purpose and need; it increasedtravel times; and it caused several years of highconstruction period impacts because SR 99 would need to

be removed before the replacement structures could bebuilt.

Twin Bored Tunnel/Single Bored Tunnel HybridThis scenario would replace SR 99 with a bored tunneland included additional transit investments throughdowntown. It was adapted to become the Bored TunnelAlternative currently being evaluated in this SupplementalDraft EIS. It would not represent a Section 4(f) avoidanceoption and it carried similar environmental consequencesas the current Bored Tunnel Alternative.

ConclusionFor the reasons given above, there are no feasible andprudent alternatives that completely avoid the use ofSection 4(f) resources and there were no alternatives thatwould cause less overall harm.

9 Overall Comparison of AlternativesThree alternatives are considered in this SupplementalDraft EIS, and each would require the use of Section 4(f)resources. Each alternative has been defined toincorporate measures to avoid Section 4(f) resourceswherever it is feasible and prudent to do so, and eachincorporates all possible planning to minimize harm.

In past planning and ongoing project development efforts,other alternatives have been considered and rejected,because they failed to meet the project’s purpose and need,because they are not feasible and prudent avoidancealternatives, or because they would not cause less overallharm.

In this final step of the draft Section 4(f) evaluation, thethree remaining alternatives are compared to one anotherto determine which alternative would cause the leastoverall harm. In this step, the alternatives are compared toone another based on the factors listed in Section774.3(c)(1) of the Section 4(f) regulations.

Ability to mitigate adverse impacts to each Section 4(f)property (including any measures that result in benefits tothe property), and the relative severity of the remaining


harm, after mitigation, to the protected activities,attributes, or features that qualify each Section 4(f)property for protection.Each of the three alternatives would involve a use of theAlaskan Way Viaduct, which would be removed, and the Battery Street Tunnel, which would be eithersubstantially modified or decommissioned. These facilitiesare considered a single property under Section 106, andthe Section 4(f) analysis also considers them a singleresource, although for clarity the effects to each part ofthe resource have been described separately. All three of the current alternatives encompass the same mitigationprograms, which primarily involved documentation. Noneof the alternatives offers the ability to preserve the existingfacilities without altering the characteristics that qualifythem as Section 4(f) resources.

The Elevated Structure and Cut-and-Cover TunnelAlternatives both involve a use of the McGraw KittengerCase Building and the Washington Street Boat Landing.Both of these uses would be accompanied by mitigation torestore these resources to a level that maintains thecharacteristics that qualify them as Section 4(f) resources.This, along with the additional information anddocumentation involved in these efforts, would helpreduce the remaining harm after the Section 4(f) useoccurs.

The Bored Tunnel Alternative would result in a use of theWestern Building, a contributing building to the PioneerSquare Historic District. The mitigation measures for thisproperty are still being defined through the Section 106consultation process, which will continue during thedevelopment of the Final EIS.

The relative significance of each Section 4(f) property;The views of the official(s) with jurisdiction over eachSection 4(f) property.The NRHP status of the affected Section 4(f) resources isone measure of their relative significance, although forSection 4(f) purposes all resources determined to beeligible for the NRHP are considered significant. Whilemore local effort and investment is required to nominate a

property for the NRHP and to have it listed, compared tothe effort needed to identify a property as being eligiblefor the NRHP, this does not necessarily mean that a listedproperty is more significant than other properties. Section106 processes do not provide procedures for evaluatingrelative significance among properties, as the consultationprocess is focused on identifying historic resources andminimizing potential harm.

The Alaskan Way Viaduct and Battery Street Tunnel areeligible for the NRHP, as is the McGraw Kittenger CaseBuilding, but they are not listed. The Washington StreetBoat Landing is listed in the NRHP. The Western Buildingis a contributing building of the Pioneer Square HistoricDistrict, which is listed in the NRHP. The WesternBuilding’s individual merits for inclusion in the NRHPhave not been evaluated previously, but as a contributingbuilding within an historic district it is assumed to beindividually eligible as well. There are other properties inthe district that are individually listed in the NRHP or havebeen designated as National Historic Landmarks, andthere are also other examples of warehouse buildings inthe district with similar characteristics.

As the EIS, Section 106 and Section 4(f) processescontinue, WSDOT and FWHA will continue to consultwith the SHPO and the City of Seattle HistoricPreservation Office, the parties with jurisdiction over theresources, to document their opinions in response to the findings of effect for the affected properties and thepotential avoidance and mitigation measures beingconsidered.

The degree to which each alternative meets the purposeand need for the project.Among the alternatives remaining in the EIS, the leadagencies are considering a conclusion that the BoredTunnel Alternative would be best able to meet the purposeand need for the project and would have the least overallenvironmental effects. Chapter 8 of this SupplementalDraft EIS compares the three alternatives and explains thispotential conclusion.

After reasonable mitigation, the magnitude of any adverseimpacts to resources not protected by Section 4(f); andsubstantial differences in costs among the alternatives.The primary difference among the alternatives is relatedto their ability to minimize construction period impactswhile the viaduct is being replaced. In addition, there aresubstantial differences in the environmental performanceof the alternatives.

The Elevated Structure and Cut-and-Cover TunnelAlternatives would require the closure of SR 99 for itsdemolition, and they also would include thereconstruction of the seawall. Demolition of SR 99 wouldbe followed by several years of construction throughoutthe central waterfront area. Transportation impacts duringconstruction would be high, resulting in high levels ofcongestion, delay, and reduced capacity throughout thedowntown area, especially in the central waterfront area.Access between the central waterfront and adjacentdowntown neighborhoods would be restricted, affectingnot only north-south movements but also east-westmovements, such as those for Washington State Ferriesusers or for transportation between properties on eitherside of the current viaduct alignment. This long period ofreduced access and transportation mobility would affectproperties, businesses, employees, patrons, and residencesnearby, including in the Pike Place Market Historic Districtand the Pioneer Square Historic District, the waterfront,and the many other historic and nonhistoric properties,institutions, and public facilities that occur throughout thecentral downtown area. Because this portion of SR 99provides important linkages for the regionaltransportation system, reducing its capacity for anextended period would have economic impactsthroughout the Puget Sound region.

The Bored Tunnel Alternative would have constructionperiod impacts related to the demolition of the viaductand the decommissioning of the Battery Street Tunnel,but it would allow a much more rapid transition to areplacement facility, greatly reducing the project’sconstruction period transportation and mobility impacts.It also does not tie the SR 99 replacement to the


replacement of the seawall, which further minimizes the construction period impacts in the central waterfrontarea and downtown compared to other alternatives. Inaddition, because most of the heavy construction of thereplacement facility for SR 99 would be underground,compared to the surface level construction required forthe other two alternatives throughout the centralwaterfront area, the vicinity effects of construction wouldbe more limited, primarily occurring in the tunnel portalareas. This further reduces construction period impacts toproperties, activities, and neighborhoods adjacent to theexisting viaduct, and it reduces impacts to WashingtonState Ferry users and other activities that require crossingbetween downtown and the waterfront.

Longer term, the two tunnel alternatives are expected tooffer lower long-term environmental effects and greaterland use, aesthetic, and economic benefits compared tothe Elevated Structure Alternative. The tunnel alternativeswould remove and not replace an elevated structure that isadjacent to two historic districts and creates high levels ofnoise and visual impacts to adjacent properties. Thealternatives would also remove an existing barrier betweendowntown neighborhoods and the waterfront and supportopportunities to redevelop the urban space now occupiedby the elevated structure.

10 ConclusionsIn order for FHWA to ultimately approve the BoredTunnel Alternative, the Final EIS will need to provideinformation allowing FHWA to determine that:

1 There is no feasible and prudent alternative thatcompletely avoids the use of Section 4(f) property.

2 The Bored Tunnel Alternative is the alternative thatcauses “least overall harm.”

3 The Bored Tunnel Alternative incorporates allpossible planning to minimize harm to Section 4(f)resources.

While no conclusions have yet been made, the leadagencies have provided this draft evaluation in theSupplemental Draft EIS to allow public comments on thecurrent information that could result in a determinationthat the Bored Tunnel Alternative is the least overall harmalternative.

Date post:	08-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Section 4(f) Resources Subject to Use · 2012-09-26 · Historic Sites Section 4(f) applies to all...

Documents