Chapter 6 Cumulative Effects

Transcription

1 Chapter 6 Cumulative Effects This chapter describes how the effects of the Elliott Bay Seawall Project may contribute to the environmental effects of other past, present, and future projects in the project vicinity. The Elliott Bay Seawall Project would be constructed in the midst of a robust waterfront and concurrently with other capital projects, such as the Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Project, Waterfront Seattle, and the Seattle Multimodal Terminal at Colman Dock Project. In contrast to the potential direct and indirect effects of the build alternatives or the No Action Alternative (discussed in Chapters 4 and 5), cumulative effects are those that could result from the combination of individual effects of multiple actions over time. Cumulative and incremental effects can result in unintended and undesirable environmental changes despite efforts to mitigate the project specific direct and indirect effects of the proposed action and the previously completed or reasonably foreseeable actions. The purpose of a cumulative effects analysis is to identify the potential for incremental increased environmental effects caused by a series of actions, which, when left unmitigated, can reach significant proportions. It is also helpful for decision makers in evaluating how sustainable a proposed project is likely to be in the future and how it might interact with other projects that are reasonably foreseeable but have not yet been built. 6.1 How Cumulative Effects Were Evaluated for the Elliott Bay Seawall Project In order to determine the potential cumulative effects of the project, the analysis considered the relationships between the direct and indirect effects of the project alternatives, past and present actions, and other reasonably foreseeable future actions (RFFAs) on the resources of concern. The expected cumulative effects for the project were identified according to a process recommended by the President s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ 1997) and considered how past and present actions have already affected the geographic area. Those past and present actions (developments) have changed several of the environmental elements discussed in this Final EIS relative to their original conditions and continue to influence current trends. The year 2030 (the project design year) was used as the future temporal boundary for the cumulative effects analysis for all the environmental elements (also referred to as resources or disciplines) discussed in Chapters 3, 4, and 5. Defining Cumulative Effects SEPA requires that cumulative effects be considered in an EIS (WAC ). Although SEPA does not specifically define cumulative effects, the term is defined under NEPA as the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative effects can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. (40 CFR ) Final Environmental Impact Statement March 2013 Page 6 1

2 The past temporal boundary, or environmental reference point, for the cumulative effects analysis was determined on the basis of the unique history of each resource. Lasting effects due to past actions have accumulated in the project vicinity since the mid nineteenth century, starting with the first Euro American settlements along the Duwamish River in the 1850s, and have continued to shape the sequence of development that has occurred in the area. The built and natural environments within the project vicinity have been transformed to varying degrees by actions such as timber harvesting and processing, commercial fishing, ship building, railroad development, aircraft manufacturing, and other heavy industry, as well as the development and expansion of the state and federal highway systems and urban residential communities with their supporting infrastructure. These actions are discussed in the following overview and subsequent subsections, which are organized by discipline. Like the past temporal boundaries, the geographic boundaries used for the cumulative effects analysis vary by resource. These boundaries may be natural ecological boundaries or sociocultural boundaries selected to ensure that all the potential effects are included. They also may take into account the distance at which an effect can influence a particular resource. The list of RFFAs that were considered in the cumulative effects analysis in combination with the Elliott Bay Seawall Project is a result of collaboration and coordination among other government agencies and private parties to ensure that all appropriate present and future actions were considered. These future projects, along with relevant recently completed and ongoing projects, are shown in Figure 6 1 and summarized at the end of this chapter (Table 6 1). The Council on Environmental Quality The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) coordinates Federal environmental efforts and works closely with agencies and other White House offices in the development of environmental policies and initiatives. CEQ was established within the Executive Office of the President by Congress as part of NEPA and additional responsibilities were provided by the Environmental Quality Improvement Act of March 2013 Page 6 2 Final Environmental Impact Statement

3 Figure 6-1. Reasonably foreseeable future actions in the Elliott Bay Seawall Project vicinity Final Environmental Impact Statement March 2013 Page 6 3

4 6.2 History of the Elliott Bay Seawall Project Area The project area for the Elliott Bay Seawall Project has experienced significant changes since the mid nineteenth century. Both the built environment and the natural environment in the project vicinity have been widely shaped by the development that has occurred since the earliest Euro American settlements along the Duwamish River and on the Alki peninsula in These changes set in motion cultural, biological, and demographic trends that are the focus of the cumulative effects analysis. Historically, the shoreline of Elliott Bay consisted of gravel beaches, intertidal mudflats and sand flats, and vegetated wetlands bordered by steep upland bluffs. This natural environment supported a wide range of habitats and provided diverse resources that influenced the locations and periods of occupation by the Duwamish people, who lived in villages on the shores of Elliott Bay before European contact. The abundance of hardwood reserves in the area influenced nonnative settlement in the area. Only 1 year after the arrival of Europeans around eastern Elliott Bay in 1852, Henry Yesler s first lumber mill began production near the southern end of the existing seawall. Development north of Yesler s Mill was limited by the steep bluffs. Over time, however, regrading and filling took place, wharves were built, and commercial activities along the shoreline grew more diverse, fundamentally altering the form and function of the waterfront. Railroad companies obtained rights of way along the shoreline of Elliott Bay, and Railroad Avenue (then extending north along the waterfront) was soon constructed of piles and rip rap and broken rock and filled in with earth from the hills (Bass 1937). Once the railroad trestle was completed, additional wharf construction took place. Most of Railroad Avenue and the adjacent structures were destroyed in Seattle s Great Fire of 1889, but they were quickly rebuilt along with many new docks. Native Americans were largely displaced throughout Seattle s growth periods, but they maintained a presence along the waterfront in the early ages of Seattle s development. Many resided in temporary camps along the shoreline that were shared by transient traders and hop pickers. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Native Americans, sailors, fishermen, and others lived near the waterfront in rooming houses and small dwellings clustered around sawmills, packing plants, and the railroad. While the timber industry and strong trade ties with northern territories fueled Seattle s growth through the second half of the nineteenth century, the 1897 discovery of gold in Alaska precipitated the city s next development boom and unprecedented levels of activity along the waterfront. The population more than tripled between 1900 and This growth precipitated haphazard demolition and redevelopment of waterfront piers, as well as the construction of a new tunnel that would March 2013 Page 6 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement

5 carry rail traffic under the city to reduce congestion along Railroad Avenue. Nearly 500,000 cubic yards of fill from the tunnel construction were hauled away by rail car and dumped throughout Elliott Bay. By the 1920s, many railroad facilities had moved to the filled tidelands south of downtown, where much of Seattle s industry was located. The City had constructed a concrete gravity seawall from S. Washington Street to Madison Street in response to unsafe conditions of the planked roadways and trestle pilings of Railroad Avenue. Railroad Avenue was back filled with materials removed in the regrading of Jackson Street. In 1929, the railroads signed a new franchise agreement that limited through tracks along the central waterfront solely to the eastern side of the street, allowing the city to proceed with its plans to build a seawall along the rest of the waterfront. Within another decade, marine transportation activities along the waterfront began to decline as trucks and cars competed for shipping and transport business. Construction of the Elliott Bay Seawall supported extensive commercial and transportation development along the waterfront: most notably, the opening of the Alaskan Way Viaduct in 1953, which significantly changed travel patterns and the visual character of the Seattle waterfront. By the late 1950s, shippers began consolidating cargo in large shipping containers, and freight sheds and warehouses on the piers were no longer needed. Instead of the narrow piers with storage sheds found on the downtown Seattle waterfront, large parking areas were required to accommodate cranes, trucks, and containers. South of Pier 48, the Terminal 37/46 complex was created by filling and joining several piers. Throughout more than 100 years of urbanization, the downtown Seattle waterfront was fundamentally altered by filling, dredging, and grading along the shoreline and by the construction of infrastructure including the seawall, other shoreline armoring, and overwater structures. The historical shoreline topography is buried behind (landward of) and below the seawall. Upland areas, including Pioneer Square and Pike Place Market, were also fundamentally altered by urban development, expanding the realm of activities in the area of the seawall from primarily industrial maritime to a mix of commercial, residential, tourist, and institutional. 6.3 Transportation The year construction began on the existing seawall (1911) was used as the environmental reference point for past and present development related to transportation. The original construction of the seawall resulted in an ongoing cumulative effect on the transportation network and an increasing demand for the movement of goods and services throughout the greater Seattle area. The area considered for the analysis of cumulative effects on the transportation network includes the area within the Seattle regional traffic models, which extends throughout the Puget Sound region. Final Environmental Impact Statement March 2013 Page 6 5

6 Past and Present Actions Construction of the seawall supported extensive commercial and transportation development along the waterfront and throughout the study area. Most notably, the opening of the Alaskan Way Viaduct significantly changed the travel patterns in the study area. Over time, there have been incremental improvements to this and other major transportation corridors. These improvements along with associated changes in land use due to these transportation improvements (such as the growth of the Port of Seattle and increased freight traffic on Alaskan Way), have also resulted in cumulative changes in the seawall corridor in terms of transportation. Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions The RFFAs most likely to affect congestion and access include the Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Project, the improvements associated with Waterfront Seattle, and the Elliott/Western Connector. Cumulative Effects of the Build Alternatives Adverse cumulative effects associated with transportation would primarily be limited to temporary effects during construction of the seawall, which coincides with construction of other RFFAs such as the Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Project which includes the demolition of the Alaskan Way Viaduct. Tunnel boring is estimated to occur between 2013 and 2014, with the new SR 99 tunnel opening for use in late The demolition of the downtown waterfront section of the Alaskan Way Viaduct is estimated to occur in These estimates suggest that Central Seawall construction would overlap with construction of RFFAs in the 2013 to 2016 timeframe. Traffic congestion would increase during this period, as would travel times due to road closures and detours. Construction of the North Seawall would occur sometime after the completion of the Central Seawall, the demolition of the Alaskan Way Viaduct and the opening of the bored tunnel. The traffic analysis assumes a worst case scenario for North Seawall construction, with the Elliott/Western Connector not in place. This would result in higher traffic volumes on the Alaskan Way surface street along the North Seawall than would be the case with the Elliott/Western Connector in place. If the Elliott/Western Connector is constructed before the North Seawall construction, the cumulative construction effects would be less than those reported in the EIS. Once completed, the proposed alternatives would restore the roadway to existing conditions (2010) (with the addition of a second northbound lane adjacent to Colman Dock under Alternatives A and C). Therefore, the Elliott Bay Seawall Project would make a slight positive contribution to the improvements provided by the RFFAs, which would enhance the functionality of the transportation network by reducing congestion and improving traffic flow. The project would not significantly change the March 2013 Page 6 6 Final Environmental Impact Statement

7 transportation trends in the study area. The operational effects of the Elliott/Western Connector on Alaskan Way traffic flow is discussed further in Chapter 5. Cumulative Effects of the No Action Alternative The Minimal Damage scenario of the No Action Alternative is likely to result in occasional lane closures to facilitate routine maintenance or emergency repairs. Congestion caused by such closures, in combination with the construction of other planned projects such as the Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Project and the Seattle Multimodal Terminal at Colman Dock Project, would contribute adverse cumulative effects. The Loss of Functionality scenario would contribute to worse safety and congestion problems along the waterfront over time, which could affect the nature and timing of currently planned transportation improvements in the study area. The Collapse of the Seawall scenario would contribute more substantially to cumulative effects than the other No Action Alternative scenarios or any of the build alternatives. The activities required to provide emergency access and repair of the seawall combined with other RFFAs and the physical damage caused by the collapse would result in widespread transportation impacts throughout the downtown area. Mitigation for Cumulative Effects Because adverse cumulative effects are construction related, the City will focus mitigation measures on minimizing those temporary impacts. The City will coordinate with Metro, WSDOT, the Port of Seattle, local businesses, and neighborhoods to coordinate construction sequencing between projects. This will minimize potential effects to traffic and parking during construction of the seawall and the Reasonable Foreseeable Future Actions and encourage the use of public transit during construction. 6.4 Economics Both local and regional economic effects were considered for the economics cumulative effects analysis. For local effects, the study area is based on neighborhood planning areas and census tracts between S. Jackson Street on the south, Broad Street on the north, First Avenue on the east, and Elliott Bay on the west. The regional geographic boundary includes the Seattle city limits and the surrounding central Puget Sound region (King, Snohomish, Pierce, and Kitsap Counties). Past and Present Actions The temporal boundary of the cumulative effects analysis for economics began in 1911, when seawall construction began. The seawall has provided a continuous influence on local and regional economies. In addition to the original construction of the seawall, other past and Final Environmental Impact Statement March 2013 Page 6 7

8 present actions that have resulted in ongoing trends related to the economy include the development of the Port of Seattle and the Seattle waterfront as a center for commerce and transportation; the construction of the Alaskan Way Viaduct; and the development of the tourism industry in downtown Seattle, especially along the waterfront. The Seattle waterfront has developed into an eclectic mix of operations: tourist, offices, residential buildings, restaurants, retail space, transportation hubs, and shipping. Tourist activity peaks along the waterfront during the summer season, and many businesses make most of their revenue during those months. Customers of businesses on the waterfront and east of Alaskan Way rely on on street parking spaces and a linear lot running under the Alaskan Way Viaduct. Additionally, the redevelopment of the Belltown neighborhood from primarily commercial uses to a mixed use and residential area has been a catalyst for new development in the northern end of the project area. Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions The Elliott Bay Seawall Project is one of several major infrastructure projects planned along the downtown Seattle waterfront that could affect economic resources in the study area. Based on the current anticipated construction schedules, construction of the Central Seawall would occur at the same time as the Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Project (Table 6 1). Cumulative Effects of the Build Alternatives Adverse cumulative effects associated with economic resources would primarily be limited to temporary effects during construction of the seawall, as the construction timeframe coincides with construction of other RFFAs described above. In general, concurrent construction activities associated with multiple projects in the downtown Seattle waterfront area would affect the local economy by limiting access to the waterfront and increasing traffic congestion. Construction of Alternative B is expected to take up to 2 years longer than Alternatives A and C. Therefore, the cumulative effects to the economy would be greater with this alternative. Concurrent construction of the Elliott Bay Seawall Project and the Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Project (especially construction of the south portal of the tunnel) further limits access to local waterfront businesses due to the need for multiple construction staging areas, additional construction vehicles, and construction related traffic. Tunnel boring is estimated to occur between 2013 and 2014, with the new bored tunnel opening for use in late Demolition of the downtown waterfront section of the Alaskan Way Viaduct is expected to occur in These timelines suggest that the Elliott Bay Seawall Project construction would overlap with the construction of the RFFAs in the 2013 to 2016 timeframe. When combined with the potential temporary economic effects of these RFFAs due to traffic congestion, detours, and reduced parking supply along the waterfront, the Elliott Bay Seawall March 2013 Page 6 8 Final Environmental Impact Statement

9 Project construction would contribute to cumulative economic effects in the study area. Construction of the North Seawall would occur after completion of the Central Seawall, the bored tunnel, and the demolition of the Alaskan Way Viaduct. The Draft EIS, in a worst case analysis, assumed that the Elliott/Western connector would not yet be constructed or would be constructed concurrently with North Seawall construction. This would result in the higher traffic volumes indicated in the EIS along the North Seawall. This high level of congestion, in turn, would make access to businesses along this section of Alaskan Way more difficult and likely have an economic effect on these businesses. In particular, passenger arrivals and departures (by charter bus, taxi, and car) at the Bell Harbor Pier Cruise Terminal and at the Victoria Clipper terminal, as well as vehicle access to both, would be adversely affected. Under any of the build alternatives, completion of the Elliott Bay Seawall Project and other RFFAs would contribute to improvements in the long term economic conditions in the study area. The postconstruction benefits to the economy would be driven by improved public safety, mobility, and access along a revitalized waterfront, which would attract more residents, visitors, and associated revenues. The improvements may also attract additional visitors to the general vicinity of the waterfront and have beneficial economic effects on adjacent areas, especially Pioneer Square, Pike Place Market, and Olympic Sculpture Park, by increasing visitor activity and spending in those areas. The timing and extent of these improvements would depend on the local and regional economic cycles of growth. Other than the extended temporary adverse cumulative effects associated with Alternative B due to the longer construction period, there likely would be no substantive differences between the three build alternatives in terms of their cumulative effects. The cumulative effects of the Elliott Bay Seawall Project and the other RFFAs are not likely to change the trajectory of economic trends in the study area. Cumulative Effects of the No Action Alternative Under the Minimal Damage scenario, the No Action Alternative would contribute incrementally to adverse economic effects in the study area related to public safety, future investment, and development in the short term. Congestion due to temporary lane closures, temporary loss of access to commercial entities along the waterfront, and general safety concerns on Alaskan Way and the roadway network in the vicinity of the Elliott Bay Seawall would worsen over time as the seawall deteriorates. Other planned projects and investments in the area may be cancelled because of the increasing risk and uncertainty associated with seawall failure or collapse in the near future. Under the Loss of Functionality scenario or Collapse of the Seawall scenario, the cumulative effects would be similar to those of the build alternatives, although the specific outcomes would depend on the other concurrent projects at the time of the collapse. Without the other planned Final Environmental Impact Statement March 2013 Page 6 9

10 transportation improvement projects, increased traffic congestion and travel times for freight movement in the study area would adversely affect the economy. Mitigation for Cumulative Effects SDOT will coordinate with other City departments, WSDOT, and others to minimize the combined construction related effects of concurrent projects in the vicinity of the seawall. Cumulative traffic and parking issues resulting from concurrent projects that could affect local businesses will be addressed by the various agencies involved, as follows: During seawall construction, distribute timely information to the public indicating alternate ways of accessing facilities on the downtown Seattle waterfront. Coordinate construction detours as necessary with other projects. Work with public and private entities that own and operate the various waterfront facilities to encourage local residents and visitors to continue to visit and patronize the waterfront during construction of the concurrent projects. No long term cumulative effects to economic resources are anticipated following seawall construction. 6.5 Noise and Vibration The geographic area considered for the analysis of cumulative effects on noise included on shore locations within approximately 1,000 feet of the construction work zone for the Elliott Bay Seawall Project, as well as in water and more distant on shore locations, where applicable. Airborne noise and ground borne vibration levels decrease rapidly with increasing distance from the source, thereby resulting in a geographically limited area of potential effects. Past and Present Actions The temporal boundary of the cumulative effects analysis for noise and vibration began in 1953, which is the year the Alaskan Way Viaduct opened. The construction of the viaduct as the major north south thoroughfare in Seattle resulted in an ongoing cumulative effect on noise and vibration in the project vicinity. Traffic on the Alaskan Way Viaduct is the predominant source of noise in the study area, and natural noises such as leaves rustling, light surf, and bird vocalizations are limited in many locations. In addition to the initial construction of the Alaskan Way Viaduct, other past and present actions that have contributed to trends related to noise and vibration include the development of the Port of Seattle and the Seattle waterfront as a center for commerce and transportation. March 2013 Page 6 10 Final Environmental Impact Statement

11 Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions The Elliott Bay Seawall Project is one of several major infrastructure projects planned along the downtown Seattle waterfront that could affect noise and vibration in the study area. Based on the current anticipated construction schedules, the RFFAs that would most likely contribute to noise and vibration due to construction generated disturbance are the Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Project (including demolition of the Alaskan Way Viaduct), the improvements associated with Waterfront Seattle, the Seattle Multimodal Terminal at Colman Dock Project, and the Elliott/Western Connector (Table 6 1). Cumulative Effects of the Build Alternatives Adverse cumulative effects associated with noise and vibration would be limited to temporary effects during construction of the seawall, as the construction timeframe coincides with construction of other RFFAs described above. In general, cumulative noise and vibration effects would result because noise and vibration from construction of the Elliott Bay Seawall Project would occur at the same time or in close succession to construction of the RFFAs. This temporal overlap may increase the amount of noise and extend the duration over which some receptors are exposed to construction related noise. Because Seattle is one of the busiest ports in the United States, a wide range of noise producing activities along the waterfront will continue over time, beyond the construction of the seawall. The construction activities associated with the Elliott Bay Seawall Project and other nearby RFFAs would be temporary and periodic; therefore, they would not constitute long term incremental increases in the overall noise environment. Operation of the proposed alternatives would not have any effect on the noise environment. Cumulative Effects of the No Action Alternative Under the Minimal Damage scenario for the No Action Alternative, routine and emergency maintenance activities would not have a substantial effect on noise and vibration, either alone or when coupled with the RFFAs. Under the Loss of Function and Collapse of the Seawall scenarios, the construction related effects of the No Action Alternative combined with those of the other RFFAs could result in temporary cumulative construction effects similar to those described for the build alternatives, depending on the timing of the collapse relative to the other projects in the vicinity. No further cumulative effects on noise and vibration associated with the No Action Alternative are expected. Final Environmental Impact Statement March 2013 Page 6 11

12 Mitigation for Cumulative Effects Beyond the measures for mitigating the effects of project construction described in Chapter 4, no mitigation for cumulative noise and vibration effects is anticipated as the project will not generate noise and vibration after construction. 6.6 Cultural, Historic, and Archaeological Resources The geographic area considered for the analysis of cumulative effects on cultural, historic, and archaeological resources is the APE used to evaluate construction and operational effects in Chapters 4 and 5. Although the southern extent of the seawall is located at S. Washington Street, the APE extends one block farther to S. Main Street to allow the consideration of potential adverse effects on the built environment. The northern boundary is generally the north side of Broad Street. Past and Present Actions The temporal boundary of the cumulative effects analysis for cultural, historic, and archaeological resources began in 1911, when seawall construction began. The installation of the seawall influenced the patterns of use and development within the waterfront area. In addition to the original construction of the seawall, other past actions affecting cultural, historic, and archaeological resources include earlier interaction between humans and the environment that modified the nature of the archaeological record, especially during the large scale construction projects that characterized the Seattle waterfront during the historic period. The majority of these past actions have contributed to a trend of declining historic and archaeological resources in the study area by removing historic structures and displacing, or limiting access to, archaeological resources. Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions The Elliott Bay Seawall Project is one of several major infrastructure projects planned along the downtown Seattle waterfront that could affect cultural, historic, and archaeological resources in the study area. Other projects that may have effects on cultural, historic, and archeological resources include the Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Project, the Seattle Multimodal Terminal at Colman Dock Project, and the improvements associated with Waterfront Seattle. Each of these projects would either directly affect a historical or archaeological resource or is in proximity to such a resource. Cumulative Effects of the Build Alternatives Adverse effects from the proposed build alternatives may contribute to cumulative effects on archaeological resources from construction of the RFFAs, if any of the RFFAs involve excavation within and beneath the historic fill or along the waterward side of the seawall. Loss or March 2013 Page 6 12 Final Environmental Impact Statement

13 degradation of these cultural resources would contribute to the cumulative reduction of the finite number of potential archaeological sites associated with the Seattle waterfront. Such reductions could result from the proposed waterfront projects if construction for these projects occurs concurrently with that of the Elliott Bay Seawall Project. These potential cumulative effects are not expected to alter the historical trends for these resources in the study area. Temporary adverse cumulative effects may occur to historic resources due to the concurrent construction of the seawall, in combination with RFFAs described above. If construction of the seawall occurs concurrently with other waterfront projects and the Elliott/Western Connector, these concurrent actions would cumulatively increase the temporary adverse effects on the historic Pike Place Market and waterfront piers by further limiting access, increasing roadway congestion, and exacerbating noise and air quality effects. However, no permanent loss of historic resources is expected to result from these projects. Following construction, the South Downtown Rezone (an RFFA included as project 18 in Table 6 1) provides incentives for historic preservation and encourages appropriate development in the historic districts. The North Parking Lot Development at CenturyLink Field is also expected to enhance the Pioneer Square Historic District in the long term. Operations of any of the proposed alternatives would contribute to the enhancements within the study area that expected to result from these proposed actions and other RFFAs in the vicinity of the Pioneer Square Historic District. No permanent adverse cumulative effects on historic buildings or structures are expected with any of the seawall alternatives. Cumulative Effects of the No Action Alternative No cumulative effects related to cultural, historic, or archaeological resources have been identified for the No Action Alternative. Mitigation for Cumulative Effects The construction related mitigation measures described in Chapter 4 will avoid or minimize the cumulative effects of the proposed alternatives that will occur during construction. SDOT will coordinate the construction of the proposed projects with all other applicable agencies to minimize the effects on historic and archaeological resources. 6.7 Energy Resources The cumulative effects analysis for energy resources used a regional geographic boundary that includes the greater Seattle area in which energy would be consumed and GHG emissions would occur as a result of construction equipment and worker vehicle trips. Final Environmental Impact Statement March 2013 Page 6 13

14 Past and Present Actions The temporal boundary of the cumulative effects analysis for energy resources began in 1910, for two reasons: (1) Seattle City Light was established in 1910 as a municipal utility providing power to the project area, and (2) Seattle Steam Company, another important energy provider in the study area, had also been recently established as a local provider. The original provision of heat and power to the project area facilitated commercial and industrial development and produced an ongoing cumulative effect on energy resources. Today s demand for energy in the study area is largely influenced by transportation needs, and the energy supply relies on fossil fuels to meet the demand. Beginning in the 1970s, fuel efficiency standards and policies, as well as growth management strategies such as VISION 2020 and Transportation 2040, have contributed to general reductions in energy consumption trends. However, as discussed in Chapter 3, transportation remains the predominant consumer of energy in Washington State and the project area. Because Washington uses hydropower for much of its electricity (nearly three fourths of the state electricity generation), the electricity sector in the study area contributes a lower percentage of GHGs in the region than the national average. The transportation sector, on the other hand, is the major contributor of GHGs throughout the state and Seattle proper (Center for Climate Studies 2007). The City s overall carbon footprint was about 8 percent smaller in 2005 than it was in 1990 (City of Seattle 2008b). This reduction was due to energy conservation efforts and Seattle City Light s policy of achieving net zero GHG emissions in the delivery of electricity through the use of conservation, the use of renewable energy, and the purchase of carbon offsets. Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions The Elliott Bay Seawall Project is one of several major infrastructure projects planned along the downtown Seattle waterfront that could affect energy resources in the study area. Based on the current anticipated construction schedules, the projects considered most likely to result in cumulative effects on energy resources, mainly as a result of increased traffic congestion throughout downtown Seattle include the Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Project, the improvements associated with Waterfront Seattle, and the Elliott/Western Connector (Table 6 1). Although detailed construction energy consumption estimates were not calculated for each of the RFFAs, each RFFA was assessed qualitatively to determine how the operation of the new seawall might contribute to the energy effects of these projects. There is substantial land use and population growth projected for Seattle over the next 20 years. It is important to note that much of the expected increase in traffic and resulting increase in fuel consumption is March 2013 Page 6 14 Final Environmental Impact Statement

15 related to this projected growth. Although a substantial shift from single occupancy vehicle travel to transit is expected between existing conditions and future conditions, which would help to minimize fuel consumption throughout Seattle, the overall expected growth would still result in additional vehicles on the roadway network. Cumulative Effects of the Build Alternatives Cumulative energy effects can occur when there is a change in energy consumption (or supply) due to more than one project taking place at the same time or projects being constructed at some time in the foreseeable future. Most of the projects considered in the cumulative effects analysis involve construction activities, and construction is the primary source of potential cumulative energy effects when the seawall construction is concurrent with the construction associated with the other RFFAs. Although temporary adverse cumulative effects on energy would result from addition of the seawall construction to RFFAs, these effects would not place any significant stress on the existing energy systems in the region or in the study area. The overlapping construction schedules for the Elliott Bay Seawall Project and the other RFFAs would result in temporary adverse cumulative effects involving GHG emissions associated with project related vehicles and equipment. However, these effects would be minor in terms of overall emissions in the region. When considered in concert with the RFFAs in the project vicinity, operation of the new seawall is not expected to result in any cumulative effects related to energy use. Similarly, the operation of the new seawall would not result in long term cumulative effects on GHG emissions. Cumulative Effects of the No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, no substantial cumulative effects on energy resources are expected. Although future traffic volumes would continue to increase with the forecasted population growth, fuel consumption and GHG emissions would merely be shifted to other areas of Seattle and the region if the seawall collapses either partially or fully. Under the Loss of Functionality or Collapse of the Seawall scenarios, the cumulative effects of seawall reconstruction would be similar to those described for the build alternatives. Mitigation for Cumulative Effects No mitigation measures for cumulative effects on energy use are proposed. Although the cumulative effects of the GHG emissions resulting from the Elliott Bay Seawall Project are not expected to be significant, there are certain elements of the construction plans for the seawall and nearby projects that could be coordinated to ensure that the cumulative GHG emissions are minimized. Traffic plans for overlapping projects could include detours and strategic construction Final Environmental Impact Statement March 2013 Page 6 15

16 timing to minimize traffic congestion and engine idling in the project area. SDOT will coordinate with other City departments and regional transit agencies to promote ridesharing efforts and transit use for construction workers on the Elliott Bay Seawall Project, as well as the other projects under construction at the same time. 6.8 Land Use, Shorelines, and Parks and Recreation The geographic boundary for the cumulative effects analysis is based on neighborhood planning areas in the vicinity of the Elliott Bay Seawall Project and is generally bounded by S. Washington Street on the south, Broad Street on the north, First Avenue on the east, and Elliott Bay on the west. The study area also includes the piers that extend waterward from the seawall and the immediate shoreline along Elliott Bay adjacent to Alaskan Way. Past and Present Actions The temporal boundary of the cumulative effects analysis for land use, shorelines, and parks and recreation begins in 1911, when seawall construction began. The seawall influenced the patterns of use and development within the waterfront area. Other past and present actions that have shaped ongoing trends related to land use and recreational resources include the development of the Port of Seattle and the Seattle waterfront as a center for commerce and transportation, the development of the tourism industry in downtown Seattle, and general growth and development in Seattle and the region. Water dependent activities continue on the waterfront, including operations of passenger vessels, ferries, and cruise ships. In recent decades, development along the downtown Seattle waterfront has broadened to include use as a major center for tourism, recreation, retail shopping, meeting and convention activities, and entertainment. Residential development in the upland area also has increased substantially. Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions The Elliott Bay Seawall Project is one of several major infrastructure projects planned along the downtown Seattle waterfront that could affect land use, shorelines, and parks and recreation resources in the study area. The projects evaluated in the cumulative effects analysis for land use, shorelines, and parks and recreation include the potential changes to Terminal 46 at the southern edge of the seawall, the improvements associated with the Seattle Multimodal Terminal at Colman Dock Project, long term plans to expand the Seattle Aquarium, the Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Project, and improvements associated with Waterfront Seattle. When these projects are taken as a whole, the March 2013 Page 6 16 Final Environmental Impact Statement

17 downtown Seattle waterfront would experience substantial improvements in infrastructure over existing conditions. Cumulative Effects of the Build Alternatives Land Use and Shorelines In general, the construction related effects of the proposed build alternatives, in combination with those of the RFFAs, would result in temporary adverse cumulative effects on land use and recreational resources in the study area. The seawall project would increase both the overall intensity and the overall duration of construction work in the area proposed under the RFFAs. Cumulative adverse effects would include vehicle and pedestrian detours and traffic and parking issues. Construction of Alternative B is expected to take up to 2 years longer than Alternatives A and C and is, therefore, more likely to have overlapping construction schedules with other projects along the waterfront. The cumulative effects of completion of the Elliott Bay Seawall Project and the RFFAs would be a structurally stable and aesthetically improved waterfront from Washington Street to Broad Street. This could provide impetus for property owners on both side of Alaskan Way to make further investments in their properties. Property owners on the east side of Alaskan Way also may decide to build, rebuild, or expand their buildings within the limits of the current zoning code. These effects would be in line with overall land use trends in the study area and would generally be considered positive. Parks and Recreation The cumulative adverse construction effects discussed for land use and shorelines could also complicate access to parks and recreational facilities in the area. New detours and changes in access due to the construction of the Elliott Bay Seawall Project may compound construction effects associated with the RFFAs, discouraging residents and tourists from visiting parks and recreational facilities. To the extent that the construction effects of the Elliott Bay Seawall Project further reduce the attractiveness of the waterfront to visitors when combined with the effects of other nearby RFFAs with concurrent construction schedules, the project may result in reduced revenues for touristoriented businesses in the vicinity during construction, especially during the non summer months, and increased duration during which these businesses are subjected to the construction effects of projects in the vicinity. The construction of Alternative B is expected to take up to 2 years longer than Alternatives A and C and is, therefore, more likely to have overlap with other projects along the waterfront. The longer construction duration would result in a longer period of reduced access to parks and recreational facilities and, therefore, would make a greater contribution to cumulative effects. However, the cumulative Final Environmental Impact Statement March 2013 Page 6 17

18 construction effects of the project and the RFFAs are not expected to change long term trends related to the use of parks and recreational facilities in the project area under any of the build alternatives. All of the proposed build alternatives would result in long term beneficial cumulative effects on parks and recreational facilities in the project vicinity. Once construction is completed, the cumulative benefit of the Elliott Bay Seawall Project with the completed RFFAs would be a revitalized waterfront from Washington Street to Broad Street. This could make the waterfront more attractive, resulting in more visitors (both local residents and tourists) to parks and recreational facilities along the waterfront. Cumulative Effects of the No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would potentially result in long term adverse cumulative effects on land use, shorelines, and parks and recreational facilities. If none of the proposed build alternatives are constructed, problems related to safety, aesthetics, and traffic congestion along the waterfront would become worse over time. Potential damage to parks and recreational facilities would adversely affect access to and use of lands in the project vicinity, including recreational facilities. The damage and subsequent repair work could interfere with the timing of and change the nature of future development and land use decisions in the project area. Under the Loss of Functionality or Collapse of the Seawall scenarios, the cumulative effects would depend on the other projects that are underway at that time. Mitigation for Cumulative Effects The City will coordinate active public information efforts for construction of the Elliott Bay Seawall Project with other projects in the vicinity to provide a consistent and comprehensive approach to informing the public of accessibility to the waterfront, available parking, and transit options. Project staff will work closely with Seattle Parks and Recreation and the Seattle Aquarium to make sure that the project provides flexibility for future redevelopment or expansion of Waterfront Park, Pier 62/63, and the Seattle Aquarium. 6.9 Public Services and Utilities The geographic boundary used for the cumulative effects analysis for public services and utilities extends east from the seawall to several blocks east of Alaskan Way (generally to First Avenue) and north from S. Washington Street to Broad Street. The boundary extends farther to encompass a larger area (greater downtown Seattle, Belltown, and SODO) where public services and utility systems are intricately related to those within the primary geographic boundary. March 2013 Page 6 18 Final Environmental Impact Statement

19 Past and Present Actions The temporal boundary for the cumulative effects analysis for public services and utilities is 1911, the year seawall construction began, as the presence of the seawall solidified an active commercial corridor in which many local and regional utility providers located essential service lines and stations. As described in Chapter 3, a number of utilities have been sited in and along the Elliott Bay Seawall and the Alaskan Way corridor to serve Seattle s growing demands as it developed over the last century. In addition, essential public services such as a fire station and port facilities are located within the study area. Alaskan Way is also a key corridor for utilities serving a much wider area. The current provision of public services and utilities in the study area is adequate to meet the existing demand. However, the location of these services and utilities in a liquefaction prone area makes them vulnerable to damage due to seismic events. Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions The Elliott Bay Seawall Project is one of several major infrastructure projects planned along the downtown Seattle waterfront that could affect public services and utilities in the study area. Construction of the Elliott Bay Seawall Project, in combination with RFFAs, may increase the risk or frequency of service disruptions or potential damage to utility infrastructure. Projects that could affect utilities and public services are those dealing with utility relocations and disruptions in the immediate project area, such as the Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Project, improvements associated with Waterfront Seattle, and the Seattle Multimodal Terminal at Colman Dock Project (Table 6 1). Cumulative Effects of the Build Alternatives Construction of the Elliott Bay Seawall Project, in combination with concurrent construction activities of RFFAs, may result in temporary adverse cumulative effects by increasing the potential for service outages or damage to existing infrastructure. Utility outages could affect businesses and residential customers, and public services such as police and fire response could be affected due to road blockages and/or detours. The complexity of the relocations needed by various projects, and the critical nature of the utility infrastructure in downtown Seattle, could compound these effects. Once construction is completed, the seawall in combination with other nearby RFFAs would result in cumulative long term benefits through stabilization of the waterfront and incremental upgrades of utility infrastructure, thereby reducing the risk of future service disruptions to utility corridors on the waterfront. Operation of the seawall is not expected to result in any cumulative effects on public services. Final Environmental Impact Statement March 2013 Page 6 19