_______________

Home

SE Bypass
- A Chronology

EIS Analysis
- Adequacy Review

Iss. Environ. Council
Biological Assessment Peer Review

Issaquah Voices

CO#1   09/17/96 – Original SOW replaced entirely by CO#2
CO#2   04/23/98 – Complete Replacement of SOW
CO#3   10/02/98 – Funds Transfer, no change to SOW
CO#4   11/18/98 – Funds Transfer, no change to SOW
CO#5   07/16/99 – Modified/added SOW requirements
CO#6   07/25/00 – Funds Transfer, no change to SOW
CO#7   03/12/01 – New tasking for Entranco
CO#8   10/01/01 – Modified/added SOW requirements
CO#9   10/22/01 – Modified/added SOW requirements
CO#10 04/19/02 – Modified/added SOW requirements (06/05/02 – Second Version of CO#10v2)

Note:  Change Order #10 was adopted by a vote of the City Council on Agenda Bill 4892 on 05/20/02.  Therefore, the Change Order version dated 06/05/02 could not be the official version because it was dated after the adoption.

CO#11 06/05/03 – Modified/added SOW requirements

The CONSULTANT will prepare a project management plan that will set the tone for every task of the PROJECT — from mobilization through the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Design Report. The plan will organize the scope into a work breakdown structure in which a specific budget, schedule, and dates for deliverables are identified for each individual task.

The plan will identify the interrelationships among the tasks in the work breakdown structure, and define the key project management activities as they relate to work assignments, reporting, responsibilities, schedule, and cost control. The plan will include a project summary, schedule, procedures guide, budget and cost control summary, organization plan, documentation format and filing guidelines, and reporting and review procedures.

The schedule will include all tasks identified herein, identify their duration and sequencing, and identify the critical path. The project schedule will identify review periods to be allowed for the CITY and cooperating agencies.

PRODUCT

Draft Project Management Plan (4 copies)

Final Project Management Plan (15 copies)

The CONSULTANT will prepare monthly progress reports describing the status of the PROJECT. These reports will:

Highlight significant accomplishments

Target potential problem areas needing special attention or coordination

Compare actual work progress with contractual obligations on a design task basis

The progress reports will be presented in a task oriented format and will include updated scheduling reports, indicating all progress to date and resources expended. This update will include any changes in schedule, sequence, or resource loading. If any schedule slippage has occurred, a plan for bringing the work back on schedule and budget will be included.

Progress reports and billings will be prepared by the CONSULTANT and submitted on a monthly basis. These items will be supported by detailed record keeping sufficient to closely track the PROJECT budget and expenditures and support the billings.

PRODUCTS

Monthly Progress Reports (approximately 31 33 progress reports), incorporating Project Schedule revisions as appropriate, and Monthly Billings (approximately 31 33 billings).

Technical direction to project staff

Coordination meetings with the CITY on a bi-monthly basis

Periodic Meetings with Project Advisory Committee up to 18 meetings

Up to 4 meetings with the Army Corps. Of Engineers to provide coordination on wetland issues.

Meetings with third parties such as CITY, State, and Federal officials, and other consultants, as necessary up to 72 4 meetings

Coordination with subconsultants

Technical review

A project quality control plan will be prepared by the CONSULTANT and submitted to the CITY as part of the Project Management Manual. This task will include both the preparation and implementation of this quality control plan.

The work products will be reviewed by consultant team staff with expertise in the appropriate discipline areas. This will be an ongoing activity during the duration of the project with emphasis on major deliverable work products.

PRODUCTS

Project Quality Control Plan section of Project Management Manual (4 copies) Quality Assurance Review Summaries up to 24 Deliverable Reviews

The CONSULTANT will coordinate with the CITY and WSDOT to prepare SEPA Determination of Significance/Scoping Notice and a draft NEPA Notice of Intent. The scoping process will be completed by the CITY and WSDOT with assistance from the CONSULTANT. The CITY, WSDOT and the CONSULTANT will jointly develop the purpose and need, statement as part of the NEPA Notice of Intent. The statement will be developed to provide a general framework for alternatives development.

The CONSULTANT will prepare displays and attend one agency scoping meeting and one public scoping meeting. The CONSULTANT will assist the CITY with briefings following the scoping process.

Copies of all written comments received by the CITY during the scoping process will be transmitted to the CONSULTANT for review. The CONSULTANT will revise the Scope of the EIS based on comments received during the scoping process.

The CONSULTANT will review the Public Involvement Plan which will be prepared under a separate contract. The CONSULTANT will work closely with CITY staff in assisting the CITY's implementation of the Public Involvement Plan.

The CONSULTANT will support the implementation of the Public Involvement Plan through limited assistance with the following tasks:

The CONSULTANT will review and modify the Public Involvement Plan being prepared under a separate contract.

PRODUCTS

Comments on the Public Involvement Plan

The CONSULTANT will assist on the development and preparation of up to six (6) newsletters. PRODUCTS

Comments on the six (6) newsletters

The CONSULTANT will attend and prepare for up to fifteen (15) meetings to support discipline studies. Five of these meetings will be to coordinate with the on-going area-wide flood studies being conducted by RH2.

PRODUCTS

Meeting attendance at up to fifteen (15) meetings (five of which will be with RI-12).

The CONSULTANT will attend and prepare for up to six (6) public open house meetings.

PRODUCTS

Meeting attendance and preparation for meetings

The CONSULTANT will attend and support the CITY at up to sixteen (16) meetings with special interest groups including neighborhood and trails groups.

PRODUCTS

Attendance and preparation for up to sixteen (16) meetings

The CONSULTANT will attend and support up to six (6) Council Briefings.

PRODUCTS

Attendance and preparation for up to six (6) Council Briefings

The CONSULTANT will develop additional public outreach tools including potential electronic media items such as a site on the world wide web with information relating to the Southeast Issaquah Bypass project including only the following components: project, schedule, status, City and Project Team contact lists, location listing of project and information prepared by the Public Involvement Consultant. This site will be updated monthly with up to eighteen (18) updates.

PRODUCT

A site on the world wide web with up to eighteen (18) updates.

The aerial mapping for the PROJECT will be developed from existing city maps in AutoCAD format. The CITY will provide mapping in hard copy and CADD to the CONSULTANT. The CONSULTANT will update the mapping to conceptual design level accuracy. New areas of development and obscure areas will be supplemented, as required, with field surveys

conducted by the CONSULTANT. New aerial mapping will be required during the final design phase but is not included in this scope of work. The study area for the surveying and mapping task will include the corridor within which the two build alternatives are anticipated to lie.

Field survey activities performed by the CONSULTANT will include:

Collect existing aerial maps, section breakdown, horizontal and vertical control. Data collection activities performed by the CITY will include:

Collect updated tax parcel information.

Collect existing utility as-built information.

Corridor survey control planning, reconnaissance, and traverse Control to be tied to existing Section and Quarter Section Comers, vertical benchmarks, and control from previous aerial survey.

Obscure area topography

CONSULTANT to provide supplemental survey along the two north and two south route options in areas obscured by vegetation.

Update topography

Update topography and planimetric features for improved areas adjacent to alignments, such as gun club and new ball field. The survey will provide mapping of sufficient resolution for route selection but not National Map Accuracy Standards.

Wetland boundary survey

CONSULTANT will field locate and map flags from delineated wetland boundaries. Assume three wetlands.

Stream centerline location and profile

CONSULTANT to survey designated streams and profile within the corridor study area. Assume three streams.

Aerial topography, existing utility and sensitive areas mapping

CONSULTANT to create base maps for route study of the proposed bypass corridor study area as shown on Exhibit A. Existing utility information and new sensitive area data will be combined with existing aerial planimetric mapping.

Merging of Supplemental mapping

Revise and upgrade existing base map to reflect supplemental survey along proposed routes and revise topography and planimetric features of new improvements within the bypass corridor study area.

CONSULTANT to develop a new topographic map TIN and contours for Sheets King 11 and King 12, encompassing more accurate topographic ground data.

Preliminary ROW Boundary Map

The CITY will provide an updated right-of-way map for the corridor in hard copy and AutoCAD formats showing existing right-of-way and tax lot parcel information as well as current ownership. The CONSULTANT will review the boundary map prepared by the CITY and incorporate the data into the Base Mapping as needed for design and Environmental Studies.

The CONSULTANT will identify and conduct conceptual engineering for the two north and two south build alternative routes from the northern terminus along the I-90 corridor to Issaquah-Hobart Road.

Existing related studies will be used to the extent possible. This includes:

Alignment studies previously conducted for the Southeast Issaquah Bypass

The initial tasks will summarize work completed to date and provide necessary closure for some of the already identified alignment options which will not be carried forward.

Public Involvement will be instrumental in conducting preliminary engineering alternative identification

The CONSULTANT will prepare preliminary alignment plans for the Bypass corridor from the northern terminus of the Bypass to Issaquah–Hobart Road at a 1:1000 horizontal and a 1:200 metric vertical scale. These will include alternative horizontal and vertical alignment. A maximum of two alternatives within the Bypass corridor will be considered. The CONSULTANT will submit plans for CITY review at the completion of alignment studies and working drawings as requested by the CITY.

PRODUCTS

Working Drawings as requested by the CITY

Draft Preliminary Alignment Plans (2 sets)

Final Preliminary Alignment Plans (2 sets)

The CONSULTANT will prepare an Alternative Alignment Memorandum of the corridor based on the alignments considered in Task 6.1 for CITY review that provides planning level information on the following areas:

Traffic operations and city land use serviceability (function)

Roadway alignments

Intersection configurations

Speed limit alternatives for consideration by City of Issaquah

Required road design variances

Impacts to existing side-streets

Major retaining wall and bridge locations

Drainage

Geotechnical concerns

Impacted sensitive areas per the City of Issaquah Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO), the NEPA/SEPA/404 Merger Agreement requirements, and impacts to 4(f) and 6(f) properties, wetlands and hazardous waste sites

Preliminary right-of-way and easement requirements

Potential Displacements

The Alignment Memorandum will discuss alignments considered after the completion of the EIS Scoping Process and be the basis of the alternatives chapter of the DEIS. The alignment memorandum will also discuss all other alignment alternatives considered prior to EIS scoping and identified during the scoping process. The Memorandum will identify up to two alternatives studied for the EIS.

The CONSULTANT will provide the CITY with two copies of a draft Alternative Alignment Memorandum for review. The CITY will review and provide consolidated comments to the CONSULTANT, and the CONSULTANT will revise the report for the final publication. The CONSULTANT will provide 6 copies of the finalized Alternative Alignment Memorandum to the CITY for distribution.

PRODUCTS

Draft Alternatives Alignment Memorandum (2 copies) Final Alternatives Alignment Memorandum (6 copies)

The CONSULTANT will perform a preliminary geotechnical investigation within the Southeast Issaquah Bypass corridor (the corridor within which the two north and south build alternatives are expected to lie) and prepare a report according to the City of Issaquah Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) and EIS requirements. The geotechnical investigation will be performed to allow for early identification of sensitive areas to be avoided or mitigate during the initial stages of pre-design (Phase 2).

Phase 1 of the geotechnical investigation will be a detailed field reconnaissance and review of available soils information to identify areas of unstable soil/rock and other earth-related factors associated with environmental and construction cost issues. Based on the review and field investigations, the CONSULTANT will prepare a technical memorandum summarizing the results of the investigation for CITY review. The memorandum will include a discussion of the following:

Review available documents regarding geologic and geotechnical conditions in the site area. These documents include published geologic maps and reports, archived coal mine records, geotechnical reports from our files and geotechnical reports by others in the site area.

Detailed surface reconnaissance of the road corridor including observations and evaluation the performance of nearby road excavations, embankments and structures in the road corridor area. Subsurface explorations include two test borings located along the abandoned railroad grade at the north end of the Southeast Issaquah Bypass corridor where deep cuts are proposed.

Describe site topography, geology, soils and ground water and provide maps and cross sections showing the distribution of geologic units and Soil Conservation Service soil units.

Summary of all known subsurface explorations accomplished within the Southeast Issaquah Bypass road corridor area.

Identification of areas that meet the City of Issaquah CAO criteria for erosion, landslide and seismic hazard areas and provide maps showing those areas.

Description and delineation of unstable or potentially unstable slopes within the road corridor.

Identification of areas within the Southeast Issaquah Bypass corridor where additional geotechnical evaluation is appropriate.

The purpose of this supplemental services is to obtain subsurface information regarding soil and ground water conditions in the south part of the Southeast Issaquah Bypass project area as a basis for evaluating environmental and preliminary road design issues for the route alternatives. These tasks are for the design studies of the selected alternative based on the "bridge" alternative described above. The scope of services includes the following:

Drill eight to nine borings in the south part of the Southeast Issaquah Bypass corridor. Three of the borings will be located along Alternative A and four to five of the borings will be along Alternative B. The borings will be drilled to depths ranging from 20 to 60 feet.

Obtain soil samples from the borings at five-foot depth intervals. The soil samples will be field classified, placed in heavy plastic sealable containers then returned to our office additional classification.

Install a peizometer casing in the borings for ground water monitoring. The peizometer casing will be protected with a steel monument at the surface. Monitor ground water levels in the peizometers on a monthly basis for six months.

Evaluate the subsurface information obtained from the explorations as a basis for describing the existing conditions, impacts and mitigation of identified environmental and preliminary road design issues consistent with ICE's tasks described in the Tasks 6.3, 7.10 and 7.13 of the Agreement.

Six of the test borings will be conducted using a hollow-stem auger drilling rig mounted on an all-terrain vehicle (ATV). Two or three borings will be completed in a "wet" area using a portable drill rig that can be hand carried to the proposed locations. We do not expect to conduct grading other than disturbance of the surficial soils that will result from moving the ATV and portable drilling equipment to the proposed exploration locations. We expect that ground disturbance caused by the exploration equipment will require covering disturbed soils areas with straw mulch. No other site restoration activities are planned.

PRODUCTS

Draft Alternatives Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Technical Memorandum (2 copies) Final Alternatives Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Technical Memorandum (6 copies)

Explore subsurface soil and ground water conditions by drilling 35 borings. Twenty-two of the borings will be drilled along the bridge segment (two borings at each pier or abutment). Eight borings at four detention ponds (two borings at each pond), and five borings along the central and north part of the road alignment. Peizometers will be installed in each boring.

Perform laboratory test on selected soil samples to determine pertinent engineering characteristics of the soils.

Monitor ground water levels in the peizometers on a monthly basis for six months.

Evaluate the existing local and regional ground water regimes based on our explorations, monitoring and available literature.

Develop foundation support recommendations for the new bridge, including allowable bearing pressures for spread footings and capacity-penetration relationships for piles, as appropriate.

Evaluate the expected settlement behavior of bridge foundations.

Provide site preparation criteria for the new roadways, including recommendations regarding the required depth of stripping and excavation of peat.

Provide earthwork criteria for the project including types of fill material and compaction requirements.

Evaluate the expected settlement behavior of fill embankments, particularly with regard to differential settlements along the roadway alignment and between the bridge and approach fills, taking into account the time sequence of construction.

Develop recommendations, if required, for the design of retaining walls for roadway fills, including allowable bearing pressures, active and passive lateral soil pressures, sliding friction and settlement.

Provide recommendations for cut and fill slopes, including recommendations for cut slopes in soil and rock.

Evaluate site ground water conditions and developing appropriate drainage recommendations.

Evaluate pavement support conditions and develop a roadway design pavement section based on forecasted traffic conditions provided by the City of Issaquah.

Provide recommendations for seismic design criteria, as appropriate.

Provide geotechnical recommendations for detention ponds including berm configuration and stability, soil types and compaction criteria, and pond bottom liner design, as appropriate.

Prepare a written report containing our conclusions and recommendations along with the supporting field and laboratory data.

The CONSULTANT will provide exhibits based on working drawings depicting the two north and two south proposed Southeast Issaquah Bypass build alternatives for inclusion in the DEIS and for displays at up to six (6) open houses.

PRODUCT

Exhibits for Open House Display

The CONSULTANT will prepare a Draft and Final Design Memorandum for the Southeast Issaquah Bypass roadway. The Memorandum will discuss in detail two north and two south build alternatives and will provide recommendations on structural and mitigation measures for the PROJECT. The CONSULTANT has not included work alternatives that may result from the 404 Merger process. If the 404 Merger process identifies subsequent alternatives it shall be considered extra work. A more detailed analysis of the elements included in the Alternative Alignment Memorandum. The Memorandum will provide a more detailed cost analysis and identify any additional studies that should be conducted prior to completion of the design not included in the current scope of work.

A detailed summary of relevant geometric design criteria applicable to CITY designated speed limits, will be prepared, based on applicable Design Standards in accordance with the CITY Design Manual and the WSDOT Local Agency Guidelines as well as the AASHTO Green Book. Particular emphasis will be placed on identifying those elements which may be subject to interpretation, engineering judgment or modification due to adverse field conditions. All elements will be reviewed with CITY staff prior to the start of detailed horizontal and vertical alignment design.

All public and private utilities known or thought likely to have existing or planned facilities in the PROJECT area will be identified, and a request for "as-built' information will be made through the CITY.

After information has been obtained and potential impacts to utilities have been identified, a meeting will be held with all affected utilities, the CONSULTANT and CITY staff to discuss utility involvement in the PROJECT. The CITY will coordinate this meeting.

Relocation needs will be identified and documented including cost estimates where appropriate.

The CONSULTANT will develop a Preliminary Drainage Technical Memorandum based on Surface Water Management (SWM) requirements for the Environmental Phase. Requirements of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance (SAO) and basin plans will be addressed. Additionally, the CONSULTANT will work with RH2 and the CITY to develop flooding evaluations of the Lewis Lane neighborhood including field investigations, coordination, investigation of water quality treatment facilities for storage, investigation of re-routing up stream ditches, documenting deficiencies and recommend corrective actions.

The horizontal and vertical alignments will be developed to a level of such refinement that horizontal and vertical clearances can be checked, drainage concepts resolved, utility conflicts identified and right-of-way requirements accurately estimated. No separate utility plans are required. Utility conflict determination will be based on information supplied by utility companies and the CITY and on surface topographic information collected by the CONSULTANT.

Roadway sections for each type of roadway proposed for consideration by the CITY for use on the PROJECT will be prepared. Similar through lane and bridge sections will be combined.

Recommend the number and configuration of traffic lanes for the intersections based on an analysis of traffic data, public input, and other PROJECT information developed by the CONSULTANT and information provided by the CITY.

Prepare 1:500 metric scale intersection plans.

The CONSULTANT will identify existing and proposed pedestrian and bicycle facilities within the corridor, as well as appropriate connections and extensions of existing trails. Type II lanes and sidewalks are anticipated although some sections may use a rural section with separate paths/trails. Improvements to existing trailheads within the corridor will be reviewed for possible expansion and/or improvement.

Opportunities will be identified for consideration by the CITY for consolidation or minimization of driveway and cross street access to the arterial. The CONSULTANT will identify possible new intersection locations and develop preliminary designs and analyze operations.

The CONSULTANT will prepare conceptual drawings of proposed landscape/restoration improvements in response to the proposed roadway alignment and widening alternatives. The conceptual design will respond to the various site conditions.

Available materials including views, safety, visual screening, maintenance requirernents, etc., will be examined. Evaluation of alternative landscape/restoration treatment options will utilize visual imaging and computer aided video modeling technology to accurately represent the proposed roadway and landscape design solutions. Photo imaging and characterization of the roadway will be used during public information and presentations to graphically depict the visual impact of the proposed improvements. This element will include summaries of maintenance impacts.

The CONSULTANT will identify any proposed and existing structures within the PROJECT. The layout plan of the necessary walls will include recommendation of wall types, the vertical profile, and the horizontal alignment.

The CONSULTANT will prepare a budgetary cost estimate to be included with the Design Memorandum. Costs will be based on standard bid item tables published by WSDOT and the CITY. The CITY will provide estimated right-of-way costs based upon right-of-way requirements identified by the CONSULTANT.

The CONSULTANT will prepare cross-sections at 20-meter intervals for up to two north and two south alignments to identify right-of-way/easement needs and cut-and-fill volumes.

The CONSULTANT will compile and summarize the results of the preliminary engineering tasks in a Design Memorandum.

The CONSULTANT will prepare a Preliminary Right-of-Way needs map base for one north and one south alternative on CITY supplied Right-of-Way information. This map will be adequate for the CITY to estimate property acquisition costs and to begin Right-of-Way purchase.

Existing right-of-way parcel research, boundary resolution and mapping scope of work

Collect current tax parcel information and record survey data for approximately 40 parcels and adjoining roads rights-of-way for proposed road alignment design extending from Front Street to Sunset Way.

Field survey boundary control; locate sufficient Section, plat and street monuments

Update existing property and right-of-way lines in existing property base maps supplied by the CITY. Revised information to be based upon current tax parcel information and record survey data. Title reports to be supplied by the City of Issaquah.

PRODUCTS

Draft Preliminary Engineering Report (2 copies)

Final Preliminary Engineering Report (10 copies)

Design Plan/Profile Drawings

Two (2) copies of final right-of-way needs map

Draft and Final Drainage Design Report

Geotechnical Report

The CONSULTANT will prepare modifications to the I-90/Sunset Interchange designs to meet the needs of independent utility. This interchange design will assume the South SPAR/Sunset Way Interchange modifications are not constructed. The Full Build scenario will also be assessed assuming the South SPAR and connection of the Bypass to the Sunset Interchange modifications.

DESIGN GUIDELINES

The CITY will designate the basic premises and criteria for the design. Reports and plans, to the extent feasible, will be developed in accordance with the latest edition and amendments to the following:

City of Issaquah Publications

Issaquah Design Standards

Critical Areas Ordinance

King County Publications

Road Standards 1994

General Special Provisions 1991

Surface Water Design Manual

Community Plan

Basin Studies

Sensitive Areas Ordinance

Washington State Publications

Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction (M41-10)

Standard Plans for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction (M21-01)

Amendments and General Special Provisions

Standard Item Table

Highway Design Manual

Bridge Design Manual

Construction Manual

Local Agency Guidelines

DOE Stormwater Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin

J. Hydraulics Manual

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Publications

a Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (1990) (Green Book)

Standard Specifications for Highways Bridges, Twelfth Edition (1977)

a Guide for Highway Landscape and Environmental Design (1970)

Highway Design and Operational Practices Related to Highway Safety (1974) (Yellow Book)

Any American Association of STATE Highway Officials policy applicable where said policy is not in conflict with CITY standards

U.S. Department of Transportation Publications

Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways

Other Publications

National Electrical Code

Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual (1994)

Standard drawings and sample documents prepared by the CITY and furnished to the CONSULTANT will be used as a guide in all cases where they fit design conditions.

Items To Be furnished To The CONSULTANT By The CITY

The CITY will furnish for the CONSULTANT copies of documents which are available to the CITY that will facilitate the preparation of the plans and studies within the limits of the PROJECT. These are:

Aerial mapping in hard copy and digital (AutoCAD) format

A list of utilities and other agencies having jurisdiction in the PROJECT area • Rights of Entry to affected properties as requested by the CONSULTANT • "As Built' plans, as available

Assessor's maps (in digital and hard copy format)

Archaeological and historical information

Timely review of all CONSULTANT submittals and collation of all review comments into a single document for submission to the CONSULTANT at one time

Average weekday traffic volumes, accident data, and other related transportation data and plans

Existing right-of-way and parcel information in AutoCAD format

PRODUCTS

Draft Alternatives Design Memorandum (2 copies) Final Alternatives Design Memorandum (6 copies) Working Drawings

The CONSULTANT will provide up to ten (10) photographic imaging (renderings) depicting the proposed. Southeast Issaquah Bypass alternatives for inclusion in the DEIS and FEIS and for displays at public meetings and other public outreach.

The alignment Study addressing two north and two south build alternatives and one no-build alternative within the Bypass corridor will be used as the basis for the research conducted in the preparation of the technical reports. Existing information available from work underway or completed for the North SPAR and South SPAR/Sunset Interchange EISs will be used for the Southeast Issaquah Bypass EIS. New information will be developed as required up to the levels of effort specified in the projects "Person Hours Estimate."

The CONSULTANT will document the methodology and assumptions used to guide the transportation analysis. The methodology and assumptions used in this analysis will be consistent with those applied in the South SPAR/Sunset Interchange, and North SPAR EISs

The CONSULTANT will document existing transportation conditions as described in Subtasks 7.1.2.1 through 7.1.2.6. The documentation of existing conditions compiled as part of the South SPAR/Sunset Interchange, and North SPAR EISs will form the basis for this task.

Data Collection

Existing traffic information will be reviewed by the CONSULTANT, including data presented in the East Sammamish Alternatives Feasibility Study, the I-90/Sunset Way Interchange Study (June 1996), the Grand Ridge Environmental Documents (June 1995), the City of Issaquah Comprehensive Plan, and the King County Comprehensive Plan.

These reports, along with data collected for the South SPAR/Sunset Interchange, and North SPAR EISs, will provide much of the information needed to document the existing conditions of the study area with respect to transportation, and will form the basis of subsequent analysis and environmental documentation.

The existing conditions inventory will include documentation of the following:

Street system, classifications and traffic control

Traffic operations

Transit and ridesharing

Bicycle travel

Pedestrian travel (including trails)

Accidents (last 3 years) and safety

Parking

Truck Traffic

Base Year Model Refinement

An existing traffic model will be utilized along with the documentation of existing conditions for use in subsequent tasks. The model is essentially the same that was used in preparation of the Grand Ridge DEIS, the I-90/Sunset Way Interchange Additional Access to Interstate 90 Study, and the Issaquah Comprehensive Plan. The model, developed by Michael R. Birdsall, is compatible with the Puget Sound Regional Council's model, and can readily accommodate data transfer. The model includes both arterials and many local streets within the focused area.

The existing traffic model, allowing for unique modifications needed for this Southeast Issaquah Bypass analysis, will be employed for all new traffic forecasts prepared in this study. This approach will provide for consistency of all new alternatives with the traffic forecasts and analysis conducted for the South SPAR/Sunset Interchange, and North SPAR EISs.

Intersection Operations

The intersection analysis will focus on the AM and PM peak hours. Intersection analysis will be conducted by the CONSULTANT. For signalized intersections, the operational analysis methodology outlined in the Transportation Research Board Special Report 209 Highway Capacity Manual will be used. Intersection levels-of-service will be calculated for key intersections using NCAP and TRANSYT-7F software and will be determined by the CONSULTANT and the CITY.

Roadway Operations

Portions of the proposed Southeast Issaquah Bypass may be described as urban arterials (HCM terminology) and will be analyzed as such. Where this is appropriate, the CONSULTANT will conduct level-of-service calculations based on the urban arterial methodology documented in the 1994 HCM. The CONSULTANT will analyze one section of urban arterial.

Construction impacts

The CONSULTANT will prepare a narrative description of potential transportation related construction impacts.

Documentation of Existing Transportation Conditions

The CONSULTANT will document the results of Tasks 7.1.1.1 – 7.1.1.5. The CONSULTANT will provide the CITY with 2 draft copies of the report for review. The CITY will review and provide consolidated-comments to the CONSULTANT.

The CONSULTANT will revise the draft and provide 6 copies of the final Existing Transportation Conditions Technical Memorandum to the CITY for distribution and revise after review by the City, County, and WSDOT.

PRODUCTS

Draft Existing Transportation Conditions Technical Memorandum (2 copies) Final Existing Transportation Conditions Technical Memorandum (6 copies)

Alternative Corridor Identification and Documentation

In conjunction with the CITY, the CONSULTANT will identify and document alternative corridors to the Southeast Issaquah Bypass that could potentially accommodate forecast travel demand. This documentation will be based in large part on a compilation of findings from previous reports and studies. The documentation will be done utilizing a matrix supplemented by a narrative description.

Land use data used to develop and calibrate the traffic assignment model were provided by King County and the City of Issaquah, and are consistent with those used in the South SPAR/Sunset Interchange and North SPAR EISs. The land uses were divided into several categories (single-family, multi-family, general-retail, social-retail, hotel-motel, general office, medical office, industrial, active land, and park & ride) and trip generation rates were assigned to the land use categories based on ITE trip generation studies.

Future year land use assumptions were developed for the years 2005 and 2015. The land use data for these future years was provided by the PSRC, King County and the City of Issaquah. The data is based on regional forecasts of economic activity and local land use plans, including the East Sammamish Community Plan and the Issaquah Comprehensive Plan.

The CONSULTANT will summarize, update, and revise as necessary, the land use assumptions provided by the CITY for the existing conditions and the forecast years (2005 and 2015) using, in part, traffic projections developed as part of the Sunset Interchange Six Point Access Study.

A 2015 build land use scenario will be evaluated, as used in the South SPAR/Sunset Interchange, and North SPAR EISs.

For the analysis of air quality impacts, opening day traffic forecast will be conducted based on year 2015 land use and transportation forecasts.

The transportation networks for model years 2005 and 2015 were developed from planned and programmed improvements to be implemented by WSDOT, King County and the City of Issaquah.

The CONSULTANT will review and revise these networks as necessary to ensure continued consistency with adopted Plans. Further refinements to the future year networks will be made to reflect the alignment alternatives.

Based on future land use assumptions supplied by the CITY and on the definition of the roadway alignment alternatives, year 2005 and 2015 travel demand forecasts will be prepared using the traffic model. The travel forecasting scenarios being evaluated as part of the South SPAR/Sunset Interchange, and North SPAR EISs contain the range of scenarios to be evaluated for the Southeast Issaquah Bypass.

This task will build upon the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) analysis conducted as part of South SPAR/Sunset Interchange, and North SPAR EISs.

This analysis includes a sensitivity analysis of the broad effects of varying travel demand assumptions such as ridesharing and transit mode shares in the peak hour. This exercise will identify the range of potential demand for alternative modes, and the range of effects on road system travel demand, and support a preliminary estimation of the level of transit and other services needed to justify the assumptions.

The alignment alternatives will be evaluated based on transportation criteria related to the following areas:

Arterial operations including service to CITY planned land uses

Interchange operations

I–90 operations

Roadway alignment

Future transportation network operations

Public transportation service levels and operations

HOVs and park-and-ride facilities

Person throughput capacity,

Non-motorized transportation (including trails)

Traffic operations during construction (construction impacts)

Safety

Ease and impacts of construction phasing

Results of the transportation evaluation will be summarized in an evaluation matrix.

Mitigating Measures

Qualitative analyses will be performed by the CONSULTANT to identify and discuss the potential effectiveness of measures designed to mitigate any significant adverse impacts of each of the alternatives.

High Capacity Transportation Improvements

As an independent task, the CONSULTANT will develop a scope and budget to evaluate High Capacity Transportation Opportunities for nine potential project areas. They include:

South Issaquah Park-and-Ride Lot

Southeast Issaquah Bypass

I-90 Sunset Interchange HOV Improvements

I-90 Front Street Interchange Ramp and Signal Improvements

Issaquah Park-and-Ride Lot Expansion

Non-Motorized Improvements

Grand Ridge Park-and-Ride Lot

South SPAR HOV Treatments

The CONSULTANT will develop a briefing paper identifying High Capacity improvements at the areas listed above. The CONSULTANT will support two workshops, developing agendas, providing staff support and facilitating discussion to further identify the scope and potential benefits of these types of improvements. The CONSULTANT will prepare preliminary sketches and order of magnitude cost estimates for potential projects. The CONSULTANT will

incorporate the findings from the Workshop and the cost estimates and sketches into a Technical Report.

PRODUCTS

Workshop support materials including Agendas and Briefing materials

Draft High Capacity Opportunities Technical Report (2 copies)

Final High Capacity Opportunities Technical Report (1 Camera Ready Copy)

Transportation Issue Support

The CONSULTANT will provide on-going support and advise on the following transportation technical issues:

Access Management - The CONSULTANT will provide documentation and exhibits supporting access management and provide examples of implementation of access strategies. The CONSULTANT will be able to provide this information for Council Briefings.

Evans Street connection - The CONSULTANT will document the localized changes in travel patterns and resulting intersection operations related to connecting Evans Street to the Southeast Issaquah Bypass.

Truck Access and Uses - The CONSULTANT will investigate the cur^rent travel patterns of trucks and their potential use of the Southeast Issaquah Bypass. The CONSULTANT will then identify design requirements to accommodate trucks on the Bypass and identify benefits to alternative routes.

The CONSULTANT will prepare a technical report documenting the findings of Task 7.1.2 to 7.1.7. The CONSULTANT will provide the CITY with 10 draft copies of the report. The CITY will review and provide consolidated comments to the CONSULTANT.

The CONSULTANT will submit 15 copies of a revised draft report to the CITY for distribution and review by cooperating agencies. The CITY will provide consolidated comments and the CONSULTANT will revise the report for final publication. The CONSULTANT will provide 15 copies of the Final Transportation Technical Report to the CITY for distribution.

PRODUCTS

1st Draft Transportation Technical Report (10 copies)

2nd Draft Transportation Technical Report (15 copies)

Final Transportation Technical Report (15 copies)

The air quality analysis will meet the requirements of WAC 173-420. The microscale analysis will be performed to determine carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations using the EPA CAL3QHC or other EPA approved computer models. Vehicular emissions will be computed by using the EPA's latest emission factor algorithm - MOBILE5a. Predictions will be made at all identified receptors and sensitive receptors for the maximum 1-hour and 8-hour periods. CO concentrations will be predicted for the Build and No Action alternatives and will be completed to STATE and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Predictions of CO concentrations will be made at intersections where the Level of Service (LOS) is worse than LOS C. The air quality analysis will be developed in a format that will allow it to be easily adapted to the needs of the environmental document.

For the microscale analyses, based on a review of traffic data, previously developed or monitored air quality data, and the location of sensitive land uses, the CONSULTANT will develop an initial list of four (4) potential analysis sites (i.e., congested intersections, residential, and sensitive receivers) adequate in number to allow complete, accurate and full air quality analysis and submit it to the CITY for review. It is anticipated that from this list of sites (which could be expanded to include the consideration of other locations recommended for consideration by the CITY or others) a sufficient number of air quality analysis sites will be chosen for detailed analysis. The final selection of analysis sites will be made in consultation with the CITY. The following information will be compiled for input into the Air Quality analysis:

LOS at intersections within the PROJECT limits where queues occur or are expected to occur, including intersections with signals and stop signs • Turning movement volumes for forecast years and alternatives at intersections with signals and stop signs

Queue lengths developed from the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual;

AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes and speed estimates for both the year of opening and the design year

Signal Phasing

Traffic signal cycle lengths

Intersection saturation flow rates

Air quality analyses will also be conducted at sensitive land use locations directly adjacent to alternative alignments – with air quality levels estimated at various distances from the right-of-way. These sites will be selected based on traffic conditions, roadway geometry, and surrounding land uses.

Worst case meteorological conditions (i.e., wind speed, stability class, ambient temperature, and persistence factor) and appropriate background levels will be selected. The selection will be based upon review of the pertinent meteorology and discussions with review agency personnel.

In consultation with the appropriate agency the proper credits to account for the STATE's inspection and maintenance program, the STATE's anti-tampering programs, and other inputs will be selected.

The Project Conformity Statement section will include the PROJECT's inclusion in the pertinent conforming transportation plan and conforming transportation improvements program (TIP), and relation to transportation control measures. Note the emissions relationship between Build and No Action alternatives. Indicate whether the PROJECT contributes to the reduction of frequency and severity of violations of NAAQS (if any).

Existing ambient air quality will be described qualitatively using available monitoring data from the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency and the Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE). Existing CO levels will be estimated by the CONSULTANT. At each of the analysis sites, existing maximum one- and eight hour CO concentrations will be estimated. For the purpose of this scope of work, it is assumed that two analysis hours will be modeled at each location: weekday AM and PM peak periods. No field monitoring will be performed as a part of this study. The discussion for the Affected Environment section will include compliance status with the NAAQS as well as existing PROJECT area attainment status.

All impacts associated with construction of the PROJECT are to be addressed in the Construction Impacts section. Under impacts, consider in general terms, temporary construction effects such as (but not limited to) dust and particles, slash disposal, burning, odors, emissions from construction equipment, and emissions from asphalt plants, gravel plants, and other temporary stationary sources. Discuss permit requirements. Under mitigation, describe mitigation measures and commitments during construction such as dust abatement measures and equipment pollution controls. Discuss mitigation measures considered or available but not included and the reasons for non inclusion.

mesoscale Analysis

No mesoscale air quality modeling will be done for this project.

microscale Analysis

Carbon monoxide levels will be estimated by the CONSULTANT at each air quality analysis site for each of the alternatives for the Southeast Issaquah Bypass for the PROJECT's design year of 2015 and for the year of opening. At each of the analysis sites, maximum one-and eight-hour CO concentrations will be calculated for the AM and the PM peak.

Future CO levels estimated for each proposed alternative will be compared with National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), and with predicted No–Action levels to determine the effects of each alternative.

The studies and Coordination section will include discussion of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and non-attainment areas affected by the PROJECT, the PROJECT's relation to the regional Transportation Plan and Regional Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), the PROJECT's relation to the State Implementation Program (SIP) requirements, including Transportation Control Measures (TCM), and the method of air quality analysis. The air quality analysis coverage will include a summary of conformity guidance. The following will be included: site specific traffic, emissions, and concentration models used (microscale analysis), assumptions used, and a map showing receptor locations. In non-attainment areas, a summary of reference to the regional quantitative analysis of the regional transportation plan and Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), as documented in the latest TIP will be included. The results of coordination with appropriate air quality agencies will be discussed in the Studies and Coordination section.

Qualitative analyses will be performed by the CONSULTANT to identify and discuss the potential effectiveness of measures designed to minimize any significant adverse impacts of each of the alternatives.

The CONSULTANT will prepare a technical report documenting the results of Tasks 7.2.1 to 7.2.5. The CONSULTANT will provide the CITY with 10 draft copies of the report. The CITY will review the report and provide consolidated comments to the CONSULTANT.

The CONSULTANT will submit 20 copies of submit a revised draft report to the CITY for distribution and review by cooperating agencies. The CITY will provide consolidated comments and the CONSULTANT will revise the report for formal publication. The CONSULTANT will submit 10 copies of the finalized report to the CITY for distribution.

PRODUCTS

1st Draft Air Quality Technical Report (10 copies)

2nd Draft Air Quality Technical Report (20 copies)

Final Air Quality Technical Report (10 copies)

The EIS will complete a project-level noise analysis.

The CONSULTANT will use FHWA and WSDOT-accepted noise analysis methodology including STAMINA 2.0 noise prediction model. The following information will be compiled for the Noise Analysis:

Traffic volumes for affected roadways;

Existing and future travel speeds;

Vehicle classification data;

The CONSULTANT will conduct a reconnaissance of the PROJECT study area to determine land uses to locate sensitive receptors, and determine their distances from the proposed roadway alignments. The CONSULTANT will discuss with the CITY any specific receptors that the CITY would like evaluated, including receptors not immediately adjacent to the project area. All of the following land uses must be identified: lands upon which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve as an important public need and where the preservation of those qualities are essential if the area is to continue to serve its intended purpose. Examples are picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals. Selection of sensitive receptors for the study is based upon their sensitivity to noise and their distance from the PROJECT. The CONSULTANT will note physical and ter^rain features which may be altered during construction and affect noise levels.

All measurements will be conducted for 15 minute sampling periods during daytime off-peak hours (10 am to 4 pm) when traffic is moving freely. At each measurement site, traffic counts will be conducted concurrently with the noise measurements. Non-highway noise sources will be noted and measured. The monitored noise levels will be adjusted to represent traffic noise levels during peak hour traffic movements. Traffic volumes that were counted during the noise measurement survey will be compared with the existing peak hour traffic volumes and an adjustment will be made to the measured noise levels using the STAMINA 2.0 noise prediction or other approved model. Traffic counted during the noise measurement will be used to calibrate the noise model. Existing peak hour traffic will be used with speed limit speeds to calculate existing peak noise levels. In locations where there are no existing roadways, the model output will be used to represent the existing noise level.

Construction activities that would result in noise impacts to nearby noise sensitive land uses will be qualitatively assessed by the CONSULTANT in accordance with CITY procedures.

The CONSULTANT will model the future year traffic noise level with and without the proposed PROJECT using the FHWA STAMINA 2.0, or the most current version, Highway Noise Prediction Model. Noise predictions will be modeled at selected noise sensitive receptors and other noise sensitive land uses along the corridor for each alternative alignment. Noise impact also will be modeled for a number of residential receptors near Front Street to assess impacts in that area. Modeled receptors must be adequate to assess all traffic noise impacts, the noise levels at each of the impacted receptors, the increase in traffic noise and amount of reduction to each outdoor area as a result of mitigation or the lack of mitigation. Outdoor areas where future build noise levels would exceed noise abatement criteria and those areas which will have a substantial increase in predicted noise levels over existing noise levels will be identified by the CONSULTANT for all land uses and impacts quantified.

In accordance with FHWA requirements at locations along the alignments where traffic noise impacts are predicted, noise abatement measures will be considered and could include noise barriers, as well as other techniques. The CONSULTANT will provide height, length, cost and benefits per impacted user for each proposed barrier. It will contain a complete discussion of impacted areas that do not meet the STATE criteria and specifically note reasons for not including mitigation.

The CONSULTANT will prepare a technical report documenting the results of Task 7.3.1 – 7.3.5. The CONSULTANT will provide the CITY with 10 draft copies of the report. The CITY will review and provide consolidated comments to the CONSULTANT.

The CONSULTANT will submit 20 copies of a revised draft report to the CITY for distribution and review by cooperating agencies. The CITY will provide consolidated comments and the CONSULTANT will revise the report for formal publication. The CONSULTANT provide 10 copies of the finalized Noise Technical Report to the CITY for distribution. '

PRODUCTS

First Draft Noise Technical Report (10 copies) Second Draft Noise Technical Report (20 copies)

Final Noise Technical Report (10 copies)

The CONSULTANT will identify and document existing land use plans, policies and related ordinances for all jurisdictions in the PROJECT area. To the extent possible, documentation of land use will be coordinated with land use tasks associated with the South Sammamish Plateau Access Road/I-90 Sunset Interchange EIS and Design Report, and are expected to include the following:

1. Existing local land use plans, including the newly adopted City of Issaquah Comprehensive Plan, zoning ordinances, and functional plans such as the critical areas ordinance, drainage regulations and the Issaquah Area Wildlife and Recreational Trails Plan

2. King County Comprehensive Plan

3. County-wide Planning Policies, as applicable

4. Issaquah Creek Basin and Non-Point Action Plan

5. West Tiger Mountain Natural Resource Conservation Area Management Plan

6. Proposed private development plans

7. Proposed private developments

8. Environmental documentation for the Grand Ridge project including the Grand Ridge Joint Agreement, the Grand Ridge Annexation and Development Agreement, and the Master Transportation and Finance Agreement.

The CONSULTANT will conduct a site reconnaissance to verify existing land -use - information. Local jurisdictional staffs will be contacted to identify any recently proposed projects in the area. Maps of existing land uses and zoning will be prepared for the project area

The CONSULTANT will perform a "Relationship to Plans and Policies" analysis that will address consistencies, inconsistencies, and potential inconsistencies with applicable land use plans, policies, and ordinances. Documentation of coordination with agencies will indicate that the preferred alternative is compatible with, or will be made compatible with, all of the local plans, policies, and ordinances. If any inconsistencies remain, actions to be taken for resolution will be identified.

The CONSULTANT will inventory prime and unique farmlands in the corridor and prepare a Form AD 1006 (Farmland Conversion Impact Rating), if necessary.

Temporary project impacts associated with construction of each of the alternatives will be evaluated and documented by the CONSULTANT.

Long-term land use impacts associated with the two north and two south build alternatives and the no build alternative will be evaluated and documented by the CONSULTANT. Direct land use impacts to adjacent properties associated with the footprint/right-of-way of each build alternative will be identified. Future operation impacts related to issues such as noise, air, water, visual quality and potential changes associated with corridor area mobility will also be documented. Existing policies and proposed growth management plans including development regulations and zoning will be considered when evaluating land use impacts will be evaluated. Critical areas requirements and concurrence levels of service will be summarized for use in other appropriate sections of the environmental document. Potential indirect and cumulative impacts, such as induced growth and development, will also be addressed.

Mitigation measures for potential construction activity and long-term project impacts will be developed and proposed by the CONSULTANT. Construction related mitigation could be related to temporary disruptions, air and noise impacts, traffic maintenance issues, and visual impacts. Mitigation measures for any potential conflicts associated with comparison of PROJECT operational results with the land use plans and level of service standards will be explored and proposed.

The CONSULTANT will prepare a technical report documenting the results of Task 7.4 sub-tasks. The CONSULTANT will provide the CITY with 10 draft copies of the report. The CITY will review and provide consolidated comments to the CONSULTANT.

The CONSULTANT will submit 20 copies of a revised draft report to the CITY for distribution and review by cooperating agencies. The CITY will provide consolidated comments and the CONSULTANT will revise the report for formal publication. The CONSULTANT provide 10 copies of the finalized Land Use and Development Report to the CITY for distribution.

PRODUCTS

1st Draft Land Use and Development Technical Report (10 copies)

2nd Draft Land Use and Development Technical Report (20 copies)

Final Land Use and Development Technical Report (10 copies)

Wetlands Reconnaissance

The CONSULTANT will conduct a reconnaissance of existing wetlands in the project area. This Reconnaissance will be composed of a review of existing literature and printed maps describing/depicting wetlands in the study area. The CONSULTANT will also conduct a limited field study to confirm the relative accuracy of the literature.

Wetlands Delineation

The CONSULTANT will delineate wetlands in the vicinities of the two build alternatives using the methodologies described in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (1987). The CONSULTANT will prepare data sheets, a functions assessment, and written descriptions of delineated wetlands. The CONSULTANT will survey wetland boundaries and prepare

map(s) of surveyed wetlands. The CONSULTANT will classify the wetlands according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service classification system (Cowardin et al., 1979) and rate the wetlands using the Washington State Department of Ecology's Wetlands Rating System.

Construction impacts

Temporary construction impacts on wetlands resulting from each alternative shall be assessed by the CONSULTANT.

Long-Term impacts

Permanent, long-term impacts resulting from construction of project improvements and the loss of existing wetlands shall be assessed by the CONSULTANT. Indirect and cumulative impacts will also be assessed.

Mitigation Measures

Mitigation measures for potential short-term construction impacts and long-term impacts shall be developed by the CONSULTANT. The CONSULTANT shall determine mitigation ratios in accordance with recommendations made by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the CITY. The potential feasibility of mitigating wetland impacts within the project corridor shall be assessed by the CONSULTANT, but analysis and selection of mitigation sites shall not be conducted under this subtask. The mitigation assessment under this subtask will provide the basic information needed for subsequent, more detailed mitigation planning to be conducted at a later date.

Wetlands Delineation Report

Prior to publication of the preliminary Draft EIS, the CONSULTANT will prepare a draft Wetlands Delineation Report. The report will be submitted to the CITY, WSDOT, and the USACOE for review and comment. The CONSULTANT will conduct one site visit with the USACOE to verify wetland boundaries and classifications.

The draft report will be revised to incorporate the results of the confirmation and will be completed for submittal with the preliminary Draft EIS. The revised report will include discussions on construction impacts, long-term impacts, indirect and cumulative impacts, and potential mitigation.

The CITY will provide consolidated comments on the revised draft report to the CONSULTANT and CONSULTANT will revise the report for formal publication. The CONSULTANT will provide 10 copies of the finalized Wetlands Delineation Report to the CITY for distribution.

PRODUCTS

Draft Wetlands Reconnaissance Report (5 copies)

Final Wetlands Reconnaissance Report (20 copies)

1^st Draft Wetland Delineation Report (10 copies)

2^nd Draft Wetland Delineation Report (20 copies)

Final Wetland Delineation Report (10 copies)

Methodologies to assess impacts to ecosystem elements will include literature searches and field identification of wildlife and vegetation.

The CONSULTANT will map plant communities using aerial photographs (verified by field work) in Task 7.6.2.1 to determine potential wildlife species using the Wildlife Habitat Profile, and information pertaining to the West Tiger Natural Resources Conservation Area provided by the King County Open Space Program (Parks, Planning, and Resources Department, Natural Resources and Parks Division, February 1987), Management of Wildlife and Fish in Forests of Western Oregon and Washington, Appendix 8 (USDA Forest Service 1985), and data contained in the East Sammamish Community Plan EIS and related studies.

Inventory will be taken of the vegetation community types in the corridor vicinity. Vegetation will be mapped by the CONSULTANT using aerial photography; mapped units will be field verified. The CONSULTANT will prepare computer-generated map(s) of vegetation and will prepare a written description of the vegetation.

Wildlife

The CONSULTANT will conduct a literature search and field identification of wildlife and wildlife habitat features within the project corridor and adjacent portions of Tiger Mountain.

An on-site investigation by the CONSULTANT will verify the results of an aerial photographic interpretation of potential wildlife habitat. Field investigations will be conducted to identify special habitat features such as significant trees, snags, downed logs, nests, and ecotones. Evidence of wildlife use in each vegetative community and along evident wildlife corridors will also be noted. Following the preliminary and on-site investigations, a list of wildlife characteristics of on-site vegetative communities will be generated.

Threatened and Endangered Species (T&E)

In compliance with the STATE's Endangered Species Program and the Federal Endangered Species Act, T&E plant and animal species literature searches will be undertaken. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Washington State Fish and Wildlife Department and the Washington State Department of Natural Resources will be contacted.

Temporary construction impacts resulting from the alternatives will be assessed by the CONSULTANT. Vegetation and wildlife impacts resulting from construction activities will be assessed by the CONSULTANT for on-site habitat and wildlife corridors.

Permanent, long-term impacts on wildlife and vegetation resulting from the construction of project improvements and the loss of existing habitat will be assessed by the CONSULTANT. Indirect and cumulative impacts will also be addressed.

Mitigation measures for potential short-term construction impacts and long-term impacts will be developed by the CONSULTANT with particular emphasis on impacts to T&E vegetation and wildlife species.

The CONSULTANT will prepare a technical report documenting the results of Tasks 7.6.1 to 7.6.5. The CONSULTANT will provide the CITY with 10 draft copies of the report for review by the CITY. The CITY will review and provide consolidated comments to the CONSULTANT.

The CONSULTANT will submit 20 copies of a revised draft report to the CITY for distribution and review by cooperating agencies. The CITY will provide consolidated comments and the CONSULTANT will revise the report for formal publication. The CONSULTANT will provide 10 copies of the finalized Biological Resources Technical Report to the CITY for distribution.

PRODUCTS

1st Draft Biological Resources Technical Report (10 copies)

2nd Draft Biological Resources Technical Report (20 copies)

Final Biological Resources Technical Report (10 copies)

The CONSULTANT will conduct a literature search for information on fishery resources in the project vicinity, perform field reconnaissance of the East Fork and main stem of Issaquah Creek and unnamed tributaries to Issaquah Creek within and near the project corridor and consult with affected Native American tribes. The CONSULTANT will conduct the equivalent of a King County Level 1 Stream Survey for two unnamed tributaries to Issaquah Creek that traverse the south end of the proposed Bypass corridor. The CONSULTANT will flag the ordinary high water mark of these tributaries. Electroshocking of fish and benthic analysis will not be conducted as part of this analysis.

Impacts of construction activities on fisheries will be assessed based on anticipated temporary impacts to water quality in on-site and off-site streams, and to placement of culverts (if any) in existing open water courses.

Long-term impacts to fisheries will be assessed relative to anticipated long-term water quality impacts and permanent alterations to stream channels (if applicable). Indirect and cumulative impacts will also be addressed.

Conceptual mitigation measures for impacts to fisheries will be proposed to minimize and reduce potential negative construction and long-term impacts to the quality of fish-bearing waters.

The CONSULTANT will prepare a technical report documenting the results of Tasks 7.7.1 to 7.7.4. The CONSULTANT will provide the CITY with 10 draft copies of the report for review by the CITY. The CITY will review the report and provide consolidated comments to the CONSULTANT.

The CONSULTANT will submit 20 copies of a revised draft report to the CITY for distribution and review by cooperating agencies and Native American tribes. The CITY will provide consolidated comments and the CONSULTANT will revise the report for formal publication. The CONSULTANT provide 10 copies of the finalized Fisheries Technical Report to the CITY for distribution.

PRODUCTS

1st Draft Fisheries Technical Report (10 copies)

1st Draft Fisheries Technical Report (20 copies)

Final Fisheries Technical Report (10 copies)

This section of the Scope of Services addresses issues relating to surface and ground water quality. Issues relating to ground and surface water quantity are addressed in the sections: Drainage Design Facilities (Section 6.5.3), Waterways and Hydrological Systems (Section 7.12), and Floodplains (7.1.4).

The CONSULTANT will conduct technical investigations of surface and ground water quality issues on the PROJECT, including phosphorus loading impacts on Lake Sammamish. The technical study addressing water quality will describe the affected environment, potential impacts for alternatives considered and compared and proposed mitigation. The Subtasks that will be involved in the water quality investigations are outlined below.

The description of the affected receiving water will include aspects of both surface and ground waters. Because of special concerns about phosphorus in stormwater runoff draining to Lake Sammamish, extra detail is needed in the characterization of the existing phosphorus content in site area runoff. To the extent possible, information and data developed for the Grand Ridge Water Quality Technical report and for similar reports concurrently being developed for the North and South SPAR projects will be used.

Existing surface and ground water quality in the PROJECT vicinity will be characterized based on review of available reports and other data sources, contacts with local experts familiar with the affected water bodies, and field reconnaissance. Surface water quality conditions will be assessed for the East Fork and main stem of Issaquah Creek, associated tributaries for which data is available, and for Lake Sammamish. This assessment will focus on the PROJECT areas potentially affected by construction of the Southeast Issaquah Bypass.

Existing ground water quality will be characterized for the project area based on available data and reports. It is expected that the ground water quality characterization will rely on data available from well records and from information compiled for the Issaquah Creek Valley Ground Water Management Plan. Measurements of on-site stormwater runoff pollutant concentrations will not be collected for this PROJECT. Likewise, no new monitoring of ground water quality will be conducted.

Soil samples will be collected at the site and analyzed for phosphorus content to enable quantitative estimates of phosphorus delivery to the lake via erosion. It is assumed that four soil samples will be collected at the PROJECT site and analyzed for this study. Some or all of these samples may come from depths beneath the ground surface representative of excavated road grade elevations (i.e., the soils that will be exposed to precipitation for long durations). It is assumed that the subsurface soil samples will be collected by the geotechnicaI subconsultants' field crew in conjunction with soil test pit work. The water quality subconsultant will coordinate with the geotechnical subconsultant to specify the soil sample locations and provide the sample containers. Following sample collection, the water quality subconsultant will obtain the subsurface samples for delivery to a laboratory along with any surface soil samples collected for the PROJECT.

The analysis of surface water quality impacts will differentiate between short-term construction impacts and long-term operational impacts. Construction impacts will be quantified by estimating rates of soil erosion from disturbed areas of the site using the Universal Soil Loss Equation, with input parameters derived from literature references. The results of on-site soil sampling will be used to support the erosion calculations and to determine the extent of phosphorus transport that could be expected in runoff from disturbed areas.

Long-term surface water pollutant loadings and runoff concentrations will be estimated for existing conditions and the development alternatives. Mass loadings of several pollutants in site runoff will be estimated; the types of pollutants to be analyzed will be determined in consultation with CITY staff. These loading estimates will be based on loading factors derived from available literature references and measurements of areas of various types of land cover. Concentrations of these pollutants in runoff will also be estimated to enable comparisons with STATE water quality standards.

The impacts of the proposed PROJECT on ground water quality will be evaluated qualitatively based on knowledge of runoff characteristics, proposed storm drainage systems, depths to ground water, and soil characteristics. The ground water quality impact analysis will include evaluation of the long-term effects of pollutants infiltrated in surface runoff and the potential for spills of toxic materials to contaminate ground water. No analysis (i.e., modeling) of subsurface contaminant transport will be conducted.

The total phosphorus loading in site runoff will be given greater emphasis in the analysis of impacts than that provided for the other pollutants. The impacts of the estimated phosphorus loadings on Lake Sammamish under each of the PROJECT alternatives will be analyzed via comparisons with estimated watershed loadings developed specifically for Lake Sammamish by the King County Department of Metropolitan Services (released in August of 1995). The methods for estimating phosphorus loadings and concentrations will, however, be the same as for the other pollutants.

Mitigation opportunities and recommendations will be developed for both construction-phase and long-term operational impacts. These mitigation measures will be discussed only in conceptual terms; runoff control facility designs will be prepared in the Drainage Design Facilities portion of this Scope of Services described under Section 6.5 - Preliminary Engineering.

Specific recommendations for mitigation of phosphorus-related impacts on water quality will be provided in the technical report. If the potential impacts are determined to be significant, estimates of spatial requirements for phosphorus control facilities will be prepared.

The CONSULTANT will prepare a technical report documenting the results of tasks 7.8.1 through 7.8.5. The CONSULTANT will provide the CITY with 10 draft copies of the report for review by the CITY. The CITY will review and provide consolidated comments to the CONSULTANT.

The CONSULTANT will submit 20 copies of a revised draft report to the CITY for distribution and review by cooperating agencies. The CITY will provide consolidated comments and the CONSULTANT will revise the report for formal publication. The CONSULTANT provide 10 copies of the finalized Water Quality Technical Report to the CITY for distribution.

PRODUCTS

1st Draft Water Quality Technical Report (10 copies)

2nd Draft Water Quality Technical Report (20 copies)

Final Water Quality Technical Report (10 copies)

Issues related to the 100-year floodplain of East Fork Issaquah Creek in the vicinity of the Sunset Interchange on Interstate 90 (the northern terminus of the PROJECT) were adequately addressed in the Hydrologic Systems and Floodplains Technical Report prepared for the South SPAR / Sunset Interchange project. Therefore, floodplains issues associated with the East Fork will not be addressed under this PROJECT. The floodplains analysis performed under this task will focus on the main stem of Issaquah Creek and its tributaries in the project area. Available floodplain mapping upstream, within, and downstream of the project site prepared by King County Surface Water Management for the Issaquah Creek Basin Plan and by FEMA will be used to characterize the existing 100-year floodplain limits relevant to the proposed improvements. Hydraulic modeling of stream flows will not be conducted for the purposes of calculating floodway elevations. Field reconnaissance of the project site will be conducted to confirm mapping of the existing 100-year floodplain limits.

Impacts of construction activities floodplains will be assessed based on anticipated impacts to streams, culverts, ditches, catch basins, and other constructed drainage features in the site vicinity. If PROJECT construction activities would occur within the 100-year floodplain limits of Issaquah Creek, the probable area of floodplain that would be affected will be calculated. The necessary permits to allow work within the 100-year floodplain will also be detailed.

The potential effects of proposed PROJECT improvements on the 100-year floodplain of Issaquah Creek will be evaluated, including the potential for flooding conditions to change downstream. The analysis will include specific properties that could be affected in the immediate PROJECT area. The long-term impacts of the PROJECT on natural and beneficial floodplain values will be addressed. Exhibits showing the existing 100-year floodplain limits overlain with proposed improvements will be included in the report. Cumulative and indirect impacts will also be addressed.

Mitigation opportunities and recommendations will be developed for potential impacts on floodplain conditions. Mitigation measures will be discussed only in conceptual terms; no design details or cost estimates will be prepared under this task. Design details for surface water quantity controls will be addressed under Task 6.5.3, Drainage Design Facilities.

The CONSULTANT will prepare a Floodplains Technical Report documenting the results of Tasks 7.9.1 through 7.9.4. The CONSULTANT will deliver 10 copies of a draft report to the CITY for review. The CITY will review and provide consolidated comments to the CONSULTANT.

The CONSULTANT will submit 20 copies of a revised draft report to the CITY for distribution and review by cooperating agencies. The CITY will provide consolidated comments and the CONSULTANT will revise the report for formal publication. The CONSULTANT provide 10 copies of the finalized Floodplains Technical Report to the CITY for distribution.

PRODUCTS

1st Draft Floodplains Technical Report (10 copies)

2nd Draft Floodplains Technical Report (20 copies)

Final Floodplains Technical Report (10 copies)

The CONSULTANT will conduct an inventory of existing hazardous materials in the Southeast Issaquah Bypass road corridor. The CONSULTANT will evaluate the historic use of the corridor and relevant adjacent properties by review of public records, aerial photographs and historic maps. The CONSULTANT will conduct a field reconnaissance of the road corridor and associated structures to evaluate the potential affected environment and risk levels for hazardous materials.

Based on the review and field investigation, the CONSULTANT will prepare a technical report summarizing the results of this investigation for CITY review. The report will include a discussion of the following:

Review readily available geotechnical or environmental reports for the subject site including information provided by the City of Issaquah.

Review appropriate federal and state environmental databases for listings of known or suspected environmental problems at the subject site or nearby properties.

Review historical information including aerial photographs, fire insurance maps, USGS (United States Geological Survey) maps and city business directories, as available and appropriate, to identify past development history on and adjacent to the site relative to the possible use, generation, storage, release or disposal of hazardous materials.

Review the site property history and interview up to two current property owners or others familiar with past and present uses of the project corridor and the area immediately surrounding it.

Identification of the source(s) of potable water for the project corridor and the type and age of the sewage disposal system(s) used within the project corridor from appropriate information resources.

A visual reconnaissance of the site and adjacent properties to identify any visible signs of possible contamination and potential sources of contamination.

A written opinion regarding the potential environmental impacts associated with the project construction and operation based on the results of our study. We also will provide general recommendations for project mitigation, as appropriate, depending on the potential environmental impacts during construction and operation.

Recommendations for further environmental study, as needed, regarding subsurface exploration and laboratory testing.

The CONSULTANT will prepare a Preliminary Environmental Site Assessment documenting the results of the task. The CONSULTANT will deliver 2 copies of a draft report to the CITY for review. The CITY will review and provide consolidated comments to the CONSULTANT.

The CONSULTANT will submit 6 copies of a revised draft report to the CITY for distribution and review by cooperating agencies. The CITY will provide consolidated comments and the CONSULTANT will revise the report for formal publication. The CONSULTANT provide 6 copies of the finalized Preliminary Environmental Site Assessment to the CITY for distribution.

PRODUCTS

1st Draft Preliminary Environmental Site Assessment (2 copies)

2nd Draft Preliminary Environmental Site Assessment (6 copies)

Final Preliminary Environmental Site Assessment (6 copies)

The following tasks will be conducted after the completion of the Preliminary Environmental Site Assessment to meet the environmental needs of the project.

Conduct detailed site reconnaissance in the vicinity of residential structures located along the alignment with regard to the potential presence of hazardous materials that may impact soil and ground water conditions at the site.

Conduct detailed interviews with a representative of the Issaquah Sportsman Club and property owners or tenants of the residential structures located along the alignment with regard to site history.

Drill two soil borings along the alignment located adjacent to the Issaquah Sportsman Club. Install ground water monitoring wells. Obtain ground water samples and submit for chemical testing of lead and other potential contaminants.

Analyze the results of the test data with respect to current regulatory criteria.

PRODUCTS

Prepare a memorandum/report summarizing the results of our reconnaissance, interviews and ground water monitoring, along with our conclusions and recommendations.

Cultural resources in the proposed PROJECT area will be assessed by the CONSULTANT using an approach combining archival research, agency coordination and field reconnaissance.

Completion of Section 106 coordination for the proposed SE Bypass alignments by Northwest Archaeological Associates (NWAA) as indicated in the attached scope and budget dated July 5, 1999. NWAA will review the assessment of effects on the White Swan Inn and the Issaquah Sportsman's Clubhouse, and complete consultation with the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and interested parties. This will include a site visit to the Issaquah Sportsman's Clubhouse, preparation of the Section 4(f) evaluation, and the Memorandum of Agreement if necessary.

Research will be conducted by the CONSULTANT to identify existing cultural resources (archaeological resources) in, and adjacent to, the corridor study area and to deterrnine the probability for cultural resource, including archaeological sites and historic structures. Ethnographies, local histories, maps, and government documents will be consulted. Repositories to be accessed will include Special Collections, Suzzallo Library, University of Washington; King County Public Library System; and Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP).

A systematic field reconnaissance will be conducted by the CONSULTANT to identify previously recorded and/or unrecorded archaeological sites for the corridor where undeveloped surface is available. All new sites would be mapped, photographed, and recorded on Washington State Archaeological Inventory forms and submitted to the OAHP for Smithsonian numbers. Soil coring and willow pit excavations will be used where appropriate in the opinion of the archaeologist.

A technical report will be prepared by the CONSULTANT, describing cultural resources identified in the corridor, using the OAHP standards. The report would include summary background information appropriate to a cultural resources assessment of the study area, including a description of the PROJECT, environment, ethnography/ethnohistory, previous archaeology and history, methodology, results of the investigation, and maps of the sites located. Pertinent graphics and photographs will also be included. Project impacts from construction and/or operation will be discussed, and recommendations will be extended for sites that have been^, located that are listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).

Coordination will be undertaken with the CITY, County and the OAHP to determine not only the existence of historic properties, but the likelihood of adverse effects to extant historic properties within and/or adjacent to the PROJECT area. Cultural resource personnel at the CITY, King COUNTY and OAHP would be consulted for information on Historic properties and their opinions on eligibility. Any affected tribes will also be contacted for their insight into the ethnohistoric potential of the area and to determine the existence of traditional cultural properties. If the Section 106 process is triggered, a Section 106 Report will be prepared and agency coordination will also include the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP).

The CONSULTANT will prepare a technical report documenting the results of the task. The CONSULTANT will provide the CITY with 5 draft copies of the report for review-by the CITY. The CITY will review and provide consolidated comments to the CONSULTANT.

The CONSULTANT will submit 10 copies of a revised draft report to the CITY for distribution and review by cooperating agencies. The CITY will provide consolidated comments and the CONSULTANT will revise the report for formal publication. The CONSULTANT provide 5 copies of the finalized Historical, Archaeological, and Cultural Resources Technical Report to the CITY for distribution.

PRODUCTS

1st Draft Historical, Archaeological, and Cultural Resources Technical Report (5 copies) 2nd Draft Historical, Archaeological, and Cultural Resources Technical Report (10 copies) Final Historical, Archaeological, and Cultural Resources Technical Report (5 copies)

Draft Section 106 Report (if required) (5 copies)

Final Section 106 Report (if required) (10 copies)

This section addresses issues relating to surface and surface water Quantity. Issues relating to surface and groundwater quality are addressed in Water Quality (Section 7.8).

Existing surface and ground water quantity characteristics in the PROJECT vicinity will be determined based on available reports, contacts with local experts, and field reconnaissance. The characterization of surface water hydrologic conditions in the PROJECT area prepared by the CONSULTANT will focus on existing drainage patterns, including constructed drainage systems, and documented stream flow data for the East Fork and main stem of Issaquah Creek. Quantitative information on surface water drainage will be supplied from work completed under Task 6.5.3, Drainage Design Facilities.

The description of existing ground water conditions prepared by the CONSULTANT will focus on depths to ground water, locations of existing water wells, areas of significant recharge potential, and general subsurface flow patterns in the PROJECT area. It is assumed that descriptions of geologic characteristics as they relate to local ground water conditions will be provided by others.

Impacts of construction activities on surface drainage systems will be assessed based on anticipated impacts to streams, culverts, ditches, catch basins, and other constructed drainage features in the site vicinity. Erosion calculations prepared for the Water Quality Technical Report (Task 7.8.2) will be referenced to assess potential reductions in flow conveyance capacity of these drainage systems. Impacts of construction activities on ground water flow conditions will not be addressed in this section as they are considered to be negligible.

Potential long-term operational impacts on surface and ground water resources will be analyzed. This analysis will focus on potential changes in surface water flows and ground water recharge that may occur within the immediate PROJECT area, and the associated effects on streams and ground water supplies for local well users. Potential impacts to surface waters and local ground water supplies will be estimated by calculating average surface runoff and infiltration volumes in the site area under existing conditions and post-developed conditions for each of the PROJECT alternatives. Estimated differences in surface water runoff volumes will be used to characterize the potential for stream flow changes in Issaquah Creek and its tributaries within the PROJECT limits. Likewise, estimated differences in infiltration volumes will be used to represent reductions or increases in shallow ground water recharge. Modeling of subsurface flow patterns and water table fluctuations will not be conducted. Indirect and cumulative impacts will also be addressed.

Mitigation opportunities and recommendations will be developed for potential impacts on surface water flows and ground water flow conditions. Mitigation measures will be discussed only in conceptual terms; no design details or cost estimates will be prepared under this task. Design details for surface water quantity controls will be addressed under Task 6.5.3, Drainage Design Facilities.

The CONSULTANT will prepare a Waterways and Hydrologic Systems Technical Report documenting the results of Tasks 7.12.1 through 7.12.4. The CONSULTANT will deliver 10 copies of a draft report to the CITY for review. The CITY will review and provide consolidated comments to the CONSULTANT.

The CONSULTANT will submit 20 copies of a revised draft report to the CITY for distribution and review by cooperating agencies. The CITY will provide consolidated comments and the CONSULTANT will revise the report for formal publication. The CONSULTANT provide 10 copies of the finalized Waterways and Hydrologic Systems Technical Report to the CITY for distribution.

PRODUCTS

1st Draft Waterways and Hydrologic Systems Technical Report (10 copies)

2nd Draft Waterways and Hydrologic Systems Technical Report (20 copies)

Final Waterways and Hydrologic Systems Technical Report (10 copies)

The CONSULTANT will prepare a description of the geologic setting and potential geologic hazards based on the information compiled in Task 6.3. Maps showing the surficial geology and soils will be prepared and each of the soil types will be described. Description of problems in the project area and recommendations on areas that should be avoided, including steep slope areas, landslide hazard areas, erosion hazard areas, seismic hazard areas and coal mine hard areas will be prepared. Impacts of each alternative on geology and soils will be identified. Mitigation measures including retaining structures and temporary and permanent erosion control will be described.

Based on the review and detailed investigation, the CONSULTANT will prepare a technical report summarizing the results of this investigation for CITY review. The report will include a discussion of the following:

The CONSULTANT will prepare an Earth Technical documenting the results of the task. The CONSULTANT will deliver 5 copies of a draft report to the CITY for review. The CITY will review and provide consolidated comments to the CONSULTANT.

The CONSULTANT will submit 10 copies of a revised draft report to the CITY for distribution and review by cooperating agencies. The CITY will provide consolidated comments and the CONSULTANT will revise the report for formal publication. The CONSULTANT provide 5 copies of the finalized Earth Technical Report to the CITY for distribution.

PRODUCTS

1st Draft Earth Technical Report (5 copies)

2nd Draft Earth Technical Report (10 copies)

Final Earth Technical Report (5 copies)

The CONSULTANT will prepare an analysis of the direct and indirect energy impacts and the energy conservation potential of each of the alternatives.

The CONSULTANT will provide an assessment of the visual impacts of each alternative. The approach will be to:

Identify the major vantage points, or view sheds

Identify visually sensitive landscape settings

Describe major existing and future No–Action visual elements

Discuss the PROJECT impacts with respect to potential views of and from the roadway and interchange

Discuss illumination and glare caused by the alternatives

Include visual simulations of the hillside impacts caused by proposed improvements

Address issues related to the re-establishment of vegetation and landscaping

Discuss alternative aesthetic treatments to mitigate impacts, if warranted

The following criteria will be used to provide relative comparisons among the alternatives:

Vividness

Intactness

Unity

The CONSULTANT will analyze the implications of two build alternative's and one no-build alternative's right-of-way requirements on businesses and residences, in study area following WSDOT guidelines, and NEPA requirements. The report will include the estimated number of households and businesses displaced, a discussion of comparable available housing in the area, affected neighborhoods, public facilities, non-profit organization and families having special composition.

Residential displacements will be identified by property owner and parcel number. Business displacements will fall into two categories: the direct taking of the business or and the taking of the business due to loss of access. For each business, and a list will be prepared identifying the business, the type of business, and the number of employees. Availability of similar replacement facilities will be evaluated.

The mitigation section will identify measures which conform to the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 and non-discrimination guidelines.

The CONSULTANT will prepare a draft technical report, and will provide the CITY with 10 copies of the report for review. The CITY will review and provide consolidated comments to the CONSULTANT.

The CONSULTANT will submit 20 copies of a revised draft report to the CITY for distribution and review by cooperating agencies. The CITY will provide consolidated comments and the CONSULTANT will revise the report for formal publication. The CONSULTANT provide 10 copies of the finalized Displacement and Relocation Report to the CITY for distribution.

PRODUCTS

1st Draft Displacement and Relocation Technical Report (10 copies)

2nd Draft Displacement and Relocation Technical Report (20 copies)

Final Displacement and Relocation Technical Report (10 copies)

The CONSULTANT will describe the existing social environment of the project area and surrounding community, including neighborhood structure, recreational facilities, public services, and growth and development potential.

The CONSULTANT will collect demographic and employment data from the PSRC and King County as available. U.S. Census Bureau data for affected areas will be obtained and reviewed. Corridor land use plans, housing plans and any redevelopment plans will be identified and documented. Documented demographic characteristics would include household size and composition, ethnic mix and age.

Community Cohesion

The CONSULTANT will address the PROJECT's potential impacts to community cohesion and community character as result of possible splitting of neighborhoods, isolating a portion of a neighborhood, and potential incompatible development within the neighborhood. Regional and community growth patterns will be described. Population changes anticipated or accommodated as a result of the proposed project will be analyzed qualitatively.

Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice)

Using available Census and regional planning data, the CONSULTANT will inventory the population affected by the proposed project, including identification of the proportion of low income minorities. The CONSULTANT will address Environmental Justice dealing with the PROJECT's potential to disproportionately affect minority or low-income persons.

Title VI

The CONSULTANT will address the Title VI of the Civil Rights Act dealing with the PROJECT's potential to discriminate against persons based on their race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability, in terms of impacts on transportation, housing, community, and health and social services.

Services and Utilities

The CONSULTANT will describe how each public service, including schools, police and fire protection, ambulance, and public or private busses, will be affected by the PROJECT, including service disruptions, circuitry of access, changes in service and travel times both during and after construction, changes in service area, and the need for any new or additional services.

The CONSULTANT also will describe impacts to existing or proposed utilities, including natural gas, electrical power, telephone, cable television, water supplies, sanitary and storm sewer, and solid waste routes.

Recreation

The CONSULTANT will identify all the parks, open spaces and recreation facilities in the PROJECT area. The inventory will describe the location, the function, the significant features, type of facility and population served. The CONSULTANT also will identify and document existing recreational trails, current ownership/plan status and condition, volumes of use, etc. for use in addressing potential construction and long-term impacts.

Mitigation measures for potential construction and long-term impacts will be developed and proposed by the CONSULTANT.

The CONSULTANT will prepare a draft technical report, if needed, documenting the results of Tasks 7.17.1 to 7.17.3. The CONSULTANT will provide the CITY with 10 copies of the report for review. The CITY will review and provide consolidated comments to the CONSULTANT.

The CONSULTANT will submit 20 copies of a revised draft report to the CITY for distribution and review by cooperating agencies. The CITY will provide consolidated comments and the CONSULTANT will revise the report for formal publication. The CONSULTANT provide 10 copies of the finalized Social Elements Technical Report to the CITY for distribution.

PRODUCTS

1st Draft Social Elements Technical Report (10 copies)

2nd Draft Social Elements Technical Report (20 copies)

Final Social Elements Technical Report (10 copies)

It is assumed the consultant will be required to prepare a Section 4(f) evaluation addressing potential impacts to recreational sites, and any feasible and prudent alternatives. The CONSULTANT will identify and describe each Section 4(f) resource in the project area, their function, facilities, access, relationship to other similarly used lands in the vicinity, applicable causes affecting ownership, and any unusual characteristics that reduce or enhance their value.

Short-term impacts on Section 4(f) resources associated with construction of each of the alternatives will be evaluated and documented by the CONSULTANT. Factors to be considered in may include acquisition of land and facilities, access, aesthetics, air quality, noise, water, and land use in the vicinity.

Long-term impacts on Section 4(f) resources associated with the two build alternatives and the no build alternative will be evaluated and documented by the CONSULTANT. Factors to be considered may include acquisition of land and facilities, access, aesthetics, air quality, noise, water, and land use in the vicinity. Potential indirect and cumulative impacts to land uses resulting from the PROJECT will also be addressed.

Mitigation measures for potential construction and long-term impacts will be developed and proposed by the CONSULTANT. Mitigation for Section 4(f) resources will include a discussion of avoidance alternatives and their impacts, and possible measures to minimize impacts. If the preferred alternative includes Section 4(f) resources, the final Evaluation will include a discussion of why alternatives that avoid or reduce Section 4(f) impacts are not feasible or prudent.

The CONSULTANT will prepare a Section 4(f) Evaluation documenting the results of Task 7.18.1 to 7.18.4. The CONSULTANT will provide the CITY with 5 draft copies of the Evaluation for review. The CITY will review and provide consolidated comments to the CONSULTANT.

The CONSULTANT will submit 10 copies of a revised draft report to the CITY for distribution and review by cooperating agencies. The CITY will provide consolidated comments and the CONSULTANT will revise the report for formal publication. The CONSULTANT provide 5 copies of the finalized Section 4(f) Evaluation to the CITY for distribution.

PRODUCTS

1st Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation Report (5 copies)

2nd Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation Report (10 copies)

Final Section 4(f) Evaluation Report (5 copies)

The CONSULTANT will use existing applicable information to describe the existing economic conditions in the project area, including number and type of businesses, employment, property values and tax base. The role of the proposed roadway plays in the overall economic activity of the PROJECT area will be documented with an emphasis on access to major land use categories. Data outlining the capacity enhancements provided by the proposed improvements will be evaluated against potential impacts on the economic vitality of the corridor and region.

Short-term economic impacts associated with construction of each of the alternatives will be evaluated and documented by the CONSULTANT.

Long-term economic impacts associated with the two build alternatives and the no build alternative will be evaluated and documented by the CONSULTANT. Impacts associated with long-term changes in traffic and shaping patterns, loss of businesses and jobs as a result of Right-of-Way acquisition, long term employment, and business growth will be addressed. Potential indirect and cumulative impacts resulting from the PROJECT will also be addressed.

Mitigation measures for potential impacts on economic activity and employment will be developed and proposed by the CONSULTANT.

The CONSULTANT will prepare a draft technical report, if needed, documenting economic conditions and impacts. and will provide the CITY with 5 copies of the report for review. The CITY will review and provide consolidated comments to the CONSULTANT.

The CONSULTANT will submit 10 copies of a revised draft report to the CITY for distribution and review by cooperating agencies. The CITY will provide consolidated comments and the CONSULTANT will revise the report for formal publication. The CONSULTANT provide 5 copies of the finalized Economics Technical Report to the CITY for distribution.

PRODUCTS

1st Draft Economics Technical Report (5 copies)

2nd Draft Economics Technical Report (10 copies)

Final Economics Technical Report (5 copies)

The CONSULTANT will perform a biological assessment for any threatened or endangered plant and animal species identified in the project area, in compliance with 50 CFR, Part 402 which establishes the procedural regulations governing interagency cooperation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. This assessment will involve a general evaluation of species that could potentially be present in the project area. Based on available information, it is expected that no federally listed species are present in the immediate project area, with the exception of several salmon species that are under consideration for federal listing.

The CONSULTANT will coordinate with experts and agency staff to identify species and will conduct a field investigation.

Temporary impacts resulting from the construction of each alternative will be assessed on a general basis by the CONSULTANT.

Permanent, long-term impacts will be assessed on a general basis by the CONSULTANT. Potential indirect and cumulative impacts to threatened and endangered species resulting from the project will also be addressed. If threatened or endangered species are present in the project area, extensive mitigation measures may be required. Development of those mitigation measures is not included in this scope of work.

The need for mitigation measures for potential construction and long-term impacts will be assessed by the CONSULTANT.

The CONSULTANT will prepare a Biological Assessment report documenting the results of Tasks 7.7.1 to 7.7.4. The CONSULTANT will provide the CITY with 10 draft copies of the draft Assessment for review by the CITY. The CITY will review and provide consolidated comments to the CONSULTANT.

The CONSULTANT will submit 20 copies of a revised draft report to the CITY for distribution and review by cooperating agencies. The CITY will provide consolidated comments and the CONSULTANT will revise the report for formal publication. The CONSULTANT will provide 10 copies of the finalized Biological Assessment to the CITY for distribution. .

PRODUCTS

First Draft Biological Assessment (10 copies)

Second Draft Biological Assessment (20 copies)

Final Biological Assessment (10 copies)

The Draft EIS will follow the format consistent with the revised WSDOT Environmental Impact Statement Outline (March 1993), WSDOT EIS Format Guidelines, and FHWA Technical advisory T6640.8A. The CITY will provide close coordination with WSDOT and FHWA throughout the process. The document will be in compliance with SEPA and NEPA.

The Draft EIS is anticipated to include the following sections and appendices (however the final EIS format may change in response to the CITY's needs):

A one-page cover sheet will be the first page of the DEIS and will indicate the necessary information to allow the identification of PROJECT name, responsible parties and the date that comments on the DEIS are due, as required under NEPA and SEPA. Following the cover sheet will be a SEPA Fact Sheet. Following that will be a page with the ADA logo and message and a metric unit message on the reverse side.

Title Sheet (for signatures)

This sheet will conform to the content and format specified in the FHWA Technical Advisory T 6640.8A. It will be restricted to one side of one right-hand page. Signature lines will be provided for the City, State, and FHWA administration officials.

Fact Sheet

The content and format of the Fact Sheet will conform to SEPA rules, WAC 197-11-440.

Table of Contents

This section will include a table of section and subsection headings, and a list of tables and figures.

Chapter 1: History and Purpose of the Proposed Action

This section will identify and describe the proposed action and the transportation problems or other needs which it is intended to address. This discussion should clearly demonstrate that a need exists for the PROJECT and describe the problems which it is to correct. This section will be written in terms understandable to the general public.

Chapter 2: Alternatives

The EIS will describe the roadway and other transportation alternatives under consideration for the SE Bypass. The analysis will focus on identifying impacts and mitigation measures and providing information appropriate to choosing a preferred alternative from among roadway design concepts and non-roadway alternatives. The description of the alternative design concepts will be in sufficient detail to allow identification of the specific characteristics of each design concept to be evaluated. These characteristics include PROJECT layout, roadway and interchange configurations, structural measures and other related road facilities. This will include maps, alignment drawings, road sections, cost estimates, a proposed construction schedule with milestones, and other exhibits to allow the alternatives to be identified.

The Alternatives Chapter will also summarize the NEPA/SEPA 404 Avoidance and Alternatives Analysis (Section 7.5.2.2 of this Scope of Work). This analysis will describe other alternatives considered and why they were eliminated from further consideration and detailed study.

This section will concisely describe the existing social and environmental setting for the area affected by all alternatives presented in the EIS. The following elements of the environment will be discussed: transportation, air quality, noise, energy, geology and soils, water quality (surface and ground water), flood plains, waterways and hydrological systems (surface and ground water quantity), wetlands, wildlife, fisheries, vegetation, T&E species, land use, social elements, archaeological and historical elements, hazardous materials, and visual quality. It will also discuss the adopted land use and transportation plans as they relate to the proposed PROJECT. These discussions will be limited to data, information, issues, and values which will have a bearing on possible impacts, mitigation measures, and on the selection of an alternative. Information on each element of the affected environment will be drawn from the EIS Technical Reports prepared in Task 7.

This section will document direct, long-term impacts associated with the two build alternatives and the no-action alternative. Each element or major sub-element described in Task 7 of this Scope of Work will be discussed. The environmental effects of each alternative, including probable unavoidable adverse impacts and the potential benefits of the alternative, will be described, as will measures to mitigate adverse impacts. The discussions will include any major assumptions made and supporting information on the validity of the environmental assessment methodology used. If details beyond those included in the affected Environment chapter are necessary to clarify the impacts, they will be addressed in this chapter. For each element of the environment each alternative will be analyzed separately.

Construction Impacts

This section will discuss the temporary impacts associated with the construction of the two build alternatives. These impacts include dust and particles, noise, energy, erosion and sedimentation, traffic congestion, detours, safety, disposal of excavated materials, and other construction related impacts. This section will also discuss impacts caused by project staging. Mitigation measures and commitments during construction, such as dust abatement and measures and noise and pollution controls.

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources

This section will discuss in general terms the ir^reversible and irretrievable commitment of natural, physical, human, and fiscal resources that would result from each of the alternatives.

Relationship of Short-Term uses of the Environment and Long-Term Productivity

This section will discuss in general terms the relationship between local short-term impacts and use of resources, and maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity for each of the alternatives.

Indirect and Cumulative Impacts

This section will discuss indirect and cumulative impacts, and any associated mitigation measures, to environmental resources that function as integral parts of a larger system.

This section will summarize the results of coordination with federal, state, and local agencies, their level of involvement, and any unresolved issues or areas of conflict. This section will also address the results of the scoping process and public involvement process.

List of Preparers

EIS Distribution List

Appendices

This section will include a brief description of the proposed action, other governmental agencies actions in the geographic area, a summary of alternatives and options considered, summary of major environmental impacts in table format with proposed mitigation measures, areas of concern or controversy, unresolved issues, list of required permits, and a list of other actions required for the proposed PROJECT.

The CONSULTANT will produce a first preliminary Draft EIS and submit 10 copies to the CITY for review of format and content.

PRODUCTS

Preliminary Draft EIS (15 copies)

The CITY will provide consolidated comments on the Preliminary Draft EIS to the CONSULTANT. The CONSULTANT will make requested revisions and prepare a camera-ready draft EIS for review by the CITY.

Upon approval of the camera ready draft, the CONSULTANT will reproduce a Final Draft EIS for distribution. The CITY will provide the distribution list and be responsible for distributing the document to the agencies and the public.

PRODUCTS

1st Draft Environmental Impact Statement (1 Camera Ready and 5 copies)

Final Draft Environmental Impact Statement (150 copies)

An open house will be conducted following publication of the Draft EIS. The CONSULTANT will prepare materials for the open house and provide originals to the CITY for reproduction and distribution. Relevant activities will include:

Preparing hearing packet

Developing and mailing notices

Preparing exhibits and handouts

Coordinating/attending an Open House

The CITY will provide the CONSULTANT with the comment letters and public hearing testimony on the DEIS. Revisions to the Draft EIS will be based on the comment letters, public hearing testimony and agency comments received during the review period.

The CONSULTANT will compile a summary of comments received on the Draft EIS, provide responses to comments, and make recommendations on additional studies to be completed. Where appropriate, the participating agencies will prepare responses to comments and the CONSULTANT will include the responses in the Final EIS. For budgeting purposes, it is assumed that there will be a maximum of 100 comment letters. If there are more than 100 comment letters, this extra level of analysis will be considered "extra work."

The consultants shall revise the discussion of the various elements of the EIS, if necessary, to reflect changes in the project design, impacts, and proposed or required mitigation that have occurred since publication of the Draft EIS. Any proposed additional studies and detailed analyses will be considered "extra work."

The CONSULTANT will prepare a preliminary Final EIS for review by the CITY and appropriate agencies. The EIS will incorporate changes that reflect changes in the PROJECT scope, impacts, technical analysis and mitigation analysis that have occurred since the DEIS. The Final EIS will include comments received on the Draft EIS, a summary of the comments, responses to comments, and an updated fact sheet.

PRODUCTS

Preliminary Final Environmental Impact Statement (25 copies)

The CITY will provide consolidated comments on the preliminary Final EIS to the CONSULTANT. The CONSULTANT will revise the preliminary Final EIS to address the CITY's comments and prepare a camera ready Final EIS. The CITY will conduct a second review to check and approve the changes and authorize reproduction and issuance of the Final EIS.

The CONSULTANT will make the second, minor revisions based on the review and reproduce 150 copies of the FEIS for distribution. The CITY will provide the distribution list for the FEIS and will be responsible for distributing the document to the public and agencies.

PRODUCTS

Camera Ready Final Environmental Impact Statement (1 camera ready and 5 copies)

Final Environmental Impact Statement (150 copies)

The CONSULTANT will assist the CITY in preparation of the draft NEPA Record of Decision (ROD) that will accompany the Final EIS through the review and approval process.

PRODUCTS

Draft Record of Decision

Based on preliminary determination by the USACOE, WSDOT, and FHWA, the SE Bypass EIS is not required to comply with the "Interagency Working Agreement to Integrate Special Aquatic Resources (404) Permit Requirements into the NEPA and SEPA processes in the State of Washington," (NEPA/SEPA/404 Merger Agreement). If it is alter determined that the Merger Process is applicable to the PROJECT, the extra level of analysis required to comply with the NEPA/SEPA/404 Merger Agreement will be considered "extra work." Task 10 describes the additional work that would be required. If a decision to invoke the Merger Process is made at some point after work on the EIS has begun, the sequence for completing the following tasks and list of deliverables may require modification.

The CONSULTANT will coordinate and meet with regulatory agencies to gain concurrence on the following items, as specified in the NEPA/SEPA/404 Merger Agreement; the scope of the EIS; purpose and need/Section 404 basic project purpose; project description and overall project objective; criteria for alternatives selection; and role of cooperating agencies. The CONSULTANT will prepare the purpose and need statement following guidance in Appendix D of the NEPA/SEPA/404 Merger Agreement.

Review and research related to project purpose and need including documentation of background on purpose and need development. Analysis of purpose and need definitions in the Transportation Technical Report and Final Alternatives Analysis report, and approach to defining SE Bypass purpose and need for meeting with resource agencies on March 31. Review of SE Bypass purpose and need, NEPA and FHWA guidelines on purpose and need, and preparation of revised SE Bypass purpose and need statement for April 27 meeting with resource agencies.

Prior to distribution of the preliminary Draft EIS, the CONSULTANT will prepare a draft Wetlands Avoidance and Alternatives Analysis following guidance in Appendix E of the NEPA/SEPA/404 Merger Agreement. The Analysis will discuss alternatives considered but rejected, and reasons why; impacts of each alternative; minimization and avoidance of impacts for each alternative; and identification of a preliminary preferred alternative, if known. The CITY will provide consolidated comments on the draft Analysis to the CONSULTANT. The CONSULTANT will attend one Highway design meeting with the CITY, WSDOT, and the Merger Agencies, if necessary, to discuss comments on the Avoidance and Alternatives Analysis. These tasks will be completed prior to distribution of the preliminary Draft EIS.

The CONSULTANT will revise the draft Wetlands Avoidance and Alternatives Analysis to address comments made by the merger agencies. The revised draft Analysis will be completed for inclusion in the Draft EIS.

A final Wetlands Avoidance and Alternatives Analysis will be completed for distribution with the Final EIS. The final Alternatives Analysis will clearly demonstrate that alternatives that have less impacts on aquatic resources than the preferred alternative are not practicable.

Following the CITY's review of the preliminary Draft EIS (Task 8.1.6 of this Scope of Work), the CONSULTANT will make the requested revisions and submit 25 copies of a second preliminary DEIS for review by the cooperating agencies. The project Wetland Delineation Report, Biological Assessment, and Section 404 permit application will be submitted to the cooperating agencies along with the preliminary Draft EIS. The CITY will provide one set of consolidated review comments to the CONSULTANT.

The CONSULTANT will coordinate with regulatory agencies to gain concurrence on the preliminary Draft EIS regarding project alternatives to be evaluated in the Draft EIS and the preliminary preferred alternative. Additional studies required to gain concurrence, or development and analysis of additional alternatives will be considered "extra work." Preparation of the Draft EIS (Task 8.2) can not proceed without issuance of a letter of concurrence from the cooperating agencies.

Review and research related to alternative alignments including evaluation of the previous SE Bypass Final Alternatives Analysis. Documentation of previous consideration of alternative alignments in 1-90 Access, Sunset Interchange, East Sammamish Alternatives Feasibility, and Issaquah High Capacity Transit studies. Review of fatal flaws for May Valley Road and Newport Way Alternatives; land use project assumptions used in Issaquah traffic modeling; existing conditions modeling for Issaquah traffic; evaluation of approaches to defining the No Action alternative; background on TDM/CTR programs in Issaquah; strategies for making greater use of existing infrastructure in Issaquah; future plans for transit service and additional transit funds; Issaquah's commitment to access control for the SE Bypass; environmental impacts resulting from the proposed wetland bridging alternative; and fish usage in the North Tributary stream in the project for the March 31 meeting with resource agencies. (CO#5 added)

Background on independent utility for the SE Bypass project; additional analysis of traffic impacts of the May Valley Road and Newport Way alternatives including interchange and arterial volumes, and level of service associated with these approaches; qualitative assessment of potential environmental impacts associated with May Valley Road and Newport Way alternatives; and additional information on shading impacts and fish usage associated with the SE bypass alternatives for the April 27 meeting to discuss concurrence issues. This task also includes engineering design of the proposed bridging alternative for South A and B alignments.

Upon issuance of the Agency Concurrence Letter regarding alternatives to be evaluated in the Draft EIS and identification of the preferred alternative, the CONSULTANT will conduct a preliminary investigation of candidate mitigation sites to determine if there are suitable sites to support the required mitigation. Upon identification of candidate sites, the CONSULTANT will prepare a draft Initial Mitigation Plan for the preferred alternative, as described in Appendix F of the NEPA/SEPA/404 Merger Agreement. The draft Plan will identify unavoidable impacts to aquatic resources; establish the goals and objectives of the mitigation; the timing of the mitigation; a general description of the candidate sites; and proposed monitoring of the mitigation. No drawings will be included in the Plan. The draft Plan will be submitted to the CITY for review and comment.

The draft Initial Mitigation Plan will be revised to address the CITY's comments. The revised Plan will be submitted to the CITY for distribution to other merger agencies for review and comment. The CITY will provide consolidated comments on the Plan to the CONSULTANT. The CONSULTANT will conduct a site visit with the USACOE to review candidate sites. The CONSULTANT will prepare a final Initial Mitigation Plan for inclusion in the Draft EIS.

Prior to submittal of the Preliminary Draft EIS, the CONSULTANT will attend one pre-application meeting with the USACOE to identify issues of concern and confirm Section 404 permitting requirements and scheduling. The CONSULTANT will then prepare draft Section 404 permit application materials for submittal to the CITY. The CITY will process the permit to the USACOE. Prior to publication of the Final EIS, the CONSULTANT will prepare a final Section 404 permit application for submittal to the permitting agencies. The final application will include a detailed Mitigation Plan (Section 10.7 of this Scope of Work).

Issuance of the Section 404 Public Notice will be coordinated with publication of the Draft EIS. An Open House will be conducted following publication of the Draft EIS and the Section 404 Public Notice, as described in Task 8.5 of this Scope of Work.

Following the CITY's review of the preliminary Final EIS (Task 9.3 of this Scope of Work) EIS, the CONSULTANT will make the requested revisions and submit 25 copies of a second preliminary Final EIS for review by the cooperating agencies. The CITY will .provide on set of consolidated review comments to the CONSULTANT. The CONSULTANT will coordinate and meet with regulatory agencies to gain concurrence on the preliminary Final EIS regarding the apparent final mitigation plan and the preferred alternative/least environmentally damaging alternative, as specified in the NEPA/SEPA/404 Merger Agreement. Additional studies or revisions to alternative that may be needed to obtain concurrence will be considered "extra work." Publication of the final EIS (Task 9.4 of this Scope of Work) can not occur without issuance of a letter of concurrence from the cooperating agencies.

Prior to publication of the Final EIS, the CONSULTANT will prepare a draft Detailed Mitigation Plan and Report for the preferred alternative, as described in Appendix F of the NEPA/SEPA/404 Merger Agreement. The draft Plan will include a summary of wetland impacts, description of proposed mitigation and mitigation site(s), mitigation design (hydrology source, grading plan, soil preparation, planting plan, and schedule), standards of success, and monitoring and contingency plans. The draft Plan will be submitted to the CITY for review and comment. The draft Plan will be revised to address the CITY's comments. The revised Plan will be submitted to the CITY for distribution to the merger agencies with the pre-final EIS.

Upon issuance of concurrence on the preliminary Final EIS by the cooperating agencies, the CONSULTANT will prepare a final Detailed Mitigation Plan for inclusion in the Final EIS. A Final Mitigation Plan as required by the NEPA/SEPA/404 Merger Agreement is not included in this Scope of Work.

CONSULTANT attendance at March 31 and April 27 meetings with resource agencies. Preparation and distribution of revised concurrence forms. Meetings with King County (May 10), Corps of Engineers (May 26), Mike Birdsall from EarthTech (June 23), and communication and coordination with resource agencies regarding revisions in purpose and need, and agency issues related to alternative alignments.

The CONSULTANT will coordinate with the City of Issaquah, King County, resource agencies and subconsultants as required to complete additional alternatives analysis and Merger Process concurrence. Up to 10 meetings will be attended.

The CONSULTANT will prepare for, and attend, one meeting with the Merger Resource agencies to present results of the additional alternatives analysis completed in Tasks 13-16 below. This task will include preparation of any display boards or other presentation materials needed for this meeting.

PRODUCTS

1^`t Draft Purpose and Need Statement (10 copies)

2^nd Draft Purpose and Need Statement (20 copies)

Final Purpose and Need Statement (included in Draft EIS)

1^st Draft Wetlands Avoidance Alternatives Impacts Analysis Report (10 copies)

2^nd Draft Wetlands Avoidance Alternatives Impacts Analysis Report (20 copies)

Final Wetlands Avoidance Alternatives Impacts Analysis Report (included in Draft EIS)

2^nd Draft Preliminary Draft EIS for review by Merger Agencies

1^st Draft Initial Wetlands Mitigation Plan and Report (10 copies)

2^nd Draft Initial Wetlands Mitigation Plan and Report (20 copies)

Final Initial Wetlands Mitigation Plan and Report (10 copies)

Draft 404 Wetland Permit Application (5 copies)

Final 404 Wetland Permit Application (10 copies)

2^nd Draft Preliminary Final EIS for review by Merger Agencies

1^st Draft Detailed Wetland Mitigation Plan (10 copies)

2^nd Draft Detailed Wetland Mitigation Plan (20 copies)

Final Detailed Wetland Mitigation Plan (10 copies)

The CONSULTANT will provide research and analysis of an alternative involving the use of congestion pricing in Issaquah to encourage the use of alternative routes, alternative modes of transportation, or a shift in driving to off-peak periods. Tasks included in this research include the following: research impacts of congestion pricing in other areas; describe assumptions included in the congestion pricing scenario; review assumptions with City of Issaquah and revise; develop two scenarios for inclusion in the network model; develop ranges for the potential cost for each scenario; for each scenario analyze model results for potential changes in vehicle trips for the year 2015; for each scenario analyze model results for potential changes in VMT for year 2015; evaluate the potential queue area required for 3 toll booths; for each scenario evaluate impacts to operations at twelve signalized intersections for year 2015 (see section 15.1 for a list of intersections); prepare presentation; incorporate comments and feedback; and prepare final results in tech memo or presentation. The development of a congestion pricing scenario will include an overview of opportunities for coordinated expansion of transit service to support this alternative (see Transit Service Alternative below). This alternative will be evaluated individually, and also in combination with the proposed SE Bypass project. This analysis will provide information for a combined approach to be included in the alternatives matrix (Task 16.2 below) as SE Bypass with Congestion Pricing alternative.

The CONSULTANT will provide a qualitative description of potential impacts to the elements of the natural and social environment that may result from this alternative. A general discussion of toll booths and other facilities (such as parking) that would be needed to support this alternative will be provided. The CONSULTANT will identify the effectiveness of this alternative in meeting the purpose and need to be addressed by this project. The environmental analysis also will include the combined SE Bypass with Congestion Pricing alternative identified above.

The CONSULTANT will provide research and analysis of transit service improvements that could be implemented as a separate alternative to constructing the SE Bypass roadway. Tasks included in this research include the following: The CONSULTANT will describe potential use of an expanded shuttle/transit service in the city. Potential use of an expanded shuttle/transit service in the city will be based on discussions with King County Metro transit service planners, and an analysis of previously collected data. Activities included in this subtask include the following: develop assumptions included in preliminary transit alternative; prepare overview of alternative for King County and City of Issaquah; develop two transit alternative scenarios for inclusion in network model; for each scenario, analyze model results; for each scenario, develop range for costs; evaluate impacts to twelve signalized intersections for each scenario; analyze potential change in vehicle trips; analyze potential change in VMT; prepare presentation materials; incorporate comments and feedback from presentation; and prepare final results in a tech memo or presentation. This alternative will be evaluated individually, and also in combination with the proposed SE Bypass project. This analysis will provide information for a combined approach to be included in the alternatives matrix (Task 16.2 below) as SE Bypass with Transit alternative.

The CONSULTANT will provide a qualitative description of potential impacts to the elements of the natural and social environment that may result from this alternative. The CONSULTANT will identify the effectiveness of this alternative in meeting the purpose and need to be addressed by this project. The environmental analysis also will include the combined SE Bypass with Transit alternative identified above.

The CONSULTANT will review only the Newport Way, May Valley, and Front Street to I-90 alternative corridors previously studied in the Alternatives Alignment Study completed in May 1997 for this project.

The CONSULTANT will review existing transportation conditions for both the Newport Way and May Valley alternatives. New network modeling will be required for this task. Year 2015 volumes will be used to determine intersection Level Of Service along each of the proposed alternatives and along Front Street. This information will be used to evaluate the alternatives for the "Decreases Traffic Congestion" criterion in the Alternatives Alignment Study. Based on the purpose and need, the determining factor will be whether the alternative significantly decreases congestion in the future along the Front Street corridor. Intersections evaluated using Transyt-7F or HCS/NCAP are the following: SR 900 and WB Ramps; SR 900 and EB Ramps; SR 900 and Gilman; SR 900 and Maple; Front St. WB Ramps; Front St. EB Ramps; Front and Gilman; Front and Sunset; SR 900 and Newport, May Valley Road and Hobart; May Valley Road and 128^`h; and May Valley Road and SR 900.

Tasks involved include data collection and coordination with the network modeling subconsultant; an initial set-up for each intersection for the Transyt-7F/HCS analysis, Transyt-7F and HCS analysis for each scenario for each intersection for the AM and PM peak periods; and summarizing of results.

Both the Newport Way and May Valley build alternatives will be further defined. This will include number of additional lanes required, approximate lengths of widening, and any structural elements needed to accomplish the widening. The above transportation analysis will aid in defining the need for additional lanes.

Geometric feasibility with respect to deviations from standards will be reviewed. A rough cost estimate will be computed for each of the two alternatives to provide a relative comparison to the Bypass.

The CONSULTANT will review the Newport Way and May Valley build alternatives to determine environmental impacts consistent with the Alternatives Alignment Study. The number of residential and commercial displacements will be counted. The approximate area of recreational space affected and approximate right-of-way requirements will be determined. Sensitive areas impacted by the proposed alternative such as streams, vegetation, wetlands, and slopes, will be determined. This task may include a field visit to review sensitive areas along these routes.

The CONSULTANT will use the information obtained in tasks 13 through 15 to prepare an addendum to the Alternatives Alignment Study completed in May of 1997. This addendum will be written for the Newport Way, May Valley, Congestion Pricing, Transit, Front Street to 1-90, Front Street to 1-90 in combination with Congestion Pricing, and Front Street to 1-90 in combination with Transit alternatives only. The addendum will include descriptions of the alternatives, as well as discussion on each of these alternative's merits and shortfalls as related to Project Goals, Social/Economic Impacts, Natural Environment Impacts, Transportation Improvements, and Cost. Part of this effort will include revising the criteria for the study and providing more detailed descriptions of all criteria.

Products

Draft Addendum to the Alternatives Alignment Study (6 copies) Final Addendum to the Alternatives Alignment Study (12 copies)

An update to the existing Southeast Issaquah Bypass Corridor Alternative Fatal Flaw Matrix will be provided by the CONSULTANT with ratings on the Newport Way, May Valley, Congestion Pricing, Transit, Front Street to 1-90, and Combination alternatives only. These ratings will be on a one to three basis rather than a pass/fail basis. The matrix completed in this task, together with the addendum prepared in the above task, will be the basis for the decision to cant' forward any of these seven alternatives into the DEIS.

Products

Draft Addendum to the Fatal Flaw Matrix (6 copies) Final Addendum to the Fatal Flaw Matrix (12 copies)

The CONSULTANT will be responsible for incorporating the results of the additional alternatives analysis provided for in the tasks above, within the SE Bypass Draft EIS. This would involve supplementing the discussion of 'Alternatives Considered but Rejected for Further Analysis,' and may include adding new alternatives for analysis throughout the DEIS. The cost estimate provided here is for supplementing the 'Alternatives Considered but Rejected' discussion only. If the additional alternatives analysis results in a determination that new alternatives are to be analyzed throughout the Draft EIS, a separate contract amendment to the Draft EIS contract, based on the additional alternative(s) to be analyzed, would be prepared and submitted by the CONSULTANT.

The CONSULTANT shall update the project management plan for the Supplemental EIS through the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Design Report. The plan will include new information related to preparation of the SEIS, and a new project  schedule will be prepared.

The CONSULTANT shall prepare monthly progress reports describing the status of the PROJECT. These reports will:

Highlight significant accomplishments

Target potential problem areas needing special attention or coordination

Compare actual work progress with contractual obligations on a design task basis

The progress reports will be presented in a task oriented format and will include updated scheduling reports, indicating all progress to date and resources expended. This update will include any changes in schedule, sequence, or resource loading. If any schedule slippage has occurred, a plan for bringing the work back on schedule and budget will be included.

Progress reports and billings will be prepared by the CONSULTANT and submitted on a monthly basis. These items will be supported by detailed record keeping sufficient to closely track the PROJECT budget and expenditures and support the billings.

PRODUCTS

This task includes the following project management items:

This task includes internal staff meetings and discussions to direct efforts and facilitate completion of project tasks.

Regularly scheduled meetings (two per month) with Issaquah staff to review progress and discuss upcoming actions will be held. This task would also include additional meetings with City staff members as needed to obtain information or resolve project issues. The CONSULTANT shall prepare meeting minutes to summarize issues discussed.

This task would provide for meetings and coordination with outside agencies to provide information or discuss project issues. The CONSULTANT shall prepare meeting minutes to summarize issues discussed with participating agencies.

PRODUCTS

The work products will be reviewed by consultant team staff with expertise in the appropriate discipline areas. This will be an ongoing activity during the duration of the project with emphasis on major deliverable work products.

Phase 1 will include those tasks necessary to define alternatives to be evaluated in the Supplemental EIS based on a design year 2030 traffic model. Included will be updated traffic modeling data, new analyses of traffic operations based on new model data, a review of potential refinements to the north alignments, as well as the study of one new possible south alignments.

A future year 2030 traffic model (TMODEL Software), which will include a highway network of all freeways, freeway interchanges, arterials and other streets in the study area will be developed for use in subsequent tasks for the SE Bypass SEIS. This model will replace the traffic model used for preparation of the SE Bypass Draft EIS (June, 2000). The 2030 SE Bypass model will be developed using the CITY’s Concurrency model and will be updated to incorporate 2030 land use and demographic data, based on the 2030 PSRC model. Input data like model growth rates at external stations will also be updated for the 2030 SE Bypass model.

Future year land use assumptions will be developed for the year 2030. The land use data for 2030 will be provided by the PSRC and the City of Issaquah (concurrency model). The data is based on regional forecasts of economic activity and local land use plans, including the East Sammamish Community Plan and the Issaquah Comprehensive Plan. The CONSULTANT shall summarize the land use assumptions based on the 2030 PSRC model along with the CITY’s updated Concurrency model. The land use assumptions may differ from those used for the Draft EIS, since those used in the 2030 SE Bypass model will be based on the most current information available.

The transportation networks for model year 2030 will be developed from planned and the programmed improvements to be implemented by WSDOT, King County, and the City of Issaquah. The CONSULTANT shall review and revise the 2030 SE Bypass model network as necessary to ensure continued consistency with adopted Plans.

For year 2030, up to three Model runs (one model run shall include both AM & PM traffic forecasts) will be performed. Each model run may require further post-processing of the AM and PM Peak hour forecasts. If necessary, post-processing will include converting the model traffic forecasts into hourly volumes for the AM and PM peak hours that can be utilized for corridor and intersection analysis. The PM peak hour generated trip tables from the 2030 SE Bypass model will be transposed and if necessary scaled to represent AM peak hour demand. Additionally, these hourly volumes will be balanced for the SE Bypass corridor.

Each model run will contain differing assumptions regarding programmed and planned roadway projects. One model run may include alternative land use assumptions as determined by the CITY.

The Model runs include:

Based on future land use assumptions supplied by the CITY and on the definition of the roadway alignment alternatives, year 2030 travel demand forecasts will be prepared using the traffic model. For the 2030 build model, the three north alignments (North A, North B, North S) and the new south alignment alternatives for the SE Bypass may be refined. Additionally, the southern alignment may be evaluated for channelization and alignment design.

The 2030 SE Bypass model will be created using the TMODEL software. Available output from TMODEL includes specific roadway volumes, intersection volumes and select link data for the AM and PM Peak hours. This information will be extracted from the model for the various 2030 model runs. For the 2030 build scenario, the traffic information extracted from the 2030 build model will be applied to the various proposed design alignment alternatives.

As part of development of the 2030 SE Bypass Model, the CONSULTANT shall prepare a summary of the varying travel demand assumptions) incorporated into the 2030 SE Bypass Model. Most travel demand assumptions will be based primarily off of the assumptions made in the CITY’s concurrency model along with the PSRC’s 2030 model. The travel demand assumptions will be presented in the SEIS.

The alignment alternatives (North and South alignments) will be evaluated based on transportation criteria related to the following areas:

Arterial operations including service to CITY planned land uses

Interchange operations

Non-motorized transportation (including trails)

Safety

Recommendations from the Draft EIS

Results of the transportation evaluation will be documented in the SEIS.

Intersection/Roadway operational analysis of key intersections/roadways (as determined by the CONSULTANT and CITY) will be conducted by the CONSULTANT.

2030 No Action

The CONSULTANT shall perform intersection analysis for up to twenty-four (24) intersections as determined by the CITY and CONSULTANT. The AM and PM peak hours will be analyzed for each intersection; the LOS and intersection delay will be recorded. The intersections that will be analyzed are:

SR 900 & NW Sammamish

SR 900 & I-90 WB Ramps

SR 900 & EB Ramps

SR 900 & Gilman

SR 900 & Maple

E Sammamish & 56^th

Issaquah-Fall City & E. Lk Sammamish

Front St. & WB Ramps

Front St. & EB Ramps

Front St & Gilman

Front St & Sunset

Issaquah-Fall City & Black Nugget Rd

Issaquah-Fall City & Issaquah Pine

Sunset & WB I-90 Ramps

Sunset & EB I-90 Ramps

E Sammamish & 43^rd

Front Street & Clark

Front St & Dogwood – South

Front St & Dogwood – North

Sunset & Second

Front St & Second

SR 900 & Newport

E. Lake Sammamish & Black Nugget

Second Avenue SE & Bush Street

2030 Build-Intersection Analysis

For the 2030 Build scenario, a preliminary operational analysis will be conducted based on SE Bypass configuration assumptions provided by the CITY. Based on the results of this preliminary operational analyses, additional operational analyses will be performed as needed to evaluate alternative SE Bypass configurations (e.g., shorter or longer turning pockets, more or fewer lanes, etc.), in order to determine the preferred SE Bypass design alternative.

The Synchro software will be utilized in determining corridor and intersection operations for the various roadway combinations. The operational analyses will be conducted for the AM and PM peak hours and intersection LOS along with intersection delay (sec/veh) will be recorded.

A roadway combination will be defined as inclusion of one north alignment alternative and one south alignment alternative. Up to three (3) road combinations will be considered (this is contingent upon the assumption that all three north alignments and the new south alignment are not fatally flawed at this point). Up to four (4) versions (or iterations) will be conducted per roadway combination as directed by the CITY. A version (or iteration) may include:

Once the preferred design alternative is determined, other local intersection analysis will be conducted. Please refer to the 2030 No Action section (above) for a list of the twenty-four intersections to be analyzed.

Qualitative analyses will be performed by the CONSULTANT to identify and discuss the potential effectiveness of measures designed to mitigate any significant adverse impacts of each of the alternatives.

The CONSULTANT shall prepare a Draft Transportation Study to document the results of the new traffic modeling and analysis. Up to 20 copies of the draft study will be provided for review and comments.

Following review of the draft Transportation Study, the CONSULTANT shall revise the draft Transportation Study to incorporate review comments. Up to 10 copies of the Final Transportation Study will be provided.

PRODUCTS

The CONSULTANT shall revise the chanellization plan features of the current north and south alignments to reflect the traffic needs as required by the Transportation Study for the year 2030. The CONSULTANT will then use this revised roadway template, including stormwater facilities, to develop new cross sections and revised slope lines to further determine their impact with respect to wetlands, streams, existing property boundaries and structures. The CONSULTANT shall develop up to three (3) Typical Sections to further clarify the roadway prism at selected locations throughout the project length.

Based on the results of this effort and the corresponding impacts, the CONSULTANT shall revise the horizontal and vertical alignments in an effort to mitigate unfavorable impacts to wetlands, streams, existing properties and structures. With each horizontal revision, the CONSULTANT shall revise the channelization plan features throughout the length of the horizontal shift. With each vertical alignment revision, the CONSULTANT shall rerun cross sections throughout the length of the vertical alignment revision and revise slope lines to further determine their impact with respect to wetlands, streams, existing properties and structures. The CONSULTANT shall make any revisions to the Typical Sections that may result from the shifts in horizontal and vertical alignments.

Consideration will be given to a diverging, separated pedestrian trail, along the south roadway alignment, that would better serve the adjacent high school. If this is determined desirable, one (1) separate horizontal alignment and vertical profile will be developed for the pedestrian trail. The separated trail alignment will be modeled to determine cut and fill limits and their location with respect to wetlands, streams, existing properties and structures.

PRODUCTS

The CONSULTANT shall investigate Section 4(f) resource issues and how they might affect decisions regarding the project’s northern alignments. The necessity of identifying the Issaquah High School facilities as Section 4(f) resources will be explored. The Department of Natural Resources will be contacted regarding potential impacts on Tiger Mountain NRCA property. Further coordination with the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation will be pursued regarding the need to confirm determinations of effect on the Sportsman Clubhouse. Potential balancing of impacts on historic properties with impacts on school facilities under Section 4(f) [if it is agreed to consider high school property under Section 4(f)] will be evaluated.

The CONSULTANT shall provide additional study of wetlands and streams in the project area to determine impacts on these resources from the new alignment design resulting from the updated 2030 traffic model. This work will involve additional wetland and stream reconnaissance of the North Tributary stream in the vicinity of Front Street, south of 2nd Avenue. It will also involve review of potential impacts to Wetland HS and Wetland GW (identified in the Draft EIS) associated with the new alternative.

The results of this task will be documented in a Wetlands Technical Memorandum. A draft technical memorandum will be submitted for review and comment. A final technical memorandum will be prepared incorporating comments on the draft.

PRODUCTS

The CONSULTANT shall review the conceptual drainage design of the new southern alignment in relation to the new 2030 model results to assure that adequate consideration of drainage requirements is provided. A review of the conceptual drainage design for the three northern alignments will be done to confirm that the current changes have not altered the previous design. Preliminary calculations of runoff volumes and flow rates to support preliminary sizing of the stormwater control ponds needed to serve the updated roadway design will be prepared. These calculations will be prepared for each of the northern alignment alternatives as well as the new southern alignment alternative. The CONSULTANT will also evaluate the approximate sizes and locations of runoff conveyance systems that would be needed to deliver roadway runoff to the stormwater ponds. Hard copy markups of preliminary conveyance system alignments to will be prepared for transfer onto the project base maps.

The results of this task will be documented in a Drainage Design Technical Memorandum. A draft technical memorandum will be submitted for review and comment. A final technical memorandum will be prepared incorporating comments on the draft.

PRODUCTS

The CONSULTANT shall coordinate with regulatory agencies to gain concurrence on the alternatives to be evaluated in the Supplemental EIS. Additional studies to gain concurrence, or development and analysis of additional alternatives will be considered "extra work." Preparation of the preliminary draft SEIS cannot proceed without issuance of a letter of concurrence from the cooperating agencies.

The CONSULTANT shall update the project management plan to incorporate staffing changes, changes in deliverables or other updates required by this work plan.

The CONSULTANT shall prepare up to twenty (20) additional monthly progress reports describing the status of the project. These reports shall continue to report the following:

Significant accomplishments

Potential problem areas needing special attention or coordination

Actual work progress compared with contractual obligations on a task by task basis

Billings shall continue to be prepared by the CONSULTANT and submitted on a monthly basis. The CONSULTANT shall monitor project progress and provide up to ten (10) MS Project schedule updates.

This task includes the following project management items:

Periodic team coordination meetings shall be held to direct team efforts and facilitate completion of project tasks identified in this work plan. This task assumes up to ten (10) one-hour meetings attended by up to five 5 PB staff.

The CONSULTANT shall attend up to ten (10) coordination meetings with Issaquah staff, WSDOT and FHWA to review progress and discuss upcoming actions. Up to two (2) CONSULTANT staff are assumed to attend each meeting. The meetings shall be held at the CONSULTANT’S Seattle office or other location agreed to by all parties. The CONSULTANT shall prepare meeting notes and action items following each meeting.

This task would provide for meetings and coordination with regulatory agencies (outside of the Section 404 Merger activities described in Task 20.4) to provide information or discuss project issues. Up to five 3-hour meetings, attended by up to three (3) CONSULTANT staff is assumed for this task. The CONSULTANT shall prepare meeting minutes to summarize issues discussed with participating agencies.

PRODUCTS

Meeting notes documenting topics discussed and future action items will be prepared and distributed as appropriate.

Project deliverables shall be reviewed by CONSULTANT team staff with expertise in the appropriate discipline areas. This task also includes CONSULTANT team effort to review work products prepared by SUBCONSULTANTS. This shall be an ongoing activity during the duration of the project.

Traffic Conditions and Analysis

Phase 2 work performed by the CONSULTANT shall include those tasks necessary to analyze both the proposed Build alternative (based off of the year 2030 analysis as described in Phase 1) for the opening year 2005 for both the AM and PM peak hours. Additionally, the year 2005 No Action and existing year 2000 conditions shall be analyzed. Updated traffic modeling data, traffic analysis based on new modeling data, and analysis of the proposed Build and No-Action alternatives shall be included.

Methodology

This section presents the methodology and assumptions used to guide the transportation analysis. The methodology and assumptions used in this analysis are consistent with those applied in the SR 900 Widening Project.

The traffic model used in the SE Issaquah Draft EIS (June 2000) shall be replaced with the traffic model described below. The TMODEL software shall be used in developing the traffic model.

Year 2000 Existing Conditions

The 2000 existing conditions SE Bypass model will be based off of the CITY’s Travel Model used for Concurrency Testing. The CITY’s Travel Model assumes a 1999 land use and year 2000 traffic data. The CITY’s Travel Model will be utilized as the Year 2000 SE Bypass Model.

Opening Year 2005

A future year 2005 traffic model, which will include a highway network of all freeways, freeway interchanges, arterials and other streets in the study area will be developed for use in subsequent tasks for the SE Bypass SEIS. The 2005 SE Bypass model will be developed using the CITY’s Year 2000 Travel Model (used for Concurrency Testing) along with the 2005 SR 900 Widening Model’s land use assumptions. The SR 900 Widening land use assumptions may be adjusted; the CONSULTANT shall notify the CITY if adjustments are applied to the 2005 SE Bypass Model. The King County or PSRC Models may also be referenced and used if applicable.

Existing Conditions Year 2000

The CONSULTANT shall summarize the land use assumptions based on the CITY's Year 2000 Travel Model used for concurrency testing.

Opening Year 2005

Future year land use assumptions will be based off of the Year 2005 SR 900 Widening Model and may be modified if necessary. The CONSULTANT shall summarize (and update if necessary) the land use assumptions for the Year 2005 SE Bypass Model.

The land use assumptions may differ from those used for the Draft EIS, since those used in the 2005 SE Bypass model will be based on the more current information.

Existing Conditions Year 2000

For year 2000, one Model run (one model run shall include both AM & PM traffic forecasts) shall be performed. The PM peak hour generated trip tables from the 2000 SE Bypass model shall be transposed and if necessary scaled to represent AM peak hour demand. Additionally, the hourly volumes shall be balanced for the SE Bypass corridor.

The Model run shall include:

Opening Year 2005

The transportation networks for model year 2005 shall be developed from planned and programmed improvements to be implemented by WSDOT, King County, and the City of Issaquah.

The CONSULTANT shall review and revise the 2005 SE Bypass model network to provide continued consistency with adopted Plans.

For year 2005, up to two Model runs (one model run shall include both AM & PM traffic forecasts) shall be performed. The PM peak hour generated trip tables from the 2005 SE Bypass model shall be transposed and if necessary scaled to represent AM peak hour demand. Additionally, the hourly volumes shall be balanced for the SE Bypass corridor. Each model run shall contain different assumptions regarding programmed and planned roadway projects.

The Model runs include:

2005 Model Run 1 - Year 2005 No Action: Included shall be the following projects: North SPAR, South SPAR, Sunset Interchange modification, and SR 900 widening. Baseline 2005 assumptions for land use shall be incorporated.

2005 Model Run 2 - Year 2005 Full Build. Included shall be the following projects: NSPAR, SSPAR, Sunset, SR 900, and SE Bypass (with no widening of SR 18)

Based on future land use assumptions supplied by the CITY and on the definition of the roadway alignment alternatives, year 2005 travel demand forecasts shall be prepared using the traffic model. For the 2005 build scenario, the proposed build alternative alignment (based on the work completed through Phase 1) shall be considered.

Available output from TMODEL includes specific roadway volumes, intersection volumes and select link data for the PM Peak hour. The trip tables generated for the PM peak hour shall then be transposed and possibly scaled in order to generate the AM Peak hour volumes. For the 2005 build scenario, the traffic information extracted from the 2005 build model shall be applied to the recommended proposed design alignment alternative (as determined in Phase 1).

PRODUCTS

The CONSULTANT shall provide the CITY a copy of the TMODEL electronic files with a brief annotation for model year runs 2030, 2005, and 2000.

As part of development of the 2005 SE Bypass Model (No-Action and Build Scenarios), the CONSULTANT shall prepare a summary of the various travel demand management assumptions incorporated into the 2005 SE Bypass Model. Most travel demand management assumptions shall be based primarily off of the assumptions made in the SR 900 Widening model along with the CITY's Travel Model used for concurrency testing, and possibly the PSRC model. The travel demand management assumptions shall be presented in the SEIS.

The CONSULTANT shall conduct intersection/roadway operational analysis of key intersections/roadways (as determined by the CONSULTANT and CITY). The Synchro software shall be utilized in performing the traffic operational analyses. The operational analyses shall be conducted for the AM and PM peak hours and intersection LOS along with intersection delay (sec/veh) shall be recorded.

Year 2000 Existing Conditions and Year 2005 No Action

The CONSULTANT shall perform intersection analysis for up to twenty-five (25) intersections as determined by the CITY and CONSULTANT. The AM and PM peak hours shall be analyzed for each intersection; the LOS and intersection delay shall be recorded. The intersections that shall be analyzed are (as per agreement with the CITY):

SR 900 & NW Sammamish

SR 900 & I-90 WB Ramps

SR 900 & EB Ramps

SR 900 & Gilman

SR 900 & Maple

E Sammamish & 56th

Issaquah-Fall City & E. Lk. Sammamish

Front St. & WB Ramps

Front St. & EB Ramps

Front St & Gilman

Front St & Sunset

Issaquah-Fall City & Black Nugget Rd

Issaquah-Fall City & Issaquah Pine

Sunset & WB I-90 Ramps

Sunset & ED I-90 Ramps

E Sammamish & 43rd

Front Street & Clark

Front St & Dogwood - South

Front St & Dogwood - North

Sunset & Second

Front St & Second

SR 900 & Newport

Lake Sammamish & Black Nugget

Second Avenue SE & Bush Street

Issaquah-Hobart Rd & May Valley Rd

Year 2005 Build

The proposed Build alternative as determined in Phase 1 shall be analyzed for the year 2005. The proposed roadway combination is defined as inclusion of one north alignment alternative and the south alignment alternative. In terms of traffic operations, all three North Alignments shall operate similarly; therefore, one roadway combination (a north alignment and the south alignment) shall be analyzed. Up to four (4) versions (or iterations) shall be conducted. A roadway combination version (or iteration) may include:

Modifications to the number of lanes assigned at a particular intersection or corridor

Modifications to design lengths (this can be either storage lengths or distance between intersections)

The Synchro software shall be utilized in determining corridor and intersection operations for the year 2005 build roadway combination as well as the twenty-five (25) intersections as listed in the "Year 2000 Existing Conditions and Year 2005 No Action" section (above). Additionally, the year 2000 Existing Conditions and the year 2005 No Action intersections as described above shall also be analyzed using the Synchro software.

The CONSULTANT is assuming that the preferred alternative may be constructed in two stages where Stage 1 involves construction of a two-lane roadway and Stage 2 involves widening the initial two-lane facility to four lanes. For the Build Scenario, the CONSULTANT shall determine the projected year in which traffic volumes indicate that a four-lane roadway would be necessary in order to adequately accommodate traffic demand on the SE Issaquah Bypass.

Qualitative analyses shall be performed by the CONSULTANT to identify and discuss the potential effectiveness of measures designed to mitigate any significant adverse impacts of each of the alternatives.

The CONSULTANT shall prepare a Draft Transportation Study to document the results of the new traffic modeling and analysis. The Draft Transportation Study shall build on the analysis started under the Phase 1 Transportation Study. Ten (10) copies of the Draft Study shall be provided for review and comments.

PRODUCTS

Draft Transportation Study for review by the City and other agencies (10 copies)

The CONSULTANT shall revise the March 2003 Draft Transportation Study following review by the CITY, WSDOT, FHWA, Signatory Agency Committee (SAC) representatives and other resource agencies. Fifteen (15) copies of the Final Transportation Study shall be provided. Additional traffic modeling required to address comments on the Draft or Final Transportation Study shall be considered Extra Work.

PRODUCTS

Final Transportation Study (15 copies)

The CONSULTANT shall revise the Draft Biological Assessment prepared in March 2003 to address comments received by WSDOT technical reviewers. The CONSULTANT shall submit five (5) revised copies of the BA to WSDOT for distribution to FHWA, NMFS and USFWS. The CONSULTANT shall revise the document in response to agency comments and submit five (5) final copies of the BA for distribution to WSDOT, FHWA, NMFS and USFWS.

PRODUCTS

The CONSULTANT shall provide up to four (4) computer generated oblique view photographic images depicting proposed build alternatives for inclusion in the Supplemental Draft and Final EIS. The images shall also be used to create mounted display boards for use at public meetings, project exhibits, and other public outreach events. In addition, three (3) ground level photo simulations (Figures 4-20, 4-22, and 424) from the June 2000 Draft EIS, shall be revised to show a four-lane roadway design. Figures 4-25 and 4-26 shall be replaced with one (1) new ground-level view photo simulation to represent the new southern alignment.

PRODUCTS

Computer generated oblique view photographic images (two sets of four images mounted on foam core boards for public display)

Computer generated ground-level photographic images (four revised images for report figures)

The CONSULTANT shall prepare a Supplemental Draft EIS to present new information on proposed project alternatives and traffic analysis based on the outcome of the Phase I work plan. The Supplemental Draft EIS shall follow a format consistent with guidance in the revised WSDOT Environmental Procedures Manual (July 2001), guidance in the "Interagency Working Agreement to Integrate Special Aquatic Resources (404) Permit Requirements into the NEPA and SEPA processes in the State of Washington," (NEPA/SEPA/404 Merger Agreement), and FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8A. The CITY will provide close coordination with WSDOT and FHWA throughout the process. The Supplemental Draft EIS is anticipated to include the following sections and appendices (however, the final organization and format may change in response to the CITY’s needs):

The following sections of the June 2000 Draft EIS shall be revised, as appropriate:

Cover Sheet

Title Sheet

Fact Sheet

Table of Contents

List of Tables

List of Figures

The Summary section from the June 2000 Draft EIS shall be revised to include a brief description of the proposed action, other governmental agency's actions in the geographic area, a summary of alternatives and options considered, summary of major environmental impacts (in table format with proposed mitigation measures), areas of concern or controversy, unresolved issues, list of required permits, and a list of other actions required for the proposed project.

This chapter shall be revised to identify and describe the proposed action and the transportation problems or other needs which it is intended to address. This discussion shall clearly demonstrate that a need exists for the project.

This chapter shall be revised to describe the process used to identify various - alternatives, the range of alternatives considered, and the alternatives that were eliminated from further consideration. Chapter 2 shall include the NEPA 404 Alternatives Analysis and Aquatic Resource Avoidance Analysis consistent with the requirements of the NEPA/SEPA/404 Merger Agreement. The analysis shall describe alternatives considered but rejected (and reason why) including efforts to minimize or avoid impacts to aquatic resources, and shall identify a preferred alternative, if known. A table shall be included comparing the various impacts of each alternative.

Alternatives to be analyzed in the Supplemental Draft EIS include: • No Action (no-build) Alternative

Alternative 1 (North A with a new south alignment)

Alternative 2 (North B with a new south alignment)

Alternative 3 (North C with a new south alignment)

A detailed description of the alternatives selected for analysis in the Supplemental Draft EIS shall be provided, together with updated information on estimated project costs and construction timing. The description of the alternative design concepts shall be in sufficient detail to allow identification of the specific characteristics of each design concept to be evaluated. These characteristics include roadway layout, intersection configurations, structural features, and other roadway related facilities. Maps, alignment drawings, road sections, cost estimates, a proposed construction schedule with milestones, and other exhibits shall be used to describe and allow a comparison between the alternatives.

This chapter shall be revised to update the description of the existing social and environmental setting for the area affected by the alternatives presented in the Supplemental Draft EIS. The following elements of the environment shall be reviewed and updated as necessary: study area, local geography, geology and soils, hydrologic systems and floodplains, wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat, land use, regional and community growth, historic and archaeological elements, hazardous waste, and visual quality. It shall also discuss the adopted land use and transportation plans as they relate to the proposed project, including the City's Traffic Concurrency Ordinance. These discussions shall be limited to data, information, issues, and values that will have a bearing on possible impacts, mitigation measures, and on the selection of an alternative.

This chapter shall be revised to document the direct project impacts, future operational impacts, secondary and cumulative impacts, construction activity impacts and mitigation measures associated with each of the three new build alternatives and the no-action alternative.

Direct project impacts are those impacts associated with the footprint or right-of-way of each alternative.

Future operational impacts are those impacts resulting from ongoing operation of the project that are anticipated to occur between the year of opening (2005) and the design year (2030).

Secondary impacts are those that are "caused by an action and are later in time or farther removed in distance but are still reasonably foreseeable" (40 CFR 1508.8). These impacts, which usually result from the initial action, include changes in land use, water quality, economic vitality, and population density.

Cumulative impacts are those that "result from the incremental consequences of an action when added to other past and reasonable foreseeable future actions" (40 CFR 1508.7). The cumulative effects of an action may be undetectable when viewed in the individual context of direct and even secondary impacts but can nonetheless add to other disturbances and eventually lead to a measurable environmental change.

Construction activity impacts are limited to construction process impacts that are temporary in nature and typically limited to the immediate project area (e.g., construction noise, dust, traffic controls, etc.). The CONSULTANT is assuming that the preferred alternative will be constructed in two stages: Stage 1 will involve construction of a twolane roadway; Stage 2 will involve widening the initial two-lane facility to four lanes.

The environmental elements listed below shall be reanalyzed for each of fie alternatives addressed in the Supplemental Draft EIS:

Air Quality

Noise

Energy

Geology and Soils

Hydrological Systems

Floodplains

Water Quality

Wetlands

Vegetation and Wildlife

Fisheries

Threatened and Endangered Species

Land Use

Social Elements

Economic Elements

Displacement and Relocation

Historic and Cultural Resources

Hazardous Waste

Visual Quality

The CONSULTANT shall prepare draft and final technical reports for Air Quality and Noise only. Draft technical reports shall be submitted to the ClW and the STATE for review and comment. No additional revisions to previously prepared discipline reports are included. Any other discipline report changes would be considered "extra work."

The CONSULTANT shall not perform additional floodplain modeling work (HEC-RAS) as part of this work plan. Floodplain impact analysis and conceptual design for the SETS alternatives performed by the CONSULTANT shall be based on the recently updated floodplain information (Montgomery Water Group, 2001) provided to the CONSULTANT by the CITY. Any additional HEC-RAS analysis would be considered extra work.

PRODUCTS

Draft and Final Air Quality Reports (10 copies each of Draft and Final)

Draft and Final Noise Reports (15 copies each of Draft and Final)

The CONSULTANT shall update this chapter to summarize the results of additional coordination with federal, state, and local agencies, their level of involvement, and any unresolved issues or areas of conflict. This section shall also summarize additional public involvement activities conducted as part of the Supplemental Draft EIS.

The CONSULTANT shall update and revise the Section 4(f) evaluation to reflect the impacts (both during construction and operation) associated with the new build alternatives. The CONSULTANT shall identify and evaluate location and design alternatives which would avoid each and all Section 4(f) properties; explain whether any avoidance alternatives which were eliminated from further study are "feasible and prudent" and if not, explain why; discuss all possible measures which are available to minimize impacts on Section 4(f) properties, including commitments made and monitoring procedures to minimize harm.

The CONSULTANT shall review and prepare responses to over 1,000 comments received on the Draft EIS in letters and recorded testimony at the Draft EIS public hearing. It is assumed that many of the comments received are similar incontent and a response to one will be appropriate for many others. It is also assumed that many of the comments will no longer be relevant because several of the alternatives presented in the Draft EIS are no longer being considered. Copies of the comment letters and recorded public testimony, along with the responses to those comments, shall be presented in an appendix to the Supplemental Draft EIS. During this task the CONSULTANT shall also review one (1) "constituent proposal" and provide a written response to be included in an appendix to the Supplemental Draft EIS.

The CONSULTANT shall prepare closing documentation for the SEIS, including the following information:

Principal Contributors

Studies Performed

Supplemental Draft EIS Distribution List

Transportation Studies

Supplemental Alternatives Analysis

Historic Site Documentation

The CONSULTANT shall revise the March 2003 Preliminary Supplemental Draft EIS (Interoffice Working Version #1) and supporting discipline reports to respond to cursory review comments received from WSDOT and FHWA in April 2003, and technical review comments received from WSDOT at the end of May 2003. The CONSULTANT shall take the lead on resolving outstanding issues with the following agencies:

Interagency for Outdoor Recreation (IAC) to address issues related to impacts on the Sportsmen’s Club

WSDOT and FHWA to address needed revisions to the Section 4(f) Evaluation

WSDOT and SHPO to address impacts to the Sportsmen’s Club and other Section 4(f) resources.

Twenty-five (25) copies of the revised Preliminary Supplemental Draft EIS (Interoffice Working Version #1) shall be submitted to WSDOT and CITY for review and comment. The CONSULTANT shall revise the documents and submit two (2) copies to WSDOT for distribution to FHWA. The CONSULTANT shall revise the documents in response to FHWA comments and submit twenty-five (25) copies of the revised Preliminary Supplemental Draft EIS to WSDOT for distribution to FHWA, Signatory Agency Committee (SAC) representatives, and technical reviewers at USACE, USFWS, EPA, NMFS, Ecology and WDFW.

Revised Preliminary Supplemental Draft EIS for CITY and WSDOT review (25 copies)

Revised Preliminary Supplemental Draft EIS for FHWA review (2 copies)

Revised Preliminary Supplemental Draft EIS for distribution to FHWA, SAC agencies and federal and state agency technical reviewers (25 copies)

Revised Preliminary Supplemental Draft EIS for distribution to WSDOT and the CITY (5 copies)

The CONSULTANT shall meet with the CITY, WSDOT and FHWA to review comments received on the Preliminary Supplemental Draft EIS and to develop a strategy for proceeding with final revisions. This work plan assumes the CONSULTANT will need to respond to a limited number of comments that can be addressed with approximately 120 hours of total labor. If additional hours are required, that effort would be considered Extra Work. The CONSULTANT shall prepare a camera-ready version of the Supplemental Draft EIS for review by the CITY, WSDOT and FHWA.

PRODUCTS

Camera-ready copy of the Supplemental Draft EIS (3 copies)

Upon approval of the camera-ready Supplemental Draft EIS by FHWA, the CONSULTANT shall reproduce 200 copies of the Supplemental Draft EIS for distribution. The CITY will develop the distribution list and be responsible for distributing the document to the agencies and the public.

PRODUCTS

200 copies of the Supplemental Draft EIS for submittal to the CITY for distribution.

A joint public hearing on the Supplemental Draft EIS and the Section 404 permit application will be conducted within 30-days following publication of the Supplemental

Draft EIS. The CONSULTANT shall prepare materials for the hearing and provide originals to the CITY for reproduction and distribution. Relevant CONSULTANT activities shall include:

Assist the CITY in preparing the public hearing packet

Assist the CITY in preparing exhibits and handouts

Prepare a Synchro display showing traffic operations

Provide technical staff to attend the Public Hearing

It is assumed that up to four (4) CONSULTANT team staff shall attend the public hearing. It is also assumed that the CITY will be responsible for arranging the meeting place, arranging for a court reporter, preparing the public notice for the joint Supplemental Draft EIS/Section 404 Public Hearing Notice, and all other activities related to meeting organization and/or preparation.

The CITY will provide the CONSULTANT with copies of the letters received with comments on the Supplemental Draft EIS. The CITY will also provide the CONSULTANT with a copy of the transcript recording public testimony received at the public hearing. Revisions to the Supplemental Draft EIS shall be based on the comment letters, public hearing testimony and agency comments received during the review period.

The CONSULTANT shall compile a summary of comments received on the Supplemental Draft EIS, provide responses to comments, and make recommendations, if necessary, on the need for additional studies, additional mitigation or changes to the design. For budgeting purposes, it is assumed that there will be a maximum of 100 comment letters with 10 comments each for a total of 1,000 comments. If there are more than 100 comment letters or 1,000 comments, the extra level of effort to address comments shall be considered "extra work."

The CONSULTANT shall revise the discussion of elements of the environment in EIS to reflect changes in the project design, impacts, and proposed or required mitigation that have occurred since publication of the Supplemental Draft EIS, or in response to review comments on the Supplemental Draft EIS. Any proposed additional studies, detailed analyses, or changes in design shall be considered "extra work."

The CONSULTANT shall produce a preliminary Final EIS and submit twenty-five (25) copies to WSDOT and the CITY for review and comment. The CONSULTANT shall revise the documents and submit two (2) copies to WSDOT for distribution to FHWA. The CONSULTANT shall revise the document in response to FHWA comments and provide twenty-five (25) copies of the preliminary Final EIS to WSDOT for distribution to FHWA, SAC representatives, and technical reviewers at USACE, USFWS, EPA, NMFS, Ecology and WDFW.

Preliminary Final EIS for CITY and WSDOT review (25 copies)

Preliminary Final EIS for FHWA review (2 copies)

Preliminary Final EIS for distribution to FHWA, SAC agencies and federal and state agency technical reviewers (25 copies)

Preliminary Final EIS for distribution to WSDOT and the CITY (5 copies)

The CONSULTANT shall revise the preliminary Final EIS in response to the comments received from the CITY, WSDOT, FHWA and reviewing agencies. The CONSULTANT shall prepare a camera-ready Final EIS and the CITY will coordinate with WSDOT and FHWA on a second review to check and approve the changes and authorize reproduction and issuance of the Final EIS.

PRODUCTS

Camera-ready copy of the Final EIS (3 copies)

The CONSULTANT shall make the second round of minor revisions based on the review and approval of the camera-ready Final EIS and reproduce 200 copies of the Final EIS for distribution. The CITY will provide the distribution list and be responsible for distributing the document to agencies and the public.

PRODUCTS

200 copies of the Final EIS for submittal to the CITY for distribution.

The CONSULTANT shall assist the CITY in preparing the draft NEPA Record of Decision (ROD) and shall address any Final EIS comments received from FHWA.

PRODUCTS

Draft Record of Decision (1 copy)

Final Record of Decision (1 copy)

If directed by the CITY, the CONSULTANT shall prepare responses to public comments on deliverables prepared under this work plan. It is assumed that the CONSULTANT shall spend four (4) hours responding to up to ten (10) public comments. Additional effort by the CONSULTANT to respond to more than ten (10) comments shall be considered "extra work".

The CONSULTANT shall provide project coordination to comply with the "Interagency Working Agreement to Integrate Special Aquatic Resources (404) Permit Requirements into the NEPA and SEPA processes in the State of Washington, "(NEPA/SEPA/404 Merger Agreement).

Up to two (2) CONSULTANT team members shall attend a SAC briefing before or during the agency review period for the Preliminary Supplemental DEIS.

Upon issuance of the Agency Concurrence Letter regarding alternatives to be evaluated in the Supplemental Draft EIS and identification of the preferred alternative, the CONSULTANT shall conduct a preliminary investigation of candidate mitigation sites to determine if there are suitable sites to support the required mitigation. Upon identification of candidate sites, the CONSULTANT shall prepare a draft Initial Mitigation Plan for the preferred alternative, as described in Appendix F of the NEPA/SEPA/404 Merger Agreement. The Draft Plan shall identify unavoidable impacts to aquatic resources; establish the goals and objectives of the mitigation; the timing of the mitigation; a general description of the candidate sites; and proposed monitoring of the mitigation. The Draft Plan shall be submitted to the CITY for review and comment.

The Draft Initial Mitigation Plan shall be revised to address the CITY's comments. The revised Plan shall be submitted to the CITY for distribution to other merger agencies for review and comment. The CITY will provide consolidated comments on the Plan to the CONSULTANT. The CONSULTANT shall conduct a site visit with the USACE to review candidate sites. The CONSULTANT shall prepare a final Initial Mitigation Plan for inclusion in the Draft SEIS.

PRODUCTS

Draft Initial Wetlands Mitigation Plan for CITY review (10 copies)

Draft Initial Wetlands Mitigation Plan for agency review (15 copies)

Final Initial Wetlands Mitigation Plan for inclusion in the Supplemental Draft EIS (one camera ready copy)

Prior to submittal of the Preliminary Supplemental Draft EIS, the CONSULTANT shall attend one pre-application meeting with the USACE to identify issues of concern and confirm Section 404 permitting requirements and scheduling. The CONSULTANT shall then prepare draft Section 404 permit application materials for submittal to the CITY. The CITY will submit the permit application to the USACE. Prior to publication of the Final EIS, the CONSULTANT shall prepare a final Section 404 permit application for submittal to the USACE. The final application shall include a Detailed Mitigation Plan and Report.

PRODUCTS

Draft Section 404 Wetland Permit Application

Final Section 404 Wetland Permit Application

Prior to publication of the Final EIS, the CONSULTANT shall prepare a draft Detailed Mitigation Plan and Report for the preferred alternative, as described in Appendix F of the NEPA/SEPA/404 Merger Agreement. The Draft Detailed Mitigation Plan shall include a summary of wetland impacts, description of proposed mitigation and mitigation site(s), mitigation design (hydrology source, grading plan, soil preparation, planting plan, and schedule), standards of success, and monitoring and contingency plans. The Draft Plan shall be submitted to the CITY for review and comment. The Draft Plan shall be revised to address the CITY's comments. The revised Plan shall be submitted to the CITY for distribution to the merger agencies with the preliminary Final EIS.

Upon issuance of concurrence on the preliminary Final EIS by the reviewing agencies, the CONSULTANT shall prepare a Final Detailed Mitigation Plan for inclusion in the Final EIS. A Final Mitigation Plan as required by the NEPA/SEPA/404 Merger Agreement is not included in this Work Plan and shall be considered "extra work".

PRODUCTS

Preliminary Draft Detailed Wetland Mitigation Plan and Report (10 copies) Draft Detailed Wetland Mitigation Plan and Report (15 copies)

Final Detailed Wetland Mitigation Plan and Report (one camera ready copy)

The CONSULTANT shall collect additional field survey with to update the existing mapping that will enable development of the conceptual design to the level necessary to provide a clear idea of the environmental impacts. Except for critical culverts, underground utilities shall not be surveyed or mapped. The CONSULTANT shall update the existing base map with the additional supplemental survey data. This supplemental survey data shall be developed in metric units. The survey work shall conform to NAD 83/91 and to the vertical datum used by the CITY for this project.

PRODUCTS

Updated Aerial Base Mapping

The CONSULTANT shall conduct geotechnical investigations to support the conceptual design task. These investigations include the following:

Conduct a detailed site reconnaissance along the new southern alignment to evaluate existing conditions. Also conduct a reconnaissance along the preferred north alignment to observe current site conditions.

Drill a total of eight (8) borings: Six (6) along the centerline alignment of the new southern alternative and two (2) at the northerly edge of the proposed roadway along the new southern alternative. The borings shall be drilled to depths ranging from 15 to 40 feet using a track-mounted drill rig. Soil samples shall be collected from the borings at five-foot depth intervals. The CONSULTANT shall obtain "Right-of-Entry" to complete the eight (8) soil borings.

Install a piezometer casing in the borings for ground water monitoring. Monitor ground water levels on a monthly basis for six (6) months following installation. The borings/piezometers shall be backfilled in accordance with Washington State Department of Ecology requirements.

Conduct limited laboratory testing on the soil samples obtained from the borings. The testing shall include moisture content.

Evaluate the subsurface information obtained from the soil borings as a basis for describing the existing conditions, impacts and mitigation of identified environmental issues.

The CONSULTANT shall prepare a Geotechnical Feasibility Report that documents the additional geotechnical activities described above, as well as the geotechnical investigations conducted in support of the June 2000 Draft EIS. The report shall identify preliminarily recommended slope support options including but not limited to MSE walls, soldier pile walls, reinforced concrete walls, and rockeries.

PRODUCTS

Draft Geotechnical Feasibility Report (3 copies)

Final Geotechnical Feasibility Report (3 copies)

A Design Memorandum summarizing the relevant geometric design criteria applicable to CITY designated design or posted speed limits shall be prepared based on applicable design standards and in accordance with the CITY'S Design Standards and the WSDOT Local Agency Guidelines Manual, as well as the AASHTO Green Book (See Attachment A). Particular emphasis shall be placed on identifying those elements that may be subject to interpretation, engineering judgment or modification due to adverse field conditions. The CONSULTANT shall review the design elements with and seek approval by the CITY.

The Design Memorandum shall include documentation on design decisions, design deviations, geotechnical and structural evaluations, stormwater management issues and considerations, and a staged construction proposal.

PRODUCTS

Draft Design Memorandum (3 copies)

Final Design Memorandum (3 copies)

The CONSULTANT shall complete conceptual design work for the three (3) build alternatives begun during Phase 1 (Task 19.3.2). The three build alternatives are comprised of one new southern alignment and three refined northern alignments from the original Draft EIS (June 2000). The three northern alignments can be matched with the one new southern alignment (at a common match point) to yield three different alternatives providing a new north south connection between I-90 and Front Street.

During this task the CONSULTANT shall refine the channelization features for each of the alternatives to reflect the traffic needs for the year 2030 as described in the Phase 1 Transportation Study (Task 19.3.1).

The CONSULTANT shall refine the roadway template, including retaining walls and stormwater facilities, develop new cross sections, and refine slope lines to allow determination of potential impacts to wetlands, streams, floodplains, trails, existing homes, school district property and other elements of the environment. Space for roadside landscaping shall be included along the western edge of the proposed roadway. The CONSULTANT shall develop up to two (2) Typical Sections to depict the roadway prism in the northern segment of each alternative and one (1) Typical Section illustrative of all alternatives for the roadway section in the southern segment.

Based on the results of this effort and the corresponding impacts, the CONSULTANT shall revise the horizontal and vertical alignments up to two additional times for each alternative, once in response to the CITY'S review comments and once in response to comments received on the Supplemental Draft EIS, to mitigate unfavorable impacts to existing natural resources, properties and structures. With each vertical alignment revision, the CONSULTANT shall rerun cross sections throughout the length of the vertical alignment revision and revise slope lines to further determine their impact on the environment.

The CONSULTANT shall prepare a design that accommodates existing and proposed pedestrian and bicycle facilities within the corridor, as well as appropriate connections and extensions of existing trails. Type 11 bicycle lanes and contiguous sidewalks are to be assumed.

The CONSULTANT shall coordinate with Issaquah School District officials to identify appropriate and reasonable vertical alignments for each alternative (including possible noise berm) to address school district concerns over potential noise impacts to Issaquah High School. One (1) meeting with three (3) people is assumed for budgetary purposes.

The CONSULTANT shall review and modify the size, type and location of proposed stormwater management facilities to reflect the refined roadway design and new floodplain elevation information (Montgomery Water Group, 2001) provided to the CONSULTANT by the CITY.

If a revision in the horizontal and vertical alignment of the planned East Sunset Way connection to the SE Issaquah Bypass is required because of refinements to the SE Bypass design geometrics, that effort shall be considered "extra work" and will be covered by a future change order.

PRODUCTS

It is anticipated that the construction sequencing of the preferred alternative will be shown to occur in two separate stages. The CONSULTANT shall prepare Stage 1 plans that depict a two-lane roadway with bike lanes in each direction and a sidewalk on the southbound side only. Retaining walls would be located to accommodate an ultimate build out of a four-lane roadway section. Three Typical Sections shall be prepared depicting the two-lane roadway in Stage 1. The Stage 1 plans shall also reflect the rightof-way acquisition needs to accommodate the ultimate build out. Roadway profile changes are assumed not to be required.

The CONSULTANT shall develop a stormwater management facilities design to accommodate a two-lane roadway. Roadside ditches are assumed for the Stage 1 stormwater conveyance system. The CONSULTANT shall also design reduced-size stormwater detention ponds appropriate for the Stage 1 construction.

PRODUCTS

Stage 1 plans and typical sections for one (1) submittal (3 sets).

The CONSULTANT shall prepare a conceptual cost estimate for each of the SETS build alternatives. A refined cost estimate shall be prepared for the preferred alternative reflecting a two-stage construction sequence. Costs shall be based on standard bid item tables published by WSDOT and the CITY. The CITY will provide estimated right-of-way costs based upon right-of-way requirements identified by the CONSULTANT. Earthwork volumes shall be prepared for both Stage 1 and Stage 2 construction.

PRODUCT

Conceptual cost estimates for SEIS Build Alternatives (3 sets)

Conceptual cost estimate for preferred alternative with two-stage construction (3 sets)

The CONSULTANT shall conduct additional transportation and environmental analysis and preliminary design activities to include an additional southern alignment in the Supplemental EIS. The additional southern alignment is assumed to approximately follow the existing alignment of 6^th Avenue SE.

The CONSULTANT shall conduct additional transportation analysis to study an additional southern alignment that approximately follows the alignment of 6th Avenue SE and intersects with Issaquah-Hobart Road at approximately SE 96^th Street. The additional analysis shall include rerunning the TMODEL travel demand forecasts for the 2030 build scenario to include the additional southern alignment.

The CONSULTANT shall also conduct additional Synchro intersection/roadway operational analysis for up to three (3) alignment combinations (i.e. the 6^thAvenue SE southern alignment with each of the three northern alignments). In addition, the transportation analysis described in Task 20.3.1 of this work plan shall be expanded to include analysis of the additional alternative for the opening year of 2005.

The CONSULTANT shall expand the discussion and analysis in the Supplemental Draft EIS to include an additional southern alignment that approximately follows the alignment of 6^th Avenue SE. The following sections of the EIS document shall be revised to discuss the additional alternative:

Summary

Chapter 1 Purpose and Need for the Action

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Chapter 5 Comments and Coordination

Chapter 6 Section 4(f) Evaluation

The impact analysis in the Supplemental Draft EIS addressing the environmental elements listed below shall be expanded to include analysis of the additional southern alignment that approximately follows 6^th Avenue SE:

Air Quality

Noise

Energy

Geology and Soils

Hydrological Systems

Floodplains

Water Quality

Wetlands

Vegetation and Wildlife

Fisheries

Threatened and Endangered Species

Land Use

Social Elements

Economic Elements

Displacement and Relocation

Historic and Cultural Resources

Hazardous Waste

Visual Quality

The Air Quality and Noise modeling efforts and related technical reports shall be expanded to include the additional southern alignment.

The CONSULTANT shall address public and agency comments received on the Supplemental Draft EIS related to the additional southern alternative. For budgeting purposes it is assumed that the addition of the 6^thAvenue southern alignment will add approximately 25% to the level of effort assumed for this task in 20.3.6.1. The CONSULTANT shall revise the discussion of elements of the environment in the EIS to reflect any changes in the project design, impacts and proposed or required mitigation as they relate to the additional alternative.

The CONSULTANT shall coordinate with regulatory agencies to review and comment on the additional southern alignment along 6^th Avenue SE. Additional studies required to obtain concurrence from the regulatory agencies, or development and analysis of additional alternatives, shall be considered "extra work."

Up to two (2) CONSULTANT staff shall attend up to three (3) additional meetings with regulatory agencies to gain concurrence on the preliminary Final EIS regarding the apparent final mitigation plan and the preferred alternative/least environmentally damaging alternative, as specified in the NEPA/SEPA/404 Merger Agreement. Additional meetings, studies or revisions to alternatives that may be needed to obtain concurrence shall be considered "extra work."

The CONSULTANT shall supplement the conceptual design work described in Task 20.5 of this work plan to include conceptual design of an additional 6^thAvenue SE alignment. The 6^th Avenue SE alignment shall be designed to match with any one of the three northern alignments (at a common match point) to yield three different alternatives providing a new connection between I-90 and Issaquah-Hobart Road.

During this task the CONSULTANT shall develop conceptual plan, profile, and typical section for an alignment that reflects the traffic channelization needs for the year 2030 as determined in the Task 20.1.6, above.

The CONSULTANT shall prepare a roadway template, including retaining walls and stormwater facilities, develop new cross sections, and refine slope lines to allow determination of potential impacts to wetlands, streams, floodplains, trails, existing homes, school district property and other elements of the environment. Space for roadside landscaping shall be provided along the western side of the proposed roadway. The CONSULTANT shall develop one (1) Typical Section to further clarify the roadway prism at a selected location along the alignment.

Based on the results of this effort and the corresponding impacts, the CONSULTANT shall revise the horizontal and vertical alignments up to two additional times, once in response to the CITY'S review comments and once in response to comments received on the Supplemental Draft EIS, to mitigate unfavorable impacts existing natural resources, properties, and structures. With each vertical alignment revision, the CONSULTANT shall rerun cross sections throughout the length of the vertical alignment revision and revise slope lines to further determine their impact on the environment.

The CONSULTANT shall accommodate existing and proposed pedestrian and bicycle facilities within the corridor, as well as appropriate connections and extensions of existing trails. Type II bicycle lanes and contiguous sidewalks are anticipated.

The CONSULTANT shall review and modify the size, type and location of proposed stormwater management facilities to reflect the new southern roadway alignment.

PRODUCTS

• The CONSULTANT shall prepare Stage 1 plans that depict a two-lane roadway with bike lanes in each direction and a sidewalk on the southbound side only. Retaining walls, if any, would be located to accommodate the ultimate build-out of a four-lane roadway section. One (1) Typical Section shall be prepared depicting the two-lane roadway in Stage 1. The Stage 1 plans shall also reflect the right-of-way acquisition needs to accommodate the ultimate build out. Roadway profile changes are assumed not to be required.
• The CONSULTANT shall develop a Stage 1 stormwater management facility design to accommodate a two-lane roadway. Roadside ditches are assumed for the Stage 1 stormwater conveyance system. The CONSULTANT shall also design reduced-size stormwater detention ponds appropriate for the Stage 1 construction.
• PRODUCTS
• Stage 1 plan and typical section for one (1) submittal (3 sets).

The CONSULTANT shall revise the conceptual cost estimates described in Task 20.5.5 to include the additional 6th Avenue alignment. Costs shall be based on standard bid item tables published by WSDOT and the CITY. The CITY will provide estimated right-of-way costs based upon right-of-way requirements identified by the CONSULTANT.

The CITY will designate the basic premises and criteria for the design. Reports and plans, to the extent feasible, shall be developed in accordance with the latest edition and amendments to the following:

City of Issaquah Publications

Issaquah Design Standards

Critical Areas Ordinance

King County Publications

Road Standards 1994

General Special Provisions 1991

Surface Water Design Manual

Community Plan

Basin Studies

Sensitive Areas Ordinance

Washington State Publications

Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction (M41-10)

Standard Plans for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction (M21-01)

Amendments and General Special Provisions • Standard Item Table

Highway Design Manual

Bridge Design Manual

Construction Manual

Local Agency Guidelines

DOE Stormwater Management Manual forthe Puget Sound Basin

Hydraulics Manual

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Publications

A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (2000)

A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (1994) (Green Book)

Standard Specifications for Highways Bridges, Twelfth Edition (1977)

A Guide for Highway Landscape and Environmental Design (1970)

Highway Design and Operational Practices Related to Highway Safety (1974) (Yellow Book)

Any American Association of STATE Highway Officials policy applicable where said policy is not in conflict with CITY standards

U.S. Department of Transportation Publications

Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways

Other Publications

National Electrical Code

Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual (1994)

The CONSULTANT shall review and revise the Biological Assessment (BA) prepared for the June 2000 Draft EIS. The BA will be revised to describe the impacts of the new alternatives on federally listed, proposed, and candidate species and designated and proposed critical habitat present in the project vicinity. The CONSULTANT will submit 10 copies of the Revised Draft BA to the CITY for review and comment. The CONSULTANT will revise the document and provide 10 copies of the Revised Draft BA for distribution with the Preliminary SDEIS to the USACOE, USFWS, EPA, NMFS, Ecology and WDFW. Special effort will be made during this task to follow the guidance in the July 2001 WSDOT Environmental Procedures Manual.

PRODUCTS

The CITY will provide the CONSULTANT with copies of the letters received with comments on the SDEIS. The CITY will also provide the CONSULTANT with a copy of the transcript recording public testimony received at the public hearing. Revisions to the Supplemental DEIS will be based on the comment letters, public hearing testimony and agency comments received during the review period.

The CONSULTANT shall compile a summary of comments received on the SDEIS, provide responses to comments, and make recommendations, if necessary, on the need for additional studies, additional mitigation or changes to the design. For budgeting purposes, it is assumed that there will be a maximum of 100 comment letters with 10 comments each for a total of 1,000 comments. If there are more than 100 comment letters or 1,000 comments, this extra level of effort will be considered "extra work."

The CONSULTANTS shall revise the discussion of any elements of the EIS necessary to reflect changes in the project design, impacts, and proposed or required mitigation that have occurred since publication of the SDEIS, or in response to review comments on the SDEIS. Any proposed additional studies, detailed analyses, or changes in design would be considered "extra work."

The CONSULTANT shall prepare a preliminary Final EIS and submit 10 copies to the CITY for review and comment. The CONSULTANT will revise the document and provide copies of the preliminary Final EIS (including the final alternatives analysis, identification of the preferred alternative and apparent least environmentally damaging practicable alternative, and apparent final wetland mitigation plan) to the USACOE, USFWS, EPA, NMFS, Ecology and WDFW. The Final EIS will incorporate changes that reflect changes in the PROJECT scope, impacts, technical analysis and mitigation analysis that have occurred since the SDEIS. The Final EIS will include comments received on the SDEIS, a summary of the comments, responses to comments, and an updated fact sheet.

Preliminary Final EIS for CITY review (10 copies)

Preliminary Final EIS for review by cooperating agencies (10 copies)

The CITY will provide consolidated comments on the preliminary Final EIS to the CONSULTANT. It is assumed that cooperating agencies will submit comments separately. The CONSULTANT shall revise the preliminary Final EIS in response to the comments received from the CITY and cooperating agencies and prepare a final detailed wetland mitigation plan. The CONSULTANT will prepare a camera ready Final EIS and the CITY will conduct a second review to check and approve the changes and authorize reproduction and issuance of the Final EIS.

The CONSULTANT shall make the second, minor revisions based on the review and reproduce 200 copies of the Final EIS for distribution. The CITY will provide the distribution list for the FEIS and will be responsible for distributing the document to the public and agencies.

PRODUCTS

The CONSULTANT shall assist the CITY in preparing the draft NEPA Record of Decision (ROD) and shall address any Final EIS comments received.

Draft Record of Decision

Final Record of Decision

The CONSULTANT shall provide project coordination to comply with the "Interagency Working Agreement to Integrate Special Aquatic Resources (404) Permit Requirements into the NEPA and SEPA processes in the State of Washington," (NEPA/SEPA/404 Merger Agreement).

The CONSULTANT shall coordinate with regulatory agencies to gain concurrence on the preliminary SDEIS regarding project alternatives to be evaluated in the SDEIS, preliminary preferred alternative, and initial and detailed wetland mitigation plans. Additional studies required to obtain concurrence, or development and analysis of additional alternatives, will be considered "extra work." Preparation of the final version of the SDEIS cannot proceed without issuance of a letter of concurrence from the cooperating agencies.

The CONSULTANT shall coordinate and meet with regulatory agencies to gain concurrence on the preliminary Final EIS regarding the apparent final mitigation plan and the preferred alternative/least environmentally damaging alternative, as specified in the NEPA/SEPA/404 Merger Agreement. Additional studies or revisions to alternatives that may be needed to obtain concurrence will be considered "extra work." Publication of the Final EIS cannot occur without issuance of a letter of concurrence from the cooperating agencies.

Upon issuance of the Agency Concurrence Letter regarding alternatives to be evaluated in the SDEIS and identification of the preferred alternative, the CONSULTANT shall conduct a preliminary investigation of candidate mitigation sites to determine if there are suitable sites to support the required mitigation. Upon identification of candidate sites, the CONSULTANT shall prepare a draft Initial Mitigation Plan for the preferred alternative, as described in Appendix F of the NEPA/SEPA/404 Merger Agreement. The draft Plan will identify unavoidable impacts to aquatic resources; establish the goals and objectives of the mitigation; the timing of the mitigation; a general description of the candidate sites; and proposed monitoring of the mitigation. No drawings will be included in the Plan. The draft Plan will be submitted to the CITY for review and comment.

The draft Initial Mitigation Plan will be revised to address the CITY’s comments. The revised Plan will be submitted to the CITY for distribution to other merger agencies for review and comment. The CITY will provide consolidated comments on the Plan to the CONSULTANT. The CONSULTANT shall conduct a site visit with the USACOE to review candidate sites. The CONSULTANT shall prepare a final Initial Mitigation Plan for inclusion in the Draft SEIS.

PRODUCTS

Prior to submittal of the Preliminary SDEIS, the CONSULTANT shall attend one pre-application meeting with the USACOE to identify issues of concern and confirm Section 404 permitting requirements and scheduling. The CONSULTANT shall then prepare draft Section 404 permit application materials for submittal to the CITY. The CITY will process the permit to the USACOE. Prior to publication of the Final EIS, the CONSULTANT shall prepare a final Section 404 permit application for submittal to the permitting agencies. The final application will include a detailed Mitigation Plan and Report.

PRODUCTS

Prior to publication of the Final EIS, the CONSULTANT shall prepare a draft Detailed Mitigation Plan and Report for the preferred alternative, as described in Appendix F of the NEPA/SEPA/404 Merger Agreement. The draft Plan will include a summary of wetland impacts, description of proposed mitigation and mitigation site(s), mitigation design (hydrology source, grading plan, soil preparation, planting plan, and schedule), standards of success, and monitoring and contingency plans. The draft Plan will be submitted to the CITY for review and comment. The draft Plan will be revised to address the CITY’s comments. The revised Plan will be submitted to the CITY for distribution to the merger agencies with the preliminary Final EIS.

Upon issuance of concurrence on the preliminary Final EIS by the cooperating agencies, the CONSULTANT shall prepare a final Detailed Mitigation Plan for inclusion in the Final EIS. A Final Mitigation Plan as required by the NEPA/SEPA/404 Merger Agreement is not included in this Work Plan and will be considered "extra work".

PRODUCTS

Change Order #3

Change Order #4

Change Order #5

Task 7.11 Historic, Archaeological, and Cultural Resources

Completion of Section 106 coordination for the proposed SE Bypass alignments by Northwest Archaeological Associates (NWAA) as indicated in the attached scope and budget dated July 5, 1999. NWAA will review the assessment of effects on the White Swan Inn and the Issaquah Sportsman's Clubhouse, and complete consultation with the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and interested parties. This will include a site visit to the Issaquah Sportsman's Clubhouse, preparation of the Section 4(f) evaluation, and the Memorandum of Agreement if necessary.

Task 10: NEPA/SEPA/404 Merger Process

10. 1 Concurrence Point 1

Review and research related to project purpose and need including documentation of background on purpose and need development. Analysis of purpose and need definitions in the Transportation Technical Report and Final Alternatives Analysis report, and approach to defining SE Bypass purpose and need for meeting with resource agencies on March 31. Review of SE Bypass purpose and need, NEPA and FHWA guidelines on purpose and need, and preparation of revised SE Bypass purpose and need statement for April 27 meeting with resource agencies.

10.3 Concurrence Point 2

Review and research related to alternative alignments including evaluation of the previous SE Bypass Final Alternatives Analysis. Documentation of previous consideration of alternative alignments in 1-90 Access, Sunset Interchange, East Sammamish Alternatives Feasibility, and Issaquah High Capacity Transit studies. Review of fatal flaws for May Valley Road and Newport Way Alternatives; land use project assumptions used in Issaquah traffic modeling; existing conditions modeling for Issaquah traffic; evaluation of approaches to defining the No Action alternative; background on TDM/CTR programs in Issaquah; strategies for making greater use of existing infrastructure in Issaquah; future plans for transit service and additional transit funds; Issaquah's commitment to access control for the SE Bypass; environmental impacts resulting from the proposed wetland bridging alternative; and fish usage in the North Tributary stream in the project for the March 31 meeting with resource agencies.

 

Background on independent utility for the SE Bypass project; additional analysis of traffic impacts of the May Valley Road and Newport Way alternatives including interchange and arterial volumes, and level of service associated with these approaches; qualitative assessment of potential environmental impacts associated with May Valley Road and Newport Way alternatives; and additional information on shading impacts and fish usage associated with the SE bypass alternatives for the April 27 meeting to discuss concurrence issues. This task also includes engineering design of the proposed bridging alternative for South A and B alignments.

10. 9 Meetings and Coordination

CONSULTANT attendance at March 31 and April 27 meetings with resource agencies. Preparation and distribution of revised concurrence forms. Meetings with King County (May 10), Corps of Engineers (May 26), Mike Birdsall from EarthTech (June 23), and communication and coordination with resource agencies regarding revisions in purpose and need, and agency issues related to alternative alignments.

10.9.1 Attend Meetings and Coordinate with Agencies and Subconsultants

The CONSULTANT will coordinate with the City of Issaquah, King County, resource agencies and subconsultants as required to complete additional alternatives analysis and Merger Process concurrence. Up to 10 meetings will be attended.

10.9.2 Present Findings to Resource Agencies

The CONSULTANT will prepare for, and attend, one meeting with the Merger Resource agencies to present results of the additional alternatives analysis completed in Tasks 13-16 below. This task will include preparation of any display boards or other presentation materials needed for this meeting.

Task 13: Research Congestion Pricing Alternative

13.1            Research and Analyze Transportation Impacts

The CONSULTANT will provide research and analysis of an alternative involving the use of congestion pricing in Issaquah to encourage the use of alternative routes, alternative modes of transportation, or a shift in driving to off-peak periods. Tasks included in this research include the following: research impacts of congestion pricing in other areas; describe assumptions included in the congestion pricing scenario; review assumptions with City of Issaquah and revise; develop two scenarios for inclusion in the network model; develop ranges for the potential cost for each scenario; for each scenario analyze model results for potential changes in vehicle trips for the year 2015; for each scenario analyze model results for potential changes in VMT for year 2015; evaluate the potential queue area required for 3 toll booths; for each scenario evaluate impacts to operations at twelve signalized intersections for year 2015 (see section 15.1 for a list of intersections); prepare presentation; incorporate comments and feedback; and prepare final results in tech memo or presentation. The development of a congestion pricing scenario will include an overview of opportunities for coordinated expansion of transit service to support this alternative (see Transit Service Alternative below). This alternative will be evaluated individually, and also in combination with the proposed SE Bypass project. This analysis will provide information for a combined approach to be included in the alternatives matrix (Task 16.2 below) as SE Bypass with Congestion Pricing alternative.

The CONSULTANT will be responsible for incorporating the results of the additional alternatives analysis provided for in the tasks above, within the SE Bypass Draft EIS. This would involve supplementing the discussion of 'Alternatives Considered but Rejected for Further Analysis,' and may include adding new alternatives for analysis throughout the DEIS. The cost estimate provided here is for supplementing the 'Alternatives Considered but Rejected' discussion only. If the additional alternatives analysis results in a determination that new alternatives are to be analyzed throughout the Draft EIS, a separate contract amendment to the Draft EIS contract, based on the additional alternative(s) to be analyzed, would be prepared and submitted by the CONSULTANT.

Change Order #6

Change Order #7

Change Order #8

The work plan presented here for the Southeast Issaquah Bypass project is for the preparation of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (June 2000) for a new bypass arterial connecting I-90 to the Issaquah-Hobart Road. The SEIS is being prepared to analyze a new southern alignment in combination with three possible northern alignments as presented in the Draft EIS.  The No Action Alternative will also be included.  This work plan represents a new supplement to Parsons Brinckerhoff’s existing contract for the SE Issaquah Bypass project.     

The SEIS will be prepared consistent with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). It will meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) with respect to possible actions by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA ) and possible permit actions by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE).  The SEIS will also meet the requirements of the Washington State (STATE) Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) with respect to possible actions by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and the City of Issaquah (CITY).  When similar activities are called for under both NEPA and SEPA, such as circulation times or length of comment periods, the longer of the two time periods will govern. 

The EIS will be prepared in accordance with the procedures set forth in the WSDOT Local Agency Guidelines, the WSDOT Environmental Procedures Manual, and applicable guidance from the FHWA.   The SEIS will also comply with the “Interagency Working Agreement to Integrate Special Aquatic Resources (404) Permit Requirements into the NEPA and SEPA processes in the State of Washington,” referred to herein as the NEPA/SEPA/404 Merger Agreement. The SEIS will be prepared using metric measurements with English measurements shown in parentheses behind the metric measurements.  The environmental documentation will be prepared following the format guidelines from the SE Issaquah Bypass Draft EIS.

Alternatives to be considered in the SEIS will include:

·         No Action (no-build) Alternative

·         One new south alignment and three refined north alignments from the Draft EIS.   The north and south alignments meet at a common point, either north alignment can be matched with the newly designed southern alignment, to yield three build alternatives: 1) Southern alignment with North S, and 2) Southern alignment with North B, and 3) Southern alignment with North A.   

The work plan for preparing the SEIS is divided into two phases.  Phase I will involve the following tasks:

·         Updating the traffic model to reflect 2030 design year

·         Refining the preliminary design for one new south alignment and three north alignments from the Draft EIS

·         Conducting additional wetlands and stream studies to the degree necessary to support preliminary design refinements

·         Updating the conceptual drainage plan to accommodate changes in the preliminary design

·         Resolving questions regarding Section 4(f) resources and how they might affect preliminary design and the selection of a preferred alternative

·         Additional coordination with agencies under the 404 Merger Process

Assumptions

Phase 2 to be completed under a future supplement will involve preparing a draft and final Supplemental EIS document, participating in a required public hearing and additional agency meetings, and assisting the City in obtaining a Record of Decision.

This study assumes that the Park Pointe intersection identified in the northern alignments will remain as designed.  It is also assumed that the design will include a lowering of the vertical profile of the southern alignment to mitigate potential noise impacts on the high school.      

19.1      Project Management Plan

The CONSULTANT shall update the project management plan for the Supplemental EIS through the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Design Report. The plan will include new information related to preparation of the SEIS, and a new project schedule will be prepared.   

19.2      Monthly Billings and Progress Reports

The CONSULTANT shall prepare monthly progress reports describing the status of the PROJECT.  These reports will:

·         Highlight significant accomplishments

·         Target potential problem areas needing special attention or coordination

·         Compare actual work progress with contractual obligations on a design task basis

The progress reports will be presented in a task oriented format and will include updated scheduling reports, indicating all progress to date and resources expended.  This update will include any changes in schedule, sequence, or resource loading.  If any schedule slippage has occurred, a plan for bringing the work back on schedule and budget will be included.

Progress reports and billings will be prepared by the CONSULTANT and submitted on a monthly basis.  These items will be supported by detailed record keeping sufficient to closely track the PROJECT budget and expenditures and support the billings.

PRODUCTS

·         Monthly Progress Reports, incorporating Project Schedule revisions as appropriate, and Monthly Billings.  Approximately 4 progress reports and billings will be provided. 

19.3      Direction, Meetings, and Coordination

This task includes the following project management items:

1.3.119.3.1             Team Coordination/General Direction

This task includes internal staff meetings and discussions to direct efforts and facilitate completion of project tasks.

1.3.219.3.2 Meetings with City Staff

Regularly scheduled meetings (two per month) with Issaquah staff to review progress and discuss upcoming actions will be held. This task would also include additional meetings with City staff members as needed to obtain information or resolve project issues.  The CONSULTANT shall prepare meeting minutes to summarize issues discussed.

1.3.419.3.3Meetings/Coordination with Others

This task would provide for meetings and coordination with outside agencies to provide information or discuss project issues. The CONSULTANT shall prepare meeting minutes to summarize issues discussed with participating agencies.

 

PRODUCTS

·         Meeting notes documenting topics discussed and future action items will be prepared and distributed as appropriate. 

TASK 19.2        QUALITY CONTROL

 19.2.1       Quality Assurance

The work products will be reviewed by consultant team staff with expertise in the appropriate discipline areas.  This will be an ongoing activity during the duration of the project with emphasis on major deliverable work products.

19.3.1      Transportation Study

Phase 1 will include those tasks necessary to define alternatives to be evaluated in the Supplemental EIS based on a design year 2030 traffic model.  Included will be updated traffic modeling data, new analyses of traffic operations based on new model data, a review of potential refinements to the north alignments, as well as the study of one new possible south alignments. 

19.3.1.1  Traffic Model Refinement

A future year 2030 traffic model (TMODEL Software), which will include a highway network of all freeways, freeway interchanges, arterials and other streets in the study area  will be developed for use in subsequent tasks for the SE Bypass SEIS.  This model will replace the traffic model used for preparation of the SE Bypass Draft EIS (June, 2000).  The 2030 SE Bypass model will be developed using the SR 900 Widening project model as a base, and will focus primarily on the Issaquah area (both incorporated and unincorporated Issaquah).  The SR 900 model incorporated a design year of 2020.  For the 2030 SE Bypass model the SR 900 model  the CITY’s Concurrency model and will be updated to incorporate 2030 land use and demographic data, based on the updated concurrency plan from the CITY along with the 2030 PSRC model.  Input data like model growth rates at external stations will also be updated for the 2030 SE Bypass model. 

19.3.1.2  Land Use Assumptions For Transportation Modeling

Future year land use assumptions will be developed for the year 2030.  The land use data for 2030 will be provided by the PSRC and the City of Issaquah (concurrency model).  The data is based on regional forecasts of economic activity and local land use plans, including the East Sammamish Community Plan and the Issaquah Comprehensive Plan.  The CONSULTANT shall summarize and update the land use assumptions based on the 2030 PSRC model along with the CITY’s updated Concurrency model.  The land use assumptions may differ from those used for the Draft EIS, since those used in the 2030 SE Bypass model will be based on the most current information available. 

19.3.1.3  Model Network

The transportation networks for model year 2030 will be developed from planned and the programmed improvements to be implemented by WSDOT, King County, and the City of Issaquah.  The CONSULTANT shall review and revise the 2030 SE Bypass model network as necessary to ensure continued consistency with adopted Plans. 

For year 2030, up to four three Model runs (one model run shall include both AM & PM traffic forecasts) will be performed.  Each model run may  require further  post-processing of  the AM and PM Peak hour forecasts.  If necessary,  post-processing will include converting the model traffic forecasts into hourly volumes for the AM and PM peak hours that can be utilized for corridor and intersection analysis.  The PM peak hour generated trip talbestables from the 2030 SE Bypass model will be transposed and if necessary scaled to represent AM peak hour demand.  Additionally, these hourly volumes will be balanced for the SE Bypass corridor. 

Each model run will contain differing assumptions regarding programmed and planned roadway projects.  One model run may include alternative land use assumptions as determined by the CITY. 

The Model runs include:

·         2030 Model Run 1 - Year 2030 No Action: Included will be the following projects: North SPAR, South SPAR, Sunset Interchange modification, and SR 900 widening. with baseline 2030 assumptions for land use

·         2030 Model Run 2 - Year 2030 No-Action w/SR 18: Included will be the following projects: North SPAR, South SPAR, Sunset Interchange, SR 900 widening, and SR 18 widening (this will require using the King County or PSRC model rather than the SE Bypass Model)

·         2030 Model Run 3 - Year 2030 Full Build: Included will be the following projects: NSPAR, SSPAR, Sunset, SR 900, and SE Bypass (with no widening of SR 18)

• ·2030 Model Run 4 – Year 2030 As to be determined by the CITY and CONSULTANT: ex, changing land use development assumptions

19.3.1.4  Prepare Future Alternative Alignment Travel Demand Forecasts

Based on future land use assumptions supplied by the CITY and on the definition of the roadway alignment alternatives, year 2030 travel demand forecasts will be prepared using the traffic model.  For the 2030 build model, the three north alignments (North A, North B, North S) and the new south alignment alternatives for the SE Bypass may be refined.  Additionally, the southern alignment may be evaluated for channelization and alignment design.

The 2030 SE Bypass model will be created using the TMODEL software.  Available output from TMODEL includes specific roadway volumes, intersection volumes and select link data for the AM and PM Peak hours.  This information will be extracted from the model for the various 2030 model runs.  For the 2030 build scenario, the traffic information extracted from the  2030 build model will be applied to the various proposed design alignment alternatives.

19.3.1.5  Modal Share Sensitivity

As part of development of the 2030 SE Bypass Model, the CONSULTANT shall prepare a summary of the varying travel demand assumptions (such as ridesharing and transit mode shares in the peak hour) incorporated into the 2030 SE Bypass Model.  Most travel demand assumptions will be based primarily off of the assumptions made in the CITY’s concurrency model along with the PSRC’s 2030 model.  Ridesharing and transit mode share assumptions will be presented in the SEISThe travel demand assumptions will be presented in the SEIS.

19.3.1.6  Evaluation of Alternatives for Transportation Element

The alignment alternatives (North and South alignments) will be evaluated based on transportation criteria related to the following areas:

·         Arterial operations including service to CITY planned land uses

·         Interchange operations

·         Non-motorized transportation (including trails)

·         Safety

·         Recommendations from the Draft EIS

Results of the transportation evaluation will be documented in the SEIS.

19.3.1.7  Intersection/Roadway Operations

Intersection/Roadway operational analysis of key intersections/roadways (as determined by the CONSULTANT and CITY) will be conducted by the CONSULTANT.

2030 No Action

The CONSULTANT shall perform intersection analysis for up to twenty-six four (2624) intersections as determined by the CITY and CONSULTANT.  The AM and PM peak hours will be analyzed for each intersection; the LOS and intersection delay will be recorded.  The intersections that will be analyzed are:

·         SR 900 & NW Sammamish

·         SR 900 & I-90 WB Ramps

·         SR 900 & EB Ramps

·         SR 900 & Gilman

·         SR 900 & Maple

·         E Sammamish & 56^th

·         Issaquah-Fall City & E. Lk Sammamish

·         Front St. & WB Ramps

·         Front St. & EB Ramps

·         Front St & Gilman

·         Front St & Sunset

·         Issaquah-Fall City & Black Nugget Rd

·         Issaquah-Fall City & Issaquah Pine

·NSPAR & Black Nugget

·         Sunset & WB I-90 Ramps

·         Sunset & EB I-90 Ramps

·Issaquah-Pine & Klahanie

·         E Sammamish & 43^rd

·Issaquah-Fall City & Klahanie

·         Front Street & Clark

·         Front St & Dogwood – South

·         Front St & Dogwood – North

·         Sunset & Second

·         Front St & Second

·         SR 900 & Newport

·228^th SE & Issaquah Pine Lake Road

·         E. Lake Sammamish & Black Nugget

·         Second Avenue SE & Bush Street

 2030 Build-Intersection Analysis

For the 2030 Build scenario, a preliminary operational analysis will be conducted based on SE Bypass configuration assumptions provided by the CITY.  Based on the results of this preliminary operational analyses, additional operational analyses will be performed as needed to evaluate alternative SE Bypass configurations (e.g., shorter or longer turning pockets, more or fewer lanes, etc.), in order to determine the preferred SE Bypass design alternative.

The Synchro software will be utilized in determining corridor and intersection operations for the various roadway combinations.   The operational analyses will be conducted for the AM and PM peak hours and intersection LOS along with intersection delay (sec/veh) will be recorded.  

A roadway combination will be defined as inclusion of one north alignment alternative and one south alignment alternative.  Up to three (3) road combinations will be considered (this is contingent upon the assumption that all three north alignments and the new south alignment are not fatally flawed at this point).  Up to four (4) versions (or iterations) will be conducted per roadway combination as directed by the CITY.  A version (or iteration) may include:

·         Modifications to the number of lanes assigned at a particular intersection or corridor

·         Modifications to design lengths (this can be either storage lengths or distance between intersections) 

Once the preferred design alternative is determined, other local intersection analysis will be conducted.  Please refer to the 2030 No Action section (above) for a list of the twenty-six four intersections to be analyzed.

19.3.1.8  Mitigating Measures

Qualitative analyses will be performed by the CONSULTANT to identify and discuss the potential effectiveness of measures designed to mitigate any significant adverse impacts of each of the alternatives.

19.3.1.9 Draft Transportation Study

The CONSULTANT shall prepare a Draft Transportation Study to document the results of the new traffic modeling and analysis.  Up to 20 copies of the draft study will be provided for review and comments. 

19.3.1.10  Final Transportation Study

Following review of the draft Transportation Study, the CONSULTANT shall revise the draft Transportation Study to incorporate review comments.  Up to 10 copies of the Final Transportation Study will be provided. 

 

PRODUCTS

·         Approximately 20 copies of the Draft Transportation Study will be provided for review by the City and other agencies.

·         Following review, approximately 10 copies of the Final Transportation Study will be provided.  

19.3.2    Preliminary Design

The CONSULTANT shall provide analysis and design drawings for a new alternative to be analyzed in the SEIS.  This alternative will include a new design of the southern alignment and potential modifications to northern alignments evaluated in the Draft EIS. 

The CONSULTANT shall revise the chanellization plan features of the current north and south alignments to reflect the traffic needs as required by the Transportation Study for the year 2030.  The CONSULTANT will then use this revised roadway template, including stormwater facilities, to develop new cross sections and revised slope lines to further determine their impact with respect to wetlands, streams, existing property boundaries and structures.  The CONSULTANT shall develop up to three (3) Typical Sections to further clarify the roadway prism at selected locations throughout the project length. 

Based on the results of this effort and the corresponding impacts, the CONSULTANT shall revise the horizontal and vertical alignments in an effort to mitigate unfavorable impacts to wetlands, streams, existing properties and structures.  With each horizontal revision, the CONSULTANT shall revise the channelization plan features throughout the length of the horizontal shift.  With each vertical alignment revision, the CONSULTANT shall rerun cross sections throughout the length of the vertical alignment revision and revise slope lines to further determine their impact with respect to wetlands, streams, existing properties and structures.  The CONSULTANT shall make any revisions to the Typical Sections that may result from the shifts in horizontal and vertical alignments. 

Consideration will be given to a diverging, separated pedestrian trail, along the south roadway alignment, that would better serve the adjacent high school.  If this is determined desirable, one (1) separate horizontal alignment and vertical profile will be developed for the pedestrian trail.  The separated trail alignment will be modeled to determine cut and fill limits and their location with respect to wetlands, streams, existing properties and structures.

The CONSULTANT shall develop up to two (2) new alternative designs for the south alignment that shall reflect a roadway footprint (conceptual channelization) that will be based on the Traffic Study for the year 2030.  Each alternative design shall consist of a horizontal alignment and a vertical profile.  A roadway template will be developed to determine cut and fill limits and their location with respect to wetlands, streams and existing property boundaries and structures.   Up to three (3) typical sections per alternative shall be developed to further evaluate the impacts on the adjacent topography.  Consideration will be given to a diverging, separated pedestrian trail, at the south roadway alignment, that would better serve the adjacent high school.  If this is determined desirable, one (1) separate horizontal alignment and vertical profile will be developed for the pedestrian trail.  The separated trail alignment will be modeled to determine cut and fill limits and their location with respect to adjacent wetlands.  

19.3.3      Section 4(f) Issues

The CONSULTANT shall investigate Section 4(f) resource issues and how they might affect decisions regarding the project’s northern alignments.  The necessity of identifying the Issaquah High School facilities as Section 4(f) resources will be explored.  The Department of Natural Resources will be contacted regarding potential impacts on Tiger Mountain NRCA property.   Further coordination with the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation will be pursued regarding the need to confirm determinations of effect on the Sportsman Clubhouse.  Potential balancing of impacts on historic properties with impacts on school facilities under Section 4(f) [if it is agreed to consider high school property under Section 4(f)] will be evaluated.  

19.3.4      Additional Wetlands and Streams Study

The CONSULTANT shall provide additional study of wetlands and streams in the project area to determine impacts on these resources from the new alignment design resulting from the updated 2030 traffic model.  This work will involve additional wetland and stream reconnaissance of the North Tributary stream in the vicinity of Front Street, south of 2nd Avenue.  It will also involve review of potential impacts to Wetland HS and Wetland GW (identified in the Draft EIS) associated with the new alternative. 

The results of this task will be documented in a Wetlands Technical Memorandum.  A draft technical memorandum will be submitted for review and comment.  A final technical memorandum will be prepared incorporating comments on the draft.

PRODUCTS

·         Approximately 20 copies of the Wetlands technical memorandum will be provided for review and comments. 

·         Approximately 10 copies of the Final Wetlands Technical Memorandum will be provided. 

19.3.5      Drainage Design Review

The CONSULTANT shall review the conceptual drainage design of the new southern alignment in relation to the new 2030 model results to assure that adequate consideration of drainage requirements is provided.  A review of the conceptual drainage design for the three northern alignments will be done to confirm that the current changes have not altered the previous design. Preliminary calculations of runoff volumes and flow rates to support preliminary sizing of the stormwater control ponds needed to serve the updated roadway design will be prepared.  These calculations will be prepared for each of the northern alignment alternatives as well as the new southern alignment alternative.  The CONSULTANT will also evaluate the approximate sizes and locations of runoff conveyance systems that would be needed to deliver roadway runoff to the stormwater ponds.  Hard copy markups of preliminary conveyance system alignments to will be prepared for transfer onto the project base maps.  

The results of this task will be documented in a Drainage Design Technical Memorandum.  A draft technical memorandum will be submitted for review and comment.  A final technical memorandum will be prepared incorporating comments on the draft.

 

PRODUCTS

·         Approximately 20 copies of the Drainage Technical Memorandum will be provided for review and comments.

·         Approximately 10 copies of the Final Drainage Technical Memorandum will be provided.

19.3.6    Merger Process Coordination

The CONSULTANT shall coordinate with regulatory agencies to gain concurrence on the alternatives to be evaluated in the Supplemental EIS.   Additional studies to gain concurrence, or development and analysis of additional alternatives will be considered “extra work.”  Preparation of the preliminary draft SEIS cannot proceed without issuance of a letter of concurrence from the cooperating agencies.  

Change Order #9

This work plan describes Phase 2 activities for the Southeast Issaquah Bypass project.   Phase 2 activities described continue and build on the work completed during Phase 1 (Change Order No. 8).  Phase 2 will involve the following tasks:

 

·         Analyzing the preferred recommended alternative for the opening year 2005.  Additionally, the year 2005 No Action and existing year 2000 conditions will also be analyzed.  Included will be updated traffic modeling data, new analyses of traffic operations based on new model data, and analysis of the recommended preferred alternative.

·         Preparation of a Supplemental Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statement including revisions to the Section 4(f) Evaluation, Biological Assessment, and Section 106 documentation prepared for the June 2000 Draft EIS

·         Preparation of Initial and Detailed Wetland Mitigation Plans including draft and final Section 404 Permit Applications

·         Additional coordination with agencies under the 404 Merger Process

·         Participation in a public hearing on the Supplemental Draft EIS, and 

·         Assisting the City in obtaining a Record of Decision. 

20.1.1.      Project Management Plan

The CONSULTANT shall update the project management plan to incorporate any staffing changes, changes in deliverables of other updates required by the Phase 2 work plan.   A new project schedule will also be prepared.   

20.1.2.      Monthly Billings and Progress Reports

The CONSULTANT shall prepare monthly progress reports describing the status of the PROJECT.  These reports will:

·         Highlight significant accomplishments

·         Target potential problem areas needing special attention or coordination

·         Compare actual work progress with contractual obligations on a design task basis

 The progress reports will be presented in a task oriented format and will include updated scheduling reports, indicating all progress to date and resources expended.  This update will include any changes in schedule, sequence, or resource loading.  If any schedule slippage has occurred, a plan for bringing the work back on schedule and budget will be included.

 Progress reports and billings will be prepared by the CONSULTANT and submitted on a monthly basis.  These items will be supported by detailed record keeping sufficient to closely track the PROJECT budget and expenditures and support the billings.

20.1.3.      Direction, Meetings, and Coordination

This task includes the following project management items:

1.3.120.1.3.1.  Team Coordination/General Direction

This task includes internal staff meetings and discussions to direct efforts and facilitate completion of project tasks.

1.3.220.1.3.2.   Meetings with City Staff

Regularly scheduled meetings (two per month) will be held with Issaquah staff to review progress and discuss upcoming actions.  This task would also include additional meetings with City staff members as needed to obtain information or resolve project issues.  The CONSULTANT shall prepare meeting minutes to summarize issues discussed.

1.3.420.1.3.3.    Meetings/Coordination with Others

This task would provide for meetings and coordination with outside agencies to provide information or discuss project issues.  The CONSULTANT shall prepare meeting minutes to summarize issues discussed with participating agencies. 

PRODUCTS

Meeting notes documenting topics discussed and future action items will be prepared and distributed as appropriate. 

 20.2.    QUALITY CONTROL

 20.2.1.      Quality Assurance

The work products will be reviewed by consultant team staff with expertise in the appropriate discipline areas.  This will be an ongoing activity during the duration of the project with emphasis on major deliverable work products.

20.3.1.      Transportation Study

Traffic Conditions and Analysis

Phase 2 will include those tasks necessary to analyze the recommended alternative (based off of the year 2030 analysis as described in Phase 1) for the opening year 2005.  Additionally, the year 2005 No Action and existing year 2000 conditions will be analyzed.  Included will be updated traffic modeling data, new analyses of traffic operations based on new model data, and analysis of the recommended alternative.

 Methodology

This section presents the methodology and assumptions used to guide the transportation analysis.  The methodology and assumptions used in this analysis are consistent with those applied in the SR 900 Widening Project.  Additionally, the TMODEL software will be used. 

20.3.1.1. Traffic Model Refinement

The traffic model used in the SE Issaquah Draft EIS (June 2000) shall be replaced with the traffic model described below. 

 Year 2000 Existing Conditions

The 2000 existing conditions SE Bypass model will be based off of the CITY’s Travel Model used for Concurrency Testing.  The CITY’s Travel Model assumes a 1999 land use and year 2000 traffic data.  The CITY’s Travel Model will be utilized as the Year 2000 SE Bypass Model.

Opening Year 2005

A future year 2005 traffic model, which will include a highway network of all freeways, freeway interchanges, arterials and other streets in the study area will be developed for use in subsequent tasks for the SE Bypass SEIS.  The 2005 SE Bypass model will be developed using the CITY’s Year 2000 Travel Model (used for Concurrency Testing) along with the 2005 SR 900 Widening Model’s land use assumptions.  The SR 900 Widening land use assumptions may be adjusted; the CONSULTANT shall notify the CITY if adjustments are applied to the 2005 SE Bypass Model.  The King County or PSRC Models may also be referenced and used if applicable. 

20.3.1.2. Land Use Assumptions For Transportation Modeling

Existing Conditions Year 2000

The CONSULTANT will summarize the land use assumptions based on the CITY’s Year 2000 Travel Model used for concurrency testing. 

 Opening Year 2005

Future year land use assumptions will be based off of the Year 2005 SR 900 Widening Model and may be modified if necessary.  The CONSULTANT will summarize (and update if necessary) the land use assumptions for the Year 2005 SE Bypass Model.  The land use assumptions may differ from those used for the Draft EIS, since those used in the 2005 SE Bypass model will be based on the more current information. 

20.3.1.3. Model Network

Existing Conditions Year 2000

For year 2000, one Model run (one model run shall include both AM & PM traffic forecasts) will be performed.  The PM peak hour generated trip tables from the 2000 SE Bypass model will be transposed and if necessary scaled to represent AM peak hour demand.  Additionally, these the hourly volumes will be balanced for the SE Bypass corridor.

 The Model run shall include:

• 2000 Model Run 1 - Year 2000 Existing Conditions: Year 20001999 assumptions for land use will be incorporated.

Opening Year 2005

The transportation networks for model year 2005 will be developed from planned and programmed improvements to be implemented by WSDOT, King County, and the City of Issaquah. 

 The CONSULTANT will review and revise the 2005 SE Bypass model network as necessary to ensure continued consistency with adopted Plans. 

 For year 2005, up to two Model runs (one model run shall include both AM & PM traffic forecasts) will be performed.  The PM peak hour generated trip tables from the 2005 SE Bypass model will be transposed and if necessary scaled to represent AM peak hour demand.  Additionally, these hourly volumes will be balanced for the SE Bypass corridor. 

 Each model run will contain differing assumptions regarding programmed and planned roadway projects. 

The Model runs include:

• 2005 Model Run 1 - Year 2005 No Action: Included will be the following projects: North SPAR, South SPAR, Sunset Interchange modification, and SR 900 widening. Baseline 2005 assumptions for land use will be incorporated.

 

• 2005 Model Run 2 - Year 2005 Full Build: Included will be the following projects: NSPAR, SSPAR, Sunset, SR 900, and SE Bypass (with no widening of SR 18)

 20.3.1.4. Prepare Future Alternative Alignment Travel Demand Forecasts

Based on future land use assumptions supplied by the CITY and on the definition of the roadway alignment alternatives, year 2005 travel demand forecasts will be prepared using the traffic model.  For the 2005 build scenario, the recommended proposed design alignment (based on the work completed through Phase 1) will be considered. 

 Available output from TMODEL includes specific roadway volumes, intersection volumes and select link data for the PM Peak hour.  The trip tables generated for the PM peak hour will then be transposed and possibly scaled in order to generate the AM Peak hour volumes.  For the 2005 build scenario, the traffic information extracted from the 2005 build model will be applied to the recommended proposed design alignment alternative (as determined in Phase 1).   

 20.3.1.5. Modal Share Sensitivity

As part of development of the 2005 SE Bypass Model (No-Action and Build Scenarios), the CONSULTANT shall prepare a summary of the various travel demand management assumptions incorporated into the 2005 SE Bypass Model.  Most travel demand management assumptions will be based primarily off of the assumptions made in the SR 900 Widening model along with the CITY’s Travel Model used for concurrency testing, and possibly the PSRC model.  The travel demand management assumptions will be presented in the SEIS.

20.3.1.6. Intersection/Roadway Operations

Intersection/Roadway operational analysis of key intersections/roadways (as determined by the CONSULTANT and CITY) will be conducted by the CONSULTANT.  The Synchro software will be utilized in performing the traffic operational analyses.   The operational analyses will be conducted for the AM and PM peak hours and intersection LOS along with intersection delay (sec/veh) will be recorded.

Year 2000 Existing Conditions and Year 2005 No Action

The CONSULTANT shall perform intersection analysis for up to twenty-six four (2624) intersections as determined by the CITY and CONSULTANT.  The AM and PM peak hours will be analyzed for each intersection; the LOS and intersection delay will be recorded.  The intersections that will be analyzed are (as per agreement with the CITY

• SR 900 & NW Sammamish
• SR 900 & I-90 WB Ramps
• SR 900 & EB Ramps
• SR 900 & Gilman
• SR 900 & Maple
• E Sammamish & 56^th
• Issaquah-Fall City & E. Lk Sammamish
• Front St. & WB Ramps
• Front St. & EB Ramps
• Front St & Gilman
• Front St & Sunset
• Issaquah-Fall City & Black Nugget Rd
• Issaquah-Fall City & Issaquah Pine
• NSPAR & Black Nugget
• Sunset & WB I-90 Ramps
• Sunset & EB I-90 Ramps
• Issaquah-Pine & Klahanie
• E Sammamish & 43^rd
• Issaquah-Fall City & Klahanie
• Front Street & Clark
• Front St & Dogwood – South
• Front St & Dogwood – North
• Sunset & Second

• Front St & Second

• SR 900 & Newport

• 228^th SE & Issaquah Pine Lake Road

• E. Lake Sammamish & Black Nugget

• Second Avenue SE & Bush Street

  Year 2005 Build

The recommended proposed design alternative as determined in Phase 1 will be analyzed for the year 2005.  The recommended proposed roadway combination is defined as inclusion of recommended north alignment alternative and the recommended south alignment alternative.  Therefore, one roadway combination (the recommended proposed design alternative) shall be analyzed.  Up to four (4) versions (or iterations) will be conducted in order to determine the recommended roadway combination as directed by the CITY.  A roadway combination version (or iteration) may include:

• Modifications to the number of lanes assigned at a particular intersection or corridor
• Modifications to design lengths (this can be either storage lengths or distance between intersections) 

 The Synchro software will be utilized in determining corridor and intersection operations for the year 2005 build roadway combination as well as the twenty-six four (2624) intersections as listed in the “Year 2000 Existing Conditions and Year 2005 No Action” section (above).  Additionally, the year 2000 Existing Conditions and the year 2005 No Action intersections as described above will also be analyzed using the Synchro software.

20.3.1.7. Mitigating Measures

Qualitative analyses will be performed by the CONSULTANT to identify and discuss the potential effectiveness of measures designed to mitigate any significant adverse impacts of each of the alternatives.

The CONSULTANT shall prepare a Supplemental Draft EIS (SDEIS) to present new information on proposed project alternatives and traffic analysis based on the outcome of the Phase I work plan.  The SDEIS will follow a format consistent with guidance in the revised WSDOT Environmental Procedures Manual (July 2001), guidance in the “Interagency Working Agreement to Integrate Special Aquatic Resources (404) Permit Requirements into the NEPA and SEPA processes in the State of Washington,” (NEPA/SEPA/404 Merger Agreement), and FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8A.  The CITY will provide close coordination with WSDOT and FHWA throughout the process.  The document will be in compliance with NEPA and SEPA.

 The SDEIS is anticipated to include the following sections and appendices (however, the final EIS format may change in response to the CITY’s needs):

20.4.1.      Introductory Material

The following sections of the June 2000 Draft EIS will be revised, as appropriate:

• Cover Sheet

• Title Sheet

• Fact Sheet

• Table of Contents

• List of Tables

• List of Figures

20.4.2.      Summary

The Summary section from the June 2000 Draft EIS will be revised to include a brief description of the proposed action, other governmental agency’s actions in the geographic area, a summary of alternatives and options considered, summary of major environmental impacts (in table format with proposed mitigation measures), areas of concern or controversy, unresolved issues, list of required permits, and a list of other actions required for the proposed PROJECT.

 20.4.3.      Chapter 1:  Purpose of and Need for the Action

This chapter will be revised to identify and describe the proposed action and the transportation problems or other needs which it is intended to address.  This discussion will clearly demonstrate that a need exists for the PROJECT and describe the problems which it is to correct. 

20.4.4.      Chapter 2:  Alternatives

This chapter will be revised to describe the process used to identify various alternatives, the range of alternatives considered, and the alternatives that were eliminated from further consideration.  Chapter 2 will include the NEPA 404 Alternatives Analysis and Aquatic Resource Avoidance Analysis consistent with the requirements of the NEPA/SEPA/404 Merger Agreement.  The analysis will describe alternatives considered but rejected (and reason why) including efforts to minimize or avoid impacts to aquatic resources, and will identify a preferred alternative, if known.  A table will be included comparing the various impacts of each alternative. 

 Alternatives to be considered in the SDEIS include: 

• No Action (no-build) Alternative

·         Alternative 1: North A with a new south alignment

·         Alternative 2: North B with a new south alignment

·         Alternative 3: North S with a new south alignment

A detailed description of the alternatives selected for analysis in the Supplemental Draft EIS will be provided, together with updated information on estimated project costs and construction timing.  The description of the alternative design concepts will be in sufficient detail to allow identification of the specific characteristics of each design concept to be evaluated.  These characteristics include roadway layout, intersection configurations, structural features, and other roadway related facilities.  Maps, alignment drawings, road sections, cost estimates, a proposed construction schedule with milestones, and other exhibits will be used to describe and allow a comparison between the alternatives. 

20.4.5.      Chapter 3:  Affected Environment

This chapter will be revised to update the description of the existing social and environmental setting for the area affected by the alternatives presented in the SDEIS.  The following elements of the environment will be reviewed and updated as necessary: study area, local geography, geology and soils, hydrologic systems and floodplains, wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat, land use, regional and community growth, historic and archaeological elements, hazardous waste, and visual quality.  It will also discuss the adopted land use and transportation plans as they relate to the proposed PROJECT, including the City’s Traffic Concurrency Ordinance.  These discussions will be limited to data, information, issues, and values that will have a bearing on possible impacts, mitigation measures, and on the selection of an alternative.

 3.2.320.4.6.            Chapter 4:  Environmental Consequences

This chapter will be revised to document the direct project impacts, future operational impacts, secondary and cumulative impacts, construction activity impacts and mitigation measures associated with each of the three new build alternatives and the no-action alternative.  The text will include a description of any major assumptions made and supporting information on the validity of the environmental assessment methodology used.  If details beyond those included in the Affected Environment chapter are necessary to clarify the impacts, they will be addressed in this chapter.  For each element of the environment each alternative will be analyzed separately. 

 Direct project impacts are those impacts associated with the footprint or right-of-way of each alternative. 

 Future operational impacts are those impacts resulting from ongoing operation of the project that are anticipated to occur between the year of opening (2005) and the design year (2030). 

Secondary impacts are those that are “caused by an action and are later in time or farther removed in distance but are still reasonably foreseeable” (40 CFR 1508.8).  These impacts, which usually result from the initial action, include changes in land use, water quality, economic vitality, and population density. 

 Cumulative impacts are those that “result from the incremental consequences of an action when added to other past and reasonable foreseeable future actions” (40 CFR 1508.7).  The cumulative effects of an action may be undetectable when viewed in the individual context of direct and even secondary impacts but can nonetheless add to other disturbances and eventually lead to a measurable environmental change.

 Construction activity impacts are limited to construction process impacts that are temporary in nature and typically limited to the immediate project area (e.g., construction noise, dust, traffic controls, etc.).

 20.4.7.      Chapter 5:  Comments and Coordination

The CONSULTANT shall update this chapter to summarize the results of additional coordination with federal, state, and local agencies, their level of involvement, and any unresolved issues or areas of conflict.  This section will also summarize additional public involvement for the SDEIS.

20.4.8.      Chapter 6:  Section 4(f) Evaluation

The CONSULTANT shall update and revise the Section 4(f) evaluation to reflect the impacts (both during construction and operation) associated with the new build alternatives.   The CONSULTANT shall identify and evaluate location and design alternatives which would avoid each and all Section 4(f) properties; explain whether any avoidance alternatives which were eliminated from further study are “feasible and prudent” and if not, explain why; discuss all possible measures which are available to minimize impacts on Section 4(f) properties, including commitments made and monitoring procedures to minimize harm.  

20.4.9.      Response to Comments on Draft EIS

The CONSULTANT shall review and prepare responses to over 1000 comments received on the Draft EIS in letters and recorded testimony at the DEIS public hearing.  It is assumed that many of the comments received are similar in content and a response to one will be appropriate for many others.  It is also assumed that many of the comments will no longer be relevant because several of the alternatives presented in the Draft EIS are no longer being considered.  Copies of the comment letters and recorded public testimony, along with the responses to those comments, will be presented in an appendix to the SDEIS.  

20.4.10. Closing Sections/Appendices

The CONSULTANT shall prepare closing documentation for the SEIS, including the following information:

·         Principal Contributors

·         Studies Performed

·         SDEIS Distribution List

·         Transportation Studies

·         Supplemental Alternatives Analysis

·         Historic Site Documentation

20.4.11. Prepare Preliminary Supplemental Draft EIS

The CONSULTANT shall produce a preliminary SDEIS and submit 10 copies to the CITY for review and comment.  The CONSULTANT will revise the document and provide 10 copies of the preliminary SDEIS (including the revised Wetland and Streams Technical Memorandum and Biological Assessment) to the CITY for distribution to the USACOE, USFWS, EPA, NMFS, Ecology and WDFW.  

PRODUCTS

• Preliminary SDEIS for CITY review (10 copies)

·         Preliminary SDEIS for review by cooperating agencies (10 copies)

20.4.12. Revise Supplemental Draft EIS

The CITY will provide one set of consolidated comments on the Preliminary SDEIS to the CONSULTANT.   It is assumed that cooperating agencies will submit comments separately.  The CONSULTANT shall make requested revisions and prepare a camera-ready SDEIS for review by the CITY.  The SDEIS will include an initial wetland mitigation plan if a preferred alternative is known, otherwise a conceptual mitigation plan will be included in the SDEIS. 

PRODUCTS

One camera-ready copy of the SDEIS for final CITY approval
                                   

20.4.13. Publish Supplemental Draft EIS

Upon approval of the camera-ready SDEIS by the CITY, the CONSULTANT shall reproduce 200 copies of the final SDEIS for distribution.  The CITY will provide the distribution list and be responsible for distributing the document to the agencies and the public.

PRODUCTS

200 copies of the SDEIS for distribution

A public hearing will be conducted following publication of the SDEIS.  The CONSULTANT shall prepare materials for the hearing and provide originals to the CITY for reproduction and distribution.  Relevant activities will include:

·         Preparing hearing packet

·         Preparing exhibits and handouts

·         Coordinating/attending the Public Hearing

 It is assumed that up to four (4) CONSULTANT staff will attend the public hearing.  It is also assumed that the CITY will be responsible for preparing the public notice for the joint SDEIS/404 Public Hearing Notice.

 

If the Section 106 process is triggered, aThe Section 106 documentation prepared for the June 2000 Draft EIS will be prepared revised to describe the impacts of the new alternatives on historic and cultural resources identified within the project area.  The CONSULTANT, in consultation with the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP) shall review, and revise if necessary, the Determination of Effect documentation included in Appendix F of the DEIS.  If there is an adverse effect, or if the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation objects to a determination of no adverse effect, the CONSULTANT and the CITY will confer with WSDOT, FHWA, OAHP, and the Council to find ways to reduce/minimize adverse effects.  Consultation will result in a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) that outlines measures the CITY can take to reduce, avoid or mitigate the adverse effect.  This task will be closely coordinated with the Section 4(f) evaluation described previously.          

The CONSULTANT shall prepare the Section 106 report following agency guidelines and will assist in coordinating review and approval by historic preservation agencies.  

PRODUCTS

·         Draft Revised Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum

·         Final Revised Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum

·         Draft Memorandum of Agreement

·         Final Memorandum of Agreement

The CONSULTANT shall review and revise the Biological Assessment (BA) prepared for the June 2000 Draft EIS.  The BA will be revised prepared to describe the impacts of the new alternatives on federally listed, proposed, and candidate species and designated and proposed critical habitat present in the project vicinity.  The CONSULTANT will submit 10 copies of the Revised Draft BA to the CITY for review and comment.  The CONSULTANT will revise the document and provide 10 copies of the Revised Draft BA for distribution with the Preliminary SDEIS to the USACOE, USFWS, EPA, NMFS, Ecology and WDFW.  Special effort will be made during this task to follow the guidance in the July 2001 WSDOT Environmental Procedures Manual. 

PRODUCTS

·         Revised Draft BA for CITY review (10 copies)

·         Revised Draft BA for review by cooperating agencies (10 copies)

20.8.1.      Respond to Comments on the Supplemental DEIS

The CITY will provide the CONSULTANT with copies of the letters received with comments on the SDEIS.  The CITY will also provide the CONSULTANT with a copy of the transcript recording public testimony received at the public hearing.  Revisions to the Supplemental DEIS will be based on the comment letters, public hearing testimony and agency comments received during the review period.

 The CONSULTANT shall compile a summary of comments received on the SDEIS, provide responses to comments, and make recommendations, if necessary, on the need for additional studies, additional mitigation or changes to the design.  For budgeting purposes, it is assumed that there will be a maximum of 100 comment letters with 10 comments each for a total of 1,000 comments.  If there are more than 100 comment letters or 1,000 comments, this extra level of effort will be considered “extra work.”

20.8.2.      Revise Environmental Analysis of Discipline Issues

The consultants CONSULTANTS shall revise the discussion of the variousany  elements of the EIS, if necessary ,  to reflect changes in the project design, impacts, and proposed or required mitigation that have occurred since publication of the SDEIS, or in response to review comments on the SDEIS.  Any proposed additional studies, detailed analyses, or changes in design would be considered “extra work.”

20.8.3.      Prepare Preliminary Final EIS Document

The CONSULTANT shall prepare a preliminary Final EIS and submit 10 copies to the CITY for review and comment.  The CONSULTANT will revise the document and provide copies of the preliminary Final EIS (including the final alternatives analysis, identification of the preferred alternative and apparent least environmentally damaging practicable alternative, and apparent final wetland mitigation plan) to the USACOE, USFWS, EPA, NMFS, Ecology and WDFW.   The Final EIS will incorporate changes that reflect changes in the PROJECT scope, impacts, technical analysis and mitigation analysis that have occurred since the SDEIS.  The Final EIS will include comments received on the SDEIS, a summary of the comments, responses to comments, and an updated fact sheet.

PRODUCTS

• Preliminary Final EIS for CITY review (10 copies)

·         Preliminary Final EIS for review by cooperating agencies (10 copies)

20.8.4.      Final EIS Production

The CITY will provide consolidated comments on the preliminary Final EIS to the CONSULTANT.  It is assumed that cooperating agencies will submit comments separately.  The CONSULTANT shall revise the preliminary Final EIS in response to the comments received from the CITY and cooperating agencies and prepare a final detailed wetland mitigation plan.  The CONSULTANT will prepare a camera ready Final EIS and the CITY will conduct a second review to check and approve the changes and authorize reproduction and issuance of the Final EIS.

 The CONSULTANT shall make the second, minor revisions based on the review and reproduce 200 copies of the Final EIS for distribution.  The CITY will provide the distribution list for the FEIS and will be responsible for distributing the document to the public and agencies.

PRODUCTS

·         Camera Ready Final EIS (1 camera ready copy)

·         Final EIS (200 copies)

20.8.5.      Record of Decision

The CONSULTANT shall assist the CITY in preparing the draft NEPA Record of Decision (ROD) and shall address any Final EIS comments received. 

PRODUCTS

• Draft Record of Decision
• Final Record of Decision

 

The CONSULTANT shall provide project coordination to comply with the “Interagency Working Agreement to Integrate Special Aquatic Resources (404) Permit Requirements into the NEPA and SEPA processes in the State of Washington,” (NEPA/SEPA/404 Merger Agreement).  

20.9.1.      NEPA/SEPA/404 Merger Concurrence

The CONSULTANT shall coordinate with regulatory agencies to gain concurrence on the preliminary SDEIS regarding project alternatives to be evaluated in the SDEIS, preliminary preferred alternative, and initial and detailed wetland mitigation plans.  Additional studies required to obtain concurrence, or development and analysis of additional alternatives, will be considered “extra work.”  Preparation of the final version of the SDEIS cannot proceed without issuance of a letter of concurrence from the cooperating agencies.

The CONSULTANT shall coordinate and meet with regulatory agencies to gain concurrence on the preliminary Final EIS regarding the apparent final mitigation plan and the preferred alternative/least environmentally damaging alternative, as specified in the NEPA/SEPA/404 Merger Agreement.  Additional studies or revisions to alternatives that may be needed to obtain concurrence will be considered “extra work.”  Publication of the Final EIS (Task 9.4) cannot occur without issuance of a letter of concurrence from the cooperating agencies.

20.9.2.      Initial Mitigation Plan for Preferred Alternative

Upon issuance of the Agency Concurrence Letter regarding alternatives to be evaluated in the SDEIS and identification of the preferred alternative, the CONSULTANT shall conduct a preliminary investigation of candidate mitigation sites to determine if there are suitable sites to support the required mitigation.  Upon identification of candidate sites, the CONSULTANT shall prepare a draft Initial Mitigation Plan for the preferred alternative, as described in Appendix F of the NEPA/SEPA/404 Merger Agreement.  The draft Plan will identify unavoidable impacts to aquatic resources; establish the goals and objectives of the mitigation; the timing of the mitigation; a general description of the candidate sites; and proposed monitoring of the mitigation.  No drawings will be included in the Plan.  The draft Plan will be submitted to the CITY for review and comment.

The draft Initial Mitigation Plan will be revised to address the CITY’s comments.  The revised Plan will be submitted to the CITY for distribution to other merger agencies for review and comment.  The CITY will provide consolidated comments on the Plan to the CONSULTANT.  The CONSULTANT shall conduct a site visit with the USACOE to review candidate sites.  The CONSULTANT shall prepare a final Initial Mitigation Plan for inclusion in the Draft SEIS.

PRODUCTS

·         Draft Initial Wetlands Mitigation Plan and Report for CITY review (10 copies)

·         Draft Initial Wetlands Mitigation Plan and Report for cooperating agency review (10 copies)

·         Final Initial Wetlands Mitigation Plan and Report for inclusion in the SDEIS (one camera ready copy)

20.9.3.      Section 404 Permit Application Preparation

Prior to submittal of the Preliminary SDEIS, the CONSULTANT shall attend one pre-application meeting with the USACOE to identify issues of concern and confirm Section 404 permitting requirements and scheduling.  The CONSULTANT shall then prepare draft Section 404 permit application materials for submittal to the CITY.  The CITY will process the permit to the USACOE.  Prior to publication of the Final EIS, the CONSULTANT shall prepare a final Section 404 permit application for submittal to the permitting agencies.  The final application will include a detailed Mitigation Plan and Report (Section 10.7 of this Scope of Work).

PRODUCTS

·         Draft Section 404 Wetland Permit Application

·         Final Section 404 Wetland Permit Application

20.9.4.      Detailed Mitigation Plan and Report

Prior to publication of the Final EIS, the CONSULTANT shall prepare a draft Detailed Mitigation Plan and Report for the preferred alternative, as described in Appendix F of the NEPA/SEPA/404 Merger Agreement.  The draft Plan will include a summary of wetland impacts, description of proposed mitigation and mitigation site(s), mitigation design (hydrology source, grading plan, soil preparation, planting plan, and schedule), standards of success, and monitoring and contingency plans.  The draft Plan will be submitted to the CITY for review and comment.  The draft Plan will be revised to address the CITY’s comments.  The revised Plan will be submitted to the CITY for distribution to the merger agencies with the preliminary Final EIS.

 Upon issuance of concurrence on the preliminary Final EIS by the cooperating agencies, the CONSULTANT shall prepare a final Detailed Mitigation Plan for inclusion in the Final EIS.   A Final Mitigation Plan as required by the NEPA/SEPA/404 Merger Agreement is not included in this Work Plan and will be considered “extra work”.

PRODUCTS

·         Draft Detailed Wetland Mitigation Plan and Report for CITY review (10 copies)

·         Draft Detailed Wetland Mitigation Plan for cooperating agency review (10 copies)

·         Final Detailed Wetland Mitigation Plan for inclusion in the SDEIS (one camera ready copy)

Change Order #10

INTRODUCTION AND ASSUMPTIONS

This work plan describes Phase 2 activities for the Southeast Issaquah Bypass project.  Phase 2 activities described herein build on and continue the work initiated during Phase 1 (Change Orders No. 8 and 9).  During Phase 2, the following tasks shall be performed:

•      Conduct traffic analysis for the opening year 2005 AM and PM peak hours. Opening year analysis shall include the proposed Build alternative as well as the No Action alternative. Existing year 2000 conditions for AM and PM Peak hours shall also be analyzed. Included shall be updated traffic modeling data for both opening year 2005 and existing year 2000.

•      Prepare additional ground level and oblique view photo images of the proposed build alternatives.

•      Prepare a Supplemental Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statement; including revisions to the Section 4(f) Evaluation, Biological Assessment, and Section 106 documentation prepared for the June 2000 Draft EIS.

•      Respond to approximately 1,000 public and agency comments received on the June 2000 Draft EIS.

•      Prepare Initial and Detailed Wetland Mitigation Plans (including draft and final USACE Section 404 permit applications).

•      Coordinate with the USACE, EPA, USFWS, NMFS, WDFW and Ecology as part of the Section 404 Merger Process.

•      Participate in a Public Hearing on the Supplemental Draft EIS.

•      Assist the City of Issaquah in obtaining a Record of Decision from FHWA.

•      Collect additional field survey with sufficient detail to update the existing mapping to conceptual design level accuracy within the study alignment corridor.

•      Conduct geotechnical investigations to support the conceptual design task.

•      Complete Phase 1 conceptual design

•      Prepare construction sequencing plans

•      Prepare conceptual cost estimates

Items to be provided to the CONSULTANT by the CITY

The CITY will furnish to the CONSULTANT copies of documents that are available to the CITY that will facilitate the preparation of the plans and studies within the limits of the project. These include:

•      Aerial mapping in hard copy and digital (AutoCAD) format

•      A list of utilities and other agencies having jurisdiction in the project area

•      Rights of Entry to affected properties as requested by the CONSULTANT (except as otherwise noted in this workplan)

•      "As Built" plans, as available

•      Assessor's maps (in digital and hard copy format)

•      Timely review of all CONSULTANT submittals and collation of all review comments into a single document for submission to the CONSULTANT at one time

•      Existing right-of-way and parcel information in AutoCAD format

•      Updated floodplain mapping and background data for Issaquah Creek (Montgomery, 2001).

20.1. PROJECT MANAGEMENT

20.1.1. Project Management Plan

The CONSULTANT shall update the project management plan to incorporate any staffing changes, changes in deliverables or other updates required by the Phase 2 work plan.  The project schedule shall be updated on an as needed basis.

20.1.2. Monthly Billings and Progress Reports

The CONSULTANT shall prepare monthly progress reports describing the status of the project. These reports shall:

•      Highlight significant accomplishments

•      Target potential problem areas needing special attention or coordination

•      Compare actual work progress with contractual obligations on a task by task basis

Progress reports and billings shall be prepared by the CONSULTANT and submitted on a monthly basis. These items shall be supported by detailed record keeping sufficient to closely track the project budget and expenditures and support the billings.

PRODUCTS

Monthly Progress Reports, incorporating Project Schedule revisions as appropriate, and Monthly Billings. Approximately 16 progress reports and billings shall be provided.

20.1.3. Direction, Meetings, and Coordination

This task includes the following project management items:

20.1.3.1.          Team Coordination/General Direction

This task assumes regularly scheduled internal staff meetings (two per month) to direct team efforts and facilitate completion of project tasks identified in the Phase 2 work plan. This task also includes project administrator coordination with subconsultants and one team coordination meeting with subconsultant staff.

20.1.3.2.          Meetings with City Staff

Regularly scheduled meetings (two per month) shall be held with Issaquah staff to review progress and discuss upcoming actions. The CONSULTANT shall update the project schedule (one time each month) prior to one of the regularly scheduled meeting with CITY staff. Additional meetings with CITY staff assumed under this task includes: one (1) working session with the Public Works Director and the Mayor's team; one (1) working session with the City Council; and one (1) additional meeting with the Public

Works Director to review work plan and schedule. The CONSULTANT shall prepare meeting minutes to summarize issues discussed.

PRODUCTS

Meeting notes documenting topics discussed and future action items shall be prepared and distributed.

20.1.3.3.          Meetings/Coordination with Others

This task would provide for meetings and coordination with regulatory agencies (outside of the Section 404 Merger activities described in Task 20.4) to provide information or discuss project issues.      Up to five 3-hour meetings, attended by up to three (3) CONSULTANT staff is assumed for this task. The CONSULTANT shall prepare meeting minutes to summarize issues discussed.

PRODUCTS

Meeting notes documenting topics discussed and future action items shall be prepared and distributed.

20.1.3.4.          Coordination with Public Involvement Consultant

This task provides for support on public involvement efforts led by others and includes assistance in preparing public display boards, newsletter information, and graphics for public presentations or public outreach activities.

20.1.3.5.          Phase 2 Work Plan Development

This task provides for team coordination to assess the results of Phase 1 activities and to develop a detailed Phase 2 work plan for CITY approval. Substantial coordination between CONSULTANT and SUBCONSULTANT team members is anticipated.

PRODUCTS

•              Draft Phase 2 Work Plan and Budget

•              Final Phase 2 Work Plan and Budget

20.2. QUALITY CONTROL

20.2.1.         Quality Assurance

Project deliverables shall be reviewed by CONSULTANT team staff with expertise in the appropriate discipline areas. This task includes CONSULTANT team effort to review work products prepared by SUBCONSULTANTS. This shall be an ongoing activity during the duration of the project.

20.3. SUPPLEMENTAL EIS

20.3.1. Transportation Study

Traffic Conditions and Analysis

Phase 2 work performed by the CONSULTANT shall include those tasks necessary to analyze both the proposed Build alternative (based off of the year 2030 analysis as described in Phase 1) for the opening year 2005 for both the AM and PM peak hours. Additionally, the year 2005 No Action and existing year 2000 conditions shall be analyzed. Updated traffic modeling data, traffic analysis based on new modeling data, and analysis of the proposed Build and No-Action alternatives shall be included.

Methodology

This section presents the methodology and assumptions used to guide the transportation analysis. The methodology and assumptions used in this analysis are consistent with those applied in the SR 900 Widening Project.

20.3.1.1.                Traffic Model Refinement

The traffic model used in the SE Issaquah Draft BS (June 2000) shall be replaced with the traffic model described below. The TMODEL software shall be used in developing the traffic model.

Year 2000 Existing Conditions

The 2000 existing conditions SE Bypass model shall be based off of the CITY's Travel Model used for Concurrency Testing. The CITY's Travel Model assumes a 1999 land use and year 2000 traffic data. The CITY's Travel Model shall be utilized as the Year 2000 SE Bypass Model.

Opening Year 2005

A future year 2005 traffic model, which will include a highway network of all freeways, freeway interchanges, arterials and other streets in the study area shall be developed for use in subsequent tasks for the SE Bypass SEIS. The 2005 SE Bypass model shall be developed using the CITY's Year 2000 Travel Model (used for Concurrency Testing) along with the 2005 SR 900 Widening Model's land use assumptions. The SR 900 Widening land use assumptions may be adjusted; the CONSULTANT shall notify the CITY if adjustments are applied to the 2005 SE Bypass Model. The King County or PSRC Models may also be referenced and used if applicable.

20.3.1.2.                Land Use Assumptions For Transportation Modeling

Existing Conditions Year 2000

The CONSULTANT shall summarize the land use assumptions based on the CITY's Year 2000 Travel Model used for concurrency testing.

Opening Year 2005

Future year land use assumptions shall be based off of the Year 2005 SR 900 Widening Model and may be modified if necessary. The CONSULTANT shall summarize (and update if necessary) the land use assumptions for the Year 2005 SE Bypass Model.

The land use assumptions may differ from those used for the Draft EIS, since those used in the 2005 SE Bypass model shall be based on the more current information.

20.3.1.3.          Model Network

Existing Conditions Year 2000

For year 2000, one Model run (one model run shall include both AM & PM traffic forecasts) shall be performed. The PM peak hour generated trip tables from the 2000 SE Bypass model shall be transposed and if necessary scaled to represent AM peak hour demand. Additionally, the hourly volumes shall be balanced for the SE Bypass corridor.

The Model run shall include:

•      2000 Model Run 1 - Year 2000 Existing Conditions: Year 1999 assumptions for land use shall be incorporated.

Opening Year 2005

The transportation networks for model year 2005 shall be developed from planned and programmed improvements to be implemented by WSDOT, King County, and the City of Issaquah.

The CONSULTANT shall review and revise the 2005 SE Bypass model network to provide continued consistency with adopted Plans.

For year 2005, up to two Model runs (one model run shall include both AM & PM traffic forecasts) shall be performed. The PM peak hour generated trip tables from the 2005 SE Bypass model shall be transposed and if necessary scaled to represent AM peak hour demand. Additionally, the hourly volumes shall be balanced for the SE Bypass corridor. Each model run shall contain different assumptions regarding programmed and planned roadway projects.

The Model runs include:

•      2005 Model Run 1 - Year 2005 No Action: Included shall be the following projects: North SPAR, South SPAR, Sunset Interchange modification, and SR 900 widening. Baseline 2005 assumptions for land use shall be incorporated.

•      2005 Model Run 2 - Year 2005 Full Build. Included shall be the following projects: NSPAR, SSPAR, Sunset, SR 900, and SE Bypass (with no widening of SR 18)

20.3.1.4.          Future Alternative Alignment Travel Demand Forecasts

Based on future land use assumptions supplied by the CITY and on the definition of the roadway alignment alternatives, year 2005 travel demand forecasts shall be prepared using the traffic model. For the 2005 build scenario, the proposed build alternative alignment (based on the work completed through Phase 1) shall be considered.

Available output from TMODEL includes specific roadway volumes, intersection volumes and select link data for the PM Peak hour. The trip tables generated for the PM peak hour shall then be transposed and possibly scaled in order to generate the AM Peak hour volumes. For the 2005 build scenario, the traffic information extracted from the 2005 build model shall be applied to the recommended proposed design alignment alternative (as determined in Phase 1).

PRODUCTS

The CONSULTANT shall provide the CITY a copy of the TMODEL electronic files with a brief annotation for model year runs 2030, 2005, and 2000.

20.3.1.5.          Modal Share Sensitivity

As part of development of the 2005 SE Bypass Model (No-Action and Build Scenarios), the CONSULTANT shall prepare a summary of the various travel demand management assumptions incorporated into the 2005 SE Bypass Model. Most travel demand management assumptions shall be based primarily off of the assumptions made in the SR 900 Widening model along with the CITY's Travel Model used for concurrency testing, and possibly the PSRC model. The travel demand management assumptions shall be presented in the SEIS.

20.3.1.6.          Intersection/Roadway Operations

The CONSULTANT shall conduct intersection/roadway operational analysis of key intersections/roadways (as determined by the CONSULTANT and CITY). The Synchro software shall be utilized in performing the traffic operational analyses. The operational analyses shall be conducted for the AM and PM peak hours and intersection LOS along with intersection delay (sec/veh) shall be recorded.

Year 2000 Existing Conditions and Year 2005 No Action

The CONSULTANT shall perform intersection analysis for up to twenty-five (25) intersections as determined by the CITY and CONSULTANT. The AM and PM peak hours shall be analyzed for each intersection; the LOS and intersection delay shall be recorded. The intersections that shall be analyzed are (as per agreement with the CITY):

•      SR 900 & NW Sammamish

•      SR 900 & I-90 WB Ramps

•      SR 900 & EB Ramps

•      SR 900 & Gilman

•      SR 900 & Maple

•      E Sammamish & 56th

•      Issaquah-Fall City & E. Lk. Sammamish

•      Front St. & WB Ramps

•      Front St. & EB Ramps

•      Front St & Gilman

•      Front St & Sunset

•      Issaquah-Fall City & Black Nugget Rd

•      Issaquah-Fall City & Issaquah Pine

•      Sunset & WB I-90 Ramps

•      Sunset & ED I-90 Ramps

•      E Sammamish & 43rd

•      Front Street & Clark

•      Front St & Dogwood - South

•      Front St & Dogwood - North

•      Sunset & Second

•      Front St & Second

•      SR 900 & Newport

•      E. Lake Sammamish & Black Nugget

•      Second Avenue SE & Bush Street

•      Issaquah-Hobart Rd & May Valley Rd

Year 2005 Build

The proposed Build alternative as determined in Phase 1 shall be analyzed for the year 2005. The proposed roadway combination is defined as inclusion of one north alignment alternative and the south alignment alternative. In terms of traffic operations, all three North Alignments shall operate similarly; therefore, one roadway combination (a north alignment and the south alignment) shall be analyzed. Up to four (4) versions (or iterations) shall be conducted. A roadway combination version (or iteration) may include:

•      Modifications to the number of lanes assigned at a particular intersection or corridor

•      Modifications to design lengths (this can be either storage lengths or distance between intersections)

The Synchro software shall be utilized in determining corridor and intersection operations for the year 2005 build roadway combination as well as the twenty-five (25) intersections as listed in the "Year 2000 Existing Conditions and Year 2005 No Action" section (above). Additionally, the year 2000 Existing Conditions and the year 2005 No Action intersections as described above shall also be analyzed using the Synchro software.

The CONSULTANT is assuming that the preferred alternative may be constructed in two stages where Stage 1 involves construction of a two-lane roadway and Stage 2 involves widening the initial two-lane facility to four lanes. For the Build Scenario, the CONSULTANT shall determine the projected year in which traffic volumes indicate that a four-lane roadway would be necessary in order to adequately accommodate traffic demand on the SE Issaquah Bypass.

20.3.1.7.          Mitigation Measures

Qualitative analyses shall be performed by the CONSULTANT to identify and discuss the potential effectiveness of measures designed to mitigate any significant adverse impacts of each of the alternatives.

20.3.1.8.          Draft Transportation Study

The CONSULTANT shall prepare a Draft Transportation Study to document the results of the new traffic modeling and analysis. The Draft Transportation Study shall build on the analysis started under the Phase 1 Transportation Study. Ten (10) copies of the Draft Study shall be provided for review and comments.

PRODUCTS

Draft Transportation Study for review by the City and other agencies (10 copies)

20.3.1.9.          Final Transportation Study

Following review of the Draft Transportation Study, the CONSULTANT shall revise the Draft Transportation Study to incorporate review comments. Fifteen (15) copies of the Final Transportation Study shall be provided.

PRODUCTS

Final Transportation Study (15 copies)

20.3.2. Biological Assessment

The CONSULTANT shall review and revise the Biological Assessment (BA) prepared for the June 2000 Draft EIS. The BA shall be revised to describe the impacts of the new alternatives on federally listed, proposed, and candidate species and designated and proposed critical habitat present in the project vicinity. The CONSULTANT shall submit 10 copies of the Preliminary Revised Draft BA to the CITY for review and comment. The CONSULTANT shall revise the document and provide ten (10) copies of the Revised Draft BA for distribution with the Preliminary Supplemental Draft EIS to the USACE, USFWS, EPA, NIVIFS, Ecology and WDFW.

PRODUCTS

•              Preliminary Revised Draft BA (10 copies)

•              Revised Draft BA (10 copies)

20.3.3. Photo Imaging of Alternatives

The CONSULTANT shall provide up to four (4) computer generated oblique view photographic images depicting proposed build alternatives for inclusion in the Supplemental Draft and Final EIS. The images shall also be used to create mounted display boards for use at public meetings, project exhibits, and other public outreach events. In addition, three (3) ground level photo simulations (Figures 4-20, 4-22, and 4­24) from the June 2000 Draft EIS, shall be revised to show a four-lane roadway design. Figures 4-25 and 4-26 shall be replaced with one (1) new ground-level view photo simulation to represent the new southern alignment.

PRODUCTS

•              Computer generated oblique view photographic images (two sets of four images mounted on foam core boards for public display)

•              Computer generated ground-level photographic images (four revised images for report figures)

20.3.4.         Supplemental Draft EIS

The CONSULTANT shall prepare a Supplemental Draft EIS to present new information on proposed project alternatives and traffic analysis based on the outcome of the Phase I work plan. The Supplemental Draft EIS shall follow a format consistent with guidance in the revised WSDOT Environmental Procedures Manual (July 2001), guidance in the "Interagency Working Agreement to Integrate Special Aquatic Resources (404) Permit Requirements into the NEPA and SEPA processes in the State of Washington," (NEPA/SEPA/404 Merger Agreement), and FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8A. The CITY will provide close coordination with WSDOT and FHWA throughout the process. The document shall be in compliance with NEPA and SEPA.

The Supplemental Draft EIS is anticipated to include the following sections and appendices (however, the final organization and format may change in response to the CITY's needs):

20.3.4.1.          Introductory Material

The following sections of the June 2000 Draft EIS shall be revised, as appropriate:

•      Cover Sheet

•      Title Sheet

•      Fact Sheet

•      Table of Contents

•      List of Tables

•      List of Figures

20.3.4.2.          Summary

The Summary section from the June 2000 Draft EIS shall be revised to include a brief description of the proposed action, other governmental agency's actions in the geographic area, a summary of alternatives and options considered, summary of major environmental impacts (in table format with proposed mitigation measures), areas of concern or controversy, unresolved issues, list of required permits, and a list of other actions required for the proposed project.

20.3.4.3.          Chapter 1: Purpose and Need for the Action

This chapter shall be revised to identify and describe the proposed action and the transportation problems or other needs which it is intended to address. This discussion shall clearly demonstrate that a need exists for the project.

20.3.4.4.          Chapter 2: Alternatives

This chapter shall be revised to describe the process used to identify various - alternatives, the range of alternatives considered, and the alternatives that were eliminated from further consideration. Chapter 2 shall include the NEPA 404 Alternatives Analysis and Aquatic Resource Avoidance Analysis consistent with the requirements of the NEPA/SEPA/404 Merger Agreement. The analysis shall describe alternatives considered but rejected (and reason why) including efforts to minimize or avoid impacts to aquatic resources, and shall identify a preferred alternative, if known. A table shall be included comparing the various impacts of each alternative.

Alternatives to be analyzed in the Supplemental Draft EIS include:

•     No Action (no-build) Alternative

•      Alternative 1 (North A with a new south alignment)

•      Alternative 2 (North B with a new south alignment)

•      Alternative 3 (North C with a new south alignment)

A detailed description of the alternatives selected for analysis in the Supplemental Draft EIS shall be provided, together with updated information on estimated project costs and construction timing. The description of the alternative design concepts shall be in sufficient detail to allow identification of the specific characteristics of each design concept to be evaluated. These characteristics include roadway layout, intersection configurations, structural features, and other roadway related facilities. Maps, alignment drawings, road sections, cost estimates, a proposed construction schedule with milestones, and other exhibits shall be used to describe and allow a comparison between the alternatives.

20.3.4.5.          Chapter 3: Affected Environment

This chapter shall be revised to update the description of the existing social and environmental setting for the area affected by the alternatives presented inthe Supplemental Draft EIS. The following elements of the environment shall be reviewed and updated as necessary: study area, local geography, geology and soils, hydrologic systems and floodplains, wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat, land use, regional and community growth, historic and archaeological elements, hazardous waste, and visual quality. It shall also discuss the adopted land use and transportation plans as they relate to the proposed project, including the City's Traffic Concurrency Ordinance. These discussions shall be limited to data, information, issues, and values that will have a bearing on possible impacts, mitigation measures, and on the selection of an alternative.

20.3.4.6.          Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

This chapter shall be revised to document the direct project impacts, future operational impacts, secondary and cumulative impacts, construction activity impacts and mitigation measures associated with each of the three new build alternatives and the no-action alternative.

Direct project impacts are those impacts associated with the footprint or right-of-way of each alternative.

Future operational impacts are those impacts resulting from ongoing operation of the project that are anticipated to occur between the year of opening (2005) and the design year (2030).

Secondary impacts are those that are "caused by an action and are later in time or farther removed in distance but are still reasonably foreseeable" (40 CFR 1508.8). These impacts, which usually result from the initial action, include changes in land use, water quality, economic vitality, and population density.

Cumulative impacts are those that "result from the incremental consequences of an action when added to other past and reasonable foreseeable future actions" (40 CFR 1508.7). The cumulative effects of an action may be undetectable when viewed in the individual context of direct and even secondary impacts but can nonetheless add to other disturbances and eventually lead to a measurable environmental change.

Construction activity impacts are limited to construction process impacts that are temporary in nature and typically limited to the immediate project area (e.g., construction noise, dust, traffic controls, etc.). The CONSULTANT is assuming that the preferred alternative will be constructed in two stages: Stage 1 will involve construction of a two­lane roadway; Stage 2 will involve widening the initial two-lane facility to four lanes.

The environmental elements listed below shall be reanalyzed for each of fie alternatives addressed in the Supplemental Draft EIS:

•      Air Quality

•      Noise

•      Energy

•      Geology and Soils

•      Hydrological Systems

•      Floodplains

•      Water Quality

•      Wetlands

•      Vegetation and Wildlife

•      Fisheries

•      Threatened and Endangered Species

•      Land Use

•      Social Elements

•      Economic Elements

•      Displacement and Relocation

•      Historic and Cultural Resources

•      Hazardous Waste

•      Visual Quality

The CONSULTANT shall prepare draft and final technical reports for Air Quality and Noise only. Draft technical reports shall be submitted to the ClW and the STATE for review and comment. No additional revisions to previously prepared discipline reports are included. Any other discipline report changes would be considered "extra work."

The CONSULTANT shall not perform additional floodplain modeling work (HEC-RAS) as part of this work plan. Floodplain impact analysis and conceptual design for the SETS alternatives performed by the CONSULTANT shall be based on the recently updated floodplain information (Montgomery Water Group, 2001) provided to the CONSULTANT by the CITY. Any additional HEC-RAS analysis would be considered extra work.

PRODUCTS

•              Draft and Final Air Quality Reports (10 copies each of Draft and Final)

•              Draft and Final Noise Reports (15 copies each of Draft and Final)

20.3.4.7.          Chapter 5: Comments and Coordination

The CONSULTANT shall update this chapter to summarize the results of additional coordination with federal, state, and local agencies, their level of involvement, and any unresolved issues or areas of conflict. This section shall also summarize additional public involvement activities conducted as part of the Supplemental Draft EIS. 20.3.4.8.     Chapter 6: Section 4(f) Evaluation

The CONSULTANT shall update and revise the Section 4(f) evaluation to reflect the impacts (both during construction and operation) associated with the new build alternatives.  The CONSULTANT shall identify and evaluate location and design alternatives which would avoid each and all Section 4(f) properties; explain whether any avoidance alternatives which were eliminated from further study are "feasible and prudent" and if not, explain why; discuss all possible measures which are available to minimize impacts on Section 4(f) properties, including commitments made and monitoring procedures to minimize harm.

20.3.4.9.          Response to Comments on Draft EIS

The CONSULTANT shall review and prepare responses to over 1,000 comments received on the Draft EIS in letters and recorded testimony at the Draft EIS public hearing. It is assumed that many of the comments received are similar incontent and a response to one will be appropriate for many others. It is also assumed that many of the comments will no longer be relevant because several of the alternatives presented in the Draft EIS are no longer being considered. Copies of the comment letters and recorded public testimony, along with the responses to those comments, shall be presented in an appendix to the Supplemental Draft EIS. During this task the CONSULTANT shall also review one (1) "constituent proposal" and provide a written response to be included in an appendix to the Supplemental Draft EIS.

20.3.4.10.        Closing Sections/Appendices

The CONSULTANT shall prepare closing documentation for the SEIS, including the following information:

•      Principal Contributors

•      Studies Performed

•      Supplemental Draft EIS Distribution List

•      Transportation Studies

•      Supplemental Alternatives Analysis

•      Historic Site Documentation

20.3.4.11.        Preliminary Supplemental Draft EIS

The CONSULTANT shall produce a preliminary Supplemental Draft EIS and submit ten (10) copies to the CITY for review and comment. The CONSULTANT shall revise the document and provide fifteen (15) copies of the preliminary Supplemental Draft EIS (including the revised Wetland and Streams Technical Memorandum and Biological Assessment) to the CITY for distribution to the USACE, USFWS, EPA, NMFS, Ecology and WDFW.

PRODUCTS

•              Preliminary Supplemental Draft EIS for CITY review (10 copies)

•              Preliminary Supplemental Draft EIS for review by agencies (15 copies)

20.3.4.12.        Camera-Ready Supplemental Draft EIS

The CITY will provide one consolidated set of comments on the Preliminary Supplemental Draft EIS to the CONSULTANT. It is assumed that agencies will submit comments separately. The CONSULTANT shall make requested revisions and prepare a camera-ready Supplemental Draft EIS for review by the CITY. The Supplemental Draft EIS shall include an initial wetland mitigation plan if a preferred alternative is known, otherwise a conceptual mitigation plan shall be included in the Supplemental Draft EIS.

PRODUCTS

Camera-ready copy of the Supplemental Draft EIS for CITY approval (1 copy).

20.3.4.13.        Reproduction and Distribution

Upon approval of the camera-ready Supplemental Draft EIS by the CITY, the CONSULTANT shall reproduce 200 copies of the final Supplemental Draft EIS for distribution. The CITY will provide the distribution list. The CONSULTANT shall assist the CITY in distributing the document to the agencies and the public.

PRODUCTS

200 copies of the Supplemental Draft EIS for submittal to the CITY for distribution. 20.3.5.       Public Hearing

A joint public hearing on the Supplemental Draft EIS and the Section 404 permit application will be conducted within 30-days following publication of the Supplemental Draft EIS. The CONSULTANT shall prepare materials for the hearing and provide originals to the CITY for reproduction and distribution. Relevant CONSULTANT activities shall include:

•      Assist the CITY in preparing the public hearing packet

•      Assist the CITY in preparing exhibits and handouts

•      Prepare a Synchro display showing traffic operations

•      Provide technical staff to attend the Public Hearing

It is assumed that up to four (4) CONSULTANT team staff shall attend the public hearing. It is also assumed that the CITY will be responsible for arranging the meeting place, arranging for a court reporter, preparing the public notice for the joint Supplemental Draft EIS/Section 404 Public Hearing Notice, and all other activities related to meeting organization and/or preparation.

20.3.6.         Final EIS

20.3.6.1.          Respond to Comments on the Supplemental Draft EIS

The CITY will provide the CONSULTANT with copies of the letters received with comments on the Supplemental Draft EIS. The CITY will also provide the CONSULTANT with a copy of the transcript recording public testimony received at the public hearing. Revisions to the Supplemental Draft EIS shall be based on the comment letters, public hearing testimony and agency comments received during the review period.

The CONSULTANT shall compile a summary of comments received on the Supplemental Draft EIS, provide responses to comments, and make recommendations, if necessary, on the need for additional studies, additional mitigation or changes to the design. For budgeting purposes, it is assumed that there will be a maximum of 100 comment letters with 10 comments each for a total of 1,000 comments. If there are more than 100 comment letters or 1,000 comments, the extra level of effort to address comments shall be considered "extra work."

20.3.6.2.          Revise Environmental Analysis

The CONSULTANT shall revise the discussion of elements of the environment in EIS to reflect changes in the project design, impacts, and proposed or required mitigation that have occurred since publication of the Supplemental Draft EIS, or in response to review comments on the Supplemental Draft EIS. Any proposed additional studies, detailed analyses, or changes in design shall be considered "extra work."

20.3.6.3.          Preliminary Final EIS Document

The CONSULTANT shall produce a preliminary Final EIS and submit ten (10) copies to the CITY for review and comment. The CONSULTANT shall revise the document and provide fifteen (15) copies of the preliminary Final EIS (including the final alternatives analysis, identification of the preferred alternative and apparent least environmentally damaging practicable alternative, and apparent final wetland mitigation plan) to the CITY for distribution to the USACE, USFWS, EPA, NMFS, Ecology and WDFW.           The Final EIS shall incorporate changes that reflect changes in the project scope, impacts, technical analysis and mitigation analysis that have occurred since the Supplemental Draft EIS. The Final EIS shall include comments received on the Supplemental Draft EIS, a summary of the comments, responses to comments, and an updated fact sheet.

PRODUCTS

•              Preliminary Final EIS for CITY review (10 copies)

•              Preliminary Final EIS for review by agencies (15 copies)

20.3.6.4.          Camera-Ready Final EIS

The CITY will provide one consolidated set of comments on the preliminary Final EIS to the CONSULTANT. It is assumed that reviewing agencies will submit comments separately. The CONSULTANT shall revise the preliminary Final EIS in response to the comments received from the CITY and reviewing agencies. The CONSULTANT shall prepare a camera-ready Final EIS and the CITY will conduct a second review to check and approve the changes and authorize reproduction and issuance of the Final EIS.

PRODUCTS

Camera-ready copy of the Final EIS for City approval (1 copy)

20.3.6.5.          Reproduction and Distribution

The CONSULTANT shall make the second, minor revisions based on the review and approval of the camera-ready Final EIS and reproduce 200 copies of the Final EIS for distribution. The CITY will provide the distribution list for the Final EIS. The CONSULTANT shall assist the CITY in distributing the document to agencies and the public.

PRODUCTS

200 copies of the Final EIS for submittal to the CITY for distribution.

20.3.7.         Record of Decision

The CONSULTANT shall assist the CITY in preparing the draft NEPA Record of Decision (ROD) and shall address any Final EIS comments received from FHWA.

PRODUCTS

•              Draft Record of Decision (1 copy)

•              Final Record of Decision (1 copy)

20.3.8. Respond to Miscellaneous Public Comments

If directed by the CITY, the CONSULTANT shall prepare responses to public comments on deliverables prepared under this work plan. It is assumed that the CONSULTANT shall spend four (4) hours responding to up to ten (10) public comments. Additional effort by the CONSULTANT to respond to more than ten (10) comments shall be considered "extra work".

20.4  NEPA/SEPA/404 MERGER ACTIVITIES

The CONSULTANT shall provide project coordination to comply with the "Interagency Working Agreement to Integrate Special Aquatic Resources (404) Permit Requirements into the NEPA and SEPA processes in the State of Washington, "(NEPA/SEPA/404 Merger Agreement).

20.4.1. NEPA/SEPA/404 Merger Concurrence

The CONSULTANT shall coordinate with regulatory agencies to gain concurrence on the preliminary Supplemental Draft EIS regarding project alternatives to be evaluated in the Supplemental Draft EIS, preliminary preferred alternative, and initial and detailed wetland mitigation plans. Additional studies required to obtain concurrence, or development and analysis of additional alternatives, shall be considered "extra work." Preparation of the final version of the Supplemental Draft EIS cannot proceed without issuance of a letter of concurrence from the reviewing agencies.

Up to two (2) CONSULTANT staff shall attend up to three (3) meetings with regulatory agencies to gain concurrence on the preliminary Final EIS regarding the apparent final mitigation plan and the preferred alternative/least environmentally damaging alternative, as specified in the NEPA/SEPA/404 Merger Agreement. Additional meetings, studies or revisions to alternatives that may be needed to obtain concurrence shall be considered "extra work." Publication of the Final EIS cannot occur without issuance of a letter of concurrence from the 404 Merger agencies.

20.4.2. Initial Mitigation Plan

Upon issuance of the Agency Concurrence Letter regarding alternatives to be evaluated in the Supplemental Draft EIS and identification of the preferred alternative, the CONSULTANT shall conduct a preliminary investigation of candidate mitigation sites to determine if there are suitable sites to support the required mitigation. Upon identification of candidate sites, the CONSULTANT shall prepare a draft Initial Mitigation Plan for the preferred alternative, as described in Appendix F of the NEPA/SEPA/404 Merger Agreement. The Draft Plan shall identify unavoidable impacts to aquatic resources; establish the goals and objectives of the mitigation; the timing of the mitigation; a general description of the candidate sites; and proposed monitoring of the mitigation. The Draft Plan shall be submitted to the CITY for review and comment.

The Draft Initial Mitigation Plan shall be revised to address the CITY's comments. The revised Plan shall be submitted to the CITY for distribution to other merger agencies for review and comment. The CITY will provide consolidated comments on the Plan to the CONSULTANT. The CONSULTANT shall conduct a site visit with the USACE to review candidate sites. The CONSULTANT shall prepare a final Initial Mitigation Plan for inclusion in the Draft SEIS.

PRODUCTS

•      Draft Initial Wetlands Mitigation Plan for CITY review (10 copies)

•      Draft Initial Wetlands Mitigation Plan for agency review (15 copies)

•      Final Initial Wetlands Mitigation Plan for inclusion in the Supplemental Draft EIS (one camera ready copy)

20.4.3. Section 404 Permit Application

Prior to submittal of the Preliminary Supplemental Draft EIS, the CONSULTANT shall attend one pre-application meeting with the USACE to identify issues of concern and confirm Section 404 permitting requirements and scheduling. The CONSULTANT shall then prepare draft Section 404 permit application materials for submittal to the CITY. The CITY will submit the permit application to the USACE. Prior to publication of the Final EIS, the CONSULTANT shall prepare a final Section 404 permit application for submittal to the USACE. The final application shall include a Detailed Mitigation Plan and Report.

PRODUCTS

•      Draft Section 404 Wetland Permit Application

•      Final Section 404 Wetland Permit Application

20.4.4. Detailed Mitigation Plan and Report

Prior to publication of the Final EIS, the CONSULTANT shall prepare a draft Detailed Mitigation Plan and Report for the preferred alternative, as described in Appendix F of the NEPA/SEPA/404 Merger Agreement. The Draft Detailed Mitigation Plan shall include a summary of wetland impacts, description of proposed mitigation and mitigation site(s), mitigation design (hydrology source, grading plan, soil preparation, planting plan, and schedule), standards of success, and monitoring and contingency plans. The Draft Plan shall be submitted to the CITY for review and comment. The Draft Plan shall be revised to address the CITY's comments. The revised Plan shall be submitted to the CITY for distribution to the merger agencies with the preliminary Final EIS.

Upon issuance of concurrence on the preliminary Final EIS by the reviewing agencies, the CONSULTANT shall prepare a Final Detailed Mitigation Plan for inclusion in the Final EIS.               A Final Mitigation Plan as required by the NEPA/SEPA/404 Merger Agreement is not included in this Work Plan and shall be considered "extra work".

PRODUCTS

•      Preliminary Draft Detailed Wetland Mitigation Plan and Report (10 copies) Draft Detailed Wetland Mitigation Plan and Report (15 copies)

•      Final Detailed Wetland Mitigation Plan and Report (one camera ready copy)

20.5. CONCEPTUAL DESIGN

20.5.1  Supplemental Survey and Mapping

The CONSULTANT shall collect additional field survey with to update the existing mapping that will enable development of the conceptual design to the level necessary to provide a clear idea of the environmental impacts. Except for critical culverts, underground utilities shall not be surveyed or mapped. The CONSULTANT shall update the existing base map with the additional supplemental survey data. This supplemental survey data shall be developed in metric units. The survey work shall conform to NAD 83/91 and to the vertical datum used by the CITY for this project.

PRODUCTS

Updated Aerial Base Mapping

20.5.2  Geotechnical Feasibility Study

The CONSULTANT shall conduct geotechnical investigations to support the conceptual design task. These investigations include the following:

•      Conduct a detailed site reconnaissance along the new southern alignment to evaluate existing conditions. Also conduct a reconnaissance along the preferred north alignment to observe current site conditions.

•      Drill a total of eight (8) borings: Six (6) along the centerline alignment of the new southern alternative and two (2) at the northerly edge of the proposed roadway along the new southern alternative. The borings shall be drilled to depths

ranging from 15 to 40 feet using a track-mounted drill rig. Soil samples shall be collected from the borings at five-foot depth intervals. The CONSULTANT shall obtain "Right-of-Entry" to complete the eight (8) soil borings.

•      Install a piezometer casing in the borings for ground water monitoring. Monitor ground water levels on a monthly basis for six (6) months following installation. The borings/piezometers shall be backfilled in accordance with Washington State Department of Ecology requirements.

•      Conduct limited laboratory testing on the soil samples obtained from the borings. The testing shall include moisture content.

•      Evaluate the subsurface information obtained from the soil borings as a basis for describing the existing conditions, impacts and mitigation of identified environmental issues.

The CONSULTANT shall prepare a Geotechnical Feasibility Report that documents the additional geotechnical activities described above, as well as the geotechnical investigations conducted in support of the June 2000 Draft EIS. The report shall identify preliminarily recommended slope support options including but not limited to MSE walls, soldier pile walls, reinforced concrete walls, and rockeries.

20.5.3  Design Memorandum

A Design Memorandum summarizing the relevant geometric design criteria applicable to CITY designated design or posted speed limits shall be prepared based on applicable design standards and in accordance with the CITY'S Design Standards and the WSDOT Local Agency Guidelines Manual, as well as the AASHTO Green Book (See Attachment A). Particular emphasis shall be placed on identifying those elements that may be subject to interpretation, engineering judgment or modification due to adverse field conditions. The CONSULTANT shall review the design elements with and seek approval by the CITY.

The Design Memorandum shall include documentation on design decisions, design deviations, geotechnical and structural evaluations, stormwater management issues and considerations, and a staged construction proposal.

PRODUCTS

•              Draft Design Memorandum (3 copies)

•              Final Design Memorandum (3 copies)

20.5.4  Refine Phase 1 Conceptual Design

The CONSULTANT shall complete conceptual design work for the three (3) build alternatives begun during Phase 1 (Task 19.3.2). The three build alternatives are comprised of one new southern alignment and three refined northern alignments from the original Draft EIS (June 2000). The three northern alignments can be matched with the one new southern alignment (at a common match point) to yield three different alternatives providing a new north south connection between I-90 and Front Street.

During this task the CONSULTANT shall refine the channelization features for each of the alternatives to reflect the traffic needs for the year 2030 as described in the Phase 1 Transportation Study (Task 19.3.1).

The CONSULTANT shall refine the roadway template, including retaining walls and stormwater facilities, develop new cross sections, and refine slope lines to allow determination of potential impacts to wetlands, streams, floodplains, trails, existing homes, school district property and other elements of the environment. Space for roadside landscaping shall be included along the western edge of the proposed roadway. The CONSULTANT shall develop up to two (2) Typical Sections to depict the roadway prism in the northern segment of each alternative and one (1) Typical Section illustrative of all alternatives for the roadway section in the southern segment.

Based on the results of this effort and the corresponding impacts, the CONSULTANT shall revise the horizontal and vertical alignments up to two additional times for each alternative, once in response to the CITY'S review comments and once in response to comments received on the Supplemental Draft EIS, to mitigate unfavorable impacts to existing natural resources, properties and structures. With each vertical alignment revision, the CONSULTANT shall rerun cross sections throughout the length of the vertical alignment revision and revise slope lines to further determine their impact on the environment.

The CONSULTANT shall prepare a design that accommodates existing and proposed pedestrian and bicycle facilities within the corridor, as well as appropriate connections and extensions of existing trails. Type 11 bicycle lanes and contiguous sidewalks are to be assumed.

The CONSULTANT shall coordinate with Issaquah School District officials to identify appropriate and reasonable vertical alignments for each alternative (including possible noise berm) to address school district concerns over potential noise impacts to Issaquah High School. One (1) meeting with three (3) people is assumed for budgetary purposes.

The CONSULTANT shall review and modify the size, type and location of proposed stormwater management facilities to reflect the refined roadway design and new floodplain elevation information (Montgomery Water Group, 2001) provided to the CONSULTANT by the CITY.

If a revision in the horizontal and vertical alignment of the planned East Sunset Way connection to the SE Issaquah Bypass is required because of refinements to the SE Bypass design geometrics, that effort shall be considered "extra work" and will be covered by a future change order.

PRODUCTS

•      Plans, profiles and typical sections for up to three (3) alternatives identifying the proposed project design for the northern and southern alignments shall be provided. Three (3) sets of drawings shall be provided for up to three (3) submittals.

20.5.5 Stage 1 Conceptual Design

It is anticipated that the construction sequencing of the preferred alternative will be shown to occur in two separate stages. The CONSULTANT shall prepare Stage 1 plans that depict a two-lane roadway with bike lanes in each direction and a sidewalk on the southbound side only. Retaining walls would be located to accommodate an ultimate build out of a four-lane roadway section. Three Typical Sections shall be prepared depicting the two-lane roadway in Stage 1. The Stage 1 plans shall also reflect the right­of-way acquisition needs to accommodate the ultimate build out. Roadway profile changes are assumed not to be required.

The CONSULTANT shall develop a stormwater management facilities design to accommodate a two-lane roadway. Roadside ditches are assumed for the Stage 1 stormwater conveyance system. The CONSULTANT shall also design reduced-size stormwater detention ponds appropriate for the Stage 1 construction.

PRODUCTS

Stage 1 plans and typical sections for one (1) submittal (3 sets).

20.5.6  Cost Estimates

The CONSULTANT shall prepare a conceptual cost estimate for each of the SETS build alternatives. A refined cost estimate shall be prepared for the preferred alternative reflecting a two-stage construction sequence. Costs shall be based on standard bid item tables published by WSDOT and the CITY. The CITY will provide estimated right-of-way costs based upon right-of-way requirements identified by the CONSULTANT. Earthwork volumes shall be prepared for both Stage 1 and Stage 2 construction.

PRODUCT

Conceptual cost estimates for SEIS Build Alternatives (3 sets)

Conceptual cost estimate for preferred alternative with two-stage construction (3 sets)

20.6. 6^TH AVENUE SE ALIGNMENT (OPTIONAL)

The CONSULTANT shall conduct additional transportation and environmental analysis and conceptual design activities to include an additional southern alignment in the Supplemental EIS. The additional southern alignment is assumed to approximately follow the existing alignment of 6^thAvenue SE. This is an optional task included in the work plan budget. The optional tasks are further defined below:

20.6.1. Transportation Study

The CONSULTANT shall conduct additional transportation analysis to study an additional southern alignment that approximately follows the alignment of 6th Avenue SE and intersects with Issaquah-Hobart Road at approximately SE 96^th Street. The additional analysis shall include rerunning the TMODEL travel demand forecasts for the 2030 build scenario to include the additional southern alignment.

The CONSULTANT shall also conduct additional Synchro intersection/roadway operational analysis for up to three (3) alignment combinations (i.e. the 6^thAvenue SE southern alignment with each of the three northern alignments). In addition, the transportation analysis described in Task 20.3.1 of this work plan shall be expanded to include analysis of the additional alternative for the opening year of 2005.

20.6.2. Supplemental Draft EIS

The CONSULTANT shall expand the discussion and analysis in the Supplemental Draft EIS to include an additional southern alignment that approximately follows the alignment of 6^th Avenue SE. The following sections of the EIS document shall be revised to discuss the additional alternative:

•      Summary

•      Chapter 1 Purpose and Need for the Action

•      Chapter 2 Alternatives

•      Chapter 3 Affected Environment

•      Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

•      Chapter 5 Comments and Coordination

•      Chapter 6 Section 4(f) Evaluation

The impact analysis in the Supplemental Draft EIS addressing the environmental elements listed below shall be expanded to include analysis of the additional southern alignment that approximately follows 6^th Avenue SE:

• Air Quality

• Noise

• Energy

• Geology and Soils

• Hydrological Systems

• Floodplains

• Water Quality

• Wetlands

• Vegetation and Wildlife

• Fisheries

• Threatened and Endangered Species

• Land Use

• Social Elements

• Economic Elements

• Displacement and Relocation

• Historic and Cultural Resources

• Hazardous Waste

• Visual Quality

The Air Quality and Noise modeling efforts and related technical reports shall be expanded to include the additional southern alignment.

20.6.3. Final EIS

The CONSULTANT shall address public and agency comments received on the Supplemental Draft EIS related to the additional southern alternative. For budgeting purposes it is assumed that the addition of the 6^thAvenue southern alignment will add approximately 25% to the level of effort assumed for this task in 20.3.6.1. The CONSULTANT shall revise the discussion of elements of the environment in the EIS to reflect any changes in the project design, impacts and proposed or required mitigation as they relate to the additional alternative.

20.6.4. NEPA/SEPA/404 Merger Activities

The CONSULTANT shall coordinate with regulatory agencies to review and comment on the additional southern alignment along 6^th Avenue SE. Additional studies required to obtain concurrence from the regulatory agencies, or development and analysis of additional alternatives, shall be considered "extra work."

Up to two (2) CONSULTANT staff shall attend up to three (3) additional meetings with regulatory agencies to gain concurrence on the preliminary Final EIS regarding the apparent final mitigation plan and the preferred alternative/least environmentally damaging alternative, as specified in the NEPA/SEPA/404 Merger Agreement. Additional meetings, studies or revisions to alternatives that may be needed to obtain concurrence shall be considered "extra work."

20.6.5. Conceptual Design

The CONSULTANT shall supplement the conceptual design work described in Task 20.5 of this work plan to include conceptual design of an additional 6^thAvenue SE alignment. The 6^th Avenue SE alignment shall be designed to match with any one of the three northern alignments (at a common match point) to yield three different alternatives providing a new connection between I-90 and Issaquah-Hobart Road.

During this task the CONSULTANT shall develop conceptual plan, profile, and typical section for an alignment that reflects the traffic channelization needs for the year 2030 as determined in the Task 20.1.6, above.

The CONSULTANT shall prepare a roadway template, including retaining walls and stormwater facilities, develop new cross sections, and refine slope lines to allow determination of potential impacts to wetlands, streams, floodplains, trails, existing homes, school district property and other elements of the environment. Space for roadside landscaping shall be provided along the western side of the proposed roadway. The CONSULTANT shall develop one (1) Typical Section to further clarify the roadway prism at a selected location along the alignment.

Based on the results of this effort and the corresponding impacts, the CONSULTANT shall revise the horizontal and vertical alignments up to two additional times, once in response to the CITY'S review comments and once in response to comments received on the Supplemental Draft EIS, to mitigate unfavorable impacts existing natural resources, properties, and structures. With each vertical alignment revision, the CONSULTANT shall rerun cross sections throughout the length of the vertical alignment revision and revise slope lines to further determine their impact on the environment.

The CONSULTANT shall accommodate existing and proposed pedestrian and bicycle facilities within the corridor, as well as appropriate connections and extensions of existing trails. Type II bicycle lanes and contiguous sidewalks are anticipated.

The CONSULTANT shall review and modify the size, type and location of proposed stormwater management facilities to reflect the new southern roadway alignment.

20.6.6.         6th Avenue SE Stage 1 Conceptual Design

The CONSULTANT shall prepare Stage 1 plans that depict a two-lane roadway with bike lanes in each direction and a sidewalk on the southbound side only. Retaining walls, if any, would be located to accommodate the ultimate build-out of a four-lane roadway section. One (1) Typical Section shall be prepared depicting the two-lane roadway in Stage 1. The Stage 1 plans shall also reflect the right-of-way acquisition needs to accommodate the ultimate build out. Roadway profile changes are assumed not to be required.

The CONSULTANT shall develop a Stage 1 stormwater management facility design to accommodate a two-lane roadway. Roadside ditches are assumed for the Stage 1 stormwater conveyance system. The CONSULTANT shall also design reduced-size stormwater detention ponds appropriate for the Stage 1 construction.

PRODUCTS

Stage 1 plan and typical section for one (1) submittal (3 sets).

20.6.7. Cost Estimates

The CONSULTANT shall revise the conceptual cost estimates described in Task 20.5.5 to include the additional        6th Avenue alignment.                Costs shall be based on standard bid item tables published by WSDOT and the CITY. The CITY will provide estimated right­of-way costs based upon right-of-way requirements identified by the CONSULTANT.

ATTACHMENT A - DESIGN GUIDELINES

The CITY will designate the basic premises and criteria for the design. Reports and plans, to the extent feasible, shall be developed in accordance with the latest edition and amendments to the following:

City of Issaquah Publications

•              Issaquah Design Standards

•              Critical Areas Ordinance

King County Publications

•              Road Standards 1994

•              General Special Provisions 1991

•              Surface Water Design Manual

•              Community Plan

•              Basin Studies

•              Sensitive Areas Ordinance

Washington State Publications

•           Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction (M41-10)

•           Standard Plans for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction (M21-01)

•              Amendments and General Special Provisions •             Standard Item Table

•              Highway Design Manual

•              Bridge Design Manual

•              Construction Manual

•              Local Agency Guidelines

•              DOE Stormwater Management Manual forthe Puget Sound Basin

•              Hydraulics Manual

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Publications

•           A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (2000)

•           A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (1994) (Green Book)

•           Standard Specifications for Highways Bridges, Twelfth Edition (1977)

•           A Guide for Highway Landscape and Environmental Design (1970) • Highway Design and Operational Practices Related to Highway Safety (1974) (Yellow Book)

•              Any American Association of STATE Highway Officials policy applicable where said policy is not in conflict with CITY standards

U.S. Department of Transportation Publications

•           Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways

Other Publications

•           National Electrical Code

•              Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual (1994)

Change Order #10v2