Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-15-2023 Agenda (2)HEARING EXAMINER AGENDA February 15, 2023 5:30 P.M. City Council Chambers 25 West Main Street I.PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Public Participation Information The City of Auburn Hearing Examiner Meeting scheduled for Wednesday, February 15, 2023, at 5:30 p.m. will be held in person and virtually. To attend the meeting virtually, please click one of the below links, or call into the meeting at the phone number listed: Join Zoom Meeting https://us06web.zoom.us/j/89922755356 Meeting ID: 899 2275 5356 One tap mobile 12532050468,,89922755356# US 12532158782,,89922755356# US (Tacoma) Dial by your location 1 253 205 0468 US 1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) 877 853 5257 US Toll-free 888 475 4499 US Toll-free Meeting ID: 899 2275 5356 Find your local number: https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kt5KEG8c2 II.CASE NO:SHL20-0008 – Coal Creek Springs Transmission Main Replacement Project APPLICANT: City of Auburn, Public Works Department Seth Wickstrom, PE, Project Engineer 25 West Main Street Auburn, WA 98001 PROPERTY OWNER(S): City of Auburn Parks, Arts, and Recreation Department Thaniel Gouk, Parks Planning & Development Manager 25 West Main Street Auburn, WA 98001 King County Water and Land Resources Division River and Floodplain Management Section Josh Baldi, Director 201 S Jackson Street, Suite 600 Seattle, WA 98104 1 of 1059 Hearing Examiner Agenda February 15, 2023 5:30 p.m. 2 REQUEST: Request for Shoreline Conditional Use Permit and Shoreline Substantial Development Permit to construct an approx. 210-foot-long pedestrian bridge and water transmission main over the White River. PROJECT LOCATION: The pedestrian bridge and water main construction project site (the Project Site) is located at river banks of Game Farm Park (3030 R St. SE) and the Game Farm Wilderness Park (2401 Stuck River Dr.) in Auburn, WA, King Co. Parcel No. 2921059069, along River Mile 8.5 of the White River. The off-site mitigation site for the LWM placement will be located at River Mile 9.3, approximately 0.88 miles (4,634 feet) northeast (upstream) of the bridge construction site. PARCEL NO(S): King County Assessor Parcel No. 2821059007 2 of 1059 AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM HEARING EXAMINER Agenda Subject/Title: Coal Creek Springs Transmission Main Replacement Project City File No. SHL20-0008 Shoreline Conditional Use Permit Shoreline Substantial Dev. Permit Date: February 2, 2023 Department: Community Development DESCRIPTION: Request for Shoreline Conditional Use Permit and Shoreline Substantial Development Permit to construct an approx. 210-foot-long pedestrian bridge and water transmission main over the White River. ADMINISTRATIVE RECOMMENDATION: Hearing Examiner to conduct a public hearing and approve the Shoreline Conditional Use Permit and Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. PROJECT SUMMARY: The applicant seeks to conduct site preparation and install an approximately 210-foot-long pedestrian bridge and water transmission main over the White River. The 24-inch-diameter water transmission main will be installed below and attached to the bridge. The purpose of the 24-inch water main will to be convey water from the off-site location of the City of Auburn’s Coal Creek Springs to the City’s off-site storage reservoirs and water system on the north side of the White River. In addition to the water transmission main a 12-inch-diameter pipe for potential future water service and two (2” and 3” respectively) utility conduits for potential future dry utilities will also be installed under the bridge. The bridge will provide a pedestrian linkage between two city-owned parks; Game Farm Park and Game Farm Wilderness Park, which are a single parcel divided by the White River. The bridge will be accessed by approx. 340 lineal feet of new 10-foot wide paved trails which will connect existing trails within each park. Trees felled for the project will be salvaged and placed off-site and upstream in a riverbank area as large woody material (LWM) for future wood recruitment in the White River. LOCATION: The pedestrian bridge and water main construction project site (the Project Site) is located at river banks of Game Farm Park (3030 R St. SE) and the Game Farm Wilderness Park (2401 Stuck River Dr.) in Auburn, WA, King Co. Parcel No. 2921059069, along River Mile 8.5 of the White River. The off-site mitigation site for the LWM placement will be located at River Mile 9.3, approximately 0.88 miles (4,634 feet) northeast (upstream) of the bridge construction site, King Co. Parcel No. 2821059007. APPLICANT: City of Auburn, Public Works Department, Seth Wickstrom, PE, Project Engineer, 25 W Main St., Auburn, WA 98001 EXHIBIT 1 3 of 1059 Staff Member: Alexandria D. Teague Date: February 2, 2023 Page 2 of 37 APPLICANT’S REPRESENTATIVE: Jacobs Engineering Group, Scott Swarts, Senior Biologist, 1110 112th Ave. NE, Suite 500, Bellevue, WA 98004 PROPERTY OWNERS: City of Auburn Parks, Arts, and Recreation Department, Thaniel Gouk, Parks Planning & Development Manager, 25 W Main St., Auburn, WA 98001 (Game Farm Park and Game Farm Wilderness Park) King County Water and Land Resources Division, River and Floodplain Management Section, Josh Baldi, Director, 201 S Jackson St., Suite 600, Seattle, WA 98104 (LWM mitigation site) Vicinity Map 4 of 1059 Staff Member: Alexandria D. Teague Date: February 2, 2023 Page 3 of 37 Bridge Construction/Utility Project Site Location 5 of 1059 Staff Member: Alexandria D. Teague Date: February 2, 2023 Page 4 of 37 Large Woody Materials Placement (LWM) (Mitigation Site) Location 6 of 1059 Staff Member: Alexandria D. Teague Date: February 2, 2023 Page 5 of 37 Combined Project Site and LWM Mitigation Site Location 7 of 1059 Staff Member: Alexandria D. Teague Date: February 2, 2023 Page 6 of 37 2021 City of Auburn Aerial Image (Project Site) The Comprehensive Plan designation, Shoreline environment designation, zoning classification and current land uses of the site and surrounding properties of the Project Site are: Comprehensive Land Use Designation Zoning Classification Shoreline Environment Designation Current Land Use Project Site Institutional Institutional Urban Conservancy City Park North Single Family R-7 Residential N/A Single Family Residences East Multiple-Family Open Space UNC Unclassified Use District R-MHC Residential Manufactured/Mobile Home Community N/A Vacant South Single Family Open Space R-7 Residential Open Space N/A Vacant West Single Family Multiple-Family R-7 Residential R-20 Residential Open Space N/A Single Family Residences Apartment Complexes 8 of 1059 Staff Member: Alexandria D. Teague Date: February 2, 2023 Page 7 of 37 The Comprehensive Plan designation, Shoreline environment designation, zoning classification and current land uses of the site and surrounding properties of the LWM mitigation site are: Comprehensive Land Use Designation Zoning Classification Shoreline Environment Designation Current Land Use LWM mitigation site Residential Conservancy Residential Conservancy Natural Vacant North Open Space Residential Conservancy N/A Vacant (River) Mobile/Manufactured Home Park East Residential Conservancy Open Space Residential Conservancy N/A Vacant South Residential Conservancy Single Family Unclassified Use District N/A Vacant (River) West Open Space Multiple-Family UNC Unclassified Use District R-MHC Residential Manufactured/Mobile Home Community N/A Vacant Excerpted Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation Map (Project Site) Project Site Single Family Open Space Multiple Family Institutional 9 of 1059 Staff Member: Alexandria D. Teague Date: February 2, 2023 Page 8 of 37 Excerpted Zoning Classification Map (Project Site) Excerpted Shoreline Environment Designations (Project Site) Project Site R-MHC UNC R-7 R-20 Open Space Project Site I, Institutional 10 of 1059 Staff Member: Alexandria D. Teague Date: February 2, 2023 Page 9 of 37 Excerpted Shoreline Environment Designations (LWM mitigation site) SEPA STATUS: A combined Notice of Application (NOA) and Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) was issued under City File No. SEP20-0015 on October 21, 2020. The comment period ended November 5, 2020 the appeal period ended November 19, 2020. Comments received during the NOA and SEPA public comment period are provided in Exhibit 15. No appeal of the SEPA decision was received. An SEPA Addendum to the previously issued DNS was issued on to incorporate the LWM mitigation site. The Addendum was issued on July 13, 2022. A copy of the Notice of Application (NOA) and Determination of Non-Significance (DNS), issued October 21, 2020 is provided in Exhibit 14. A copy of the SEPA Environmental Checklist, prepared by the City of Auburn, is included as Exhibit 13. A copy of the SEPA Addendum issued July 13, 2022 is also provided in Exhibit 14. FINDINGS OF FACT: Project Information and Site Characteristics 1. Seth Wickstrom, PE, Applicant, as representative of the City of Auburn Public Works Department applied on August 18, 2020 for a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit (SCUP) and Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SSDP), to install an approx. 210-foot- long and 12 ft. wide pedestrian bridge (referenced herein as pedestrian bridge) and 24- inch-diameter water transmission main (referenced herein as water main), collectively referenced as the “Project”, across the White River at the Project Site located within Game Farm Park (3030 R St. SE) and the Game Farm Wilderness Park (2401 Stuck LWM mitigation site Natural Urban Conservancy 11 of 1059 Staff Member: Alexandria D. Teague Date: February 2, 2023 Page 10 of 37 River Dr.) in Auburn, WA, King Co. Parcel No. 2921059069, along River Mile 8.5 of the White River. 2. The main purpose of the Project is to functionally replace an existing water main that currently exists under the White River. While the existing water main will remain in place, it will no longer serve as the primary source of water; it will serve as back up to a new water main. The existing water main is located within a water easement (Recording No. 2095456). The new pedestrian bridge and water main will be located within this existing water easement. The bridge crossing will provide the added benefit of improved recreation access between Game Farm Park and the Game Farm Wilderness Park, as well as additional dry utility conduits and a 12-inch-diameter pipe for potential future utility expansion to minimize future impacts to the White River. 3. Alternative design proposals to the current project proposal are contained in the Alternatives Summary Report, Jacobs, dated June 11, 2021, and is provided in Exhibit 9. This report was prepared in response to concerns raised about the Project by the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (MIT), and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife WDFW), and addresses questions raised about alternative design approaches that have been considered. 4. Per Chapter 16.10 of the Auburn City Code (ACC) the White River is classified as a Type “S” stream and is identified as “shorelines of the state” under Chapter 90.58 RCW and the City of Auburn Shoreline Master Program (SMP). The shoreline jurisdiction of the While River extends 200 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM). The 200 feet of shoreline jurisdiction are categorized into three environment designations for the White River: “Natural”, “Urban Conservancy”, and “Shoreline Residential”. As outlined in SMP 4.5, Table 1 “Permitted Uses” the minimum setback from the OHWM is 100 feet in the “Urban Conservancy” shoreline environment designation and is 200 feet in the Natural” shoreline environment designation. Since the river is also a regulated critical area by the City, these setbacks function as a shoreline buffer to provide riparian habitat and protect water quality. The Project Site will occur within 200 ft. of the White River shoreline jurisdiction, specifically the “Urban Conservancy” shoreline environment designation, and within the 100 ft. shoreline buffer. The LWM mitigation site is also within 200 ft. of the White River shoreline jurisdiction, specifically the “Natural” shoreline environment designation, and within the 100 ft. shoreline buffer. 5. The bridge is comprised of three components: bridge foundations, bridge superstructure, and deck. Bridge foundations will consist of a concrete abutment supported on a single 4-foot-diameter concrete drilled shaft on either side of the White River. The concrete abutments would be about 14 feet by 5 feet and would extend about 11 feet (abutment 1) and 8 feet (abutment 2) above the ground surface. The bridge superstructure will sit on top of the abutments. The 210-foot-long bridge superstructure would be delivered to the site in multiple (4 or 5) pieces and be spliced together with high-strength bolts. Heavy lift cranes would lift the superstructure over the White River and place it on top of the bridge abutments. Fiber-reinforced polymer deck panels, serving as the pedestrian path of the bridge, will be installed after the bridge superstructure is in place. The bridge footings will be placed outside of the OHWM and 100-year base flood elevation on both sides of the White River. After the bridge is installed, the utility lines will be attached to the underside of the bridge superstructure via steel hangers. The tie-in to the existing 12 of 1059 Staff Member: Alexandria D. Teague Date: February 2, 2023 Page 11 of 37 water main will be installed through trenching on either side of the river. Trenches will be set back from the OHWM and 100-year base flood elevation. Utility lines attached to the bridge would consist of the 24-inch-diameter water transmission main as well as a 12- inch-diameter future water supply line and two conduits to allow for future utility installations. No work will occur below the OHWM. No in-water work is proposed. 6. Per the Critical Areas Report and Habitat Impact Assessment, Jacobs, revision dated May 26, 2022 (Exhibit 7), a total of 33 trees (with a diameter at breast height (DBH) of six inches and over) that need to be removed to create construction access. The removed trees will be placed at a nearby off-site, large woody material (LWM) mitigation site. The LWM will provide for future wood recruitment for fish habitat. The off-site location was selected due to its easy access and proximity to the Project Site. The LWM will be transported from the Project Site to the LWM mitigation site via an existing gravel road (Stuck River Drive and unnamed access road) that is approximately 2,405 feet long and 18 feet wide. Large woody material at the mitigation site will occupy approx.100 square feet (5 cubic yards) below the OHWM. Above the OHWM and below the 100- year base flood elevation, the LWM will occupy approx. 540 square feet (35 cubic yards). 7. New trails will be installed on either side of the new bridge to provide pedestrian access from existing park trails to the new pedestrian bridge. About 340 linear feet of new 10- foot-wide, ADA-compliant paved trails would be constructed and is shown on the Civil Plans, City of Auburn, revision dated January 23, 2023 (Exhibit 6). Most of the trails will be constructed with 2 inches of hot mix asphalt over 4 inches of crushed surfacing top course. The new trails will be outside of the 100-year special flood hazard area and above the OHWM of the White River. 8. Game Farm Park is a City-owned park containing 53-acres of park plus 86.17 acres of open space, is zoned I, Institutional, and has a land use designation of “Institutional”. Game Farm Park is one of the largest and most frequently used community parks in Auburn. The park contains a wide variety of facilities for organized sports, activities, special community events, and trails. Game Farm Park is bordered by single family residences and Riverwalk Dr. SE to the north, the White River to the east, Game Farm Wilderness Park to the south, and R St. SE, single family residences, and apartments to the west. 9. Game Farm Wilderness Park is a 10-acre City owned park, is zoned I, Institutional, and has a land use designation of “Institutional”. The park features limited development and has preserved most of the native woodland along the south side of the White River. The park is designed for both overnight and daytime visitors and contains a group camping area is designed to accommodate recreation vehicles, providing each unit with water and power hook-ups. Game Farm Wilderness Park is bordered by the White River to the north and east and vacant land to the east and south. 10. Per ACC 18.35.020(D) the I Institutional Zone "is intended to provide an area wherein educational, governmental, theological, recreational, cultural and other public and quasi- public uses may be allowed to develop. It is further intended these areas be significant in scope which will allow a combination of uses which may not be permitted outright within 13 of 1059 Staff Member: Alexandria D. Teague Date: February 2, 2023 Page 12 of 37 other zones. This district is not intended to include those smaller or singular public uses which are consistent with and permitted in other zones." 11. The Land Use Element states that the “Institutional” Land Use Designation “includes those areas that are reserved for public or institutional uses. These public uses include public schools and institutional uses such as large churches and schools. It is also intended to include those of a significant impact, and not those smaller public uses that are consistent with and may be included in another designation. For example, public uses of an industrial character are included in the industrial designation, and small-scale religious institutions of a residential character are included in the residential designation.” 12. Per Critical Areas Report and Habitat Impact Assessment (Exhibit 7), partial park closures will occur after May 31 and all park areas will be reopened in the Fall , following completion of the project (this is dependent on no construction schedule change). Construction will take approximately four months to complete. Construction work will be coordinated with the City’s Parks Department to minimize impacts to park operations, events, and programs. The northeast corner of Game Farm Park will require closure during construction, including the eastern end of the parking lot, the amphitheater, one large picnic shelter (during weekday work hours), and adjacent pathways. Construction access will be along existing park pathways from the end of the parking lot at the turnaround. All existing game fields and restroom facilities will not be impacted by construction. Game Farm Wilderness Park, will require closure of a portion of the White River Trail at the north end, for the duration of construction. Several existing holes on the disc golf course will require temporary relocation and one will be permanently relocated. Construction access would be from the existing day-use parking lot. The existing pathway from the parking lot to the White River Trail will be closed and a pedestrian detour would be established for access to the existing trail and disc golf course. The existing overnight camping area will not be impacted by construction, outside of noise during construction hours. 13. A Cultural Resources Report, Jacobs, dated April 2022 (Exhibit 8) was prepared in compliance with Section 106 of the Nation Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. Historic properties may be any district, site, building, structure, or object that is listed in, or eligible for listing in, the National Register of Historic Place NRHP). Undertakings are characterized as "any project, activity, or program funded in whole or in part under the direct or indirect jurisdiction of a federal agency, including those carried out by, or on behalf of, a federal agency; those carried out with federal financial assistance; and those requiring a federal permit, license, or approval." Since the City has secured two federal loans for the Project through the Washington State Department of Health and from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA is required. Geotechnical investigations, encompassing all areas of indirect and direct impacts, occurred within the proposed “area of potential effects” (APE). The “original” APE established in 2017), extended west from the center line of the White River to the Auburn Game Farm Park parking lot and east from the center line of the White River to the camping parking lot associated with the Game Farm Wilderness Park, and was approximately 9.5 acres. The original APE was then expanded (known as the APE expansion area) based on the altered Project design associated with construction of the 14 of 1059 Staff Member: Alexandria D. Teague Date: February 2, 2023 Page 13 of 37 pedestrian bridge over the White River. The APE expansion area included an extension to the south in Auburn Game Farm Park west of White River and totals approximately 9 acres. The original APE and APE expansion area are shown in Figure 1 of the Cultural Resources Report. As documented in the Report, no archaeological resources have been identified within the APE expansion area and there is little potential for archaeological resources to be encountered during continued activities associated with this Project. In the event of a discovery an immediate work stoppage in the vicinity of the find, and the Inadvertent Discovery Plan (IDP), Appendix F of the Cultural Resource Report, must be followed. The IDP outlines procedures to follow, in accordance with state and federal laws, if archaeological materials or human remains are discovered. Critical Areas 14. Per the Critical Areas Report and Habitat Impact Assessment (Exhibit 7), in addition to occurring within 200 ft. of the White River shoreline and within 100 ft. shoreline buffer, the Project Site overlaps other regulated critical area per Chapter 16.10 ACC. These include critical and tertiary wildlife habitat areas, aquifer recharge areas, geologically hazardous areas, and the special flood hazard area (100-year floodplain) and associated protected areas (floodway, riparian buffer zone, and channel migration zone). The Report concluded that there are no wetlands or associated buffers on the Project Site or the LWM mitigation site. 15. Per the Critical Areas Report and Habitat Impact Assessment (Exhibit 7), as a Type S stream, the White River is as a migratory corridor for ESA-listed and state-listed salmonids including Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus), Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), Steelhead Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), and Pacific Salmon essential fish habitat (EFH). Therefore, the Project Site contains critical habitat for the above referenced state-listed salmonids. The terrestrial areas upland of the White River, consisting of both park landscapes and riparian forest, within both Game Farm Park and Game Farm Wilderness Park likely contains tertiary wildlife habitat. 16. Per ACC 15.68.440, an application for development within the Special Flood Hazard Area must include an assessment of the impact of the project on federal, state or locally protected species and habitat, water quality and aquatic and riparian habitat. The assessment must determine if the project would adversely affect: 1. Species that are federal, state or local listed as threatened or endangered. 2. The primary constituent elements for critical habitat when delineated, including but not limited to water quality, water quantity, flood volumes, flood velocities, spawning substrate, and/or floodplain refugia for listed salmonids. 3. Essential fish habitat designated by the National Marine Fisheries Service. 4. Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. 5. Other protected areas and elements necessary for species conservation.” 17. The Critical Areas Report and Habitat Impact Assessment (Exhibit 7) finds that the ESA- listed salmonids may be affected because of the following: The new bridge will be a permanent crossing above salmonid habitat in the White River. All three species could be using in-stream portions of the floodplain both during 15 of 1059 Staff Member: Alexandria D. Teague Date: February 2, 2023 Page 14 of 37 construction and long-term during operation. Temporary vegetation clearing within the floodplain includes an alder and a black cottonwood tree on the right (northwest) bank and two cottonwoods on the left southeast) bank.” However, the ESA-listed salmonids are not likely to be adversely affected because: There will be no in-water work. There will be no fill in the floodplain (footings will be wholly outside the floodplain). The Project will use BMPs from the TESC plan and SWPPP to minimize and control sediment and stormwater inputs during construction. The temporarily cleared vegetation in the regulatory floodplain will be mitigated through native mitigation plantings, including replacement of removed trees at a 4:1 ratio. Potential impact of cleared vegetation on LWM recruitment and organic inputs is discountable due to scale and duration of the effect.” Further, the Project will have no effect on the critical habitat for ESA-listed salmonids, and will have no adverse effect on the Pacific Salmon EFH for the reasons provided for the ESA-listed salmonids. 18. Per ACC 16.10.080(E)(1) critical habitat “are those habitat areas which meet any of the following criteria: a. The documented presence of species or habitat listed by federal or state agencies as “endangered,” “threatened,” or “sensitive”; or b. The presence of unusual nesting or resting sites such as heron rookeries; c. Category I wetlands, as defined in these regulations; or d. Type S streams, as defined in these regulations.” 19. Per ACC 16.10.080(E)(3) “tertiary habitat is habitat which is not classified as critical or secondary. It is habitat which, while supporting some wildlife and performing other valuable functions, does not currently possess essential characteristics necessary to support diverse wildlife communities. Tertiary habitat also includes habitat which has been created purposefully by human actions to serve other or multiple purposes, such as open space areas, landscape amenities, and detention facilities.” 20. All proposed pedestrian bridge features will be located above the 100-year base flood elevation/floodway as indicated on the current FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) and associated Flood Insurance Study (FIS). At least four feet of freeboard between the bottom of the bridge and the 100-year base flood elevation will be provided. The bottom of the water main will be at least four feet above the 100-year base flood elevation as well. 21. Per the LWM Mitigation Hydraulic Analysis, Jacobs, dated June 17, 2022 (Exhibit 12), the White River does not have an official FEMA mapped floodplain or an effective Base Flood Elevation (BFE) at the LWM mitigation site. The latest Flood Insurance Study FIS) commissioned by King County for the White River was used for the no-rise analysis. Large woody material at the mitigation site will occupy 100 square feet (5 cubic 16 of 1059 Staff Member: Alexandria D. Teague Date: February 2, 2023 Page 15 of 37 yards) below the OHWM. Above the OHWM and below the 100-year base flood elevation, the LWM will occupy approx. 540 square feet (35 cubic yards). This is shown on the Civil Plans (Exhibit 6). However, LWM placement will not raise the elevation of the 100-year base flood elevation. Staging for the mitigation site will be placed outside of the OHWM and 100-year base flood elevation. 22. A Channel Migration Zone (CMZ) has not been defined on the White River. Per ACC 15.68.150(D) when channel migration zone data is not available a permit applicant shall either: 1. Designate the entire SFHA as the channel migration zone; or 2. Identify the channel migration area in accordance with Regional Guidance for Hydrologic and Hydraulic Studies in Support of the Model Ordinance for Floodplain Management under the National Flood Insurance Program and the Endangered Species Act, FEMA, Region X, 2010. For the scope of this Project the special flood hazard area is defined as the 100-year floodway. The proposed bridge piers will be located landward of the 100-year floodway and therefore will also be located outside of the coincident CMZ. 23. Per the Critical Areas Report and Habitat Impact Assessment (Exhibit 7), the areas adjacent to the White River are either developed as managed landscaping of park facilities or dominated by non-native invasive plants. Therefore, the Riparian Buffer Zone RBZ) at the Project site is limited to the redelineated OHWM and 100-year base flood elevation. The RBZ is an element of the FEMA floodplain regulations for the purpose of evaluating effects on endangered species. 24. Per ACC 15.68.100(G) base flood “means the flood having a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year (also referred to as the “100-year flood”).” 25. Per ACC 15.68.100(H) “base flood elevation [BFE] means the elevation to which floodwater is anticipated to rise during the base flood.” 26. Per ACC 15.68.100(K) channel migration zone (CMZ) “means the area within the lateral extent of likely stream channel movement due to stream bank destabilization and erosion, rapid stream incision, aggradation, avulsions, and shifts in location of stream channels.” 27. Per ACC 15.68.100(Z) floodway “means the channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than a designated height.” 28. Per ACC 15.68.100(SS) riparian buffer zone [RBZ] “means the land located adjacent to streams, and other bodies of water, where the natural soil, hydrology, and native flora and fauna perform important ecological functions such as protecting the water body by filtering out pollutants, preventing erosion and sedimentation, stabilizing stream banks, and providing natural shade. They are often thin lines of green containing native grasses, flowers, shrubs and trees that line the banks of streams and other bodies of water. The riparian buffer zone for the Puget Sound biological opinion applies only to 17 of 1059 Staff Member: Alexandria D. Teague Date: February 2, 2023 Page 16 of 37 areas mapped within the Special Flood Hazard Area, unless the area is undeveloped with predominately native vegetation that has benefits to endangered species, in which case the regulations for riparian habitat zones shall apply.” 29. Per ACC 15.68.100(TT) riparian habitat zone “means the water body and adjacent land areas that are likely to support aquatic and riparian habitat.” 30. Per ACC 15.68.100(UU) special flood hazard area (SFHA) “means the land subject to inundation by the base flood. Special flood hazard areas are designated on Flood Insurance Rate Maps with the letters “A” or “V” including AE (floodway), AO, AH, A1-99 and VE. The Special Flood Hazard Area is also referred to as the area of special flood hazard or SFHA.” 31. The Project Site and the LMW mitigation site are within the within the City’s wellhead protection regulated critical areas based on 5- or 10-year time of travel and therefore include Type 1 aquifer recharge areas (reference the Critical Areas Report and Habitat Impact Assessment (Exhibit 7). 32. Per 16.10.020 aquifer recharge area “means areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water, including areas where an aquifer that is a source of drinking water is vulnerable to contamination that would affect the potability of the water, or is susceptible to reduced recharge.” 33. Per 16.10.080(F) aquifer recharge areas categorized as either Type I or Type II and are defined below: 1. Type I. a. Sole source aquifers and wellhead protection areas designated pursuant to the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act. b. Areas established for special protection pursuant to a groundwater management program as described by Chapters 90.44, 90.48 and 90.54 RCW and Chapters 173-100 and 173-200 WAC. c. Any other area meeting the definition of “areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water” as described in Chapter 365-190 WAC and the Auburn comprehensive plan, including groundwater protection areas Nos. 1 through 3 as designated in the “Water Resource Protection Report” prepared for the city by the Pacific Groundwater Group, December 2000. 2. Type II. a. Groundwater protection area No. 4 as designated in the “Water Resource Protection Report” prepared for the city by the Pacific Groundwater Group, December 2000. b. Any other area within the city that is not otherwise designated or that is added to the city via annexation shall be treated as a Type II aquifer recharge area.” 34. The City's GIS mapping system identifies that both sides of the river (within Game Farm Park and Game Farm Wilderness Park) are erosion-prone regulated critical areas. As provided in the Geotechnical Engineering Report, Wood, dated October 21, 2020 Exhibit 10) the U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resource conservation Service 18 of 1059 Staff Member: Alexandria D. Teague Date: February 2, 2023 Page 17 of 37 NRCS) mapping system, soils of the west river bank of the White River (within Game Farm Park) consist of “Urban Land”, are described as gravelly sandy loam to gravelly loam in texture (Ur), and are steeper than 15%. The riverbank erosion risk, however, has been mitigated by the diversion wall reconstruction, which included concrete armoring at depth, and armoring the slope surface with large riprap. Per NRCS mapping system, soils on the east side of the river (within Game Farm Wilderness Park) are mapped as Mixed Alluvial Land and are described as varying from sand and gravelly sand to silty clay loam in texture (Ma). The slopes are inclined steeper than 15 percent and vegetated with conifer trees. The City’s GIS mapping system, does not identify the Project Site to be within any landslide hazard areas. No buffer or setback from the steep slope areas will be observed. The bridge abutments will be located on the sloping east and west riverbank areas. The mitigation measures are proposed to eliminate or reduce the risk include: temporary erosion and sedimentation control, temporary sloping/shoring, and restoration of the site (revegetation of disturbed areas and restoration of riprap armoring of the riverbank). 35. Per the Critical Areas Report and Habitat Impact Assessment (Exhibit 7), King County iMap website maps the LWM mitigation site as located within an erosion hazard zone. No ground disturbing work will occur within this area. 36. Per ACC 16.10.020 erosion hazard areas “means ands or areas that, based on a combination of slope inclination and the characteristics of the underlying soils, are susceptible to varying degrees of risk of erosion. Erosion hazard areas are classified as low” (areas sloping less than 15 percent) or “high” (areas sloping 15 percent or more) on the following Soil Conservation Service (SCS), now known as the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), soil types: Alderwood-Kitsap (AkF), Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (AgD), Kitsap silt loam (KpD), Everett (EvD) and Indianola (InD). Additional soil groups may be identified through site-specific analysis.” 37. Per ACC 16.10.020 landslide hazard areas mean “areas that, due to a combination of slope inclination, relative soil permeability, and hydrologic conditions are susceptible to varying degrees of risk of landsliding. Landslide hazard areas are classified as Classes I through IV based on the degree of risk as follows: 1. Class I/Low Hazard. Areas with slopes of 15 percent or less. 2. Class II/Moderate Hazard. Areas with slopes of between 15 percent and 40 percent and that are underlain by soils that consist largely of sand, gravel or glacial till. 3. Class III/High Hazard. Areas with slopes between 15 percent and 40 percent that are underlain by soils consisting largely of silt and clay. 4. Class IV/Very High Hazard. Areas with slopes steeper than 15 percent with identifiable zones of emergent water (e.g., springs or groundwater seepage), areas of identifiable landslide deposits regardless of slope and all areas sloping more steeply than 40 percent. The slopes referenced above include only those where the surface drops 10 feet or more vertically within a horizontal distance of 25 feet.” 19 of 1059 Staff Member: Alexandria D. Teague Date: February 2, 2023 Page 18 of 37 38. As provided in the Critical Areas Report and Habitat Impact Assessment (Exhibit 7), disturbed riparian forest areas will be restored to conditions better than pre-construction through the removal of invasive plants and establishment of native vegetation. Approximately 16,586 square feet of riparian restoration is proposed. To accommodate the pedestrian trail and bridge, some riparian forest will be permanently impacted (loss). To compensate loss of the riparian forest, areas of existing degraded riparian forest that are outside of and adjacent to the construction limits will be enhanced (riparian enhancement). Approximately 5,000 square feet of riparian enhancement is proposed. This enhancement provides on-site and in-kind mitigation; the preferred mitigation under ACC 16.10.120 and Section 4.4.3 of the SMP. The Project will enhance the riparian forest area equivalent to the amount of area permanently impacted. Native trees removed by the Project will be replaced at a 4:1 ratio (per WDFW standards) on-site, as close to the river as appropriate site conditions and available spacing will allow. Mitigation for the riparian forest disturbance will fulfill the requirement of no net loss of the ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes performed by vegetation (per SMP policy 4.4.2 related to shoreline vegetation conservation). The riparian enhancement and restoration areas will be monitored biannually for five years to evaluate the mitigation project and to determine necessary corrective actions to ensure success. Maintenance of the enhancement/restoration site will be the responsibility of City of Auburn Public Work Department. Disturbed park landscapes will be restored to conditions similar to pre-construction with similar vegetation and will be conducted in coordination with of the City’s Parks Department. Shoreline Management Program 39. The City of Auburn currently uses its 2020 City of Auburn Shoreline Master Program SMP) to regulate development and management of the City’s shoreline. Because the proposal involves the construction of a pedestrian bridge and water main across the White River within the “Urban Conservancy” shoreline environment designation, a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit (SCUP) and Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SSDP) are required. Per SMP 4.5, Table 1 “Permitted Uses”, primary utilities such as transmission facilities, of which the water main is considered, are a conditional use within the “Urban Conservancy” shoreline environment designation. Per SMP 4.5, Table 1 “Permitted Uses” bridges and paved trails are permitted within the “Urban Conservancy” shoreline environment designation. A SSDP is required for the bridge because it is not exempt per WAC 173-27-040. 40. Since the Project Site is within 200 feet of the OHWM along the White River it is within the “Urban Conservancy” shoreline environment designation and thus, is within the jurisdiction of the Auburn Shoreline Master Program (SMP 4.2.A). As mentioned previously, the Project is not exempt and requires a SCUP and SSDP. The language of this Section provides: 4.2 Applicability. 1. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all shorelines, shorelands and associated wetland areas covered by the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 as follows: 20 of 1059 Staff Member: Alexandria D. Teague Date: February 2, 2023 Page 19 of 37 1. All rivers and streams and their associated wetlands downstream from a point where the mean annual flow is 20 cubic feet per second or greater. 2. All lakes and their associated wetlands which are 20 surface acres in size or larger. 3. Shorelands and associated uplands extending 200 feet in all directions as measured on a horizontal plane from the ordinary high water mark; floodways and contiguous floodplain areas landward two hundred feet from such floodways; and all wetlands and river deltas associated with their streams, lakes, and tidal waters subject to the provisions of Chapter 90.58 RCW.” 41. Per the SMP 4.5, Table 1 “Permitted Uses”, "shoreline habitat and natural systems enhancement projects" are permitted within the “Natural” shoreline environment designation. The placement of large woody material (LWM) at the LWM migration site is considered an “enhancement project” (for fish habitat) and therefore does not require an SSDP per WAC 173-27-040(o)(i)(C): A project primarily designed to improve fish and wildlife habitat, remove or reduce impediments to migration of fish, or enhance the fishery resource available for use by all of the citizens of the state, provided that any structure, other than a bridge or culvert or instream habitat enhancement structure associated with the project, is less than two hundred square feet in floor area and is located above the ordinary high water mark of the stream.” 42. The applicant provided a Written Statement and Legal Description complying with requirements (J) and (H) of the City’s SCUP Application – Submittal Checklist and the SSDP Application – Submittal Checklist. Note that both Submittal Checklists require the same materials. A copy of the Written Statement and Legal Description is provided as Exhibit 4. The applicant also provided a Policy Memo which explains how the project is consistent with the policies and provisions of the SMP. A copy of the Policy Memo is provided as Exhibit 5. 43. Under the State Shoreline Management Act (SMA), all development occurring within the shoreline jurisdiction area must be consistent with policies and regulations of the local SMP, as well as with the policies of the SMA. While some policies, goals, and development regulations may be referenced as findings within this staff report, additional policies, goals, and development regulations of the SMP not explicitly referenced may be found by review of the City’s 2020 SMP document. 44. Because the project requires a SCUP and SSDP the Project must be found consistent with the criteria established in RCW 90.58.020, "Legislative findings—State policy enunciated—Use preference", WAC 173-27-140 "Review criteria for all development", WAC 173-27-150 "Review criteria for substantial development permits", WAC 173-27- 160 "Review criteria for conditional use permits", SMP 6.1.7 "Application – Shoreline substantial development permit – Review criteria”, and SMP 6.1.8 “Application – Shoreline conditional use permit – Review criteria”. 21 of 1059 Staff Member: Alexandria D. Teague Date: February 2, 2023 Page 20 of 37 45. The City’s rules and procedures for shoreline permits are contained in the SMP, specifically Section 6.0. The section provides the following general purpose and intent: 6.1.1 Chapter purpose and intent. It is the intention of the city council that the provisions of this chapter will promulgate and adopt a program for the administration and enforcement of a permit system that shall implement by reference the State Shoreline Management Act of 1971, Chapter 90.58 RCW; the State Department of Ecology regulations and guidelines adopted as Chapters 173-26 and 173-27 WAC; the Auburn shoreline master program attached to the ordinance codified in this chapter, together with amendments and/or additions thereto, and to provide for the implementation of the policy and standards as set forth in the aforesaid laws and regulations which are by reference made a part of this chapter with the force and effect as though set out in full in this chapter.” 46. Pursuant ACC 6.1.12, the Hearing Examiner shall hold at least one public hearing on the SCUP and SSDP in accordance with the following: 6.1.12 Application – Hearing – Required. A. The hearing examiner shall hold at least one public hearing on each application for a shoreline substantial development permit, shoreline conditional use permit, or shoreline variance on shorelines within the city. The public hearing shall be held not less than 30 days following the final publication of the notice required by ACC 16.08.050. B. The notice and conduct of the public hearing shall be in accordance with Chapter 2.46 ACC.” 47. The City’s rules provide the following requirements for public notice: 6.1.6 Application – Notices. The director shall give notice of the application in accordance with the applicable provisions of ACC 14.07.040, no less than 30 days prior to permit issuance. The notices shall include a statement that any person desiring to present his view to the director with regard to the application may do so in writing to the director, and any person interested in the hearing examiner's action on an application for a permit may submit his views or notify the director of his interest within 30 days of the last date of publication of the notice. Such notification or submission of views to the director shall entitle said persons to a copy of the action taken on the application.” 48. The City’s SMP contains the following information regarding the “Urban Conservancy” shoreline environment designation: 3.3 Urban Conservancy 3.3.1 Purpose: The purpose of the “Urban Conservancy” environment is to protect and restore ecological functions of open space, floodplain and other sensitive lands where they exist in urban and developed settings, while allowing a variety of compatible uses consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 22 of 1059 Staff Member: Alexandria D. Teague Date: February 2, 2023 Page 21 of 37 3.3.2 Designation Criteria: The Urban Conservancy environment designation is appropriate for those areas planned for development that is compatible with maintaining or restoring of the ecological functions of the area, and that are not generally suitable for intensive water-dependent uses. 3.3.3 Management Policies: The following management policies should apply to all shorelines in the Urban Conservancy Environment: 1. Primary allowed uses and their associated development standards should preserve the natural character of the area or promote preservation of open space, floodplain or sensitive lands where they exist in urban and developed settings, either directly or over the long term. Uses that result in restoration of ecological functions should be allowed if the use is otherwise compatible with the purpose of the environment and the setting. 2. Standards should be established for shoreline stabilization measures, vegetation conservation, water quality, and shoreline modifications within the "urban conservancy" designation. These standards should ensure that new development does not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions or further degrade other shoreline values. 3. Public access and public recreation objectives should be implemented whenever feasible and significant ecological impacts can be mitigated. 4. Water-oriented uses should be given priority over nonwater-oriented uses. For shoreline areas with commercial development or adjacent to commercially navigable waters, water-dependent uses should be given highest priority. 5. Existing mining and related activities may be an appropriate use within the urban conservancy environment when conducted in a manner consistent with the environment policies and the provisions of WAC 173-26-241(3)(h) and when located consistent with mineral resource lands designation criteria pursuant to RCW 36.70A.170 and WAC 365-190-070. No new mining uses or expansion of existing mines should be permitted within the shoreline jurisdiction.” 49. The City’s SMP contains the following information regarding the “Natural” shoreline environment designation: 3.4 Natural. 3.4.1 Purpose: The purpose of the "Natural" environment is to protect those shoreline areas that are relatively free of human influence or that include intact or minimally degraded shoreline functions that would become irreversibly impaired as a result of human development and activity. These systems require that only very low intensity uses be allowed in order to maintain ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes. Consistent with the policies of the designation, the City of Auburn should include planning for restoration of degraded shorelines within this environment. 3.4.2 Designation Criteria: The “Natural” environment designation should be assigned to shoreline areas if any of the following characteristics apply: (A) The shoreline is ecologically intact (as described 23 of 1059 Staff Member: Alexandria D. Teague Date: February 2, 2023 Page 22 of 37 in WAC 173-26-211(5)(a)(iii)) and therefore currently performing an important, irreplaceable function or ecosystem-wide process that would be damaged by human activity; (B) The shoreline is considered to represent ecosystems and geologic types that are of particular scientific and educational interest; or (C) The shoreline is unable to support new development or uses without significant adverse impacts to ecological functions or risk to human safety. 3.4.3 Management Policies: The following management policies should apply to all shoreline areas classified as Natural Environments: 1. Any use that would substantially degrade the ecological functions or natural character of the shoreline area should not be allowed. 2. The following new uses should not be allowed in the "Natural" environment: a. Commercial uses. b. Industrial uses. c. Non-water-oriented recreation. d. Roads, utility corridors, and parking areas that can be reasonably located outside of "Natural" designated shorelines. 3. Single-family residential use may be allowed on properties designated as Natural" if the density and lot configuration can accommodate such use by maintaining portions of the property in shoreline jurisdiction in a natural condition, consistent with the purpose of the environment.” 50. The City’s SMP contains the following goals related to Pedestrian Access: 2.2.1 Goals 1. Provide new and enhance existing public access to the shoreline environment. 2. Create public access to the rivers through the park and trail system that will not endanger life or property, nor impair the rights of private property owners on the shorelines. 3. Create public access to the rivers in a manner that will not impair the natural and ecological systems of the shorelines.” 51. The City’s SMP contains the following goals related to Shoreline Use: 2.5.1 Goals 1. Promote the best possible pattern of land and water uses that will be most beneficial to the natural and human environments. 2. Designated Shorelines of Statewide Significance are of value to the entire State and shall be managed consistent with this recognition. In order of preference the priorities are to: a. Recognize and protect the Statewide interest over local interest; b. Preserve the natural character of the shoreline; c. Result in long term over short term benefit; d. Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline; and, e. Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shorelines.” 52. The City’s SMP contains the following goals related to Flood Prevention/Critical Areas: 24 of 1059 Staff Member: Alexandria D. Teague Date: February 2, 2023 Page 23 of 37 2.8.1 Goals 1. Continue to participate in a regional approach to flood protection issues, coordinating with the State of Washington, King County, Pierce County and other entities interested in reducing flood hazards on both the White and Green Rivers. 2. Continue to protect wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat, and groundwater and minimize geologic hazards in the shoreline environment in accordance with the Critical Areas Ordinance.” 53. The City’s SMP contains the following policies related to Shoreline Vegetation Conservation: 4.4.2 Shoreline Vegetation Conservation 1. Developments and activities in the City’s shoreline should be planned and designed to retain native vegetation or replace shoreline vegetation with native species to achieve no net loss of the ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes performed by vegetation. 2. Woody debris should be left in the river corridors to enhance wildlife habitat and shoreline ecological functions, except where it threatens personal safety or critical infrastructure, such as bridge pilings. In such cases where debris poses a threat, it should be dislodged, but should not be removed from the river.” 54. The City’s SMP contains the following policies related to Critical Areas: 4.4.4 Critical Areas 1. Provide a level of protection to critical areas within the shoreline that is at least equal to that which is provided by the City’s critical areas regulations adopted pursuant to the Growth Management Act and the City’s Comprehensive Plan. If conflicts between the SMP and the critical area regulations arise, the regulations that are most consistent with the SMA or its WAC provisions will govern. 2. Allow activities in critical areas that protect and, where possible, restore the ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes of the City’s shorelines. 3. Preserve, protect, restore and/or mitigate critical areas within and associated with the City’s shorelines to achieve no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. 4. Developments in shoreline areas that are identified as geologically hazardous areas, or pose a foreseeable risk to people and improvements during the life of the development, should not be allowed. 55. The City’s SMP contains the following policies related to Public Access: 4.4.5 Public Access (including views) 1. Public access improvements should not result in adverse impacts to the natural character and quality of the shoreline and associated wetlands or result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions. Developments and 25 of 1059 Staff Member: Alexandria D. Teague Date: February 2, 2023 Page 24 of 37 activities within the shoreline should not impair or detract from the public’s visual or physical access to the water. 2. Protection and enhancement of the public’s physical and visual access to shorelines should be encouraged. 3. The amount and diversity of public access to shorelines should be increased consistent with the natural shoreline character, property rights, and public safety. 4. Publicly owned shorelines should be limited to water-dependent or public recreation uses, otherwise such shorelines should remain protected, undeveloped open space. 5. Public access should be designed to provide for public safety. Public access facilities should provide auxiliary facilities, such as parking and sanitation facilities, when appropriate, and should be designed to be ADA accessible.” 56. The City’s SMP contains the following policies related to Transportation: 4.7.10 Transportation 1. Plan, locate, design and where appropriate construct, proposed roads, non- motorized systems and parking facilities where routes will have the least possible adverse effect on unique or fragile shoreline features, will not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions or adversely impact existing or planned water-dependent uses. Where other options are available and feasible, new roads or road expansions should not be built within shoreline jurisdiction. 2. The number of river crossings should be minimized. 3. Parking facilities in shorelines are not a preferred use and shall be allowed only as necessary to support an authorized use and then as remote from the shoreline as possible. 4. Trail and bicycle systems should be encouraged along the White and Green Rivers wherever possible. 5. Joint use of transportation corridors within the shoreline jurisdiction for roads, utilities, and non-motorized transportation should be encouraged. 6. New railroad corridors should be prohibited.” 57. The City’s SMP contains the following policies related to Utilities: 4.7.11 Utilities 1. Utility facilities should be designed and located to assure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions, preserve the natural landscape and vistas, preserve and protect fish and wildlife habitat, and minimize conflicts with present and planned land and shoreline uses. 2. Primary utility production and processing facilities, such as power plants, sewage treatment plants, water reclamation plants, or parts of those facilities that are nonwater-oriented should not be allowed in shoreline areas. 3. Utilities should utilize existing transportation and utilities sites, rights-of-way and corridors, whenever possible. Joint use of rights-of-way and corridors should be encouraged. 4. Transmission facilities for the conveyance of services, such as power lines, cables, and pipelines, shall be located outside of the shoreline area where 26 of 1059 Staff Member: Alexandria D. Teague Date: February 2, 2023 Page 25 of 37 feasible. Where no other option exists, utilities should be placed underground or alongside or under bridges. 5. New utilities facilities should be located so as not to require extensive shoreline protection structures. 6. Where storm water management, conveyance, and discharge facilities are permitted in the shoreline, they should be limited to the minimum size needed to accomplish their purpose and should be sited and designed in a manner that avoids, or mitigates adverse effects to the physical, hydrologic, or ecological functions. 7. Stormwater conveyance facilities should utilize existing transportation and utility sites, rights-ofway and corridors, whenever possible. Joint use of right- of-way and corridors should be encouraged.” Auburn Comprehensive Plan 58. The following City of Auburn Comprehensive Policies are relevant to the project: Volume 1, Land Use Element, Institutional Land Use Designation: Policy LU-92. Appropriate uses include low-intensity recreational uses, passive use open areas, protected environmental habitat, stormwater detention facilities, and similar low- intensity uses.” Volume 8, Utilities Element: Policy CF-10. Public facilities shall be provided in accord with the guidance of the Capital Facilities Plan or, as may be appropriate a system plan for each type of facility designed to serve at an adequate level of service the locations and intensities of uses specified in this Comprehensive Plan.” Policy CF-15 Protection of the City’s Coal Creek Springs and West Hill Springs watersheds, wells, and other water sources shall be a high priority in the designation of appropriate land uses in the vicinity of these areas and facilities.” Public Notice, Comments and Procedures 59. A combined Notice of Application (NOA) and Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) was issued under City File No. SEP20-0015 (Exhibit 14) on October 21, 2020 and observed at 15-day comment period. The notice was mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project site, published in the newspaper and posted on site. Four (4) public comments were received in response to the combined NOA and DNS and are summarized below. The entirety of the comments and responses are included as Exhibit 15. a. Mike Kenyon: expressed excitement that a new pedestrian bridge will connect Game Farm Park to Game Farm Wilderness Park. City Response: Staff provided details about the project and thanked him for his comment. 27 of 1059 Staff Member: Alexandria D. Teague Date: February 2, 2023 Page 26 of 37 b. Mike Pruett and Mark Segale: expressed concern (but not necessarily opposition) that the pedestrian bridge will lead to an expansion of homeless encampments on nearby southside property owned by Segale. Staff Response: Staff noted that Community Development is working with our Parks Department to see which, if any, possible solutions could address his concerns. Staff also noted that while state regulations allow for utility crossings over the river, a pedestrian component must be incorporated. c. Krista Butler: expressed concerned about the safety issues that could be generated by pedestrians accessing the bridge and would allow passage between Game Farm Park and Game Farm Wilderness Park. She suggested funds be allocated to assist the local homeless population. d. Debbie Caldwell: expressed opposition to the bridge as it would allow for homeless populations to cross the White River between Game Farm Park and Game Farm Wilderness Park. 60. An SEPA Addendum to the previously issued DNS was issued on to incorporate the LWM mitigation site. The Addendum was issued on July 13, 2022. 61. The Notice of Public Hearing (Exhibit 16) was issued on January 10, 2023. As of the date of writing this staff report, two (2) public comments have been received, and are summarized below. The entirety of the comments and responses are included as Exhibit 17. a. Diane Taylor: stated that about four years ago homeless population accessed the banks of the White River and started a fire. She questioned why the bridge was not for the pipeline connection only. Staff Response: Staff stated we are aware of the concerns of the issue of homeless population possibly accessing the bridge. The pedestrian connection that the bridge will provide should provide more eyes in the area. b. Nancy Tibeau: wanted more information about the project, including the proposed cost, purpose of the project, and estimated start and completion dates. Staff Response: Staff provided the online posting in which more information could be obtained, the proposed cost, and the estimated start and completion dates. 62. The contents of the case file for this project (SHL20-0008) are hereby incorporated by reference and made part of the record of this hearing. 63. The decision on SCUP and SSDP shall be final with the Hearing Examiner and subject to the Washington State Dept. of Ecology review period as required by the following code section: SMP 6.1.18 Grant or denial decision – Notifications. The director shall notify the following persons in writing of the hearing examiner’s final approval, disapproval or conditional approval of a substantial development permit, shoreline conditional use permit, or shoreline variance application within eight days of its final decision: A. The applicant; B. The State Department of Ecology; C. The State Attorney General; D. Any person who has submitted to the director written comments on the application; 28 of 1059 Staff Member: Alexandria D. Teague Date: February 2, 2023 Page 27 of 37 E. Any person who has written the director requesting notification.” 64. The Project has been or will be coordinated with the following agencies to ensure the project is consistent with their plans, programs, and/or regulations: Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife granted the Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA). King County River and Floodplain Management Section reviewed plans to ensure project will not adversely affect their levees and revetments. Washington State Department of Health is administering the Federal Funds and therefore ensuring the project meets Federal Requirements including the State Environmental Review Process (SERP) and National Historic Preservation Act Section 106). Washington State Department of Ecology has issued a Construction Stormwater General Permit. Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office has reviewed Project scope to ensure it was an allowed use of park land. Washington State Department of Natural Resources and United State Army Corp of Engineers confirmed that they do not have jurisdiction in the Project. 65. City of Auburn Community Development Department, Public Works Department and Parks, Arts, & Recreation Department have reviewed of the Project plans. The following City permits/approvals have been or will be secured: Shoreline Conditional Use Permit/Substantial Development Permit (City File No. SHL20-0008), Floodplain Development Permit (City File No. FDP20-0004), Storm Drainage Permit (City File No. STM20-000, Grading Permit (City File No. GRA22-0034), and Building Permit (City File No. BLD22-0087). CONCLUSIONS: What follows is the criteria for decision-making provided in bold and italics, followed by an analysis by staff of the project’s consistency with the criteria. Shoreline Conditional Use Permit 1. The Shoreline Master Program (SMP) provides the following review criteria for Shoreline Conditional Use Permits: 6.1.8 Application – Shoreline conditional use permit – Review criteria. A. Pursuant to WAC 173-27-210, the criteria below shall constitute the minimum criteria for review and approval of a shoreline conditional use permit. Uses classified as conditional uses, and not uses prohibited by the regulations of this SMP, may be authorized; provided, that the applicant can demonstrate all of the following: 1. That the proposed use will be consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020, the policies of this SMP, the City of Auburn comprehensive plan and other applicable plans, programs and/or regulations. 29 of 1059 Staff Member: Alexandria D. Teague Date: February 2, 2023 Page 28 of 37 The proposed use is consistent with RCW 90.58.020. The RCW states “Alterations of the natural condition of the shorelines of the state, in those limited instances when authorized, shall be given priority for…shoreline recreational uses including but not limited to parks, marinas, piers, and other improvements facilitating public access to shorelines of the state...”. The new pedestrian bridge and water main will not impede with use of the parks. The Project has demonstrated compliance with the applicable requirements of the City’s SMP. While the new water main is a conditional use within the “Urban Conservancy” shoreline environment designation, per SMP 4.7.11(4), utility transmission lines are permitted where no other options exist. No other options exist as it is not feasible to build the water main outside of the shoreline area. The existing City connection to the water source is located south of Game Farm Wilderness Park (the south side of the river) and the connection to the existing storage, treatment, distribution facilities, and customers are located north of Game Farm Park (the north side of the river). Therefore the new water main must cross the river. The water main (and new pedestrian bridge) will be located in an existing water easement. The pedestrian bridge and paved trails are permitted uses within the “Urban Conservancy” shoreline environment designation. As provided in Finding of Fact Nos. 64 and 65, the Project has been or will be coordinated with all applicable agencies, programs, and regulations. 2. That the proposed use will not interfere with the normal public use or access to public shorelines. Once construction is complete, the Project will not interfere with the normal public use or public access. The bridge crossing will provide the added benefit of improved recreation access between Game Farm Park and the Game Farm Wilderness Park. Also, as provided in Finding of Fact No. 7, new trails will be installed on either side of the new bridge to provide pedestrian access to and from existing park. Approx. 340 linear feet of new 10-foot-wide, ADA-compliant paved trails would be constructed and is shown on the Civil Plans (Exhibit 6). Park closures and construction work will be coordinated with the City’s Parks Department to minimize impacts to park operations, events, and programs. 3. That the proposed use of the site and design of the project will be compatible with other permitted uses within the area and with uses planned for the area under the comprehensive plan and shoreline master program. The Project is compatible with other permitted uses in the area and uses planned for the area under the Comprehensive Plan and SMP. Other permitted uses for the area include public parks and levees and revetments along the river. The City Parks Department has reviewed the project design to ensure they are compatible with any future plans for the parks. King County River and Floodplain Management Section has also reviewed the project design to ensure their levees and revetments will not be adversely impacted by the project now or in the future. 4. That the proposed use will cause no unreasonably adverse effects to the shoreline, will not result in a net loss of ecological functions, and will not be 30 of 1059 Staff Member: Alexandria D. Teague Date: February 2, 2023 Page 29 of 37 incompatible with the environment designation or zoning classification in which it is to be located. The Project will not cause unreasonably adverse effects or result in the net loss of ecological functions. All disturbed riparian forest areas (with the exception of the areas needed to accommodate the pedestrian bridge and trails) will be restored to conditions better than pre-construction through the removal of invasive plants and establishment of native vegetation. Approximately 16,586 square feet of riparian restoration is proposed and approximately 5,000 square feet of riparian enhancement is proposed. Mitigation for the riparian forest disturbance will fulfill the requirement of no net loss of the ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes performed by vegetation (per SMP policy 4.4.2 related to shoreline vegetation conservation). The Project is also compatible with the zoning classification of the area since an existing waterline is being replaced. The I, Institutional zoning district is intended for areas in which governmental and recreational uses that are significant in scope to be placed. The new pedestrian bridge and water main can be considered governmental and recreational uses that are significant in scope. Also, the new water main and pedestrian bridge will be located within an existing water easement. 5. That the public interest suffers no substantial detrimental effect. Public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effects from the Project. As described below, the public will actually benefit from the Project. 6. That the proposed use is in the best interest of the public health, safety, morals or welfare. The Project is in the best interest of the public health, safety, morals and welfare. The existing water main under the White River is almost 100-years old and connects the largest water source in the City of Auburn, Coal Creek Springs, to water storage, treatment, distribution facilities, and customers. Functionally replacing the water main is consistent with Auburn's Comprehensive Plan Policy CF-15, as it provides protection of the City’s Coal Creek Springs water source. The new water main ensures the public will continue to have a reliable source of water in the future. 7. That consideration of cumulative impacts resultant from the proposed use has occurred and has demonstrated that no substantial cumulative impacts are anticipated, consistent with WAC 173-27-160(2). No substantial cumulative impacts should occur. No other existing utility crossings or utility easements that cross the White River exist in the vicinity. The closest existing utility crossing is over a half-mile away and located on an existing street bridge. It is likely that future replacement of the water main on this bridge will be by reinstallation on the pedestrian bridge. Further, this Project should also minimize that need for new utility crossings in the future. Additional dry utility conduits and a 12-inch-diameter pipe will be installed on the pedestrian bridge for potential future utility expansion to minimize future impacts to the White River. 31 of 1059 Staff Member: Alexandria D. Teague Date: February 2, 2023 Page 30 of 37 B. The director may attach conditions to the approval of permits as necessary to assure consistency of the proposal with the above criteria. Conditions are provided under "Recommended Conditions of Approval" below. C. The decision of the hearing examiner shall be the final decision of the city. The Department of Ecology shall be the final authority authorizing a shoreline conditional use permit consistent with WAC 173-27-200. Staff finds that the proposal is consistent with the above criteria for a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit and the criteria outlined in WAC 173-27-160. Shoreline Substantial Development Permit 2. The Shoreline Master Program (SMP) provides the following review criteria for Shoreline Substantial Development Permits: 6.1.7 Application – Shoreline substantial development permit – Review criteria. A. A substantial development permit shall be granted by the director only when the development proposed is consistent with the following: 1. Goals, objectives, policies and use regulations of the Auburn SMP. The Project has been reviewed for consistency with the goals, objectives, policies, and use regulations of the Auburn SMP and is consistent with the following policies and regulations: Policy SMP 2.2.1(1) Provide new and enhance existing public access to the shoreline environment. The Project will enhance existing public use and access by providing a pedestrian bridge between Game Farm Park and Game Farm Wilderness Park. Policy SMP 2.5.1(1) Promote the best possible pattern of land and water uses that will be most beneficial to the natural and human environments. The Project will allow for the functional replacement of an existing water main that currently crossed under the White River. The existing water main will function as backup to the new water main. The existing water main is located in a water easement. The new pedestrian bridge and water main will be located within this existing water easement. Policy SMP 2.8.1(2) Continue to protect wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat, and groundwater and minimize geologic hazards in the shoreline environment in accordance with the Critical Areas Ordinance. The Project Site overlaps with the following regulated critical area per Chapter 16.10 ACC: critical and tertiary wildlife habitat areas, aquifer recharge areas, geologically hazardous areas, and the special flood hazard area (100-year floodplain) and associated 32 of 1059 Staff Member: Alexandria D. Teague Date: February 2, 2023 Page 31 of 37 protected areas (floodway, RBZ, and CMZ). No wetlands or associated buffers on the Project Site or the LWM mitigation site. The Project is not likely to adversely affect the ESA-listed salmonids and will have no effect on their critical habitat. The Project will have no adverse effect on the Pacific Salmon EFH for the reasons provided for the ESA-listed salmonids. All proposed bridge features will be located outside of the OHWM and 100-year base flood elevation on both sides of the White River and therefore will also be located outside of the coincident CMZ. At least four feet of freeboard between the bottom of the bridge and the 100-year base flood elevation will be provided. The bottom of the water main will be at least four feet above the 100-year base flood elevation. Placement of the LWM at the mitigation site is not expected to raise the elevation of the 100-year base flood elevation. The City’s GIS inventory map system, did not identify the Project Site to be within any landslide hazard areas. No buffer or setback from the slopes inclined steeper than 15%. However, the following mitigation measures are proposed to eliminate or reduce the risk: temporary erosion and sedimentation control, temporary sloping/shoring, and restoration of the site (revegetation of disturbed areas and restoration of riprap armoring of the riverbank). No ground disturbing work will occur within the erosion hazard zone of the LWM mitigation site. Mitigation for the riparian forest disturbance will fulfill the requirement of no net loss of the ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes performed by vegetation. Policy SMP 4.4.2(1) Developments and activities in the City’s shoreline should be planned and designed to retain native vegetation or replace shoreline vegetation with native species to achieve no net loss of the ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes performed by vegetation. All disturbed riparian forest areas (with the exception of the areas needed to accommodate the pedestrian bridge and trails) will be restored to conditions better than pre-construction through the removal of invasive plants and establishment of native vegetation. Approximately 16,586 square feet of riparian restoration is proposed and approximately 5,000 square feet of riparian enhancement is proposed. Mitigation for the riparian forest disturbance will fulfill the requirement of no net loss of the ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes performed by vegetation. Policy SMP 4.4.2(2) Woody debris should be left in the river corridors to enhance wildlife habitat and shoreline ecological functions, except where it threatens personal safety or critical infrastructure, such as bridge pilings. In such cases where debris poses a threat, it should be dislodged, but should not be removed from the river. Thirty-three trees (with a diameter at breast height (DBH) of six inches and over) will be removed to create construction access. The removed trees will be placed at the LWM mitigation site and will serve as future wood recruitment for fish habitat. The LWM will occupy approx. 100 square feet (5 cubic yards) below the OHWM. Above the OHWM 33 of 1059 Staff Member: Alexandria D. Teague Date: February 2, 2023 Page 32 of 37 and below the 100-year base flood elevation, the LWM will occupy 540 square feet (35 cubic yards). Policy SMP 4.4.4(3) Preserve, protect, restore and/or mitigate critical areas within and associated with the City’s shorelines to achieve no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. The Project will include restoration and maintenance of the native vegetation as described above. Policy SMP 4.4.5(1) Public access improvements should not result in adverse impacts to the natural character and quality of the shoreline and associated wetlands or result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions. Developments and activities within the shoreline should not impair or detract from the public’s visual or physical access to the water. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 12, to accommodate construction, partial temporary park closures of Game Farm Park and Game Farm Wilderness Park will occur after May 31. All park areas will be reopened in the fall (dependent on no construction schedule change), following completion of the project. Construction work will be coordinated with the City’s Parks Department to minimize impacts to park operations, events, and programs. Policy SMP 4.7.10(4) Trail and bicycle systems should be encouraged along the White and Green Rivers wherever possible. The Project will enhance public use and access by providing a pedestrian bridge between Game Farm Park and Game Farm Wilderness Park. New trails will be installed on either side of the new pedestrian bridge to provide access to existing park trails. About 340 linear feet of new 10-foot-wide, ADA-compliant paved trails will be constructed. Connection will facilitate new pedestrian circulation loops and patterns. Policy SMP 4.7.11(4) Transmission facilities for the conveyance of services, such as power lines, cables, and pipelines, shall be located outside of the shoreline area where feasible. Where no other option exists, utilities should be placed underground or alongside or under bridges. Utility transmission lines are permitted where no other options exist. No other options to install the new water main exist as it is not feasible to build it outside of the shoreline area. Regulation SMP 4.4.2(5) A critical areas study shall be submitted for review for all proposed development activity within the shoreline jurisdiction. The purpose of the report is to determine the extent, characteristics and functions of critical areas located on or potentially affected by proposed activities on site. See ACC 16.10.070 “Critical Area Review Process and Application Requirements” for required report contents. A critical areas report and habitat impact assessment has been prepared for this Project by biologists which analyzes the on-site critical areas, assesses habitat impact, and 34 of 1059 Staff Member: Alexandria D. Teague Date: February 2, 2023 Page 33 of 37 proposed mitigation plan in compliance with the City’s Shoreline Master Program, Critical Areas code, and Floodplain Development Management code (Chapters 16.08, 16.10, and 15.68 of the Auburn City Code respectively). Regulation SMP 4.4.3(1) To the extent Washington's State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 (SEPA), Chapter 43.21C RCW, is applicable, the analysis of environmental impacts from proposed shoreline uses or developments shall be conducted consistent with the rules implementing SEPA (Chapter 16.06 ACC and WAC 197-11). A combined Notice of Application (NOA) and Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) was issued under City File No. SEP20-0015 on October 21, 2020. An SEPA Addendum to the previously issued DNS was issued on to incorporate the LWM mitigation site. The Addendum was issued on July 13, 2022. SEPA’s elements of the environment were considered in reaching the threshold determination. Regulation SMP 4.4.3(6) When compensatory measures are appropriate pursuant to the priority of mitigation sequencing above, preferential consideration shall be given to measures that replace the impacted functions directly and in the immediate vicinity of the impact. However, alternative compensatory mitigation within the watershed that addresses limiting factors or identified critical needs for shoreline resource conservation based on watershed or comprehensive resource management plans applicable to the area of impact may be authorized. Authorization of compensatory mitigation measures may require appropriate safeguards, terms or conditions as necessary to ensure no net loss of ecological functions. ACC 16.10.110, “Mitigation Standards, Criteria And Plan Requirements,” establishes regulations on location and timing of mitigation. On-site and in-kind mitigation are preferred. As provided in Finding of Fact No. 38, mitigation measures will take place directly and in the immediate vicinity of the impacted area with the exception of the Large Woody Material placement. Mitigation will be monitored for five years per the Critical Areas Report and Habitat Impact Assessment (Exhibit 7). Regulation 4.4.5(8) Shoreline development by any public entities, including the City of Auburn, port districts, state agencies, and public utility districts, shall include public access measures as part of each development project, unless such access is shown to be incompatible due to reasons of safety, security, impact to the shoreline environment or other provisions listed in WAC 173-26-221(4)(d). The Project includes public access measures, including a new bridge between Game Farm Park and Game Farm Wilderness Park. New trails will be installed on either side of the new pedestrian bridge to provide access to existing park trails. Regulation SMP 4.4.6(5) Permanent structures placed within the 100-year floodplain shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 15.68 ACC, “Flood Hazard Areas”. All proposed bridge features will be located outside of the OHWM and 100-year base flood elevation on both sides of the White River. At least four feet of freeboard between the bottom of the bridge and the 100-year base flood elevation will be provided. The 35 of 1059 Staff Member: Alexandria D. Teague Date: February 2, 2023 Page 34 of 37 bottom of the water main will be at least four feet above the 100-year base flood elevation as well. At the LWM mitigation site, the woody material will occupy approx. 100 square feet (5 cubic yards) below the OHWM. Above the OHWM and below the 100- year base flood elevation, the LWM will occupy approx. 540 square feet (35 cubic yards). However, LWM placement will not raise the elevation of the 100-year base flood elevation. 2. Auburn Comprehensive Plan and Municipal Code. The Project has been reviewed for consistency with Auburn Comprehensive Plan and Auburn Municipal Code. The Project is consistent with Auburn's Comprehensive Plan Policy CF-15, as it provides protection of the City’s Coal Creek Springs water source (reference Finding of Fact No. 58). The new watermain ensures the public will continue to have a reliable source of water in the future. The Project is also compatible with the zoning classification. The I, Institutional zone is intended for areas in which governmental and recreational uses that are significant in scope to be placed. The new pedestrian bridge and water main can be considered governmental and recreational uses that are significant in scope. Also the new water main and pedestrian bridge will also be located within an existing water easement. 3. The policies, guidelines, and regulations of the SMA (Chapter 90.58 RCW; Chapters 173-26 and 173-27 WAC). By meeting the criteria established within the City of Auburn’s SMP, which was most recently approved by the Washington State Department of Ecology on May 7, 2020, the project will be consistent with the state SMA. B. The director may attach conditions to the approval of permits as necessary to assure consistency of the proposal with the above criteria. Conditions are provided under "Recommended Conditions of Approval" below. Staff finds that the proposal is consistent with the above criteria for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and the criteria outlined in WAC 173-27-150. Consistency with SMA & Local SMP 3. The Shoreline Management rules (WAC 173-27-140) set forth the following two criteria provided for all developments within the shoreline jurisdiction. A) No authorization to undertake use or development on shorelines of the state shall be granted by the local government unless upon review the use or development is determined to be consistent with the policy and provisions of the Shoreline Management Act and the master program.” B) No permit shall be issued for any new or expanded building or structure of more than thirty-five feet above average grade level on shorelines of the state that will 36 of 1059 Staff Member: Alexandria D. Teague Date: February 2, 2023 Page 35 of 37 obstruct the view of a substantial number of residences on areas adjoining such shorelines except where a master program does not prohibit the same and then only when overriding considerations of the public interest will be served.” As provided in Conclusions 1 and 2, the Project meets the criteria established within the City of Auburn’s SMP, which was most recently approved by the Washington State Department of Ecology on May 7, 2020, the project will be consistent with the state SMA. The Project will not obstruct the view of area residences. The main purpose of the Project is to functionally replace an existing water main that currently exists under the White River. The existing water main under the White River is almost 100-years old and connects largest water source in the City of Auburn, Coal Creek Springs, to water storage, treatment, distribution facilities, and customers. The new pedestrian bridge and water main will be located within an existing water easement. Staff believes that the project is consistent with the criteria established in WAC 173-27-140. 4. The Shoreline Management rules in WAC 173-27-160 set forth the following criteria that must be met for approval of a Shoreline conditional use permit. The project must be consistent with: The purpose of a conditional use permit is to provide a system within the master program which allows flexibility in the application of use regulations in a manner consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020. In authorizing a conditional use, special conditions may be attached to the permit by local government or the department to prevent undesirable effects of the proposed use and/or to assure consistency of the project with the act and the local master program. 1) Uses which are classified or set forth in the applicable master program as conditional uses may be authorized provided that the applicant demonstrates all of the following: a) That the proposed use is consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and the master program; b) That the proposed use will not interfere with the normal public use of public shorelines; c) That the proposed use of the site and design of the project is compatible with other authorized uses within the area and with uses planned for the area under the comprehensive plan and shoreline master program; d) That the proposed use will cause no significant adverse effects to the shoreline environment in which it is to be located; and e) That the public interest suffers no substantial detrimental effect. 2) In the granting of all conditional use permits, consideration shall be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. For example, if conditional use permits were granted for other developments in the area where similar circumstances exist, the total of the conditional uses shall also remain consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and shall not produce substantial adverse effects to the shoreline environment. 3) Other uses which are not classified or set forth in the applicable master program may be authorized as conditional uses provided the applicant can demonstrate 37 of 1059 Staff Member: Alexandria D. Teague Date: February 2, 2023 Page 36 of 37 consistency with the requirements of this section and the requirements for conditional uses contained in the master program. 4) Uses which are specifically prohibited by the master program may not be authorized pursuant to either subsection (1) or (2) of this section. As noted previously within the above analysis outlined within Conclusion 1, City of Auburn staff believe that the project is consistent with the criteria established in WAC 173-27-160. 5. The Shoreline Management rules in WAC 173-27-150 set forth the following criteria that must be met for approval of a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. The Project must be consistent with: 1) A substantial development permit shall be granted only when the development proposed is consistent with: a) The policies and procedures of the act; b) The provisions of this regulation; and c) The applicable master program adopted or approved for the area. Provided, that where no master program has been approved for an area, the development shall be reviewed for consistency with the provisions of chapter 173-26 WAC, and to the extent feasible, any draft or approved master program which can be reasonably ascertained as representing the policy of the local government. 2) Local government may attach conditions to the approval of permits as necessary to assure consistency of the project with the act and the local master program. As noted previously within the above analysis outlined within Conclusion 2, City of Auburn staff believe the project is consistent with the criteria established in WAC 173-27-150. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on the information contained in this Staff Report, the attached exhibits, Staff recommends that the Hearing Examiner APPROVE the Shoreline Conditional Use Permit and Shoreline Substantial Development Permit subject to the five (5) conditions provided below. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The future development of the site associated with the subject Shoreline Conditional Use Permit and Shoreline Substantial Development Permit shall be completed within two years from the effective date of the decision from the Department of Ecology, as specified in WAC 173-27-090. 2. The applicant shall secure all required agency approvals and permits provided in Finding of Fact No. 64 and 65. 3. The Project shall be developed substantially consistent with the Civil Plans, City of Auburn, revision dated January 23, 2023 (Exhibit 6). 4. Project mitigation shall be substantially consistent with the Mitigation Plan provided in the Critical Area Report and Habitat Impact Assessment, Jacobs, revision dated May 26, 2022 (Exhibit 7) and the Civil Plans (Exhibit 6) for the project. 38 of 1059 Staff Member: Alexandria D. Teague Date: February 2, 2023 Page 37 of 37 5. Maintenance of the mitigation sites during the initial 5-year monitoring period will be the responsibility of the City of Auburn Public Works Department and observe standards of the city’s critical area regulations, Chapter 16.10 ACC. Staff reserves the right to supplement the record of the case to respond to matters and information raised subsequent to the writing of this report. EXHIBIT LIST: Exhibit 1 Staff Report Exhibit 2 Completed City of Auburn Land Use Application Forms, City of Auburn Exhibit 3 Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) form, City of Auburn Exhibit 4 Written Statement and Legal Description, City of Auburn Exhibit 5 SMP Policy Memo, City of Auburn, revision dated December 27, 2022 Exhibit 6 Civil Plans, City of Auburn, revision dated January 23, 2023 Exhibit 7 Critical Area Report and Habitat Impact Assessment, Jacobs, revision dated May 26, 2022 Exhibit 8 Cultural Resources Report, Jacobs, dated April 2022 Exhibit 9 Alternative Summary Report, Jacobs, dated June 11, 2021 Exhibit 10 Geotechnical Engineering Report, prepared by Wood, dated October 21, 2020 Exhibit 11 Stormwater Site Plan Report, Jacobs, revision dated October 2022 Exhibit 12 LWM Mitigation Hydraulic Analysis, Jacobs, dated June 17, 2022 Exhibit 13 SEPA Environmental Checklist, City of Auburn, revision dated June 2022 Exhibit 14 Notice of Application (NOA), Determination of Non-Significance (DNS), and Addendum Exhibit 15 NOA and SEPA DNS Public Comments and Staff Response Exhibit 16 Notice of Public Hearing (NOH) Exhibit 17 NOH Comments Received and Staff Response 39 of 1059 A U B U R N V A L U E S S E R V I C E E N V I R O N M E N T E C O N O M Y C H A R A C T E R S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y W E L L N E S S C E L E B R A T I O N PLANNING SERVICES SHL20 -0008 COAL CREEK SPRINGS TRANSMISSION MAIN REPLACEMENT PROJECT ALEXANDRIA D. TEAGUE , AICP PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 15, 2023, 5:30 PM Department of Community Development Planning ⚫Building ⚫Development Engineering ⚫Permit Center Community Services ●Code Enforcement ●Economic Development Applicant: Seth Wickstrom, PE, Applicant, City of Auburn Public Works Department Proposal: I nstall an approx. 210 -foot -long and 12 ft. wide pedestrian bridge and 24 -inch-diameter water transmission main across the White River Purpose: F unctionally replace an existing water main that currently exists under the White River Project Site Location: riverbanks of Game Farm Park (3030 R St. SE) and the Game Farm Wilderness Park, River Mile 8.5 Project Site Property Owner: City of Auburn Parks, Arts, Parks and Recreation Department Off-Site Mitigation Location: located at River Mile 9.3, approximately 0.88 miles (4,634 feet) northeast (upstream) of the Project Site Off-Site Mitigation Property Owner: King County Water and Land Resources Division, River and Floodplain Management Section PROJECT BACKGROUND SEPA STATUS AND PUBLIC NOTICE A combined Notice of Application (NOA) and Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) issued on October 21, 2020. The comment period ended November 5, 2020. The appeal period ended November 19, 2020. 19, 2020. A SEPA Addendum to the previously issued DNS was issued on to incorporate the LWM mitigation site. Addendum was issued on July 13, 2022. The Notice of Public Hearing was issued on January 10, 2023. PUBLIC COMMENTS Four (4) public comments were received in response to the combined NOA and DNS. The comments generally concerned: ▪that the pedestrian bridge will lead to an expansion of homeless encampments ▪safety issues that could be generated by pedestrians accessing the bridge Two (2) public comments have been received in response to the NOH: The comments generally concerned: ▪homeless population accessed the banks of the White River ▪more information about the project, including the proposed cost, purpose of the project, and estimated start and completion dates SEPA STATUS AND PUBLIC NOTICE PROCEDURES FINDINGS OF FACT GENERAL FINDINGS OF FACT GENERAL FINDINGS OF FACT GENERAL FINDINGS OF FACT GENERAL FINDINGS OF FACT GENERAL FINDINGS OF FACT SHORELINE FINDINGS OF FACT C ritical and tertiary wildlife habitat areas M igratory corridor for ESA -listed and state - listed salmonids including Bull Trout, Chinook Salmon, Steelhead Trout, and Pacific Salmon essential fish habitat (EFH ) ESA-listed salmonids may be affected but are not likely to be adversely affected No effect on the critical habitat for ESA - listed salmonids No adverse effect on the Pacific Salmon EFH for the reasons provided for the ESA - listed salmonids CRITICAL AREAS FINDINGS OF FACT Special Flood Hazard Area 100-year floodplain and associated protected areas (including the floodway, riparian buffer zone, and channel migration zone) Floodway “means the channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than a designated height.” C hannel migration zone (CMZ ) “means the area within the lateral extent of likely stream channel movement due to stream bank destabilization and erosion, rapid stream incision, aggradation, avulsions, and shifts in location of stream channels.” Riparian buffer zone (RBZ) “means the land located adjacent to streams, and other bodies of water, where the natural soil, hydrology, and native flora and fauna perform important ecological functions such as protecting the water body by filtering out pollutants, preventing erosion and sedimentation, stabilizing stream banks, and providing natural shade.” CRITICAL AREAS FINDINGS OF FACT CRITICAL AREAS FINDINGS OF FACT SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FINDINGS OF FACT CRITERIA 1.Consistent with policies of this SMP and the Comprehensive Plan 2.Will not interfere with the normal public use or access to public shorelines 3.Compatible with other permitted uses within the area and with uses planned for the area 4.Will cause no significant adverse effects to the shoreline environment 5.Public interest suffers no substantial detrimental effect 6.No substantial cumulative impacts are anticipated PROJECT’S CONSISTENCY 1.Utility transmission lines are permitted where no other options exist 2.Once construction is complete, the Project will not interfere with the normal public use or public access 3.Other permitted uses for the area include public parks and levees and revetments along the river 4.Disturbed riparian forest areas will be restored 5.New water main ensures the public will continue to have a reliable source of water in the future 6.No other existing utility crossings or utility easements that cross the White River exist in the vicinity SHORELINE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND WAC 173 -27 -160 CONSISTENCY AND CONCLUSIONS CRITERIA 1.Consistent with the goals, objectives, policies and use regulations of the Auburn Shoreline Management Act 2.Consistent with the Auburn Comprehensive Plan and Municipal Code 3.Consistent with the policies, guidelines, and regulations of the SMA PROJECT’S CONSISTENCY 1.Addressed under the previous criteria 2.Compatible with the Institutional zone is intended for areas in which governmental and recreational uses that are significant in scope to be placed 3.Meets criteria the SMP, therefore will be consistent with the state SMA SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND WAC 173 -27 -150 CONSISTENCY AND CONCLUSIONS CRITERIA 1.Consistent with the Shoreline Management Act and the Shoreline Master Program 2.Cannot obstruct the view of a substantial number of residences on areas adjoining such shorelines PROJECT’S CONSISTENCY 1.Addressed under the previous criteria 2.The Project will not obstruct the view of any residences WAC 173 -27 -140 CONSISTENCY AND CONCLUSIONS Staff recommends that the Hearing Examiner APPROVE the Shoreline Conditional Use Permit and Shoreline Substantial Development Permit subject to the five (5) conditions: 1.Future development of the site is completed within two years from the effective date of the decision from Ecology 2.All agency approvals and permits provided in Finding of Fact No. 64 and 65 are secured 3.Project substantially consistent with the Civil Plans (Exhibit 6) 4.Project mitigation substantially consistent with the Mitigation Plan and the Civil Plans (Exhibit 6) for the project 5.Maintenance of the mitigation sites is the responsibility of the City of Auburn Public Works Department and observes Critical Areas Ordinance STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Staff Report 2. Land Use Application Forms 3. Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application 4. Written Statement and Legal Description 5. SMP Policy Memo 6. Civil Plans 7. Critical Area Report and Habitat Impact Assessment 8. Cultural Resources Report 9. Alternative Summary Report 10. Geotechnical Engineering Report 11. Stormwater Site Plan Report 12. LWM Mitigation Hydraulic Analysis 13. SEPA Environmental Checklist 14. NOA, SEPA DNS, and Addendum 15. NOA and SEPA DNS Public Comments and Staff Response 16. NOH 17. NOH Comments Received and Staff Response 18. Public Hearing Presentation 19. NOH Public Comment 2.15.23 Caldwell and Staff Response 20. MITFD Comment Letter SHL20 -0008 2 - 14-2023 EXHIBIT LIST Aquifer recharge areas Aquifer recharge area “means areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water, including areas where an aquifer that is a source of drinking water is vulnerable to contamination that would affect the potability of the water, or is susceptible to reduced recharge.” Project Site and the LMW mitigation site are within the within the City’s Type 1 aquifer recharge areas. Geologically hazardous areas Erosion hazard areas “means ands or areas that, based on a combination of slope inclination and the characteristics of the underlying soils, are susceptible to varying degrees of risk of erosion. Erosion hazard areas are classified as “low” (areas sloping less than 15 percent) or “high” (areas sloping 15 percent or more) on the following Soil Conservation Service (SCS), now known as the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), soil types: Alderwood -Kitsap (AkF ), Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (AgD ), Kitsap silt loam (KpD ), Everett (EvD ) and Indianola (InD). Additional soil groups may be identified through site -specific analysis.” Project Site and the LWM mitigation site are located within an erosion hazard area. CRITICAL AREAS FINDINGS OF FACT Auburn's Comprehensive Plan is the leading policy document that guides the City's evolution and growth over a 20 year period. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the desired type, configuration, and intensity of land uses throughout the city, as well as the character and capacity of public facilities and services like streets and utilities. Its policies address critical topics such as housing, the environment, transportation, public safety, and economic development. Comprehensive Policies are relevant to the project: Policy LU -92. Appropriate uses include low - intensity recreational uses, passive use open areas, protected environmental habitat, stormwater detention facilities, and similar low - intensity uses. Policy CF -10. Public facilities shall be provided in accord with the guidance of the Capital Facilities Plan or, as may be appropriate a system plan for each type of facility designed to serve at an adequate level of service the locations and intensities of uses specified in this Comprehensive Plan.” Policy CF -15. Protection of the City’s Coal Creek Springs and West Hill Springs watersheds, wells, and other water sources shall be a high priority in the designation of appropriate land uses in the vicinity of these areas and facilities.” AUBURN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FINDINGS FINDINGS OF FACT 1 Alexandria Teague From:Alexandria Teague Sent:Wednesday, February 15, 2023 4:26 PM To:Debbie Caldwell Cc:Seth Wickstrom Subject:RE: Staff contact Alexandria Teague, Planner 2 Thank you for your comment, Ms. Caldwell. I wanted to send an email notify you that it has been received and will be made part of the public comment record. Alexandria If inquiring about a specific site, please include the parcel number or address, or if inquiring about a specific project, please include the City project number in your email. Note: Beginning Feb 27th, 2023 I will be out of the office for 3 months. Planning or Land Use Questions? Book an online meeting with staff. Check out our FAQ! Alexandria D. Teague, AICP, Senior Planner Department of Community Development City of Auburn | www.auburnwa.gov 253.931.3003 | ateague@auburnwa.gov Mailing Address: 25 W Main Street, Auburn, WA 98001 Permit Center Address: 1 E Main Street, Auburn, WA 98002 (Click Here for Map) Customer Service Survey | https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/XNSL95J Application Forms | http://www.auburnwa.gov/services/resource_library/forms.htm Zoning Maps | http://www.auburnwa.gov/services/resource_library/maps.htm From: Debbie Caldwell <debbiecaldwell@comcast.net> Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2023 3:54 PM To: Planning-1 <Planning@auburnwa.gov> Subject: Staff contact Alexandria Teague, Planner 2 CAUTION: The following message originated from outside the City of Auburn. Be careful opening links and attachments Hello Alexandria, EXHIBIT 19 2 This email is in response to public comments regarding proposed footbridge connecting Garm Farm Wilderness and Garm Farm Park. I understand the footbridge would allow and benefit the publics access between the 2 parks. However, with that brings another level of concerns for those of us living in the surrounding neighborhoods. Increased litter and filth being tossed from bridge and dumped in the park. There has been vagrants/drug activity along that secluded road leading to Game Farm Wilderness Park in the past. If the bridge is open to foot traffic 24/7 there is an increased potential for break-ins and thefts to occur in our neighborhood. Game Farm Park is closed at dusk with a locked gate, will the foot bridge also be locked and secured so that no access either way will be possible during evening hours? I am skeptical that this isn't just about a foot bridge linking 2 parks. A 24-inch water main installed under the bridge makes one wonder if there are plans to develop and build yet more houses across the river? I think the residents in this area should be advised of further developments, as R St SE can't handle the traffic being dumped on it now. I hope you take into consideration my potential concerns and work toward a solution which ensures the health, safety and well being of the citizens in the effected area of construction. Debbie Caldwell MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE Fisheries Division 39015 - 172nd Avenue SE  Auburn, Washington 98092-9763 Phone: (253) 939-3311  Fax: (253) 931-0752 February 14, 2023 Alexandria Teague Senior Planner | City of Auburn Public Works Department | Engineering Services 25 West Main Street | Auburn, WA 98001-4998 planning@auburnwa.gov RE: Coal Creek Springs Water Main Replacement Project, Shorelines Conditional Use Permit SHL20-0008 Dear Ms. Teague: Thank you for providing the Notice of Public Hearing for the above referenced project, which proposed to install a pedestrian and utility bridge over the White River between the City’s Game Farm Park and Game Farm Wilderness Park. We have expressed our concerns over this project to the City on July 19th, 2021 (see attached letter to Mr. Seth Wickstrom), and received the City’s responses on September 17, 2021 (from Mr. Wickstrom). We have provided follow-up responses to the City’s response in Appendix A. However, we continue to have outstanding concerns that this bridge will have adverse impacts to the Tribe’s salmon habitat, fishery, and restoration objectives. Further, the proposed bridge conflicts with Auburn’s Shorelines Management Plan as well as the King County Flood Hazard Management Plan. We have reviewed the materials associated with this project, and offer the following comments in the interest of Muckleshoot Tribe’s treaty-protected fisheries resources: The proposed bridge conflicts with goals of the Auburn Shoreline Management Plan (SMP). The river needs re-naturalization via a levee setback at the project site. It does not benefit from further constraint by a new bridge where vast devastation to aquatic habitat has been imposed by levees, revetments, gravel removal (Figures 1-3), and foremost, diversion of the White River from the Green River to the Puyallup River. A new bridge at this location will degrade the White River further, contrary to SMP goals. The SMP identifies three broad policies of the Shoreline Management Act, the strongest of which is “Protect shoreline natural resources, including "...the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and the water of the state and their aquatic life..” [emphasis added].” EXHIBIT 20 ___________________________________________________________________________ MITFD comments on the City of Auburn’s Coal Creek Springs Water Main Replacement Project, Shorelines Conditional Use Permit SHL20-0008 P a g e 2 | 12 The SMP’s Flood Protection/Critical Areas Element addresses reducing potential flood hazards and flood damages in the City of Auburn and the protection of critical areas in Auburn’s shoreline area. It specifies two goals [emphasis added]: 1. Continue to participate in a regional approach to flood protection issues, coordinating with the State of Washington, King County, Pierce County and other entities interested in reducing flood hazards on both the White and Green Rivers. 2. Continue to protect wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat, and groundwater and minimize geologic hazards in the shoreline environment in accordance with the critical areas ordinance. The proposed bridge conflicts with flood management at Lower White River described in the 2013 King County Flood Hazard Management Plan Update (FHMP), a plan that provides a regional approach to flood-protection issues and reduces flood risk in Auburn. The City has collaborated with King County in collecting channel data in a 1.25-mile stretch of the Lower White River, and is apparently aware of flood risks associated with sediment aggradation. The regional FHMP includes a sediment management program that is applied at Lower White River along the cities of Auburn and Pacific. Noting widespread and rapid sediment accumulation has significantly decreased the channel capacity, the FHMP states “Setback of existing levees has been identified as the preferred approach for flood risk reduction in this river reach [emphasis added].” The proposed bridge will compromise the preferred approach for flood risk reduction at Lower White River because it will establish new constraints for levee setbacks in vicinity of the bridge. This conflicts with the City’s SMP goal “to participate in a regional approach to flood protection issues [and coordinate with] other entities interested in reducing flood hazards.” The proposed bridge also conflicts with the City’s SMP goal “to protect…streams [and] wildlife habitat.” The proposed bridge will harm the White River by restricting opportunities for habitat restoration via levee setbacks in vicinity of the bridge. The proposed bridge will also permanently destroy riparian habitat and harm wildlife supported by that habitat. The destruction of riparian habitat that protects wildlife at the proposed bridge is ironic because the City’s park descriptions note the following points, all of which conflict with additions of asphalt, steel, crushed rock, concrete, cement, and plastic for the proposed bridge:  [At Game Farm Park] The hillside backdrop and proximity to the White River creates a spectacular natural setting.  [Game Farm Park] is built on wild game refuge property originally owned by the King County Game Commission. In 1933, ownership was transferred to the Washington State ___________________________________________________________________________ MITFD comments on the City of Auburn’s Coal Creek Springs Water Main Replacement Project, Shorelines Conditional Use Permit SHL20-0008 P a g e 3 | 12 Department of Game. It was an experimental facility for [birds]. In 1978, the land transferred ownership to the State Parks and Recreation Commission. The City of Auburn signed a long-term use agreement in 1984 which provided that the City cooperate with the State Parks to develop the 160-acre site as a park. [Presumably not a park with a bridge.]  Game Farm Wilderness Park emphasizes a connection with the natural environment. It has limited development and has preserved most of the native woodland along the White River.  [Game Farm Wilderness Park] was also built with the state Department of Parks on land formerly a game and wildlife area. The property was also part of the Department of Game land, opposite side of the Stuck River from Game Farm Park. The White River at this location is severely confined in the leveed reach at the proposed bridge crossing. Indeed, the levee has incurred damage from floods and is prompting repairs in some locations.1 This confinement has induced scour to spawning substrate and coarsened the bed, and simplified habitat. As a result, little to no spawning occurs in this leveed reach. To improve the habitat conditions, the only meaningful correcting must start with setting back these levees where possible to remove this confined condition. The Tribe and King County have been working to restore the flood plain and channel migration opportunities just upstream at the Trans-Canada site, and we would like to work towards extending this effort downstream in areas where channel migration is geomorphically possible. This would include opportunities at Game Farm Wilderness Park, which exhibits a network of historic side channels and evidence of river occupation. The bridge option and utility access relies on the continuance of the levee, trail, and currently confined condition. There remain many challenges to implement the Trans-Canada project, and certainly, the bridge will not make a levee setback easier to implement. To enable a levee setback, it will involve working around challenging engineering constraints and require maintenance of the access trail for the transmission line as well as utility vehicle services. The piers and surrounding rock within the levee prism will induce a hard-point that controls river morphology and will dissuade river restoration opportunities if they are a perceived threat to the piers, trail, access, and integrity of the water line, which will likely be viewed by the City as a priority over habitat restoration. For these reasons, a bridge is counter-productive to the Tribe’s habitat restoration objectives, and will impose further challenges to implement meaningful projects such as a levee setback and flood plain restoration. 1 King County Stuck River road repair approximately 0.25 miles upstream of the R Street Bridge. ___________________________________________________________________________ MITFD comments on the City of Auburn’s Coal Creek Springs Water Main Replacement Project, Shorelines Conditional Use Permit SHL20-0008 P a g e 4 | 12 Muckleshoot Fishery The Tribe has fishers that rely upon treaty-protected fishing sites in the vicinity of the proposed bridge and upstream. With increased public access from the Game Farm Park, there will be increased potential for harassment of Tribal fishers, vandalism to their nets and fishing features, poaching, theft from nets, and hence will result in more difficulty for fishers to continue their fishing culture as stated and protected by treaties. Despite the laws protecting tribal access to their fishing sites, Tribal fishers report that harassment and vandalism is a problem where the public has access. Increasing public access will subsequently increase the difficulty for Tribal fishers. In response to MIT Fishery concerns, the City has previously offered the following: To minimize the impact this Project may have on Tribal fishing sites due to an increase in public access to Game Farm Wilderness Park the City plans to take the following measures as part of the project: • Extend the security fencing and add additional signage where the White River Trail ends at the eastern park boundary to discourage the public from using the trail to access private properties east of the park. • Try and remove the White River Trail from any map that shows the White River Trail extending east beyond the park boundary (it’s shown this way on Google Maps for example). The City has confirmed with King County that they do not maintain a trail on their property east of the park. • A gate will be installed on the bridge that will be closed at night. • Non-removable bollards will be installed on both sides of the bridge to ensure it is only used by pedestrians and not vehicles. Security fencing, signage, night-time gates, and removal of the trails from maps will likely be ineffective towards reducing an increase in public access to MIT lands and fishing sites. If the bridge provides maintenance access in any form, it is likely to be used by humans to cross, even if unlawfully. There already is a large homeless population in this vicinity, where additional access opportunity will likely be exploited and increased. MIT Fisheries staff have observed filleted Chinook carcasses near homeless encampments here, suggesting poaching or theft from tribal nets. Increasing opportunities for human access will not help this problem. The only effective above-ground crossing for the pipeline to limit human access would be to preclude all opportunity for foot crossing, lawful or not, such as maintenance access. We maintain that there are water transmission pipe crossing alternatives less impactful to the SMP, County’s FHMP, and MIT fisheries needs than the proposed bridge alternative. We ask the Hearing Examiner to consider these impacts and require the City to find a different alternative for this crossing. Thank you for this opportunity to provide comments on this extremely important project to the Tribe. Please feel free to contact me with any questions. ___________________________________________________________________________ MITFD comments on the City of Auburn’s Coal Creek Springs Water Main Replacement Project, Shorelines Conditional Use Permit SHL20-0008 P a g e 5 | 12 Sincerely, Martin J. Fox, Ph.D. Fisheries Biologist CC: WA Department of Ecology Julian Douglas, WDFW ___________________________________________________________________________ MITFD comments on the City of Auburn’s Coal Creek Springs Water Main Replacement Project, Shorelines Conditional Use Permit SHL20-0008 P a g e 6 | 12 Appendix A: MITFD additional follow-up responses to the City’s 9/17/2021 responses City’s Response to MIT Concerns About the Subjectivity of the Alternatives Summary Report The geotechnical borings for a new water-main crossing at White River are confined to the project site now proposed for a bridge crossing but originally considered for a crossing by horizontal directional drilling (HDD) circa 2017. Geotechnical borings were not used to evaluate other locations for a new water-main crossing via HDD rather than a new bridge at the proposed site. City’s Responses to Specific MIT Comments on the Jacob’s Alternatives Analysis (1) The City’s response states “The replacement of the transmission line under the river has been deferred as long as possible [after most of the transmission main was replaced in the 1960s] due to the complexity and cost associated with replacing it. It is not a valid supposition that since replacement of the river crossing was previously deferred that it can continue to be deferred or that the replacement is not urgent.” MITFD has never contested or “[supposed]” replacement of the City’s water main below the White River should be deferred, or that its replacement is not is an urgent interest to the City or others. MITFD has objected to a new water main crossing affixed to a new bridge over White River, and recommended instead evaluation of alternative crossing-sites via HDD, or a crossing at “R” Street bridge. The City has not adequately demonstrated either alternative is invalid, and thus proposes further impacts to a vastly maligned reach of White River via a new bridge crossing rather than not. City’s Responses to Specific MIT Comments on the Jacob’s Alternatives Analysis (2) The City’s response states “As stated in the Alternatives Summary Report, the current R St bridge would need to be reconstructed to add the new pipe crossing and the timeline to permit, design, and construct the new bridge could take 10+ years.” But the City’s response also states the City can “consider short term improvements that may temporarily extend the life of the existing waterline; however, this line will be required to be replaced within the next 10 to 15 years regardless.” Accordingly, the City should consider adding replacement of the c.1965 ‘R’ Street bridge to its CIP program and request a portion of the $550 B in federal funding authorized in 2021 for infrastructure improvements over fiscal years 2022-2026, including bridges, so that the ‘R’ Street bridge can be widened to support re-naturalization of the grossly-constrained river there and accommodate needs for replacement of a river crossing that transfers water supplied form Coal Creek Springs. This approach is superior to any that further constrains Lower White River with a new bridge crossing. City’s Responses to Specific MIT Comments on the Jacob’s Alternatives Analysis (3) The City’s response states “even if the timeline to permit, design, and construct the new bridge was less than 10 years this option would still be deemed infeasible because it would involve replacing a significant transportation bridge decade(s) before it needed to be replaced for the sole reason of adding the new pipe.” It is important to note that the primary reason for replacing the ___________________________________________________________________________ MITFD comments on the City of Auburn’s Coal Creek Springs Water Main Replacement Project, Shorelines Conditional Use Permit SHL20-0008 P a g e 7 | 12 ‘R’ Street bridge is not its c.1965 antiquity (regardless of design life), but chiefly for public benefit to re-naturalize the river at that reach as needed to reduce flood risks and maintenance costs for river “facilities” where the river is grossly narrowed by imposition of levees and revetments emplaced shortly prior to bridge construction. City’s Responses to Specific MIT Comments on the Jacob’s Alternatives Analysis (4) The City’s response states “The City has evaluated the pipe lining method and does not feel it represents a permanent replacement alternative for the 100-year old pipe.” MITFD asserts that that City has not adequately documented why the pipe-lining method is not a viable solution for replacing the 100-year-old pipe for which it deferred replacement during 1960s when other portions of its water main were replaced. City’s Responses to Specific MIT Comments on the Jacob’s Alternatives Analysis (5) The City’s response states “The bridge isn’t relevant to MIT’s fish propagation facilities, but replacement of the transmission main is relevant because the City will not expand the Coal Creek Springs facilities until and unless the main is replaced. The 1986 settlement agreement states that during the summer and fall months MIT will reduce its water usage below 3.9 cfs as needed for domestic water services. This means that as the City grows and the domestic water needs increase, the summer and fall water available to MIT fisheries would likely be reduced down to the minimum amount allowed in the agreement Permanent replacement of the river crossing and subsequent expansion of the Coal Creek Springs facilities (with or without a pedestrian bridge) may avoid this reduction in water availability to MIT fisheries operations and allow it to be at the full agreement allocation through the summer and fall months.” It is important to note that nothing in MITFD comments about the City’s plans for “The replacement of the transmission line under the river” compromise any word in agreements between MIT and the City. City’s Responses to Specific MIT Comments on the Jacob’s Alternatives Analysis (6) The City’s response states “the City would like to clarify that the current bridge design is not intended to accommodate vehicular access. It is intended to carry the water transmission main. The pedestrian facilities are an afterthought and perceived added benefit to the communities non- motorized transportation network and recreational use.” It is ironic to learn the City of Auburn Capital Project CP1603, Coal Creek Springs Transmission Main Replacement Project, Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, SHL20-0008 proposes actions that are not afterthoughts, including pedestrian access, specifically “to provide a pedestrian linkage between City’s Game Farm Park and Game Farm Wilderness Park, which is divided by the White River.” Nowhere in the application does the City state it will not use the proposed new bridge for vehicle traffic related to park excursions, maintenance, or security. City’s Responses to Specific MIT Comments on the Jacob’s Alternatives Analysis (7) The City’s response states “The City would be amenable to removing the pedestrian facilities from the design and providing a utility-only bridge if this would mean it would have MIT’s support for the bridge. If this were the case, maintenance access would still be required but would ___________________________________________________________________________ MITFD comments on the City of Auburn’s Coal Creek Springs Water Main Replacement Project, Shorelines Conditional Use Permit SHL20-0008 P a g e 8 | 12 be secured to keep pedestrians from accessing the bridge.” As noted above, the City’s response explains the City could exclude pedestrian access at the proposed bridge. But the City of Auburn Capital Project CP1603, Coal Creek Springs Transmission Main Replacement Project, Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, SHL20-0008 does not do so, or exclude vehicle access for park maintenance as required for a “a utility-only bridge.” City’s Responses to Specific MIT Comments on the Jacob’s Alternatives Analysis (8) The City’s response states “This section lists the alternative means that were considered when evaluating the feasibility of the HDD method but ultimately all means were considered to be infeasible due to the physical presence of boulder and cobbles and the unacceptable risks they could pose during construction… additional geotechnical work did not evaluate any approach to reducing HDD drill risks, such as an alternative HDD alignment or a longer HDD length [emphasis added].” Most importantly, MITFD notes that the City did not investigate additional geotechnical work to evaluate reduced “HDD drill risks, such as an alternative HDD alignment or a longer HDD length.” Instead the City proceeded with work to evaluate a water-main crossing at the proposed site, as long planned, absent borings to evaluate the feasibility of a water-main crossing via HDD elsewhere. Furthermore, the cumulative percent finer for bed load material collected by Czuba et al. (2012) at RM 10.5, co-located with USGS gage 12100490 (near ‘R’ Street bridge), as reported by Anderson and Jaeger (2020) (see Figure 4), illustrates that shallow subsurface materiel at White River channel in the project vicinity is predominantly finer than cobble size. Therefore, the risk of hitting large boulders with the HDD method is seemingly unsupported by the finer composition of existing sediment. References Anderson, S.W., and Jaeger, K.L., 2020, Supporting Data for Sediment Studies in the White River Watershed, U.S. Geological Survey data release, https://doi.org/10.5066/P9HT46KB. Czuba, J.A., Magirl, C.S., Czuba, C.R., Curran, C.A., Johnson, K.H., Olsen, T.D., Kimball, H.K. and Gish, C.C., 2012. Geomorphic analysis of the river response to sedimentation downstream of Mount Rainier, Washington. US Department of the Interior, US Geological Survey. ___________________________________________________________________________ MITFD comments on the City of Auburn’s Coal Creek Springs Water Main Replacement Project, Shorelines Conditional Use Permit SHL20-0008 P a g e 9 | 12 Figures Figure 1. Gravel removal operations at White River in vicinity of prosed bridge (Auburn SCUP SHL20-0008). View is toward right-bank at “Auburn Wall” in Game Farm Park. Photo by Dennis Moore, MITFD, October 1978 (slide 29-21). ___________________________________________________________________________ MITFD comments on the City of Auburn’s Coal Creek Springs Water Main Replacement Project, Shorelines Conditional Use Permit SHL20-0008 P a g e 10 | 12 Figure 2. Gravel removal operations at White River in vicinity of prosed bridge (Auburn SCUP SHL20- 0008). View is upstream toward bluff along right-bank above Game Farm Park, which is out of view toward left. Photo by Dennis Moore, MITFD, October 1978 (slide 18-07). Note on slide jacket states "Miles Work at Game Farm Dam." ___________________________________________________________________________ MITFD comments on the City of Auburn’s Coal Creek Springs Water Main Replacement Project, Shorelines Conditional Use Permit SHL20-0008 P a g e 11 | 12 Figure 3. Gravel removal operations at White River in vicinity of prosed bridge (Auburn SCUP SHL20- 0008). View is downstream toward proposed bridge site. Game Farm Park is located at upper left. Note levee along left-bank, and gravel berm along right-bank. Photo by Dennis Moore, MITFD, October 1978 (slide 29-16). ___________________________________________________________________________ MITFD comments on the City of Auburn’s Coal Creek Springs Water Main Replacement Project, Shorelines Conditional Use Permit SHL20-0008 P a g e 12 | 12 Figure 4. The cumulative percent finer for bed load material collected by Czuba et al. (2012) at RM 10.5, co-located with USGS gage 12100490 (near ‘R’ Street bridge), as reported by Anderson and Jaeger (2020). These plots illustrate that shallow subsurface materiel at White River channel in the project vicinity is predominantly finer than cobble size.