Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWWP2700190(1) The electrofishing unit consists of a backpack power unit, station and only one pass through the 100 foot station length was including a 1.2 volt battery, long probe (cathode), and two copper made. This station was established so that any significant R wire screens secured to the operator's legs (anode). modificatica.s in fish species composition or numbers in the flood plain area, relative to previous sampling, could be discerned. The electrofishing technique was selected for use in this study due to the small size of May and Honey Creeks and the fact that Each station was L00 feet in length. Prior to electrofishing at fish captured could be identified, measured, and returned to their each station (except Station 10), two stop nets (1/2 inch mesh, habitat unharmed. stretch) were installed at the downstream and upstream ends of the -) sample area. Then the area was fished, moving from the downstream Data Collection (March 21, 1975) - For purposes of clarity, towards the upstream net. Three persons were required, one to station numbers were continued in sequence from the previous May electrofish, one to net fish, and one to record data and provide a Creek fish report. Previously, stations 1 through 4 were located receiving bucket for fishes captured in the process. After one in the following areas of May Creek. Station 1 was 0.3 miles pass through the sample area, the fish obtained (including those south of S. E. 80th Street on Jones Avenue while Station 2 was obtained from the downstream net) were anesthetized with M. S. also located adjacent to Jones Avenue, approximately 0.9 miles 222, identified to genus, and species if possible, and measured south of S. E. 80th Street. Stations 1 and 2 were in the floo (fork length in centimeters for salmonids, total length in plain area. Station 3 was approximately 600 feet north of S. E. centimeters for non-salmonids). All _ --sh were then placed in 96th Street and 0.4 miles :rest of 136th Avenue S.E. Station 4 was recovery buckets and eventually returned to the creek. Then the located at the point where May Creek is intersected by 136th Ave. station was fished a secc .d time and the fish captured were again S.E. (Figure L}, anesthetized, identified, and measured. This "removal" method was developed for estimating fish populations in small rivers where In this report, data from Stations _ and 2 will be utilized in capture by electrofishing was the most desirable sampling estimating fish populations of the project area; however, data from technique. Stations 3 and 4 (located in the ravine area upstream from the May Creek-Honey Creek confluence) were not utilized in this report. At each station. determinations of average width of creek, average - depth, average v,-locity, temperature, and bottom type were An additional five (5) stations were established duri+ - this recorded. This information is included in an Appendix to this study. Station 5 was located in May Creek, 200 feet .rnsCeam report. from its confluence with Honey Creek; Station 6 was located in Honey Creek, 50 feet upstream from the May Creek-doney Creek Data analysis included calculations of 1) the number and average confluence; Station 7 was established in Honey Creek about 0.6 length of each species per station, 2) estimates of total population size at each station for all species captured, based on miles upstream (southeast) from the confluence point, near a power A transmission line crossing; St_cion 8 was located 1.2 miles the statistical method developed by Saber and Lel:rend (1967) , upstream from the confluent: point; Station 9 was established in 3) estimations of total population size for each species and Honey Creek, 500 feet upstream from the confluence point. An numbers of each species per project area acre, and 4) length 'ditional station was established in May Creek, approximately frequency distribution matrix for sculpins (Cottus spp.) captured mid-way between Stations 1 and 2, 0.6 miles south of S. E. 80th in the project area. For estimations of total population size, St. and adjacent to Jones Avenue. No nets were placed at this all data were utilized except when all fish for one species were -40- AML S captured during the first pass through the station area and none ' duzirt the second ass. The assumption was made that all fish of Fun Sam p1• g p ump srmi<n, � this species were removed during the first pass. Total population estimates were obtained using the method e developed by Saber and LeCrend (1967), where F ,� I the estimated species population of creek sample area 51 a Ci / (c1 - c 2) with cl = fish captured during first i woo 2000 sampling at station, and c2 = fish captured during second S s<s4 In Fqf sampling. s / 5E Born Si e ' var f1f) = cic2 (cI + c2) z 4 (ct - c2) sos z 1 <, NE.IQn ST Crs 96�it l From numbers derived, standard deviation and 95 percent confidence 5 SE s e limits for n were calculated and the results presented in tabular NE, ]rn S* form. tm<«r Y<I W „jW I11. Resu'_ts < Iz A. Literature Survey and Co. respondence - Survey of the ME 20M ST < c, literature revealed only sparse information on Nay Creek and no ,� information on Honey Creek concerning fish populations or habitat. Finn (1975) indicated that salmon utilization generally occurs in W all accessible regions in May Creek, with coho salmonB. (Oncorhynchus kisutch), the dominant salmon species, sockeye < salmon (0. nerka) and some chinook salmon (o. tsha wytscha) present in the creek during the freshwater p.rases of their life cycle. y Bell (1975) stated that continued urbarizition in the May Creek Ll - and Honey Creek drainage areas has led to significant increases in t • erosion, due to higher runoff in urban areas, faster runoff (from lower retention), and flood plain encroachments. This accelerated FIGURE. 1. MAY CREEK AND HONEY CREEK FISH SAMPLE STATIONS. erosion process usually results in significant mortalities of _41- polo salmon and ecout eggs due to egg displacement from the redd or to B. Sampling Results - A summarizeiion of fishes .raptured at each covering of the eggs or devel-,.ng iry with silt. Also, station, their numbers, and their sizes are presented below. significant mortalities can result due to normal stream course Detailed information for each station is eresented in the modifications; sc=h modifications can be accelerated as a result Apl erdia. of urbanization. TABLE i. MAY CREEK - HONEY CREEK ELECTROFISHING P,�TA A;wani (1956), in a biological review of the Lake Washi ;ton (March 21, 1975) watershed, reported that spawning areas in May Crcek had been No. Length (cm.) seriously affected by operations of a drainage district in the Station Species (Pass I,V '-erage Range 3 upper portion of the creek and that gravel had been removed, resulting in increased runoff. He mentioned the presence of a small run of coho salmon (4ncorhynchus kisutch), some cutttnroat , 5 (M) Steelhead trout (Salmo gairdneri) 16, 3 11 .3 (8.2-15.0) trout (Salmo clarki clarki) , and rainbow ;teelhead) trout (Salmo gairdneri.) in May Creek. Cutthroat tr-ut (Selma clarki) > 2 L..9 (9,0-1 .2) Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha) 6, 3 10.0 (7.8-11.0) Historical plantings of rainbow t:�;ut it, May Creek date back to Coho salmon (O. kisutch) 3, 1 6.8 (4.0-9.9) 1936, with the most recent planting by the Washington State Sculoins (Cottus spp.) 12, LO 7.4 (2.9-I1.1) Department of Game, occurring in 1972 (Ajwani, op. cit., Deschaso, 19;5). There have been no known plantings of trout in Honey 6 (H) Cutthroat trc (Salmo clarki) 5, 1 10. (8. -14.3) Creek. Steelhead trout (Selma gairdneri) I, 0 10.0 - -- Sculpins (Cottus spp. ) 10, 4 8.8 (5.9-1.0.5) Becker (1964) reported the occurrence of a new species of sceipin 7 (H) C•t[throa[ trout (Selma clarki) 5, 0 10.& (7.5-17.1) in May Creek, Cottus aleuticis. Griggs (1971) studied fish populations of Kelsey and Coai Cieeks, S (H) No fish observed at this station the latter in the Cedar River watershed and only a few miles north s of My Creek. His results indicated that the twc creaks are 9 (H) Cutthroat trout (Selma clarki) 8, 5 10. (5.6-17.0) utilized by various species of salmon, trout, and suck rs for Steelhead treat Salmo gairdneri) 3, 0 14. 13.0-15.4) spawning habitat: and by other fishes for yearly resi:':nce. The Sculpin (Cottus spp.) 1, 0 10.0 dominant species captured were cutthroat trout, coho salmon, various sculpins (Cottus spp.), brook lampreys (Lampetra Ip aner 1 , 10(M) Steelhead trout (Salmo gairdneri) 10, - 9.7 (6.5-15.1) and sticklebacks (Gasterosteus spp.). Limited numbers cf coars -- Sculpins (Cottus spp.) 29, - 5.5 (3.1-8.5) is scale suckers (Catostomus macrocheilas), peamouth chubs _ (Mylocheilus caurinum), and rainbow trout were also observed. Adult Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) were observed The distinL a on between steelhead and rainbow trout -eveniles is entering both creeks, and peamouth chubs nd coarsescale suckers difficult. They are identical to genus and species and are were observe,, in both creeks in a green •.r near ripe :ondition. usually separated by b,-havioral characteristics; hnw• .er, rainbow trout have not been planted in May Creek since 1a'-2. Note: Cottus spp. probably includes Cottus aspen (prickly sculpin), C. aleuticus (Aleutian sculpin), and C. rhotheus - (torrent sculpin). -42- `'tation 5 in May Creek was regarded as excellent spawning and Electrofishing in May Creek between Stations 1 and 2 in the flood rearing habitat for salmon and :rout, with intermittent deep plain (Station 10) revealed a slightly greater abundance of steel- pools, riffles, and extensive vegetative bank cover. This area head trout juveniles and fewer coho salmon juveniles than were was more similar to the area represented by Stations 3 and 4, up- previously observed at Stations 1 and 2. The sculpin populati^n stream in May Creek, rather than to the lower region of May Creek, appeared to be similar to that previously seen at Stations 1 and represe by Stations 1 and 2. More steelhead trout juveniles 2, and no salmon or trout fry were observed. (Salmo g_- ?neri) were captured here than at any other station sampled. Also, this was the only station where chinook salmon From these results, it is apparent that May Creek, above the flood juveniles (Oncorhynchus tsr,awyts, 0 were captured. Two coho plain to the confluence with Honey Creek, provides habitat for at salmon fry (0. kisutch), captured at this station rerresent the Least two salmon and two trout species. Neither chir�ok nor cut- only salmon or trout fry found during these sampling periods. throat juveniles were ever observed at Stations 1 and 2. Cut- Sculpins (Cottus spp.) were fairly abundant at this station but throat trout were the dominant salmonid species in the tower reach were probably not ell rapt red, as ten fish were captured during of Honey Creek, but became increasingly less abundant above the the second sampling, compared to twelve captured during the first N. E. 27th Street culvert. Few steelhead trout juveniles were sampling. observed in Honey Creek, whereas they were the most abundant salmonid observed at Station 5, just downstream from the In Hcney Creek, at Station b, the catch was dominated by sculpins confluence. Although sculnins dominated the samples from Station (1, r, although six cutthroat trout were captured also. Upstream, h, only one individual was observed in the remaini .,, three up- at Station 9, several cutthroat trout (Salmo clarki clarki) were stream stations in Honey Creek. captured, three steelhead trout, but only one sculpin. Four Large trout, each approximately 15 inches in length and Upstream from Station 9, at Station 7, five cutthroat juveniles greater than one pound in weight, were observed at Station 5, May comprised the entire sample. Sculpins aie apparently prevented Creek, during electrofishing, but escaped capture. These may have from establishing themselves this far upstream by a culvert at been spawning cutthroat or steelhead trout. N. E. 27th Street (Figure 1) and by the occurrence of extreniel,- low o- nc flows during the suramer period. Han-caused erosion, in the form of cut trees and hillside slides was evident in this area, and only sparse vegetative cover was present along the creek - banks. Upstream from Station 7, no fish were captured or observed at Station: 8. There was greater vegetative cover than at Station 7, but the creek was partially blocked in many areas by wooded debris. --- - - -43- a t �. Total pulation estimates for fish captured during both runs at From these estimates, and from actual numbers of fish species each station are presentea below (Table 2). If a given species completely removed from each creek stat` i during the first was captured only during the first pass at a particular station, sampling, projection of the total nuw :s of each species in the the total captured was used as the estimated total number of that May Creek and Honey Creek project are- n:d the estimated total species and no computations were performed. numbers of each species per acre for .te project area was calculated. For projected totals it /fay Creek, to its confluence with aney Creek, estimates or actual numbcrs from Stations 1, 2. and 5 were multiplied by a factor of 21.5 (2.96 acres in project area / 0.38 acres in sample areas). For Honey Creek, the projection factor was 15.1 (0.80 acres in the project area / 0.053 acres in sample areas). Projections are presented below (Table TABLE 2. TOTAL POPULATION ESTIMATES OF THOSE SPECIES CAPURED AT 3). EACH STATION DURING BOTH SAMPLE PASSES TABLE 3. ESTIMATED PROJECTIONS OF FISH CAPTURED DURING Station Species cl c2 n van n 95 C.I. ELECTROFISHING SURVEY IN MAY AND HONEY CREEK PROJECT AREA Est. Nu. Total Est. 5 Cutthroat trout 6 2 9 0.4 9 ± I ^ rea gnecies Sample totals Fish Per in Project ..ctual Estim. Acre Area Steetl.cad trcut 11 3 15 0.1 15 ± I Chinook salmon 6 3 12 2.0 12 ± 3 May Creek Steelhead trout 23 24 174 516 (Stas. 1, 2, and 5) Coho salmon 9 LO 73 215 Coho :anon 3 1 5 0.8 5 ± 2 Cutthroat trout 8 9 65 194 Sculpins 12 10 72 165.0 -,2 ± 25 Chinook salmon 9 12 87 258 o Cutthroat trout 5 1 6 0.1 5 + 1 Sculpins 114 172 1246 3698 Sculpins LO 4 17 0.4 17 { 1 Brook lamprey 2 1 14 43 9 Cutthroat traac 8 5 21 6.4 21 5 Honey Ck. Cutthroat trout 24 32 604 480 t. Estimates of sculp;ns and trout raptured at Stations i and 2 on Stqs. 6, March 6, 1975 are preserted in the Appendix. 7,8,9) Steelhead trout 4 A 75 60 Sculpins 15 18 340 270 _44- e' : . _ -�... �..-_.�,�...-. �,.�-'='crate ..__ -:h...-.•sm-.�... _. _.._...a: .. _ -„.�.....:_.... ,a•_.�:..-,u.;.�nareowi Analysis of these data projections indicate that May Creek (in the Honey Creek confluence. Two coho salmon fry were captured just project area) contains relatively large numbers of sculpins, but downstream from this confluence and Wc7 have emerged early from also harbors a significant population ci steethead trout juveniles the gravel. No other trout or salmon fry, including those of and moderate populations of Chinook salmi:. juveniles, coho salmon steelhead trout, cutthroat trout, Chinook salmon, sockey salmon, juveniles, and cutthroat trout juveniles. Projections indicate or kokanee salmon, were observed during the sample collections, that Honey Creek contains a sizable cutthroat trout juvenile and it is possible that either sampling time was too early to population, relative to tha May Creek project area, but only a detect significant numbers, or that limited spawning and moderate population of steelhead trout juveniles. The sculpin mortalities during egg incubation reduced fry production in th- population of Honey Creek, concentrated in the lo• creek area, project area. is signifizantly less than that of May Creek. Considering the entire project area, dominant fish during the sampling periods were cutthroat trout juveniles, steelhead trout TABLE 4. LENGTH FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION MATRIX OF SCULPINS juveniles, and sculpins. As the year progresses however, this (COTTUS SPP.) MAY CREEK AND HONEY CREEK pattern of dominance may change, especially during spawning periods. Total Station Length frequency distribution of sculpins - Size distribution data Length (cm.) May Ck. 1, 2* May Ck. 5 Honey Ck., 6, 9 for sculpins (Cottus spp.) captured in the May Creek project area indicate two size group from Stations 1 and 2, suggesting two ear classes, one composed primarily of individuals 3.1 to 4.0 2.1 - 3.0 2 1 0 centimeters in length, the other of individuals 6.1 to 9.0 centi- meters in length (Table 4). The data suggest that this is also 3.1 - 4.^, 22 2 0 probabiv the situation at Station 5 (Hay Creek), although a small sample size is inadequate for full interpretation. Honey Creek 4.1 - 5.0 7 1 0 contained several large sculpins (9.1 to 10.0 cm.) , but no smaller _ specimens, less than 5.0 cm (Table 4). The data also suggest 5.1 - 6.0 6 2 1 successful recruitment of individuals in May Creek, but not it Honey Creek. 6.1 - 7.0 15 2 1 C. Life histories of May Creek 6 Honey Creek Salmonids - Based on 7.1 - 8.0 16 5 2 the literature survey and personal correspondence (bell, 1975, Katz, 1975; Finn, 19-`; Deschaso, 1975) , it is highly probable 8.1 - 9.0 19 2 that dev•:_oping eggs _. coho salmon, steeihead trout, and searun cutthroat were present in various intragravel creek areas of May 9.1 - 10.0 3 4 7 Creek, especially in the area between the flora plain and the 10.1 - 11.5 2 2 Z * obtained March 6, 1975 A _4g_ Tithing of migratory salmon and trout freshwater phases in May TABLF5 Creek is presented in Table 5. The major species known to spawn € I xG Cf GRATC9Y '.+N.HOti ND TRULR FA t�H-M'ATIJI LIFE :Rihl ti in May Creek are Coho salmon, winter steelhead trout, searun cut- IN MAY CREIX W H CY L tw throat trout, and chinook salmon, although sockeye salmon and Moxrx kokanee may occasionally spawn in the creek. Cutthroat trout are Fr�L R.I.. J P N . M J J A s o N o probably the only salmon or trout species to utilize Honey Creek uc. n,.ae Cnho Mpatrea..igia[fon for spawning purposes on a regular basis. s.l.nn ng d niragravel develop. � In general , peak upstream migration and spawning periods of [he_e JY-,°niia r.ari, species do not occur during July and August. Coho salmon ,Ye. oYt .taxation generally begin upstream migration in late August and initiate spawning activities in mid-October. Juvenile Coho spend one year nil Upatre.m ®tgraion in freshwater, then migrate to sea from March to June (Table 5). Chtm°k spav„tmJ Saturn Winter steelhead trout generally migrate upstream during the period from November to June, with spawning occurring from JYoa,tie rurtryt ' December to mid-June. Juvenile steelhead out-migration extends Jw. o°t .tHr.rt°" 3 from Apri: to early July (Table 5). Anadromous cutthroat trout upstream migration extends from July until January, with a peak from September to December. Spawning occurs from January to sw..,ing .A nil xnLr,g.avcdevatep. p Juveniia r ++ng �- Jvv. ouc _oo Migratory timing of the freshwater life phases of the lesser occurring species entering May Creek is as follows. Fall chinook Row,na. upr tree._:gr,t inn salmon migrate upstream during September and October and spawn Salmon sp..ninH Itfrom September to Novem` The period of juvenile out-migration Int.,avel da.Iop' extends from March to J_ Sockeye salmon adults migrate Jwenu. reaxLy 4 upstrean from July to October, with peak period during August and J°"• °"° "H`iti°" September. Juvenile sockeve migrate out during the period from March to June. Kokanee, a distinct race of sockeye, generally ts,eih<.d uv.�ree..ter.u°n spawn on the lake beaches, `;ut if they enter the creek, migrate �Yi _wYnang upstream from late July to December and spawn from October to tntT,g-...i dev.iop. Juvenile rearmµ February. ,r. oYt mtHrat� n , Jv✓^ni' c rearing of all salmon and trout described takes place in M dT—u. Up.-,.algrat ion Cut Nrat May - -k throughout the year (assuming successful spawning and Tx°„t sva,.ome egg ncuba.ion), with tre exception of fall chinook salmon, with rntragr.vel develop. a enile freshwater period f om December to Ju,,e (Table 6). JYYantte xeartny JYV. OYL AiHTaf lOn rt Juvenile cutthroat rearing occurs in Honey Creek throughout the ypar in the lower reaches, assuming adequate summer flow is p•Jvided. If not, they may move down into Pay Creek temporarily. g _46. t a. ' TABLE 6. BASIC LIFE HISTORIES OF SALMON AND TROUT SPECIES UTILIZING MAY CREEK AND HONEY CREEK Species Age �Z) Mat. Time in fresh- Time in salt- Migration spawning Egg .ncubation Downstream (yrs.) water (yrs.) water (,yrs.i migration coho salmon 3 ! 2 Mid Aug.- Mid-Oct.- Mid-Oct.- March-June Early Dec. Late Dec. Mid-March Steelhead trout (Ntr.) 3-6 1-3 7-4 November- -•c.-June Dec.-July April-June Mid-.tune Anadr-•mous - cutthroat 2-5 2 -1 July-Jan. Jan.-Apr. Jan.-June March-June Rainbow t' .A (plant-d) 3-4 Life --- --- Spring Apr.-June - Fall ch:.nook salmon 3-5 '� =-5 Mid Sept.- Lace Sept.- Late Sept.- March-June Late Oct. Early Nov. Lace Feb. Kokanee 2-7 Life --- Late July- Oct.-Feb. 0_t.-Mar. Sept.-March December Sockeye salmon '-5 1-3 '_-', late June- Sept.-Nov. Sept.-Jan. March-June Mid-oct. { .47- r� f. D. Spawning Habitat - Numerous observations of i 'reek bottom The capture of coho salmon fry at Station 5 indicates at least substrate in the proposed project area indicate presence of some d,-Qree of successful coho salmon spawning in this area of May Z numerous spawning areas in at least 50 percent eek bottom. Creek. Oth.:- species of salmon and trout are known to utilize May Spawning areas are typified by a locse layer of pebbles and small Creek a-. spawning habitat, including anadromous cutthroat trout, cobbles overlying medium to small gravel or sand. These areas are winter steelhead, fall chinook salmon, and possibly sockeye salmon usually iacated in or near riffles. or kokanee. Honey Creek is most su� cable for cutthroat trout spawning in the May Creek harbors fair numbers of sculpins (Cottus spp.), which s lower t^aches, especially from the N. E. 27th St. culvert to its are predatory on salmon and trout eggs and emerging fry, and also confluence with May Creek. Approximately one-third of this lower compete with yo:ing salmon and trout for living space and food. —CCL, Id be classified as adequate spawning habitat. The rema ; composed of compact sand or collections of large Honey Creek, a small tributary of May Creek, provides considerably cobb id is generally unsuitable `or spawning. Less habitat for spawning and rearing, and only cutthroat trout are presumed to spawn in this creek. Juvenile cutthroat trout 1 E. Siltation - On several occasions, during and after periods of will probably be found in the creek during most of the year, moderate or heavy precipitation, May Creek was highly turbid and except during summer period, extreme low flow conditions (the muddy in appearance, due to the presence of large amounts of silt. upper reaches of the creek a r. often dry during most summers). On sampling days, even with clear weather and no previous rainfall whether or not steelhead trout spawn in Honey Creek is unknown. for two days, the creek continued to carry fine silt, although bottom substrate was visible in areas less than two feet in depth. Honey Creek provides habitat for sculpine in its lower teach, but Honey Creek was relatively clearer than May Creek, although this their numbers decrease markedly progressing upstream, and none are could be related to its Aallew depth. found upstream of the N. E. 27th Street Culvert. W. Discussion and Recommendations Above the culvert, Honey Creek provides a relatively poor fish habitat due to numerous stream obstructions and decreased or f::y Creek, in the pr_3esed project area, provides habitat for a absent water supply during the summer months.* t tall variery cl resident fishes, including rainbow trout, when Planted, and considerable spawning area for migratory salmon and Although there is normally at least a moderate degree of salmon trout. The fish population of this creek is similar to that found and .rout spawning in May Creek, and limited spawni.g in Honey in other Lake Washington feeder strea s. Creek, the potential for successful egg to fry development appears limited. This may be attributed to several factors, inc' uding During this time of the year, the lower reach of May Creek rapid and heavy runoff during storm periods, siltation, creek (represented by Stations I and 2) provides habitat for small meandering, and partial obstruction by both natu^al and man-caused populations of coho salmon and steelhead trout juveniles. Up- debris (the latter particularly evident in the Honey Creek stream, near Honey Creek, these species were also found, but, in drainage area) . Spawning areas in both creeks arr modifies: after - addition, cutthroat and chinook salmon juveniles were present. every flood due t, movement of gravel and pebbles downstream. The habitat types of these two reaches are sumeNaat dissimilar, with significantly greater natural cover and more pools in the ' upstr am areas near the convergence with Honey Creek. The distance from the culvert to the Honey Creek origin is about 0.95 miles. _lg_ i Hod2ndle to heavy siltation., due to man-related activities General Habitat Requirements (urbanization) , and to natural causes, such as land slides, bank cutting, and bed erosion, may adversely affect, and cause According to Finn (1975), the major requirement for maintaining mortality to, buried eggs or fry in both creeks by denying water present salmon and trout production potential in May and Honey interchange and smothering food organisms. Female salmon or trout creeks is to maintain water quality (and quantity, in the case of wash silt from gravel in the spawning area during pre-spanning May Creek) at levels no less than at present. Planning of creek- activity, however, after completion of spawning, if excess silt associated projects should consider fish habitat requirements and has been deposited on the spawning area, there is resultant maintenance of natural cover and pool-riffle cor..:itions wherever interference with proper upward water percolation through the possible, and controls should be implemented regarding create water nest, loss of dissolved oxygen, and lack of proper removal of removal, storm drainage system installation, and installation of catabolic (waste) products. The smothering effect also promotes sanitary landfills, culverts, or bank protection devices. fungal growth among the eggs. The extent of harmful siltation effects in May Creek and Honey Creek is not only dependent c � the Salmon. Production Improvement amount of material deposited, but on the type of material. Undesirable materials include clay particles, organic materials, Recommendations for improving salmon production in the May Creek- such as wood pulp fibers, and toxic residues in industrial or Honey Creek project area include: agricultural wastes, including pesticides. Cenerally, salmon or trout eggs suffer a mortality of about 85 percent when 20 percent 1. Construction of a spawning channel, preferably _n pae:c-ownc,: of spawning area voids are filled with sediment (Bell, 1973). area of the May Creek drainage area, to artificially increase Properly constructed sediment basins are recommend.d to eliminate salmon production. Depending on topography, an adequate spawning this source of silt. channel adjacent to May Creek could extend between 150 and 200 feet in length, with an overall width of 12 feet and depth of Salmon and trout can survive high concentrations of suspended about three feet. Such a channel could he constructed for an n-at.er for short periods; however, prolonged exposure to some estimated cost of $7,500, ie._luding rip-rap drop structures and a types of materials in most species results in a thickening of siltation basin near the intake. respiratory epithelial cells and eventual fusion of adjacent gill lamellae, interfering with respiration. Fish do not have gill 2. Salmon and trout production could also oe enhanced by cleaners and must rely on water flow through the gill chambers, providing drainage control in the May Creek and Honey Creek basins mucous production, and intermittent "coughing" to remove foreign by such methods as channelizing the upper creek reaches, material. Evidence of gill irritation in salmon and trout installing drop structures in the lower reaches, installing fingerlings held in turbid water has frequently been observed by upland water and sediment ponds, and control via zoning on shore- fish culturists and can result in subsequent infection by fungi line management. and pathogenic bacteria. Such gill irritation may be occurring in Hay Creek ana Honey Creek salmon and trout populations. Juvenile salmon and trout rearing in both creeks may be adversely - affected by water quality deterioration, decreased water supply, and general habitat deterioration. Low summer flows and high summer ter,,eratures may often be critical and even prohibitive to juveni .e salmon rearing, especially in Honey Creek. - _49- Y_ Recommendations Relative to Interceptor Construction impact on Fisheries 1. Construction of the interceptor should be timed to conflict Relative to the proposed project itself, if the above ' as little as poasible with upstream salmon and trout migrations, recommendations are followed, there should be no long-term impact spawning periods, and downstream fingerling salmon and trout on present fish production potential of May and Honey creeks. migrations. The recommended period of construction is during July These creeks have been seriously endangered as fish producers and August. Siltation resulting from constructioa woula be short- due to previous man-related activities, in their drainage basins, term, temporary, and would probably not interfere with salmon and future planned development of the May Creek basin as well as spawning activities during this period. Juvenile coho salmon, continued development of the Honey Creek basin, may further steelhead trout, and cutthroat trout, residing in May Creek, and inhibit fish producing potential. Mitigation measures would cutthroat trout, plus small numbers of steelhead trout, residing involve implementation of erosion control measures and increasing in Hone; Creek during their one-year juvenile rearing period, fish production by installation of a spawning channel. wo�#ld probably relocate temporarily, either upstream in Ma ''reek or into lake Washington, and would probably retur-i to then Short-term project .mpact to creek fishes and fish habitat would original habitat following termination of construction act. _ties. result from 1) temporary ir..;rec6ed siltaticr and 2) temporary "- disruption and diversion of the creeks in conduit crossing areas. 2. Introduction of silt into the creeks should be kept at a The letter would not be expected to be a significant factor in the minimum. upstream areas of Honey Creek due primarily to the very small numbers of trout present there. However, in May Creek, and in the 3. Conduit intersections with the creeks should be kept to a lower reach of Honey Creek, juvenile salmon and trout, and .ai nimum, and where the conduit intersects with the creeks, it resident species, including sculpins, would probably temporarily '1 ihould be constructed overstream rather than understream. If this relocate: however, some would suffer mortalities. After is not prac'_ica' , the line should be buried at sufficient depth termination of construction activities, many displaced fishes and with adequate stability to ercourage re-establishment of would probably repopulate their original habitats. natural conditions. Conduit intersections with Honey Creek are not as critical, as it is not a major fish producing stream in the ro same sense as May Creek, and has already been seriously affected by both natural and man-caused erosion. R;ffle areas in May Creek, potenrially suited for salmon and trout spawning, should be avoided if p,ssible. 4. Where the condui - runs para' lel to the creek, consideration should be given to post-construction planting.; of shrubs or other - ,,egetation to reduce erosion and for aesthetic appeal. Access to the conduit area should be planned so as to discourage motorcycles and motorbikes from entering these areas and further contributing to erosion. S. 2chnical provisions relative to conduit crossings should be fol.c :ed. -50- QA� L r Y REFERENCES - Ajwani, S Bell, Di. C. i956. ji the Lake Washington watershed, historical, 1973. Fisheries handbook of engineering requirements and t and limnological. biological erl ':eri+. M, S. thesis. University of Washington, College of Fisheries-F Leering ResEar. i: ^rogram, U. S. Army Corps y' Fisheries, 148 p. of En&inee:s, North Pacific Division, Portland, Oregon. At nymous. 70. Comprehensive study of water and related land resources. Deschaso, J. - Puget Sound and related waters. State of Washington. 1975. Personal communication. (Fisheries biologist, Washington Appendix XI, Fish and Wildlife. State Dept. of Game, Seattle Office). Puget Sound Task Force, Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission, Fish and Wildlife Technical Committee. Finn, E. 1975. Personal communication. (Fisheries biologist, Washington P, ^ker, C. D. State Dept. of Game, Olympia, Washington). s i,&4. The parasite-vector host relationship of the - hemoflagellate Cryptobia salmositica Katz, the leech, Griggs, D. T. Pisicola salmositica Meyer, ara certain fresh-water 1971 Characteristics and estimations of the fish populations teleosts. of Kelsey and Coal Creeks, with emphasis upon cutthroat a. Ph. D. thesis, University of Washington, College of trOLt and coho salmon. In Stream Ecology Study: An Fisheries. interdisci,linary watershed study of Kelsey and Coal Creeks, King County, Washington. _ Bell, M. C. Washington State Dept. of Fisheries Co-Op Unit, College t, 1915. Personal communication (College of Fisheries, University of Fisheries, University of Washington. p. 107-121, of Washington Professor of Fisheries Engineering) , Katz, M. t` 1915 Personal communication. (Research director, Parametrix, Inc. , Seattle, Washington). -51- Y �. .ate. TELEPHONE CORRESP(hiDENCF (In addition to correspondence listed in References) Mr. Fr:? s Nelson, Chief, Technical Su)port Section, F- rental Protection Agency, Seattle. Mr. ,lc.: .. Thompson, Fisheries biologist, U. S. Army Corps of - Engineers, Seattle District Office. Mr. Ronald Pine, Mr. Eugene Deschamps, Fisheries biologists, Washington Stat•. vepartment of Fish<ries, Stream Improvement Section, Olympia, Washington. "r. Waiter diliiams, Mr. Manny LeMier, Fisheries biologists, Washington State Department of Fisheries, Olympia, Washi-gton. Dr. Eugene Welch, Department of Civil Eng;neering, Sanitary Biology section, University of Washington. Mr. Daie Griggs, Graduate student, Fisheries Research Institute, University of Washington. Mr. Rotert Matsuda, Ecological analyst, Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Washington State Cooperative Fishery Unit (College of Fisheries. University of Washington) provided the electrofishing apparatus for the study. Mr. James Malik, pre-doctoral student at the Fisheries Research Institute, Iniversity of Washington, and Mr. Mike Marshall of Norman Associates, Inc., Bellevue, Wash., assisted in data collection. -52- a - MAY CREEK ELECTROFISHT4C DATA March 6, 1975 Station 1 (0.3 miles south of S.E. 80th St. on Jones Ave.) Station 3 (Approx. 600 feet north of S.E. 96th St. on natural gas line, and 0.4 miles west of Newcastle Road) Station length: 100 feet Average width: 20 feet Station length: 100 feat Average depth: 1.5 feet Average width: 21.5 feet Velocity: 2.4 feet/second Average depth: 1.5 feet Temperature: 41.80 F. Velocity: 1.9 feet/second Bottom type: Predominantly pebbles and cc with Temperature: 41.00 F. sandy bottom typical of stre� Bottom type: Domina: zd by cobbles, pebbles, and several small F hes obtained: Table 1 of this report boulders; very little sand or gravel exposed Fishes obtained: Table 1 of this report Station 2 (0.9 miles south of S.E. 80th St. on Jones Ave.) Station 4 (At May Creek Crossing by 136[h Ave. S.E. ) Station length: 100 feet - Average width: 20 feet Station length: 100 feet Average depth: 1.5 feet (range: 1 to 3.5 feet) Average width: 21.5 feet Velocity: 2.5 feet/second Average depth: 1.5 feet Temperature: 41.90 7. Velocity: 2.1 feet/second Bottom type: Largely composed of pebbles and cobbles, with Temperature: 41.00 F. occasional .small boulders and also sandy areas Bottom type: Predominantly pebbles, cobbles, and small interspersed boulders overlyin^ sand and gravel ; sandy Fishes obtained: Table I of this report shorelines with - _avel Fishes observed: Table I of this .eport i e .51. B r S-190 SAN-1 %Y CREEK TRUNK - CORRESPONDENCE #1 TO EPA/DOE GRANT lox HAY CREEK AND HONEY GREEK ELECTROFISHING DATA March 21, -1 Station 5 (May Creek, 200 fret downstream from convergence with Station 7 (Honey Creek, approximately 0.6 miles upstream from Honey Creek) May Creek confluence) Station 12ngth: 100 feet Station length: 100 feet Average width: 20 feet Average width: 7.5 feet Average depth: 1.5 feet (range: 1" - 3.5') Average depth: 6 inches (0 to I foot) Ve. _ity: 2.4 feet per second Velocity: 1.5 feet per second Temperature: 42.80 F. Temperature: 43.40 F. Bottom type- Predominantly pebbles and cobbles (to 8 inches) Bottom type: Largely pebbles and cobbles over gravel.; with sandy gravel areas near banks. Appears to occasional sandy bottom; substantial sandy be good spawning area with lots of vegetation areas adjacent to stream due to erosion; cover and relatively deep pools (to 3.j' in vegetative cover min4mal. depth) and riffles Fishes obtaine?: See report; spawning potential - 1/3 of area Fishes obtained: See main body of report Station 8 (Honey Creek, approximately 1.2 miles upstream from Station 6 (Honey Creek, 50 feet upstream from confluence with May Creek confluence) May Creek) Station length: 100 feet Station length: 100 feet Average width: 5.5 feet Average width: 5 feet Average depth: 4 inches (1" to 6" range) Average depth: 9 inches (range: 61, to 11) Velocity: 1.7 feet per second Velocity: 2.1 feet per second Temperature: 43.50 F. Water temperature:44.00 F. Habitat type: Identical to Station 7, except creek is Bottor.: type: Stream bottom is predominantly gravel, overlain partially blocked in several areas due to fallen with pebbles and o.:casiona. cobbles (to six trees, other wooded debris, and man-introduced inches in diameter) . In some areas, the stream debris; 1/3 available potentially for spawning. bottom is composed of compact sand. Fishes obtained: No fish were observed at this station r Fishes obtained: See report I i i _S4_ 3 MAY CREEK AND HONEY CREEK ELECTROFISHING DATA March 21, 1975 ESTIMATES OF TOTAL NUMBER OF SCULPINS AND MUT (continued) CAPTURED IN HAY CREEK MARCH 6, 1975 (ALL STATIONS) Scalpins (Coitus spp.) Station 9 (Honey Creek, 500 feet upstream from May Creek Station cI c2 n v(n/ 957 C.I. confluence) Station length: 100 feet 1 31 9 44.0 13.3 44 ± 7 Average width: 5 feet Average depth: 8 inch.s (1" to 11) 2 39 12 56.3 21.0 56 ± 9 Velocity: 2.1 fee per second Temperature: 44.00 F. 3 31 10 45.8 20.1 46 ± 9 Bottom type: Essentially identical to Station b Fishes obtained: See main report 4 35 20 81.7 532.3 82 ±45 Station 10 (May Creek, 0.6 miles south of S.E. 80th St. adjacent Steelhead Trout (Salmo gair�neri) to Jones Avenue) Station length: 100 feet (fished once, no nets) 1 4 0 4.0 0.25 4 ± 1 Average width: 21 feet + Average depth: 1.5 feet (1 to 3.5 feet) 2 4 1 5.3 0.98 5 _ 2 velocity: 2.5 feet per second Temperature: 43.00 F. 3 5 2 8.3 8.6 8 ± 6 Bottom type: Identical to Stations 1 and 2, May Creek Fishes obtained: See main report 4 4 0 4.0 0.25 4 ' 1 r- -55- r -75 E;,dIBIT "B" MAY CREEP DELTA OBSERVATIONS By Dr. Stephen Martin, Ph.D. Foot Bridge L. Introduction t ; 0 N The purpose of these observations was to examine the nature and extent of the delta area at the mouth of May Creek - relative to sediment patterns. Approximately 3000 cubic 0 yards of sediment is deposited annually in the lower reach Scale in Foot of May Creek, forming a delta at its confluence with lake O 100 200 Washington. The City of Renton dredged the river mouth area in 1972. 3 • a Knowledge of the nature and extent of the delta will be important in assessing the physical impact of minor quantities of silt produced as a result of the installation Foot Bridge of sewer interceptor and trunk sewers in the May Creek Gradual Drainage Basin. Drop Oti 2 • II. Methods Bottom material was collected at eight (8) sample sites in the study area. Samples 3 and 4 were obtained in the creek 9 bed immediately upstream of the mouth, samples 1 and 2 • were obtained at the creek mouth, and samples 5, b, 7, and 8 were collected in the extensive delta area adjacent to tog Boom Log Boom the log rafts and south of the creek mouth (Figure 1). Samples l - 4 were obtained by wading the creek (Samples 1 6 and 4 were located in the main channel of the creek), while • 5 • samples 5 - 8 were collected with the aid of SCUBA equipment. - •� All samples were collected in plastic bags and returned to - the laboratory for ana ;is. The weather on tht date of - - - sample collection, May 11, 1975, was clear and cold. Lake Dolphins `. , FIGURE 1 - MAY CREEK 6 DELTA BOTTOM SAMPLE STATIONS -57- III. Results 6 Discussion The following material was collected at each sample sate; At a depth of about ten feet, the bottom substrate gradually changes to a silty sand, organic composition. Proceeding Sample Description lakeward, the bottom continues to gently slope to approximately 30 feet in depth and is composed of sandy silt 1 (main channel Fine sand, with thin upper and organic material. The delta area is extensive and 41 in creek bed) layer of silt uniform, extending at least to the lakeward dolphins and under the log booms. - 2 Fine to medium sand, with upper layer of silt In the delta area observed with SCUBA, depths ranged from six to 30 feet, but were usually greater than 20 feet. 3 (bar area in Fine sand to gravel and small creek bed) pebbles Fri these observations, it is predicted that the volume of 7 silt contributed to May Creek and to its delta, during 4 (main channel at Fine sand project activities, w, " be insignificant if work is mouth) conducted in July and ,.gust, which would be coincidental with low creek flows. 5 (delta) Sandy silt; organic 1 6 (delta) Sandy silt; organic 7 (delta) Sandy silt; organic 8 (delta; near mouth) Silty sand; organic An extensive amount of fine to medium sand, gravel, and small pebbles is present In the lower reach of the Creek, with finer sand in the main channel and gravel in the bar areas. The depth at this point ranged from a few inches to three feet. At the creek's immediate confluence with the lake, the bottom is composed of both fine sand ir the main channel and fine to medium sand near the creek bank. The depth at this point ranged from approximately three inches to three feet- A sandy sill has been formed at this point (due primarily to wave action) and SCUBA diving observations indicated that this sill gradually slopes into a broad delta. -58- EXHIBIT "C" MAY CREEK PLANT Aha ANIMAL LIFE By Dr. Robert Ruthemeyer, Ph.D. Soils of the Area Soils Along the Suggested Sewer Line Route 2 The soil of the area is an. important determiner of the vege*i tion, The Soil Survey of King County describes the soil series of the associated animal life and other interrelated characteristics. area. A soil series is the soil profile, that is, the sequence The drainage area covers 12 square miles. Three of the seven of layers from the surface downward to rock or other underlying King County Soils associations are found in the drainage basin. material. The soil most prevalent along the suggested route and A soil association is a landscape that has distinctive having the greatest limitations is the Alderwood and Kitsap soils. proportional patterns of soils and is named for the major soiis Slupes ere 25 - 70 pefaenl. Distribution of the soil varies of the association. The drainage basin soil associations are greatly within short distances. Drainage and permeability vary. Runoff is rapid to very rapid, and the erosion hazard is severe3. Everett, Alderwood and Beausite-Alderwoodl. The Everett association extend< inland two miles from lake Washington and Estimated properties of the soils4 are given for the Alderwood is north and south of May Creek. The Alderwood association is and Kitsap .-,oil series and others. The American Association of generally south of May Creek. The Beautite-Alderwood association State Highway officials (AASHO) rating of the soil is A-1 or A-2, is north of May Creek. Characteristics of these associations are: which is a soil having the highest bearing strength. All the soils of the route are acid in reaction. The Alderwood soil Everett Association series has a pH of 5.1-6.0. The corrosivity of concretes is fated from moderate to high. Somewhat excessively drained, gravelly, gently undulating soils underlain by sand and gravel; on terraces. Vegetation of the Basin association The May Creek Drainage Bas' , is predominately a woodland site in its native state. The area east of 136th Avenue S.E. and south of Moderately well drained, undulating to hilly soils that have S.E. Coalfield Road and adjacent to the creek have been cleared dense, very slowly permeable glacial till at a depth of of the dominant species. The area has been planted to grasses tO - 40 inches; or. uplands and terraces. such as orchard, Alta Fescue, Rye and Timothy. The grassed areas are mainly used as pasturage of livestock. Beausite-Alderwood Association The climax species of the drainage basin are coniferous trees Well drained and moderately well dralred, gently relling to sect, as Douglas fir, Western Hemlock and Western Redcedar. The very steep soils that have sandstone or shale or dense, very dominant deciduous tree is red alder. Red alder commonly invades slowly permeable glacial tiil at a depth of 20 - 40 inches; lo;ged-off areas. The soils of King County have been grouped on uplands. into 15 groups according to their suitability for wend crops. -59- _he potential productivity6 for the major woodland group in the Flora Assemblage - May Creek basin is 445 - 550 board feet per acre per year. This is equivalent to 145 - 155 cubic feet per acre per year. lady fern PolyAhyrstm hum mufemfna Sword fern Poly stichum munitum There have been general studies of the Lake Washington area that include the May Creek Basin. Such studies as the Puget Common polypody Polypodium vulgare Sound and Adjacent Waters and King County Shoreline Inventory Braken fern Peteridium aquilium give information on the mammals and birds of the area. The wildlife occurring within the basin were not identified by live Evergreen Trees trappings or long-tern observations. Correlation of the environment with knowledge of habitats of birds and mammals was Douglas fir Pseudotsuga menziesii used to identify species. Western red cedar Thuja plicata A wide variety of algaes, liverworts and mosses are to be found Western hemlock Tsuga heterophylla in the May Creek area. No detail accoutctirg was made of these lower forms of plant life. The following is a listing of major Sitka spruce Picea sitcn en sis plants and animals of the drainage basin. Deciduous Trees Bigleaf maple Ater macrophyllum Vine maple Acer circinatum Red alder Alnus rubra White alder Alnus rhombifolia Oregon ash Fraxinus Black cottonwood Populus trichocarpa 1 Soil Survey of Kin¢ County Area, Washir.Qton. Soil Co .servation Service, USDA, issued November 1973. loml/rdy poplar Pe;)ulus Nigra Western choke cherry Prunus demissa 2 Ibid., p. S. Willow Salix 3 or 4 species - 3 Ibid., p. 10. Mount- ash Sorbus sitchensis 4 Ibid., p. 36. 5 Ibid., p. 37. 6 Ibid., p. 68. _f,0_ s r Other Flora (continued) Other Flora Kinnikinnick Arcostaphylos Common purslane Portulaca oleracea Oregon grape Berberis aquifolium Kentucky bluegrass Pea pratensis Sedge var. Carex spp. CGnada bluegrass Pea compressa Chickweed var. Cerastium spp. Cascara Rhamnus purshiana Western hawthorn Crataegus douglasii :reeping buttercup Ranuncalus repens Scotch broom Cytisus seoparius stinking black currant Ribes bracteosum orchard grass Dactylis giomerata var. Wood rose Rosa i.ymnocarpa Spike-rush var. Eleocharis spp• Common wild rose Rosa nutkana Fire-weed Epilobium angustifolium 3vergreen blackberry Rubus laciniatus Common horsetail Equisetum aruense "himbleberry Rubus Darviflorus Swamp scouring rush Equisetum fluviacile 4imaiaya blackberry Rubus procerus Foxglove Digitalis purpur— '.almon-berry Rubus spectabilis Daisy Erigeron howeliii I'd elderberry Sambuscus callicarpa Pursh salal Cautheria Shallen Sittersweet nightshade Solanum dulcamara Alta fescue Festuca elatior var. ;anadian goldenrod Solidago canadensis Creeping red fescue Festuca rubra var. Buz-reed Sparganium simplex Ocean spray Holodiscus discolor .:zrdhack Spiraea douglasii Rush var. Juncus spp. ,at-tail Typha latifolia Lewisia Lewisia columbiana Nettle Urtica lyallii Ryegrasses var. Lolium spp . Small red hucklcterry Vaccinium mytillus Skunk cabbage Lysichitum common evergreen huckleberry Vaccinium ovatum Wild lily-of-the-valley Marianthemum led huckleberry Vaccinium parvifolium Black medic Med.cago luputina Wild pea Vicia americana Devil's club Op:opanox Wild blackberry - Rubus ursinus ' Common plantain Plantago major 51- Partial Listing of Animals and Birds The 1970-72 existing impervious area of basins is estimated at within May Creek Drainage Basin 5 percent9. The Puget Sound Governmental Conference predicts that in the year 2000 there will be 15 percent impervious area Animals Birds with a population of 18,000. The design population of 21,000 would be equivalent to 21..5 percent of the area being impervious. Douglas squirrel American robin The total May Creek Basin area is 8,970 acres. Raccoon Bewick's wren Environmental Impact of Proposed Action Moles Geese spp. Cray squirrel Ducks spp. The placement of a sewer line in the May Creek Basin will provide a desirahle nethod of waste disposal for those having septic tank Pocket mouse Cormon crow failures. Thfs service .ill provide an incentive for future H- -;rain beaver Chinese pheasant housing developments. The clearing, grading, and cut and fill of soils will modify the topography and surface soil conditions. Frogs Fox sparrow These modifications together with an increase in ground coverage Cats (domesticated) Savannah sparrow by buildings and pavement, would constitute an irreversible commitment to man-made surface conditions for at least the useful Dogs (domesticated) life of these man-made objects. Black tail deer Potential Short Term Impacts Water Quality and Drainage 1. Excavation stability and soil erosion during construction. The present quality of water in May Creek is addressed in detail Mitigation: Sever tine construction may utilize plastic under fish and aquatic life of the basin. The median total pipe, resulting in a narrower construction width col4ferms7 of May Creek exceeded the Department of Ecology then conventional concrete pipe. This method standards. Seasonal nutrient concentrations appear to be will cause less disruption of surface vegetation comparable with other streams of the County. and plant roots. Housing construction could be 75 - 150 housing Lake X.athleen is the source of May Creek. There is ponding and units per year over 25 years. overbank flooding in the upper and middle reaches of the Creek. A natural erosion process will occur on May Creek. Erosion Where potential soil erosion hazards are high, problems are intensified by uncontrolled discharge of storm hydroseeded grasses should be used. - drains at the top of natural systems. The southern arm locally known as the Devil's Elbow on S.E. 96th Street is presently an 2. On-site construction noise. example of this type of discharge. There is 3,000 cubic yards - annually of eroded material deposited in the lower reach of Mitigation: The construction route of the sewer line is May Creek, before it enters Lake Washington8. mainly within heavily vegetated areas. Trees and vegetation substantially reduce the noise -- level. -62- ' 3. Dust or alud during construction. ; These factors can be influenced to decrease the Mitigation: High soil moisture of the area should minimize runoff rates in the basin, the dust problem. Contractors should sprinkle the area to a. leviate the dust problem as needed. Mitigation: Housing contractors should rc-ainctical as much of the native vegetation as is practical. Supplemental 4. Construction-related traffic increase and noise. plantings should be encouraged. Street tree programs and landscaping ordii_­ es could be Mitigation: Housing construction and increased vehicular instituted. Residential owners should be traffic carrying supplies will increase the noise encouraged to minimize iawrs, particularly on level. Traffic and construction will conform sloping sites and maximize shrub and ground to the normal work day hours and should least cover plantings. disturb the tranquility of residents. A diversity of trees, shrubs, vines, ground Potential Long-Term Impacts covers and grasses help prevent serious erosion by intercepting and breaking the impact of 1. Increase in the impervious surface area, increasing runoff raindrops and cy holding the soil in place with their roots. Trees serve as the first rates. intercep[o_, shrubs as a secondary Level, and the Discussion: It is predicted that the 1970 5 percent last level of interception is by ground level impervious land areal0 (384 acres) could plants such as grasses, fallen leaves and increase to 21.5 percent (1,651 acres) by the mulches. By the time such rainfall reaches the year 2000 if the sewer line is constructed. soil, it has little or no impact velocity and seeps into the soil surface. Comparative runoff ratesil may be determined for -the impervious area as pavements and roofs - The tree interceptors should be native to the (C==0.90) compared with hilly woodland and forests area. Seco:dary interceptors such as English (C=-0.20). The increase in impervious area would ivy, Aaronsbeard St. Johnswort, periwinkle, fire be 1,267 acres. The caic,A ated increase in thorn, and blackberry may be planted November 1 runoff would be 1,153 cubic feet per second for to March 1. Other plant species which also the drainage basin area. Factors that would provide food for certain wildlife are: influence the runoff rates are: - kinnikinnick, snowberry, salal, cotoneaster, Oregon grape, and red trailing raspberry. a. Interception of rainfall b. Infiltration and overland flow Physical changes to the buildings could decrease the runoff rate. The downspouts could he sized c. Soil moisture storage to allow a slower release of water to the sur face or sub-grade drainage system. Rougher texture - d. Evapotranspiration concrete ane other covered surfaces would i. e. Runoff slope increase the water holding capacity and increase evaporation. � f. Peak flow -63- r —Not an Olt Where there is a substantial increase in the provide a relatively safe and productive habitat. impervious area near the head oc natural drainage introduced plant species in new housing areas areas, other erosion control measures should be could provide food and cover for wildlife. considered by the land developer. Where large 4. Increase in concentration of air pollutants due to automobile volumes of water are to be discharged into the drainage, properly designed catch basins should traffic_ and fireplace burning. be built with a slower release into grassed was rways. Mitigation: Retention and additional plantings of green plant materials will help to cleanse and purify The sewer line route will be covered with a the air in four ways: crushed rock trail. This material will allow slow infiltration of water into the soil. These a. They dilute bad air by rixing clean air conditions will minimize erosion along the sewer (which they produ,- ' with the bad. route. b. Crowing plants transpire to give off moisture 2. Increase in contaminants entering water courses due to to cleanse the air. accumulations of automobile-related constituents from pav_d C. Trees slow air movement allowing heavier areas. dust particles and pollutants to settle out. Mitigation: Where properly designed catch basins are d. Fumes an odors may be partially masked by constructed, contaminants would be retained fragrant smelling plants. within the catch basin. When the basin is empty, these contaminants would be oxidized and „ Increased demand on public utilities and services. rendered harmless. Vegetation along the water courses would also catch a portion of the 6. Some shade may be reduced over May Creek. contaminants. Mitigation: The sewer does come near the creek in several 3. Decrease in portions of the wildlife habitat. locations. The removal of some large trees may increase the sunlit area of the stream. There Mitigation: Factors such as food, dater, covert space, and should be no resultant increase in water the ability to take care of special needs affect temperature. The sewer line is primarily north the wildlife's niche. King County is in the of the stream and thus not affecting the shading process of obtaining a park site in the lower of the stream. May Creek drainage are:.. Present plans are that the area will be a passive park. People most likely will be limited to the sewer ling route and perimeter areas. The remaining area should is 7. Change in visual character of the area due to the increased r presence of man-made objects associated with human activities. _ Mitigation: introduced plant species may act as screening to reduce the visual impact. 7 Quality of Small lakes and Streams in the Ia:u Washington and Green River Drainage Basins--Interim Report July 71 to October 72, Metro, December 1973, Pg. 58. 8 Draft Copy Appendix A to the Final Report Urban Runnff - and Basin Drainage Study. Green and Cedar River Basins of - Mash�, July 1974, RIBCO, Pg. C-16-4. 9 Ibid., p. C-16-2. 10 Ibid., p. C-16-2. 11 Recommended Procedures for Storm Drain and Road Cjluert Design, King County Department of Public Works {Hydraulics f Division), Revised November 1971, p. 1. - _65- . ?'. -- ACKNOWLEDGMENT Grateful acknowledgment is given to those staff members and Individuals who aided in the preparation of this report. - Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle King County Division of Architecture Washington State Department of Fisheries James Hawthorne Bud Parker Earl Finni. Charles Henry Joe Robel . Richard Hibbard - - Peter Machno D-ivision of Land Use Management Theodore Mallory Washington State Department of Ecology Robert Matsuda Robert Edmundson Leo Morales Edward Sands Gordon Wegwart Geof Short King County Property Ma na emeat Washington State Department of Social 6 Health Services City of Renton Joe Piecuch Alvin Koch - Robert Bergstrom Keith Wang Gordon Erickson Warren Gonnason Environmental Protection Agency ,. Richard Houghton Seattle-King County Health Department ` . Gary Kruger Charles Float James Magstadt William Heaton Norman Glenn Mike Smith Anne Jenson Mounir Touma � U. S. Army Corps of Engineers • Puget Sound Governmental Conference _ King County Water District No. 107 Walter Farrar Steven Holt Sam Macrf Donald Pethick Jan Pilskoy Kramer, Chinn 6 Mayo King County Department of Public Works Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency Roger Frye - Division of Hydraulics Tom Kearn M. V. Svoboda Richard Warren Ed Andrusky Jerry Creek George Wannamaker Washington State Department of Game Quendall Terminal Company-Renton Douglas Bellingham John 0. Norman - King County Park. Department James DeShazo Eugene Dziedzic Robert Jacobs Kenneth Tupper COMMUNITY FACILITIES PLAN FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS UNDER PL 92 — 500 MAY CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN c FINAL VOLUME ENVIRONMENTAL IIIA � F I E I E I LT ASSESSMENT FOR SEWER INTERCEPTORS KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NO. 107 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL - KING COUNTY MAZER DISTRICT NO. 107 C. Carey uonwortG, Chairman Henry F. McCullough, Commissioner Stanley P. Kersey, Auburn Elmer Foster, Gommissioner n., . (Mel) Vanik, Bellevue John R. Janson, Commissioner wl Isabel itogan, Kent Sam Ma ri, Manager Robert L. Neir, Kirkland _ Aubrey Davi. , Jr., Mercer Island Charles UeLaurenti, Renton Wes L"nlman, Seat le James K. Bender, Seattle George Benson, Seattle Tim Hill, Seattle Paul Kraabel, Seattle Phyllis Lamphere, Seattle Wayne D. Larkin, Seattle John R. Hiller, Seattle Randy Revelle, Seattle ` Sam Smith, Seattle .x - Jeanette Williams, Seattle a; CITY OF R_ENTON Selwyn L. "Bud" Young: Other Cities - John D. Spallrian, King County Charles DeLaurenti, Mayor Paul Barden, King County i Earl Clymer, Councilman Ruby Chow, F._ng County George Perry, Councilman Robert B. Ou ui, King County Kenneth Bruce, Councilman Michael Lowry, King County William Grant, Councilman. R. R. Grieve, King County Richard Stredicke, Councilman Dave Mooney, King County Patricia Seymour, Councilwoman Tracy J. Owen, King County Robert E. Mc'Ieth, Councilman ' " "� Bill Reams, King County Warren Gonna;ion, Director of Public Works Bernice Stern, King County Paul Nanassy, Jr., Unincorporated Areas L. Thomas Eckstra^.d. Unincorporated Areas - 5 9 C John, Fournier, Jr., Unir.-- rporated Areas Jim Shahan, Unincorporated Areas A. Dean Worthington, Unincorporated Areas Hanford B. Choate, Sewer Districts kichard S. Page, Executive Director ,. a. - .r. _ ....=:: ems ._ac-..—: •--�� COMMUNITY FACILI':IES PLAN FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS IN THE MAY CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN JANUARY 1976 s VOLUME IIIA FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMFNT _ ..... }}r i KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NO. 107 CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN SEATTLE € r .: MOORE, WALLACE 6 KENNEDY, INC. _ ENGINEERS-SURVEYORS-PLANNERS _ - 1915 FIRST AVENUE SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 - r TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Page SUMMARY SHEET v Aquatic Life 7 f i_ RECIPIENTS OF THIS DOCUMENT vii Wildlife 8 DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT 1 Air Quality 8 1 Introduction 1 Social Economic Conditions 10 - , Sever Service Area 1 Co=tunity Plans 10 1. Co®unities Within or Bordering the May Population Projections 10 creek Service Area 1 Existing Traffic 13 City of Renton 1 Bus Service 13 - Newport Hills I PROPOSED ACTION 15 Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle 1 Purpose of the Proposed Action 15 -.. Ging County Water District Ne. 107 2 Design Criteria 15 1. Physical Characteristics 2 Description of Proposed Project 15 Geology 2 Construction Permits, Reviews, Approvals 20 Soilb of the Area 2 Financing 20 Sn11a Along May (.reek 4 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION 22 `r Drainage 4 Description of the Future Environment - t. Vegetation of the Basin 5 Without the Proposed Action 22 c Water Quality 5 # F TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd) Page P-� T Development of Sewer Extensions, 22 Southeast Interceptor Sewer 32 Lift Stations and Force Mains Northeast Interceptor Sewer 32 Continued Pollution From Small Areas 23 Lower Northwest Interceptor Sewer 33 Where Sewers Cannot Be Built Environmental Impact of Interceptors for Alternative "B" 33 The Potential for Larger Home Sites 23 Envtromaentai Impact of Interceptors for Evaluation of Action Alternatives 23 Alternative "C" 34 Alternate "A" and "A-A" 24 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 35 Alternate "B" 28 Primary Impact 35 Alternate "C" 28 Environmental Trade-Offs 35 Alternatives for Other Interceptor Lines 28 Construction in the Creek 35 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ON ALTERNATIVES TO PROPOSED Secondary Impact 36 ACTION 29 Population 36 Environmental Impact of Each Interceptor for Alternative "A" and "A-A" 29 Land Use 36 110th Avenue S.E. Interceptor Sewer 29 Environmental Impact on Fauna and Flora 37 May Creek Interceptor, Phase 1 29 Environmental Effect on Wat,_ Quality 37 Kennydale Interceptor Sewer System 30 Traffic 37 Honey Dew Interceptor Sewer 30 MITIGATING TWE ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT 38 May Creek Interceptor, PhaS� I1 31 MITIGATING THE ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT _ DUE TO CONSTRUCTION 39 Lake Boren Interceptor Sewer 32 ii TABLE OF �ONTENT`� (cont'd) i Page a a ADVERSE IMPACT WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED 40 Hap 3 - Proposed land Use Plan 12 Primary Impact 40 Hap 4 - Proposed Interceptor Sever Lines, Alternative "A" and "A-A" 17 Secondary Impact 40 Map 4A - Proposed Interceptor Sewer Lines, RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN'S Alternative "B" 25 - ENVIRONMENT AND MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF s BONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 40 Map 4B - Proposed Interceptor Sewer Lines, Alternative "C" 26 i IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF dESOURCES l WHICH WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED ACTION SHOULD APPEN➢IX 43 { IT BE IMPLEMENTED 40 CONCLUSION 41 Table 6 - Birds Within the May Creek TABLES (IN TEXT) Drainage Basin 44 Table 1 - Aquatic Life 7 Table 7 - Animal Wildlife Within the May _ Table 2 - Population 11 Creek Drainage Basin 45 i Table 2a - Population by Intercepto-- :service Area it Table 8 - Listing of Major Plant Life in Table 3 - Design Criteria 18 the Hay Creek Drainage Basin 46 ... { Table 4 - Interceptor Lines, Phase I 19 Table 9 - Seasonal Nutrient Concentration t Table 4a - Interceptor Lines, Phase II 19 at May Creek 48 1 Table 5 - Environmental Impact 41 Table 10 - Seasonal Nutrient Concentration at Lake Kathleen 48 MAPS i 3 Table 11 - Runoff Quality Summary, May Creek 49 E Map 1 - Vicinity Nap y y t Map 2 - Drainfield Failures 6 l i ism TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd) Page Exhibit "A" Fish and Fish Habitat Assessment, May Creek 51 Exhibit "B" Ma,- Creek Delta Observations 69 - Exhibit "C" May Creek Plant and Animal Life 71 - Drainage Ordinances 79 - - - Certification and Summary of Public Nearing 85 Comments and Responses 29 -- iv - i I I, a SUMMARY SHEET t Nature of this Report: Suo ry of Proposed Action: final Environmental Assessment The proposed action anticipates the construction of interceptor sewer lines in the western portion y Sponsor: of May Creek. These lines include: 1 King County Water District No. 107 1. May Creek Interceptor Sewer. Bellevue, Washington 2. Honey Dew Interceptor Sewer. 3. Kennydale Interceptor Sewer System, Contact: East and West. 4. 110th Avenue S.E. Interceptor Sewer. Mr. John R. Wallace, Jr. , P. E. 6 L. S. 5. Lover Northwest (S.E. 91st Street) Moore, Wallace b Kennedy, Inc. Interceptor Sewer. 1915 First Avenue 6. Northeast interceptor Sewer. Seattle, Washington 98101 7. Lake Set, Interceptor Sewer. 8. Southeast O.E. 96th Street) Tpe of Proposed Action: Interceptor Sewer. Construction of sewer interceptor lines Sumary of Environmental Impacts: in the western portion of the May Creek Drainage Basin. Ti-n environmental impact of the proposed action will he the removal of household sewage, which presently Official Title of Proposed Action: causes hes'th hazards, pollution of water courses, and nuisances. During construction, some removal of natural , Phase I and Phase II constrction of the elements will take place. Some sedimentation is also May Creek Interceptor and .Ls tributary likely to occur in the creeks. interceptor lines. Street construction wil. occi,r. This will inconvenience people during construction as well as bring about noise, dust, and cause traffic rerouting. A secondary impact of sever construction on the environsent is its effect on urbanization; without severs, land densities would be limited. Urbanization causes more rapid ground water runoff, changes in land contours, and subsequently greatly affects the environment. v The project which is a major action has insignificant adverse Summary of Alternatives: _ impact to the environment due to the careful mitigating efforts The following alternatives have been considereds proposed and those required by the various agencies controlling the construction of the project, which affects the primary 1. No action - the continuation of the present - impacts. Secondary impacts, such a5 population growth, is method of sewage disposal by use of septic tank- controlled by King County and City of Renton zoning ordinances. drainfields and by collecting sewage; then , Storm drainage runoff will be mitigated by King County pumping it to another drainage basin. Ordinance No. 2281 and the City of Renton' s drainage policy in the Nay Creek Drainage Basin. 2. Alternate routes for the interceptor - "s � .nstruction of interceptors at alternate . Primary impact will be mitigated by the use of hill holders, locations. ` replanting trees, reseeding, the use of light weight plastic pipe allowing use of small construction equipment, replacing F of spawn gravels in the creek, provision of fisheries protection Public Hearfnst: z t and improvement program, construction in the creek in July and A public hear'ng was lield on Monday, June 30, 1975 August only, the control of sedimentation during construction at S:CO p.m. , PDST, at the Renton City Hall in Renton, R and other technical provisions related to creek construction t as required by the State Departments of Fisheries and Came Washington. and the King County Park Department. Review Period: t The review period was from June 1, 1975 to _ July 15, 1975. Hearing Body: - The Board of commissioners for King County Water District No. 107 was the Hearing Body for this project. vi RECIPIENTS OF THIS DOCUMENT: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington State Highway Department, District it Attn: EIS Coordinator, Mr. Walt Jaspers Attn: Mr. C. Bogart, District Engineer 7 U. S. Army Corps of Engine Washington State Department of Fisheries Attn: Mr. Walt Farrar Attn: Y "'ilbert A. Holland F rfes Research Coordinator U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; Federal Disaster Assistance Washington State Department of Highways Attn: Mr. Bruce Davidson, Environmental Planner U. S. Department of Commerce; Western Regional Office Puget Sound Air Pollatfon Control Agency Attn: Mr. A. R. Dammkoehler Office of Community Development Executive Director Attn: Mr. Nicholas Lewis, State Planner Puget Sound Governmental Conference Washington State Department of Ecniogy Attn: Mr. Mart Kask Attn: Mr. John Biggs, Director Executive Director Mr. Gordon Wegwart King County Departmen- of Budget and Program Planning Washington State Ecological Commission Attn: Federal/State Relations Division (4) Attn: Dr. R. Masiey, Chairman '? King County Department of Community and Environmental Washington State Department of Social 6 Health Development Services - Water Supply and Waste Section Attn: Mr. Thomas Ryan, Director Attn: Mr. Robert E. Leaver, Planning Engineer King County Park Department Washington State Department of Game Attn: Mr. George Wyse Attn: Ass't Chief Environmental Management Divisior King County Water District No. 107 Mr. Kenneth Tupper Attn: Mr. Henry McCullough, Chairman Mr. Arnold Robbins vii e n aYy� RECIPIENTS OF THIS DOCL4IENT: (Cont'd) j King County Department of Hydraulics Mr. Mark G. Iozzio - Attn: Mr. Gecrge Wannamaker _ Mr. John C. Bar,.es King County Divisior. of Land Use Management Attn: Mr. Ed Sands Mr. Michael L. Smith Seattle-King County Department of ^ublic Health .,.. James E. Hurt j Attn: Dr. Lawrence Eergner, Director ' Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (MET'RD) _ Environmental Planning Division Attn: Mr. Peter S. Machno City of Renton ' Attn: Mr. Warren Gonnaso.n, Director of NOTICE -- Public Works Mr. Gordon Erickson, Director of Planning Only those Federal, State, Regional and -- Local agencies and interested persons who .' Q.endall Tervinal Company, Renr-on, Washington made substantive comments on the Draft EAS Attu: Mr. John 0. Norman, Manager or request a copy of the Final EAS will receive a Final EAS copy. Washington Environmental Council Sierra Club vifi - a DESCRIPTION 0 THE ENV,AONMENT i Introduction 3 The May Creek Drainage Basin is located in Metropolitan Seattle a half mile east of 138th Avenue o.E.. Map 1, Vicinity Map, - between the City of Kenton and Newport Hills, anO just east of shows the area concerned, and Map 3, Proposed Land Use Plan, lake Washington. The western portion of the May Creek Drainage shows the service areas. i Basin is urbanized, while the eastern portion is rural and contains rugged terrain, where elevations rise from 30L to 1200 Communities Within or Bordering the May Creek Service Aree feet. The w^stern portion of the drainage basin is very close to Renton City of Renton where concentration of industry occurs. Urban services such as public water supply, roads and highwgvs are incre sing the Renton, just touching the southwestern portion of the drainage + density in the western portion of May Creek, and a demand for basin, is the largest industrial employment center in the f wastewater treatment now exists. To meet this demand, it is Puget Souid Region. The City's daytime population of over e necessary to first develop sever intercept-, lines which would 70,000 dr.arfs its residential population of 26,250. Renton serve the urbanizing areas. The proposed interceptor sewer lines is the headquarters for the region's two largest employers, would connect to the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle the Boeing Company and Pacific Car and Foundry Company. - facilities, which provide for wastewater treatment for all Metropolitan Seattle. Newport Hills This environmental assessment is written to evaluate various Newport Hills is a suburban residential, unincorporated - - alternatives for •:ewer interceptor service in the western portion comuunity wit'. some c,-•mmereial developments that primarily of the May Creek Drainage Basin. The proposed action could serve local shopping reeds. Most homes in this area have bten result in the c.onstn,Ction of sewers within the next five years. built since 1960; the community contains a very high t percentage of young `amilies with school-age children. A purpose of this assessment is to meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the State of Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle Washington Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). METRO is a special purpose d strict which has been organized to provide interceptor seer lines and wastewater treatment - Sewer Service Area plant facilities for governmental agencies in the Seattle Metropolitan area. The original purpose for organizing METRO _ was to collect and treat r4stewater around Lake Washington. - Sewer interceptor lines will provide sewer servic, in the western portion of May Creek Drainage Basin. This area begins just east of Interstate Hiphvay 405 am: extends eastwardly to an area abogt d King Go%mty Water District No. 107 section is more than 5,000 feet thick. It contain= nirine invertebrate fossils that prove a Late Jurar3ic and Early Water District No. 107 is a special purpose district which Cretaceous age. supplies water and collects sewage wit in the boundary of the district. Water District No. 107 has been designated by METRO The Chuckanut Formation consists of nomi,arine sandstones and and Renton as the "lead" agency to apply for State and Federal shales of Early Tertiary age. They postdate the Cretaceous grants, plan and design sewer interceptors in the May Creek orogeny. Drainage Basin. Soils of the Area Physical Characteristics The soil of the is an important determiner of the vegetation, assoc °d animal life and other interrelated Geology characteristics. -r of the seven King County soil associations are found in the drainage basin. A soil Three differcnL formations dominate the geology of the western association is a landscape that has distinctive proportional fr+thills of the North Cascades. These are the Chilliwack patterns of soils and is named for the major soils of the Group, the Nooksack Group, and the Chuckanut Formation. association. The drainagF basin soil associations„are Everett, Alderwood, Beausite-Alderwood and Kitsap.` The The oldest is the Chilliwack Group. It consists of a typical Everett assoc+ation extends inland two miles from Lake eugeosyaclinal assemblage--dark sandstones, black shales, Washington and is north and south of May Creek. The thin beds of chert, and submarine lava flows. The Chilliwack Alderwood association is generally south of May Creek. The also contains some rather thick layers of limestone, Beausite-Alderwood association is north of May Creek. lenticular in form and seldom extending for more than a few Characteristics of these associations are: miles. They are locally of importance as host rocks i.,r ore deposits and as a source for a once-thriving cement industry. Everett Association: Somewhat excessively drained, The limestone contains most of the fossils found in the gravelly, gently undulating soils underlain by sand and Chilliwack Group - fossils as old as Middle Devonian and as gravel; on terraces. young as sandstones and shales of Early Tertiary age. They postdate the Cretaceous orogeny. Tt contains many gaps, or Alderwood Association: Moderately well. drained, unc_onformities, including an apparent absence of any strata undulating to hilly soils that have dense, very slowly of Mississippian age. The Chilliwack Group has nor been permeable glacial till at a depth of 20 t , 40 inches; studied in detail; its thickness exceeds 10,000 feet. on uplands and terraces. The Nooksack Group corsists of dark sandstones and shales Beausite-Alderwood Association: Well drained and made up for the most Fart of fragments of volcanic rock. It moderately well drained, gently rolling to very steep has been intensely folded and sheared locally by some of the soils that have sandstone or shale or dense, very slowly large Cretaceous thrust faults that cut through the foothills. permeable glacial till at a depth-of 20 to 40 inches; This deformation and the lithologic monotony of the Nooksack on uplands. make thickness determinations very difficult. Certainly, the -2- • i mv " -( i i rr �^ r Fd r s 4 Kitsap Association: Poorly drained, rapia runoff. Drainage Developed on eroded remnant of fine textured lacustrine sediments largely silt and clay. Kitsap with slopes of Present drainage problems include ponding and overbank 1 25 to 70 percent has a very significant slide potential. flooding in the upper and middle reaches of May Creek; erosion and sedimentation exist in the lower reaches and Soils Along May Creek middle seciiuua of Lite upper Creek. Stream flooding begins at 148rh Avenue S. E. and extends eastward to the Renton- The Soil Survey of King County describes the soil series of Issaquah Koad. The valley is extremely flat and its soil the area. A soil series is the soil profile, that is, the dr ins poorly. The flood plain, containing few buildings, sequence of layers from the surface downward to rock or other is presently used primarily for livestock pasture. As a underlying material. The soil most pr-valent along Mry Creek consequence, no major damage occurs 1n the flood season. : and having the greatest limitations is the Alderwood and Kitsap soils. Slopes are 25 to 70 percent. Distribution of Eiosion and sedimentation take place downstream of 136th the soil varies greatly within short distances. Drainage and Avenue S. E. on May Creek and downstream of the Renton- permeability vary. Runoff is rapid to very torpid, and the Issaquah Road (Sunset Blvd) on Honey Creek. A natural erosion erosion hazard is severe to very severe. Estimated properties process would be underway on May Creek, even without of the soils are given for the Alderwood and Kitsap soil urbanization; he problem has been intensified by uncontrolled series and others. The American Association of State Highway discharge of storm drains at the top of the natural system and Officials (AASHO) rating of the soil is A-1 or A-2, which is by generally increased runoff flows frow impervious urban a soil having the highest bearing strength. All the soils development. These higher runoff rates have accelerated the along Mav Creek are acid in reaction. The Alderwood soil erosi�-n process. series has a pH of 5.1-6.0. M esr.ima[ed 3,000 cubic yards of eroded material is depos._ted in the lower reaches_ of May Creek annually, just before it enterr Lake Washington. It forms a delta that is detrimental to the planned use of the area. The existing drainage problems will become more severe as increases in impervious areas bring about faster runoff. The total impervious area in this sub-basin is projected to increase from the existing 5 percent to approximately 15 percent of the total land use, as determined by a computer run by the Puget Sound Governmental Conference. r A computer simulation of fature runoff conditions was made as 1 McGee, Bates: Cascadia, the Geologic Evaluation cf the a part of the Urban Runoff and Basin. Drainage Study for the Pacific Northwest. McGraw-Hill Fublishing Company, 1972. Pg. 47. Green and Cedar Rivers. The model indicates that there will - Area, Washington. Soil be ir.=reased velocity and volume of water reaching the 2 Soil Survey of King County , Conservation Service, USDA, issued Area WT 1973. steeper, lower portion of May Creek prior to entering Lake Washington. This latter problem will accelerate bank erosion 3 Ibid. and sedimentation transpert and deposition at Lake Washington. N we -4- Damages that would occur, considering the existing drainage - cater. By comparison with the existing coliform count, which control system and future accelerated runoff conditions to is 1 x 10 coliform/100 ml., weak sewage has a coliform count '�•: the year 2000, are estimated to total approximately 17,000 o: 1 x 106 coliform/100 ml. This means that presently the - _ dollars per year (1974 dollars) . rhese damage costs are flow from May Creek is one hundredth the strength of weak reflective of additional sedimentation deposits at the mouth sewage. of r:iy Creek, as well as residential and crop inundation.5 y .. - Algae growth is an indication of the deterioration of water Vegetation of the Basin quality as well as a natural aging process in a body of water. Algae growth is stimulated when 0.015 mg/1 of phosphate or .; The May Creek Drainage Basin is predominately a woodland site 0. 3 mg/1 of nitrate are present in a calm body of water. s in its native stata. The area east of 136th Ave. S. E. and - Based on the existing water quality shown in Table 11 of the south of S. E. 96th Street (Coalfield Way) and adjacent to Appendix, the water in May Creek shows a deterioration in the creek have been cleared of the dominant species. The area - water quality. The water in Lake Kathleen presently has the has been planted to grasses such as orchard, Alta Fescue, Rye - nutrients to support algae. and Timothy. The grassed areas are mainly used as pasturage of livestock. Within the May Creek Drainage Basin, a large number of septic ,.. ' tank infield failures have taken place. These failures The climax species of the drainage basin are coniferous trees were noted on maps by the Seattle King County Heait-h Depart- such as Douglas fir, Western Hemlock and Western Red Cedar- ment, based on home sanit..ry sewage disposal system tests. The dominant deciduous tree is Red Alder. Red Alder commonly These maps are not evidence of all septic tank-drainfield invades logged-off areas. The soils of King County have been failures as only a small number of tests have been made in the grouped into 15 groups according to their suitability for wood area. Man 2 shows the results which were obtained from the crops. The potential productivity for the major woodland Health Department. group in the basin is 445-550 board feet per acre per year. Fail-re of septic tank-drainfields is seen when dye is A wide variety of algaes, liverworts and mosses are to be flushed from a toilet and found in drainage ditches or else- found in the May f'reek area. No detailed accounting was made where on the ground. Consequently, failure of septic tank- of these lower forms of plant life. A listing of major plants drainfields in any area is both a nuisance and a potential of the drainage basin is contained in Table 8 of the Appendix. - health hazard. - Water quality The seepage of septic tank-drainfields flows into bodies of water. In the case of the May Creek DrainagL. Basin, this Water quality of May 6Creek and Lake Kathleen were obtained ",3,, would be Lake Boren, Lake Kathleen, Lake Washington, May from METRO and RIBCO studies. These water quality tables are Creek, Honey Creek, and some of the unnamed creeks flowing reproduced in Table 11 of the Appendix. The tables discuss into May Creek. Sewers would correct this problem. coliform bacteria, phosphorous, nitrate and ammonia. Each of - these is an index of water quality. The presence of coliform - bacteria indicates that Numan or animal wastes are in the - -- a i ^' or"Wr. z .. __.-__ X °.G�eM'*'a4-r.°""i�y�q�"","axw.'.z-..�•r -.. 2� i d cV -Z I� J / ui 41 - cg k; V � ? J i1N , L n Q • LL � W t8 o + i According to the area sanitarian from the Seattle-King County Aquatic Life t Health Department, scattered areas in the May Creek Drainage Basin show some problems with which the Department is now The aquatic life in May Creek was obtained with an electro- concerned. In road ditches adjacent to the Assessor's plat fishing technique. This method provides a pulsating D. C. cf White Fence Ranch, the last coliform count shown was in the stimulus which causes fish to be temporarily immobilized. millions (mg%1). Drainfield failures are shown by Map No. 2. Four sample stations were established on May Creek and the in addition, scattered problems of dra:nfield failures are fish, shown in Table 1, were observed. showing up in the Lake Boren area. In addition to sewage, storm drainage flowing into the May TABLE 1 Creek receiving waters will bring with it sand and sedimen- tary material, litter, street oil, lead, lawn fertilizer, and AQUATIC LIFE IN MAY CREEK garden sprays, all of which have a deleterious effect on the ! quality of water in May Creek and Lake Washington. Common Name Scientific Name Occurrence i _ _ Coho Salmon Oncorhynchus Kisutch Rare Steelhead Trout .,a. . Occasioial �pg i S Cutthroat Trout S. Clarki Clarki 4.- s Sculpius Cottus Spp, Frequent Brook Lamprey Lamnetra Planeri Rare 1 ' i Li-erature surveyed indicates the availability of sockeye salmon and some chii.00k salmon in May Creek. i As in May Creek, the electrofishing technique was used to - }: determine fish in Honey Creek. Fish caught in the lower 4 U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Appendix A to the Final third of Honey Creek resembled fish of May Creek. Honey Creek Reert. Urban Runoff and Basin Drainage Study. Green and Cedar provides spawning ground for cutthroat trout in its lower f River Basins of Washington, July 1474, C-16. reaches; habitat for sculpins also exists. Above the culvert of N. E. 2. th Street, Honey Creek provides almost no fish i 5 Ibid. habitat. f 6 River Basin Coordinating Committee _ P P —7- May Creek is presently in a precarious condition with respect to Wildlife fish life. Human activities, natural erosion processes, and the effect of urbanization have had their harmful effects on fish A listing of birds either found within the May Creek Lrainage life in May Creek. It is impossible to estimate which of the Basin or anticipated to be in the Basin is listed in '. ible 5 activities have been most harmful to fish life in the past; of the Appendix. Protected birds are found only on rare however, the continuation of present practices would provide a occasions. The listing of birds was obtained from secondary diminishing environment for fish to propagate. sources. The Washington State Department of Gar�aB provided a list of birds that are expected to be located within. the Basin Human activities include both ] r,,al and illegal fishing. They and a listing of birds was obtained from the Fish and wildlife also include carelessness and vandalism, which can be extremely Study performed for the Puget Sound and Adjacent Waters report.q harmful to fish life. It is impossible to assess the effect of human, activities on fish life, either with a trail or without a The animal wildlife that can be expected to be found in the trail. It is possible that a trail as proposed in this project May Creek Drainage Basin is listed in Table 7 of the Appendix. in the King County Park would make May Creek more accessible to As with birds, the wildlife expected in the area was obtained people, and thereby reduce both willful vandalism and illegal from the Washington State Department of Game10 and the Puget fishing because of the greater number of people present. The Sound and Adjacent Waters study. 11 fact that King County has ownership of this park land may mean that more onsite regulations would be imposed by the County. Air Quality The erosion of the banks is a natural process. Even without The present air quality within the May Creek Drainage Basin is further urbanization and additional surface drainage runoff, the below the standard which requires a halt in building permits.12 erosion process would continue. The effect of this erosion is Consequently, building may progress in this area. Air quality narmful as sedimentation in the creek reduces fish population. is affected by: Present urbanization has caused an increase in surface drainage, 1. Automobile exhaust. which changes existing channels and causes flooding and washouts, 2. House heating. all of which is deleterious to existing fish life. 3. Burning. 4. Construction activity. According to the Washington State Department of Fisheries, a 5. industrial air pollution. rough estimate of fish capacity in May Creek is:7 Automobile exhaust, home heating and construction are direct Sockeye Salmon 300 to 500 adults functions of population in the Basin. As the population grows, these three activities will likewise increase. Coho Salmon 250 to 500 adults Burning, on the other hand, requires permits from the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency. Almost all open burning Kokanee Salmon 2,000 to 3,000 adults has been prohibited in King County. A complete report entitled "Fish and Fish haoitat Assessment," on the aquatic life in May Creek and Honey Creek is included in the Appendix. _B_ 1. Electrofishing in May Creek. Net is across creek. 2. Closeup of Electro- fishing. 1 2 3. Catching stunned fish. 4. Measuring, sorting and 0 returning fish to May t / Creek. s 3 4 There are only a few small industries within the May Creek Social-Economic Conditions Drainage Basin. These industries include a creosote plant Community Plans and several gravel pits. Industries or industrial expansion would not be affected by sewers proposed for the May Creek Drainage Basin, since they are already served by existing The plans for the western portion of the May Creek Drainage Basin have been developed by the City of Renton King County, sewer lines. and coordinated with the Puget Sound Governmental Conference, a regional planning agency. These plans call for the urbanization of the area, primarily residential land development. See Mai 3, P-oposed Land Use Plan. The Brown and Caldwell Metropolitan Seattle Sewage and Drainage Survey, March 1958, is a comprehensive sewerage plan that was adopted by METRO and King County as their .1 official Comprehensive Plan. This plan is the first reference to a sewer line for the May Creek Drainage Basin. A recent drzft study by RIBCO, A Summary of Studies and roposa Pls, January 1975, proposes sever lines for the May Creek Basin. Population Projections The population projections, with and without sewers, are shown 7 Telephone conversation with Mr. Richard Laramy. in Table 2. These population projections are based upon past building trends, anticipated restrictions if sewers were not 8 Washington State Department of Game, 1975. to be built, and community plans, as developed by local ^ government. 9 Pacific Northwest River Basic Comc.ission, Puget Sound To obtain the existing population, a count of dwelling and Adjacent Waters, Appendix 11, October 1970. units was made in Water District No. 107 and in Renton. Other population in the Basin was estimated from 1970 aerial 10 Op. Cite, Washington State Department of Game. photographs. Volume I13 explains the basis of the projected 11 Op. Cite, Puget Sound and Adjacent Waters, Appendix 11. population more fully for Columns 1-3. 12 Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency, May Table 2 shows five columns. The first column refers to the quality in the May Creek Drainage Basin is below the Sttandaanda rd of Air year. The next three columns are estimated population projections for the May Creek Drainage Basin if sewers are Concern. The Standards of Concern exist if 60 micrograms/cubic built. The last column shows the assum-d minimum population, meter of suspended solids exist in the air. At the present time, if no new sewers were to be constructed. The last column only 35 micrograms/cubic meter of suspended solids are in the May is intended to provide a dramatic comparison with the previous Creek Drainage Basin. cclumns, . Mowing how sewers can affect population densities. 10 -10- TABLE 2 Tab17 2A . hows the existing population, year 2000 projected population, and saturation population which will be served by POPULATION PROJECTION IN THE MAY CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN each ind_-viduai sewer interceptor that is considered in this - - - environmental assessment. Upper Range Est. Minimal _ Lower Range Medium Range With Sewers Population Year With Sewers With Sewers Design Pop. Without Sewer 1970 5,800 5,800 5,800 5,800 TABLE 2A 1975 7,300 7,300 7,300 7,300 EXISTING, PROJECTED AND SATURATION POPULATION 1480 4,000 9,400 9,600 9,000 19$5 10,500 11,000 i,500 9,500 BY S61EP INTERCEPTOR SERVICE AREA 1990 12,000 14,000 15,500 10,000 Population 1995 13,500 16.200 18,500 10,500 Interceptor 1975 2000 Saturation 2000 14,500 18,000 21,000 11,000 Kennydale 1,510 2,445 4,200 2005 15,500 19,500 24,000 11,200 Honey Dew i,820 4,560 11,100 2010 16,500 21,200 27,000 11,400 Southeast 380 1,310 3,800 2015 17,700 23,100 29,700 11,500 110th Avenue S.E. 340 720 2,400 2020 18,800 25,000 32,200 11,700 Lower Northwest 520 1.110 2,900 2025 19,900 26,600 34,000 11,800 Lake Boren 480 2,175 6,200 2030 21,000 27,500 36,000 12,000 Northeast 250 1,020 2,600 May Creek 60 250 700 _ 5,360 13,590 33,900 tYb ;R _1t- 20� (/ Co ' CL LU LiJ YYY ; � � CLI ILL \ CL h to ly dl �, a yp W i W o i � i � s A shortcoming of estimating population without sewers is that Existing Traffic it fails to consider piecemeal interim sewer extensions. For example, the City of Renton will build sewers =n the Apollo The present traffic along Interstate Highway 405 is 48,500 and Hazen High School service areas, and connect to existing vehicles per day, while the traffic along Renton-Issaquah pumping stations on an interim basis. This sewage will be Road (SR 900) is 10,300 vehicles per day. These two highways pumped to other drainage basins. Other pumping stations are the principal arterial streets within the May Creek may be constructed in a continuing leap frog pattern. Drainage Basin and provide an indiction of the extensive use of traffic in the Basin. Almost all of the interstate highway j Without construction of new interceptors, there would be a traffic_ is through traffic, while SR 900 traffic is limit to the amount of new sewers that can be -onstructed in predominantly local traffic. this manner. Bus Service Table 2 was made up on the basis of early population projec- t tions of the Puget Sound Governmental Conference (PSGC) . Metro Transit presently serves Renton and Newport Hills. As Revised PSGC projections indicate that future population the May Creek area urbanizes, demand for public transporta;.ior is more likely to approach the lower range population growth is likely to increase. Increased transit demand could bring curve than the median or upper range projections. Ir that about more frequent service, which may teduce the overall event, population increase, due to sewe-s, will be only dependence on the automobile. 3,500 by the year 2000. The secondary impact of population growth due to sewers would be extremely small. It was assumed that for three years the population growth in the study area would be unaffected by sewers. Thereafter, popu- lation growth would begin to decline considerably as the lack of sewers in the drainage basin would limit land subdivision, limit new building permits, and require changes in the 1 comprehensive plan of the various governmental units towards larger lot sizes. Larger lots would be more expensive, requiring a more expensive home, thereby limitin@ the market considerably. i 13 Moore, Wallace 6 Kennedy, Inc., Comprehensiv- Sewerage t Plan for the May Creek Drainage Basin, May 1975, -13- 1 " s. PROPOSED ACTION 1 Purpose of Proposed Action The purpose (.. ,providing sewer interceptor lines in the western will be 1n or near the bottom of the creek; occasional portion of the: May Creek Drainage Basin is to implement existing construction may be above ground, with an elevated line, so that comprehensive land use plans of local governments which call for the grade will be as constant as possible. higher- land densities. The long range plans for King County, METRO, Renton, and Water District No. 107 provide for sewers in It is antit _pated that al ' property within May Creek will he owned the western portion of May CreeK prior to 1960. by the King County Park Department. It is proposed that a walkway be constructed after the sewer line has been installed. Wherever The proposed action is designed to inprove water quality. mitigate the overhead line is to be built, it will be boxed, and a wooden 0 the existing 'iealth hazard, and provide for orderly land guard rail will be installed Lo enible people to walk on the top developmec.c. of the box. This will make the passive use of the park available to a broader spectrum of the population. Design Criteria A second condition of installing sewers in the park is that The design criteria used in this environmental a9 4 sessmeut was construction will leave as much natural vegetation as possible, established by METRO in its Comprehensive Plan. This criteria and restore the original )ndltinu as much as possible. Hydro- is set forth in Table 3. seeding is to be done after construction. Descrin_ tion of the Proposed Project A King County Use Peruit will be required in order to build on the King County segment of the road. The interceptor lines , roposed for this project are shown in Table 4 for Phase I and in Table 4A for .'hase I1. Each interceptor The maximum sewer size will not exceed 24 inches. Most sewers line is described, specifically, and the ables show the Length will be considerably smaller. and _stimated cost of each line. Map b d:ows the proposed interceptors. The Honey Dew Interceptor will be located in Honey Creek. Private property easements and King County Parks Department The sewer interceptors will traverse in or near Honey and May permits will be required before construction can begin. creeks, in existing city streets or county roads, or along abandoned railroad right-of-way. The Kennydale Interceptor System consists of three separate lines. The first line connects between the May Creek Interceptor The May Creek Interceptor Sewer will begin at METRO Manhole B, and S. E. 97th Street. This interceptor passes through the pro- then proceed along the existing Jones P.oad right-of-way until posed King County Park and then on private property easements, which Jones Read ends at May Creek. Tht-reafter, the sewer line will must be acquired. This line is designated the May Creek-Kennydale generally follow May Cre-k to 136th Avenue S. E. Construction Interceptor. Feeding into this interceptor are the East Kennydale -15- i and West Kennydale Interceptor. These seaers serve an area to As soon as the first phase of construction, is completed, the about N. E. 20th Street in Renton. These interceptors are second phase is expected to begin, approximately in 1977. This primarily on private easer-nts and on street right-of-way. second phase includes the completion of tle May Creek Interceptor Easements and permits must be of wined prior to construction. from Honey Creek to 13611h Avenue S. E. or Manhole D. The expectation for this early construction of the second phase is The 110th Avenue S.E. Interceptor traverses county roads on 110th based upon recognized public needs as indicated by Washington Ave. S.E., 110th Place S.E. and S.E. 88th Street. It empties State Department of Ecology (DOE), who has loaned money to Water into the existing Jones Avenue Interceptor. Permits to build on District No. 107 to plan and design interceptors in the urban - county streets must be obtained. portion of the May Creek Drainage Basin. This design is sched��7ed do .umpleted in early 1976. The lower Northwest Interceptor is a 1,050 foot long interceptor line that is primarily inside King County Park and on private easements. Permits for construction in the park and on easements must be obtained. This sewer emptie„ into the May Creek interceptor. The Northeast Interceptor is built on a former railroad grade (the railroad tracks were removed many years ago) . This interceptor drains into the Map Creek Interceptor Sewer. The Northeast Interceptor will be located almost entirely in the King County Park, where a permit for construction must be obtained. Private easements will be required where this line is to be built outside the Xing County Park. The Lake Boren Interceptor will be built from Lake Boren to the May Creek Interceptor and will be entirely on private easements. These easements must be obtained prior to construction. The Southeast Interceptor will be built on S. E. 96th Street and on 138th Avenue S. E. and will empty into the May Creek Interceptor. Permits to build on these streets must be obtained. 14 Brown & Caldwell, t iopolitan Seattle Sewage and Drainage Survey, March 1958. -16- MM f t TABLE 4 TABLE 4A - I i MAY CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN INTERCEPTOR SEWERS - PHASE I MAY CREEK DRAINAU BASIN INTERCEPTOR SEWERS - PHASE II � Estimated Estimated Length in Construction Length in Construction Interceptor Name Feet Cist in $1000 Interceptor Name Feet cost in $1000 May Creek Interceptor to Honey Creek 6,750 316 F'oney Creek to 136th Ave. S.E. 7,700 778 110th Avenue S.E. Interceptor 6,630 162 Lake Boren Interceptor 5,080 195 - j Kennydale Interceptor Systems; Southeast Interceptor 7,800 148 (1) Kennydale-Hay Creek Lower Northwest Interceptor Sewer 3,100 88 Interceptor 750 52 • Northeast Interceptor 7,140 165 j (2) East Kennydale Interceptor 6,980 157 (3) West Kennydale Interceptor 6,750 168 1 hone] Dew Interceptor 7,170 404 - _ - 1 t _ -15- r i Construction Permits, Reviews, Approvals Financin& Prior to beginning construction, the following reviews, permits This project is anticipated to be financed: and approvals are required: 75 percent from _ = U. S. Environmental Protection 1. A public hearing on the Community Facilities Plan. Agency. 2. A public hearing on the Environmental Assessment 15 percent from the Washington State Department of Statement. Ecology, Referendum No. 26 funds. 3. A Shoreline Management Permit from the City of Rei.^on. 10 percent from local agencies. 4. A Shoreline Management Special Use Permit from the It is anticipated that the May Creek Interceptor will be deeded to City of Renton. METRO as a METRO sewer. The other interceptors will be Renton and Water District No. 107 lines. 5. An approval. of Plans and Specifications by the Department of Ecology and Environmental Protection The interceptors will be paid for by the different owners from Agency. their funds. METRO will advance the local share for that portion of the system adjacent to May Creek. Viat advance will be 6. A Hydraulic Permit from the Washington State Department reimbursed to METRO by means of the current monthly charge made by of Game and the Washington State Department of Fisheries. METRO for each connected residence. King County Water District No. 107 and Penton have guaranteed the reimbursement. Renton 7. An approval ; the King County Park Department. would pay fa the local portira of Honey Dew, Kennydale and Southeast Interceptors from revenue bonds. Water District No. 107 8. An approval of Use Permits on City and County streets would pay for the local portion of the balance of the interceptors and roads. from revenue bonds. Lateral sewers will be built by Utility Local Improvement Districts and Developer Extensions. 9. Easements on private pr-;erty. i i -20- i 1. Flooding as it occurs, about 148th Avenue S.E. , .� 2. This illustrates the steepness of May Creek t as seen from 136th Ave- nue S.E. looking west. 1 a.' tr via w F M a' 1 r _ 4 1 2 1 3. Lower May Creek, near Honey Creek. ' 9J9 e: 4. Culvert at S.E. 93rd Street, lower May Creek. Y 71�-. ':••F` " ,� ", ..,' K 3 4 l ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION _Description of the Future Environment Without the Development of Sewer Extensions, Lift Stations and Force Mains Proposed Action ("No Action" Alternative) One action, which is presently taking place, is the random con- Without the development of interceptor sewers in the western struction of new sewers. These new sewers are conneci ,d to portion of the May Creek Drainage Basin, there would be a slowing existing pumping stations or sewer lines. An example of this of new construction and a possible change in local land use plans. action is the proposed construction of collection sewers in the City of Renton, near Hazen High School. Similar other projects In existing subdivisions that have been dev?loped, septic tank- can be anticipated. Wherever sewer lines cannot be built to drainfield failures have been noted by the King County Health connect to existing sewers 6y gravity, new lift stations would be Department. built, and sewage would be pumped to other areas. Examples of these failures are: The construction of sewer lines with lift stations would be expensive and energy consuming" Furthermore, the present Assessor's Plat of White Fence Ranch 26 failures collection sewer system is not designed to accommodate increased May Valley Highlands 21 failures loading. At some point in the future, the process of random - Hewitt's Addition 5 failures lateral sewer construction would either have to end or new _ Adams Vista "ital railure interceptor lines would have to be built to other drainage areas to accommodate these additions to the sewage system. In Adams Vista homes may not be reoccupied once an owner moves out, since septic tank-drainfield failures are severe. As use of The random construction of sewers, as they become "critically" Septic tank-drainfields continues, more failures can be needed has three disadvantages. First, lack of adequate and anticipated because the soil absorption will decline after many overall planning will tend to develop more lift stations than years of drainfield use. are needed because interim solutions are sought only for small specified areas; each area will attempt to find the cheapest The net effect of continued septic tank failure will be: solution for its specific and immediate needs. Second, there would be no overall plan to sewer the largest area possible with 1. Devel, --Ent of some sewers, lift stations, and the least cost. Collection sewers will be built by developers or pressure lines to take sewage to other drainage by the Local Improvement Dis_rict process, where only small, basins. (Lift stations are used to pump sewage.) designated areas are involved. Third, the lack of interceptor - severs would provide for sewer construction "by crisis"; small 2. Continued pollution of water courses and creation of areas would be sewered only as health hazards dictate a need health hazards where Eewers cannot be built. and critical conditions exist; preventive medicine, through the elimination of a possible health problem would not occur in a 3. Development of larger home sites and a reduction in "no action" alternative. the density. 22- The development of life stations would be expensive, both in through low density zoning is planned. However, higher density construction and maintenance. Furthermore, these lift stations single rpmily residential development is planned for most cf the use a large quantity of energy. In case of power failure, area w: _hin the drainage basin. alternate sources of power must be provided, f.:rther increasing Should no sewers be provided in some of the planned, higher the cost of multiple lift stations and energy requirements. density residential areas, then Larger lot sizes would be *equired to meet septic tank-drainfield area requirements. The courts have held that large lot sizes provide "exclusionary Continued Pollution From Small Areas Where Sewers Cannot zoning," which has been ruled illegal in some areas. Consequently, Be Built • a potential conflict between legal rulings and Health Department Without interceptor sewers, it takes more time to provide severs requirements might occur. in the critical areas, since one area will wait on another area's development. Many pockets (small areas) that reed sewers Existing water courses would continue to be affected by fecal may not be severed due to their location. The overall cost of bacteria and nitrates if sewers are not built. This pollution would ultimately endanger Lake Washington, the region's Largest sewers using a staggered construction program would be higher fresh water Lake. because a planned overall system with a minimum number of _ interceptor lines and pumping stations would not be available. Evaluation of Action Alternatives Many small areas now have liquids with high coliform counts in front of their homes due to septic tank-drainfield failures. There are a number of feasible alternatives in the development of For example, the Seattle-King County health Department has interceptor lines in the May Creek Drainage Basin. These alterna- , - tested water in front of the White Fence Ranch and found coli- tives are examined with respect to significant primary and form counts in the millions (mg/1). This leachate will find secondary environmental effects, and are discussed more fully itself going into creeks and eventually into Lake Washington. in the chapter on "Environmental Impact of the Proposed Action." Large acre lots are not presently planned in the western portion of the May Creek Drainage Basin except in the green-belt areas The h alternatives for the primary sewer interceptor in May Creek # around Honey Creek and May Creek. There an attempt is being made to conserve land in its natural state. Decreasing density in an „A„ - A line at or near the bottom of May Creek. _ urbanizing area may meat that many people wishing to live near This line would go from Manhole B to Manhole U their place of employment could not do so and may be required to within the King County Park. (See Map 4) ` commute to work for a greater distance than they might if they could live in the drainage basin. "A-A" _ A possible alternate in the construction near or in May Creek is an aboveground sewer line, which The Potential For Larger Home Sites would be built, on occasion, wherever the natural grade would otherwise require either abrupt changes Within areas that are subject to slides or to flooding, low in the sewer grade or a very deep ditch. This sewer density development is proposed as a cor.servation measure. In line would be boxed and a walkway with handrails will l fragile, natural areas along May Creek, land is presently pro- � be set on too of this box. (As a consequence, it �., posed to be placed in public ownership (King County Park). would make it easy for many people to enjoy walks Where public ownership is not possible, limited development - along the creek.) �v m -23- f Interceptor lines on each side of May Creek out of 3. Construction of the May Creek sewer from Manhole B _ the King County Park, using existing street right- to Hcney Creek (Phase 1) will require three May Creek of-way. (See Map 4A) crossings. These crossings will take place at a culvert, and near two bridges where existing street "C" - A combination of the above. (See Map 4B) crossings occur. The creek crossings will be nearly perpendicular to the creek, requiring few linear feet of direct work within May Creek. Approximately 12 Alternate "A" and "A-A" alder trees, ranging from 10" to 24" in diameter will be removed in a quarter-mile segment, between Honey The primary environmental effect of placing a sewer line in the Creek and the existing road. In this quarter-mile King County Park would be: segment the average distance of the proposed sewer line from the creek will be about 50 feet. 1. The potential development of a trail for human use exists; thereby, more people will go into a previously semi- 4. If an overhead sewer line is built, then a man-made inaccessible natural area. Human access will probably object will protrude in the middle of a natural park. be in itself a serious threat to the continuation of This man-made object could be made to look somewhat natural reproduction of resident and anadromous fish desirable by creating a footwalk on it; however, it in May Creek. Vandalism and/or habitat degradation would still contrast with its natural surroundings, due to human activity will greatly impact current aesthetically. wildlife use. 5. Preliminary routings within the May Creek Canyon 2. The removal of streamside vegetation for construction betweer Honey Creek and 136th Avenue S.E. indicate of this project will represent a very small percentage that about B creek crossings and about 500 linear of the total streamside cover. Special equipment feet of work in May Creek will be required for the utilizing a narrow construction clearing width will sewer line. be used. As a result, a minimal amount of ground will be destroyed. Hap 4 shows the proposed May Creek interceptor sewers if son- coverstruction were to take place in the May Creek Canyon. Although design of the project is not complete, it is Secondary interceptors are shown in such a manner that no anticipated that a total of twelve stream crossings lift stations are needed. will occur, some aerial. All of these crossings will be as near to perpendicular to the stream as possible. Previous const n ction in May Creel was accomplished in the lower reaches of the creek. At that time, successful rehabilia tion of the creek resulted. The rehabilitation of the creek should be equally success- ful where creek crossings occur due to the proposed action. -24- w a 1 A a �Nll Moo[if R� .'. ,�� , �� ,try�► �" �R. Y � � } a i oky 1 M&H g • -ter v r. Alter-.ate "B" Hap 4A shows an alternate of the proposed interceptor sewers The Honey Dew Interceptor can be built either in or near the without any construction in the May Creek Canyon. Secondary middle of Honey Creek, but unlike Hay Creek, there are no interceptors have been kept out of existing creeks, and maximum existing street rights-of-way or other areas available on use was made of lift stations. the top on either side of the canyon. There are a series of small ravines which connect into Honey Creek, thereby making Interceptors on each side of May Creek would not leave any direct it impractical to run one interceptor sewer at the top on detrimental effects on the environment, except during construction. each side. It is planned to construct the Honey Dew Inter- Some pumping stations would be required, which would be made to ceptor in the stream bed of Honey Creek from the upstream be aesthet'.cally harmonious with their surrounding areas. area to "Devil's Elbow," then on an abandoned road grade from "Devil's Elbow" to the conflux at May Creek. If the line is During construction the streets will be torn up, tr:.ffic will not constructed in the middle of Honey Creek, a series of lift be redirected, and construction noise, dust, and other incon- stations would be necessary. veniences will occur. By placing the sewer line in Honey Creek, existing flora would Alternate "C" be disturbed. Little or no fisheries exist upstream of "Devil's Elbow," therefore the impact will be negligible. The Alternate "C" would provide for a portion of the sewer line to disturbance of the flora in Hone 'reek would have an effect on be built near May Creek. The line adjacent to May Creek would wildlife. However, mitigating mea.,,._es could be taken to bo from Manhole B to Honey Creek, It would cross May C>:eek minimize the impact of constriction in the Creek. (See three times, as indicated above. The balance of the May Creek Maps 4A and 4B) Canyon would be left without sewers. The secondary sewers are d The interceptors serving other drainage area:, will be built designed to utilize as few lift stations as possible. Map 4B shows alternative C. primarily on existing street rights-of-way, aaseaents and an abandoned railroad grade. If interceptors were placed in Alternatives for Other Interceptor Lines alternate locations, there would be a greater chance that pumping or lift stations would be required. The pumping or lift stations The interceptor lines feeding into May Creek that will be are users of energy; however, no change in the impact on the built as part of this project are: environment would exist. Honey Dew Interceptor 110th Avenue S.E. Interceptor Kennydale Interceptor Northeast Interceptor - Lower Northwest Interceptor Southeast Interceptor - - Lake Boren Interceptor " r x _ZH- ' r ' F ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ON ALTERNATIVES TO PROPOSED ACTION f Environmental Impact of Each Interceptor for Alternative "A" May Creek Interceptor, Phase I and "A-A" The May Creek Interceptor, Phase I, will be built from existing Map No. 4 shows all of the proposed interceptor sewers. The Manhole B along S.E. 93rd Street to the confluence of Honey construction impact of all interceptors built on street rights- Creek and May Creek. This interceptor will cross May Creek three of-way or easements would be similar. Noise, dust, traffic times, along existing S.E. 93rd Street at a culvert and near two detours and other construction activities would be created and bridges. The line will be inside public street right-of-way would be similar in all areas. However, each line has different except for approximately 1,500 linear feet which lie in King impacts on the environment and is discussed individually for County Park Division property. Approximately 12 alder trees, long-range environmental impact. ranging from 10" to 24" in diameter, will be removed in this f area. 110th Avenue S.E. Interceptor Sewer The environmental impact of crossing May ..eek will be relatively The 110th Avenue S.E. Interceptor sewer is unique among the small. Work will be done in July and August, when fish will not interceptors discussed in this report. It is the only interceptor be greatly disturbed. Spawn ng rocks will be returned to their that flows into the proposed Jones Avenu, Interceptor Sewer. natural state, and the pipe will be, surrounded by rock, for its f protection. however, some minor sedimentation is likely to occur The 110th Avenue S.E. Interceptor is to be built on existing during construction. Construction methods and techniques must street right-of-way, except for a small segment of approximately satisfy the State Departments of Fisheries and Game and the King one-quarter mile, which will be on easements. Ground cover will County Park Department. Loss of trees will generally affect May be removed in the easement. Loss of ground cover will amount to Creek, since the trees provide some creek shade. However, new about one-quarter acre. Reseeding and/or tree replanting is tees may be planter to mitigate the impact of tiie loss of shade d expected to be done in this area. trees. The secondary effect of the 110th Avenue S.E. Interceptor Sewer As a sound engineering practice, the proposed sewer pipe which construction will be a gain in copulation in the service area, crosses May Creek must be imbedded in gravel. To protect the from about 340 in 1975 to approximately twice this population sewer line from shifts due to erosion and creek movement, a by the year 2000. This means that some new roads and about 100 protective gravel and r-..�k cover will be built around the pipe. ! new buildings will be constructed -n the service area by the year This protective cover has an effect which would be similar to 2000. With King County's surface drainage ordinance in effect, that of drop structures. Further erosion, due to the root% and little addition to peak surface drainage flow is expected to gravel construction, would be reduced. This could be a favorable occc - in this area d+• to road and building construction. The environmental trade-off, since some erosion is likely to occur direr. and secondary envirorn,atal impact of the construction of when the pipe is constructed. About 80 to 100 homes are expected the 110th Avenue S.E. Interceptor is considered to be insignifi- to be connected to this sewer line by the year 2000. E cant. The environmental impact of constructing the Hay Creek Inrerceptor Sewer, Phase 1, is considered �o be insignificant. -29- 1 � Kennydale Interceptor Sewer System The Kennydale Interceptor Sewer System consists of three inter- The overall environmental impact of interceptor seer construction ceptor lines. The Kennydale-Hay Creek Interceptor flows from in the Kennydale Interceptor System Area is considered to be about S.E. 96th Street to the May Creek Interceptor Sewer, through insignificant. the new King County Park. This segment of the Kennydale Inter- ceptor Sewer System is about 750 linen: feet. About one-quarter Honey Dew Interceptor Sewer acre of ground cover would be removed to construct this sewer. Since this sewer line goes through a park, hydruseedi..ng and The Honey Dew Interceptor is ;roposed to be built in Honey Creek landscaping will follow construction. The area will be restored from Union Avenue N.E. to the N.E. 27th Street culvert (Devil's to its original condition. Eloow). At the N.E. 27th Street Julvert, the sewer line is expected to leave Honey Creek and transverse an old road unt' l it The West Kennydale Interceptor Sewer is located on N.E. 20th joins the May Greek sewer. Street in Renton, adjacent to Jones Avenue N.E. and runs into the Kennydale-Hay Creek Interceptor Sewer. This line is about An alternate to the construction of the interceptor in Honey Creek 6,750 linear feet in length and is to be built on about 2,200 feet is the construction of two interceptors on each ridge above Honey of City streets and 4,500 feet ,f easements. Approximately one Creek so that construction within the creek would be avoided. acre of ground cover will be removed as a result of this action. The construction on ridges above the creek would provide some This ground cover is expected to be replaced with hydroseeding grenmd cover removal; however, hydroseeding and replanting would and/or landscaping. soon return the ground cover to its original state. The East Kennydale Interceptor Sewer runs along 116th Avenue S.E. Construction in the creek would be done in such a manner that and S.E. 98th Street. This lin-- is approximately 7,000 linear little sedimentation would occur in lower Honey Creek or May feet long, and about half this distance is in easements. About Creek. A holding pond or other method of collecting sedimentation one-half ac-e of ground cover will be removed and replaced due would be established at o, near the N.E. 27th Street Culvert. In to this action. addition, the cunstruction in Noney Creek would also provide for clearing both natural debris and garbage that has been dumped into Population growth In the Kennydale Interceptor System Area is Honey Creek. After construction, hydroseeding and tree planting expected to increase from about 1,500 in 1975 to 2,400 in the would occur :o restore the area to its natural condition. year 2000. Hal: this growth would not take place if the inter- ceptor sewer system were not built. Construction wi4.in Honey Creek would have a beneficial effect on the environment. The removal of garbage would end a source of In the Kennydale area many of the streets needed for future both aesthetic and water pollution. When the interceptor leaves development already exist. Consequently, the amount of surface the N.E. 27th Street Culvert, it would no longer be in Honey Greek. drainage runoff to be caused by new �,.,struction would be less Fish only habitate Honey Creek to the N.E. 27th Street Culvert, than in most newly developed areas. However, about 225 to 250 so no fish would be disturbed by construction. new houses are expected to be built by the year 2000 in this area, which may contribute to some additional surface drainage. -30- Sm SEEM r. - - - - _. A secondary impact of Honey Dew InterccpLnr _truction would be One of the environmental benefits of construction in May Creek is to provide a possibility for an increase in local population within that the interceptor must 1v physically protected from the cutting the drainage area from 1,820 to 4,j60 (see Table 2A) by the year action of the creek. This protection generally consists of heavy 2000. This would t2 due to the lifting of -urrent restrictions on rocks or gabions. The effect of this protection is similar, in - some respects, to that of drop structures. This would provide an septic tank use. Of the 2,740 new residents in the area by the environmental trade-off, since construction work would provide year 2000, about two-thirds, or some 1,800 new residents, would some sedimentation, and post constru-:tiur would reduce erosion. not La able to locate in this area if sewers were not built. However, new construction on existing sewer lines or new sewer The net environmental impact of the May Creek Sewer, Phase II, is line extensions would account for at least 300 to 500 more extremely small. During; construction the creek will be disturbed. residents in the area. Consequentiy, new popula ion impact, After construction May Creek may actually have less eros, pn than because of sewer interceptor lines, would amount to about 1,300 previously. to 1,S00 new _esidents. These new residents would require some 400 n^_w hom.c., and ancillary street pavement, driveways, and the Sirce no residential, connections will be placed in this inter- like. The 400 new homes would have some effect on surface ceptor, secondary impact would come only if the Lake Boren urainage, loss of ground cover for wildlife, and eha,.ges in Interceptor, Southeast Interceptor, Northeast Interceptor, and topography. Lower Northwest Intercept_ _ were to be built. These interceptors would make it possible to increase population from some 1,70n if the City of Renton will require onsite detention/retention people to about 6,000 by the year 2000. About two-thirds of this facilities, landscaping and other mitigating requirements, then new population growth would not be possible without new sewer the overall environmental impact o: the construction of the Honey construction. Thus, if all of the Phase II interceptors lis: ,d Dew Interceptor would be insignificant. above are constructed, an increase of about 3,000 peo;;'_e wou result as a direct outgrowth of sewer construction by the ye - May Creek Interceptor, Phase II 2000. This means tl. . abo c 850 new homes would be built b t,:e year 2000 as a result of the May Greek Interceptor and its _ The May Creek Inte-ceptor, Phase II, would be built from the tributary interceptors. coi.fluence of May and Honey Creeks to Manhole D, which is at 136th Avenue S.E. Construction of the May Creek Interceptor The King County surface drainage retention/detention requirements would be in the bottom of the May Creek Canyon. It is an t cipated make it mandatory for delwulopers to build storm drainage storage that some construction will occur in the creek bed a7ad a number of facilities to prevent peak flows from exceeding present peak flows. crossings, both aerial and under the creek bed, will be required. As a consequence, the secondary environmental impact of the 850 Creek �onstraction could be harmful to fish life; however, if new homes on surf drainage should be insignificant. construction is done in July and August, and care is taken to viris,lze sedimentation, the negative impact or, ish could be kept The overall environmental impact of the May Creek Interceptor. to a mi:,imum. A-'-c- construction, the creek b, . would be rebuilt. Phase II would be nagligible. The a.,�a a�:jscent to the creek, where construction took place, » .,d be hydr.,,, ued and landscaped. WLcrever possible, trees would be replanted to provide creek shade. Construction methods and techniques must satisfy the State Departments of Fisheries and Game and the King County Park Department. -31- Lake Boren Interceptor Sewer The Lake Soren interceptor is scheduled to be built on easements The present population in the Southeast Interceptor Service Area from the a -'kern end of Lake Buren to May Creek. The interceptor is about 380 people. By the year 2000, this population is expected sewer wou � built on easements west of 136th Avenue S.E. to grow to 1,310, or about 900 more people. Less than half these This interceptor is estimated to be 5,080 linear feet and would people would move into the area if sewers were not available. �crve a present population or about 700 people. By the year 2000, Consequently, it is estimated that between 125 to 200 new houses an estimated 2,200 people would be served by this interceptor. will be constructed because sewers are installed in thip area. As a result of int:-rceptor construction, about 1} acres of ground The environmental impact due to the construction of the Southeast cover would be removed. Hyd seeding or replanting would be Sewer Interceptor is considered to be insignificant. done to mitigate this loss of ground cover. Northeast Interceptor Sewer The 1700 new people served by the Lake Boren Interceptor would require between 450 to 500 new homes by the year 2000. Additional The Northeast interceptor Sewer is to be constructed primarily s•irta a drainage caused by construction of these new homes would along an abandoned railroad right-of-way. It is ioc ad north of be minimized due to the King County requirements to have developer, May Creek and extends 7,140 linear feet. Or this abandoned provide surface drainage detention/retention facilities. railroad grade the ground cover has grown back and will be removed. About 1� acres of ground cover will be disturbed The environmental impact of the proposed action is considered to inside a public park; the area will be hydroseeded dad landscaped. be insignificant. The existing population within this interceptor's service area Southeast Interceptor Sewer is estimated to be 250 people. By the year 2000, about 1,020 pecple are expected to live in the Northeast Interceptor Sewer's The Southeast Interceptor Sewer runs along S.E. 96th Street from service area. About half the population growth is estimated Lo about 122nd Avenue S.E. to 132nd Avenue S.E. At that point the be indirectly due to the existence of the sewer. An increase of interceptor connects to the May C-eee. Intercepr-,r, Phase II. 250 to 300 housing units is estimated to take place within the Another portion of the Southeast Interceptor Sewer begins at about Northeast Interceptor Sewer' s service area in the next twenty- S.E. 104th Street, and runs northwesterly along 138th and 136th five years. Avenue S.E. to S.E. 96th Street, then along S.E. 96th Street to - - 132nd Avenue S.E. The length of this sewer line is about 7,800 - - linear feet. Approximately 150 tees will be in easements, while - the balance will be in public streets. %ess than one-tenth of - an acre of ground cover will be removed. The ground cover removed will be in a public park and hydroseeding and landscaping will be bone to replace any damage. The long-term direct - envirormen'_al impact of this acticr. will be insignificant. ;• ", -32- f Lower Northwest Interceptor Sewer The Lower Northwest Interceptor Sewer extends from the Seattle The East Ke,tnydale Interceptor Sewer uld be constructed as Power Transmission Lire Easement and S.E. 89th Place in a proposed in Alternative "A." Instea of emptying into the May southwesterly direction to the May Creek Interceptor. There are Creek Interceptor Sewer, the East K....nydale Interceptor Sewer presently about 500 people in this interceptor sewer service a.aa. woula empty into an existing seweL interceptor at S.E. 97th By the year 2000, this population is expected to double. Abo t Street. The environmental impact of constructing the East two-thirds of the population growth in this area is attributed to Kenvydale Interceptor Sewer is considered to be insignificant sewer construction. since little ground cover is to be removed and °ew new homes would be built as a result of this action. The Lower Northwest Interceptor Sewer will be 2,100 linear feet in length. All of it will be built in easements. Abc"t three The West Kennyddle Interceptor newer would be built in approximately quarter acres of ground cover will oe removed. About one-third the same manner as in Alternative "A"; however, the interceptor of the ground cover will be on public park land. All disturbed world gain to a force main near ?ones Avenue N.E. and N.L. 25th ground cover will be hydroseeded and/or landscaped. Street. The force main would run southward to N.r 20th Street and Jones Avenue N.E., where it would empty into an existing The environmental impact of this action is considered to be initary sewer. insignificant. The environmental impact of constructing the West Kennydale Environmental Impact of Intercep ors for Alternative "B" Interceptor Sewer is considered to be insignificant since little ground cover will be removed, and few new homes will be built as Alternative "B" is a Ian in which sewers would not b- a result of this action. placed in any of the major creek beds. The May Creek Sewer Interceptors woul entirely eliminated in this alternative. "forth of May Creek, the proposed sewer lines to be built in The Honey Dew In or Sewer would be changed so that a torte Alternative ' B' would be joined by a number of pumping stations. main from Union A.-. N.E. and 12th Street N.E. would take sewage These would mo,,e sewage froL; one interceptor to another, proceed- across Interstate Highway 405 on N.E. 8[h Street. (See Map 4A) I ins from az •ss to the east to existing sewers to the west. This compares co Alternative "A" where no pumping stations were used. The Southeast Interceptor Sewer System would be similar to Alternative "A," except that a pumping rtation would be placed The Lake Boren Interceptor Sewer would be built adjacent to the at the intersection of S.E. 132nd Street and S.E. 96th Street. lake Boren Road (136th Avenue S.E. J. Sewage would be pumped to From that point, a force main wool] be built along 132nd Avenue S.E. the Lake Boren Interceptor from about S.E. 91st Street and 133rd to the Honey Dew Interceptor. Avenue S.E. to S.E. 89th Street. Sewage would then be pumped by a second pumping station from the lake Boren Road to the Northeast The entire Southeast Interceptor Sewer would be on existing streets. Interceptor Sewer. Since no ground cover would be moved and limited growth would occur in thi- area, no significant environmental impact would take place - as a result of the construction of the Southeast Interceptor Sewer. -33- i t Sewage would again be pumped from about S.E. 93rd Street and The force mains would be built primarily in existing streets to 120th Avenue S.E. to the 110th Avenue Southeast Interceptor, the Northeast Interceptor. Sewage handled by the Lower Northwest Interceptor Sewer would be pumped northward o. 116th Avenue S.E. to tho 110th Avenue Southeast The environmental impact of construction of the Lake Boren Interceptor Sewer. Tnterceptor Sewer is considered to be insignificant. The environmental impact of installing the proposed sewer inter- ceptors north of May Creek is considered to be 'nsignificant. _ Environmental Impact of Interceptors For Alternative "_C" If Alternative "C" were to be built, the May Creek Interceptor, _ Phase I, Kennydale Interceptor, Honey Dew Interceptor, Lower :northwest Interceptor, and Northeast Interceptor would be unchanged from Alternative "A." The sewer line in May Creek east of Honey Creek would be eliminated. The Southeast Interceptor Sewer would be built similar to Alternatives "A" at ' "A-A." Instead of having the sewage gravity flow into the May Ci-ek Interceptor, there would be a pumping station at 132nd Avenue S.E. and S.E. 96t:. Street. A force ma' ., would be built to S.E. 100th Street, where a gravity sewer line would flow into the Honey Dew Interceptor. Approximately one- half acre of ground cover would be removed on easements, then hydroseeded and/or landscaped. The environmental impact of building this sewer is deemed be insignificant. The Lake Boren Sewer Interceptor would oe similar in Alternative "C" to Alternative "A" from Lake Boren to about S.E. 88th Street. Two pumping stations would then be required at: 1. S.E. 89th Place and 133rd Avenue S.E., and 2. S.E. 91st Street and 133rd Av,aue S.E. ' -34- ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE F >ED ACTION - Primar_y Impact Environmental Trade-Offs The proposed action will leave the following positive impacts: The direct impact, due to construction of the May Creek - Interceptor and Honey Dew Interceptor, will cause damage 1. Assist in decreasing the rate of pollution of lakes to the environment. However, mitigating measures that will and rtreams in the May Creek Drainage Basin. be taken will not only minimize the damage done by this construction, but will also restora the environment to its - 2. Improve the health randitions where sewers cannot now original condition and improve fish production and the -be built and where septic tank-drainfield failures stream. occur. Construction in the Creek 3. Satisfy the King County Health Department directives for sewering areas within the May Creek Drainage Basin. Soil, plant anu wildlife habitat will i,e disturbed as a - result of construction activity. This activity will be 4. Meet the goals of local comprehensive plans by enabling most severe ujlaud from the intersection of Honey Creek and the western portion of the May Creek Drainage Basin to May Creek where May Creek will :rossed a number of times, meet its Land Use Density Plan. and construction in the creek will take place. Construction activities will leave severe impacts on the creek environs. 5. Be consistent with the long-range plans for METRO. Effective restoration would require a concerted effort to replace and maintain spawning gravel and to assure effective 6. Reduce erosion of r _y Creek's banks. bank vegetation regrowth and soil stability. 7. Reduce szdimentation in the delta. Low-flow construction, during July and August, will nave a minimai effect on fish, as indicated in Exhibit A. Tables - 8. Improve Fish production. 5 and 6. Sculpins will be hu,c most from ,July and August construction. Feilure tc solve local sewage disposal problems within the May Creek Drainage Basin would compound current problems of septic The crossing of the creek by sewer construction in the tank-d-s* ,field failureF. development programs, and sound lower reaches of May Creek will require the use of rocks ut.lizs•_ „ of land. around the pipe for protection of the pipe. This rock bedding and cover 11 have a positive _,f:ect, slowing down the erosion ., ti:" creek's banks. 1 i -35- ! f f i .P YY.,. R'•fy-CAW y.-� ..,�Y.'< `" , _.� .__ ....rav: .... ..' �...uaa. There are areas wh,;re construction in the toe of the slope Basin is shown by Figure 1 . The population projection could begin a process of hill erosion. In order to indicates that growth will continue at approximately the prevent this from happening, hill holders must be present rate until 1980. Thereafter, the population growth installed. These hill holders take several forms and are will decline as building permits will be issued more set in the hill at various locations. Once in place, the selectively. Table 2 shows population projections for various hilt holders _e not removed, and will possibly slow considerations. natural erosion due to surface drainage. By the year 2000, withou' sewers 11,000 people are estimated 4 A foot trail will be constructed, which will make it to live ir. the May Creek .)rainage Basin, compared to a 1 Ppay for people to walk along May Creek. This foot path population that ranges between 14,500 and 21,000, should i will affect wildlife, since it will bring more humans to sewers be built. By the year 2030, there are estimated to be a relatively undisturbed area. Traii bikes may be used on 1 ..,000 peopli in the May Creek Drainage Basin without sewers, th,: trail, which would bring about noise and disturb the while a range of between ..1,000 and 36,000 people would live area in the drainage basin 'could sewers be built. t Secondary Environme .cal Impact of the PE!jLosed Action Land Use I t The secondary environmental impact of the proposed action is The proposed Land Use Plan, shown on Map 3, indicates an + urbanization of the western portion of the drainag- basin, difficult to measure, since net all sec,-nary impact is directly which would correspond to the population projection shown for due to t:.e constrr-t'on of interceptor . rs. However, much of the urbanization n will take place between 1980 and 2030 will the medium or upper range of Table 2. A basic co-sideration be aided or accelerated by the construction of sewers. in the development of the Comprehensive Sewerage P13n, Land Use Plan, and population projection was that sewers would be ; Loyulation built within the next five years, thereby encouraging a spurt ' in population growth in ,he wester. portion of the Basin and r Growth of population in the 'nay Creek Drainage Basi- will ultimate changes in land use. depend directly on the ability of the government agency to supply sewers in the area. Lack of interceptors will. limit Apartment house construction, which is already taking place, the ability of the land to hold people. will increase during the next two decades as demand for rental and smaller housing units are being met. New s. �,pping witFi* t.,e Comprehensive Plan, one of the considerations centers and other facilities that serve a growing resit atial for the continued growth of the May Creek Drainage Basin population are expected to be built. . has been that the western urban portion of the May Creek Drainage Basin will obtain sewers within the next three years. Wit' ,ut sewers, the King County Health Department will become less likely to issue septic tank-drainfield permits to people wishing to build homes in the area. The resultant population projection for the May Creek Drainage -36- _. :'9 ,...n �, 'u'-.rx(i�.a..-: ,... _.�..�.._. .. - - - _ :ir�= d ,� �--_ ..�-.- Y:.:..rr. �^.... -..,c _ ` .. __i i�aib< •:�i1LTlI s 4 Environmental Impact on Fauna and Flora As urbanization takes place, it will cause the clearing, The effect of the increased traffic on air quality is difficult grading, cutting and filling of soil, modifying the surface to assess. Inti-pollution equipment on automobiles will change topography. It will also cause the removal of existing ground the exiisfust asi`=sions so that future exhaust fumes may not be cover and its replacement by man-made surface conditions, a major _frata- n air pollution. On the other hand, any major increase in traffic will bring about dust and air particles. As axis ing ground cover is removed, food for wildlife would be -ik -w -e reduced; animals in the urbanizing area would be lore love to other areas and compete with native animals thet ood. Consequently, the net effect wouli be that - ---. wild ould be reduced as their feeding grounds are eliminated. - -. Environmental Effect on Water Quality The population growth which sewers bring about would create _ additional surface runoffs. Storm drainage f'.owing into the May Creek receiving waters will bring with it sand and sedimentary material, litter, street oil, lead, lawn fertilizer and garden sprays, all of which have a deleterfou f.fect on the quality of water in May Creek and Lake Washingto,.. King County Ordinance No. 2281 (in appendix) requires retention/ detention facilities which would mitigate some of these effects. t raffic Urbanization will bring with it additional traffic. A design - _ - population of 21,000 and 36,000 is pr jetted for the years - 2000 and 2030, respectively. There could be 5,550 housing units in the year 2000 and 10,000 in the year 2030. If each unit generates about 7.5 trips per unit per day, there would be 41,500 daily automobile trips generated in the Basin in the year 2000 and 75,000 in the year 2030. The traffic :will create extensive pressure on existing streets and highways. .• - -37- MITIGATING THE ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT _ Population growth and changes in land use in the May Creek cover and grasses help prevent serious erosion; they break the rainage Basin can be controlled with good planning. This impact of rain drops and hold the soil in place with their roots. :arming would include plan for the location of various uses, .ensity of housing, and plans for future transportation of people Trees are the first interceptor; shrubs are the secondary level of in the area. The protection of land having steep slopes through interceptors; the last level of interception is ground level zoning, slope legislation, and other regulations which would plants, such as grasses, falling leaves and mulches. Tree inhibit future erosion of properties, is possiblt, and can be done. interceptors should be native to the area. Secondary interceptors As a consequence, loca'. control can impose a much greater impact such as English ivy, Aaronsdeard St. Johnswort, periwinkle, fire on the enviroement than the construction of sewers. thorn and blackberries may be planted from November through March. Other plant species provide food for certain wildlife, such as: The management of water courses through shoreline management Kinnikinnick, snowberry, salal, cotoneaster, Oregon grape, and red measures, zoning snd subdivision control could minimize damage trailing raspberry. from development. These regulations could provide for lower densities, erosion control, and drainage planning along water To decrease the impact of contaminants entering water courses, courses. King County has passed o drainage ordinance which is possible to design storm drain. .e systems which have catch requires developers to retain surface runoff water on their basins and oil traps. These catch contaminants and oil and land through retention/detention facilities. (See Appendix, prevent many of the contaminants from r,aching the water courses. King County Ordinance No. 2281) By providing all these mitigating measures, the damage from The use of watershed management techniques, to be used in storm drainage runoff w411 be reduced and the quality of water conjunction with new drainage control facilities, is proposed. entering the receiving craters will be improved. Landscaping individual properties by owners and builders would also assist. alien builders construct new buildings, they should be required to obtain new or replace existing native vegetation, as practical. Supplemental planting of native -iegetation should be encouraged . as a. means of mitigating the impact of development. A street tree planting program and landscaping can be instituted by local - government. On sloping sites, the property owners should be required to landscape their yards in a manner which would minimize lawns and maximize shrub and ground cover plantings to reduce storm water flow. A diversity of trees, shrubs, vines, ground -3v- 4L c MITIGATING THE ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIROMENT DUE TO CONSTRUCTION b d i The following mitigating measures will be followed to mitigate 7. Traffic will have to be rero--,ted during construction _ adverse environmental impact: as one side of the street will be blocked for installation of sewers. 1. Timing construction so that any construction in the Creek would be done In July and August. This would B. The construction contract shall include provisions for have the effect of harming very few fish or fish the contractor to clean existing debris, liner, and eggs. See the report entitled "Fish and Fish garbage th..t has been disposed of within at least Assessment" in the Appendix for effect on soawninf, SO feet of his operation when constructing �n the fish. Creek. The area around the Great could be improved - visually and a source of aquatic pollution would be 2. Replace gravel bed after construction se that fish eliminated. This would have an extremely favorable would spawn in their natural environment. effect on water quality and aesthetics, particularly in Honey Creek. 3. Use plastic pipe where possible in the park. This placing of plastic pipe, with its light weight, enables 9. Hydroseeding of construction areas will take place in the ease of handling and makes it possible to bring smaller park. This would replace some vegetation soon after con- machinery into the park, thereby doing less damage to struction Las occurred. Hydroseeding, by itself, is the environment. frequently ineffective in holding steep slopes. It will be supplemented, as needed, with landscaping, tree replanting, 4. Replant trees near the Creek which had to be torn and the like. down for construction, so that new shading over water is provided. 1U. Spawning channel(s), and/or egg rearing box(es), may be built to improve the trout and salmon quantity in 5. During construction, it will be necessary in some May Creek. Any channel could be used for numerous locations to provide hill holders. The hill holders species of fish; each rearing box would most likely be are put in the ground and create earth dams, thereby used for individual species. preventing further erosion while construction is - underway. These hill holders would be left in place The cost of construction of a spawning channel with egg and would have the effect of reducing future erosion rearing boxes is estimated to cost between $12,000 and which may be caused by more rapid runoff. $15,000. ,. Construction along streets and roads will cause dust. 11. An assumption hss been made that stream flows, temper- This dust emission can be mitigated by watering and atures, and water quality will still be conducive to oiling the construction sites. fish reproduction. - -39- - _ ADVERSE IMPACT %'HIZH CANNOT BE AVOIDED IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES WHICH WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED ACTION SHOULD IT BE IMPLEMENTED Primary Impact Construction in <as will bring about the removal of Once sewers are built, the -este-- portion of the May Creek ground cover, :sturb animal and z. uatic life. During Drainage Basin will become urbanized. Nothing would prevent this construction -' ion is bound to occur in the creeks and from happening. Once an area becomes urbanized, this action in the la':er yi.ct of the sewer line, which cannot be becomes irreversible. The King Cout,ty, Renton and Puget Sound .voided, wil:. _gal. Governmental Conference plans all provide for urbanization to take place in the western portion of the May Creek Drainage Basin. Sczondary Impact Zoning already allows for small lot areas. Many puolic facilities exist, which would aid urbanization. When sewers are built, they Sewe, will contribute towards population growth, and all the will be operational in the ground for at least fifty years. actrioutes that go with this growth. This impact will not be Normal maintenance and replacement could keep sewers in operation avoidable. in perpetu'ty. At the present time, no urban drainage policies exist for this The proximity of employment centers near the western portion of area, however, the Corps of Engineers and METRO are currently maki� - drainage proposals. Sewer construction would rot conflict May Creek would have a favorable long-term effect on the Puget with nny pr-oosed drainage plans.with Region if the May Creek Basin is to grow. Such growth, especially if it is among those who are employed in or near Renton's industrial areas, would tend to shorten some automobile trips. Increased population would provide increased automobile RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERN USES OF MAN'S ENVIROMENT traffic and increased air pollution. AND MAINTENANCE AND ENF'.ANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY If ^itigating measures are implemen::ed, such as the construction " Srwers in the May Creek Drainage Basin will provide an :mediate of _pawning channels, egg incubator boxes, and other mitigating ss relief for water pollution and health hazards causcd by failing measures discussed, then no major environmental impacts would septic tank-drainfields. During a short-term period, sewers take place for salmon or other resident fish. would stimulate construction, change land densities, and improve urban development conditions. , . The sewers, once built, will be permanent installations and - facilities. It is anticipated that these sewers will be maintained in good condition and replaced when required. It is very seldom that sewers need to be replaced within their estimated fifty-year life. As a consequence, once - scwers are i-i place, they will be in place for a considerably - long time and affect all future development. - s -40- �- AM r CONCLUSION The em onnental impact of the proposed action will provide The overall benefits of providing interceptor sewers with the impacte indicated in Table 5. surface water drainage control appear to outweigh the disadvan- tages While direct and indirect adverse impact will occur in Mav Creek due to construction, the overall result will be a TABLE 5 more favorable environmental impact. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Surface water drainage is presently a serious problem in May Creek. Construction efforts to protect the intercector in the creek begins to rehabilita' May Creek as a fish producer, btrec[ Impact Mitigating Measures redLces erosion and sedime ration, and begins to implement the proposed surface drainage management program for the entire 'reek Sedimentation Los: Flow Construction drainage basin. Riaaoval of Spawning Gravel replace Gravel Go-.struction of sewer interceptors will provide for the con. Removal of Vegetation Hydroseed, Replant Trees nection of collection sewers. Thus, polluticn and health �.• Bank Erosion Yydroseed & Provide Hill Holders hazards by septic tank-drainfield failures would be reducad and eventually eliminated. Air Pollution on Streets Wet Streets t Traffic Impediments Provide Traffic Controls & In effect, the impact on the environment would be much more Detours favorablz Lhan unfavorable with the completion of sewer inter- ceptor construction. Mitigating measures would make the impact Indirect Impact on the environment insignificant. Population Acceleration Increase Surface Drainage Require Retention/Detention Facilities Fish Loss Creek Fisheries Rehabilitation Facilities Loss of Wildlife Habitat Landscaping, Tree Planting 1 s71, ! t - XIQK�I3dtl 3 3 l 1 S-190 SAN-1 MAY CREEK TRUNK - CORRESPONDENCE #1 TO EPA/DOE GRANT 11X a TABLE 6 BIRDS WITHIN THE MAY CREEr DRAINAGE BASIN Comon Name Abundance Common Name Abundance Migratory Game Ftiids Protected Birds uucks Occasional Eagles Rare Mergansers " Hawks Coots (mudhens) Owls Wilson snipe (jacksnipe) Songbirds - Common Morning dove Common Other Band Tailed Pigeon Fox Sparrow - CoMnn Upland Game Birds Savannah Sparrow - n Chinese pheasant "oomon American robin California quail 11Bewick's wren a Blue grouse Occasional Common crow n Ruffed grouse Common Robir _44- t ti. _ TABLE 7 ANIMAL WILDLIFE WITHIN THE MAY CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN Common Name Abundance Common Name Abundance Protected Wildlife Fur bearing Animals Douglas squirrel Common Muskrat Common Gray squirrel YY Mink Chipmunk Not known Beaver Rare Otter Not kno.m Game Animals Bobcat Occasional Black tailed deer Occasional Common Raccoor. Black bear Weasels Not known Bobcat (mountain lion) n Nutria n Raccoon Coffin OPPossum Snowshoe rabbit 11 Weasel Cottontail rabbit of Non-Protected Animals Bullfrog Coyote Not known Fox Skunk Common Mountain beaver Not known Mice Common -45- Y r TABLE 8 LISTING OF MAJOR PLANT LIFE IN .,U MAY CREEK DRAI_NAGE BASIN Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name Flora Assemblage - May Creek Other Flora Lady fern Ahyrium filix-femina Kinniki..nick Arcostaphylos Sword fern Polystichum muni:um Oregon grape Berberis aqulfolium Common polypody Polypodlum vulgare Sedge var. Carex spp. Braken fern Peteridium aquilium Chickweed var. Cerastium spp. Western hawthorn Crataegus douglasii Evergreen Trees Scotch broom Cytisus seoparius Douglas fir Pseudotsuga menziesii Orchard grass Dactylis glomerata var. Western red cedar Thuja plicata Spike-rush var. Eleocharis spp. Western hemlock Tsuga heterophylla Fire weed E 8 ilobium n ustifolium P� Sitka spruce Picea sitchensis Common horsetail Equfsetum arruense Deciduous Trees Swamp scouring rush Equisetum fluviatile Bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllua Foxglove Digitalis purpurea Vine maple Acer circinatum Daisy Erigeron howellii Red alder Alnus rubra Pursh salal Gautherfa shallon White alder Alnux rhombifolie Alta fescue Festuca rubra var. Creeping red fescue Festuca rubra var. Oregon ash Fzaxinus Black cottonwood Populus trichoearpa Ocean spray Holodiscus discolor Lombardy poplar Populus nigra Rush var. Juncus spp. Western choke cherry Prunus demissa Lewisia L.ewisia columbfana Willow Salix 3 or + species Ryegrasses var. L.olium spp. Mountain ash Sortus sitchensis Skunk cabbage Lysichitum Wild lily-of the-valley Marianthemum -46- TABLE 8 (Cont.) z LISTING OF MAJOR PLANT LIFE IN THE IAY CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN C Common Name Scientific Name Casson Name Scientific Name Other Flora (cons.) Other Flora (coat.) Black medic Medicago lupulina Nettle Urcica lyallii t Devil's club Oplopanox Small red huckleberry Vaccinium mytillus Common plantain Plantago major Common evergreen huckleberry Vaccinium ovatum Common purslane Portulaca oleracea Red huckleberry Vaccinium parvifoiivat Kentucky bluegrass Poa compzessa Wild pea Vicia americans t Cascara Rhamnus puzshiana Wild blackberry Rubus ursiaus : Creeping buttercup Ranuncal. = repens Stinking black currant Ribes bracteosum Wood rose Rosa gymnocarpa r Common wild rose Rosa nutkana Evergreen blackberry Rubus laciniatus Thimbleberry Rubus parviflorus Himalaya blackberry Rubus procerus R Salmon-berry Rubus specrabilis Red elderberry Sambuxcus callicarpa Bittersweet nightshade Solanum dulcamara Canadian goldenrod Solidago caaadensis s Buz-reed Sparganium simplex Hardhack Spi-aea douglasii Cat-tail Typha latiolia 1 1 'i i -47 TABLE 9 TABLE 10 SEASONAL NUTRIENT CONCENTRATION AT MAY .';REEK SEASONAL NUTRIENT CONCENTRATION AT IAKE KATHLEEN JULY 1971 - OCTOBER 1972 JPLY 1971 - OCTOBER 1972 Winter - Sprn.& Sumner - Fall Winter - Spring Sunnier - Fail Location Type Max. Min. Avg. Max. Min. Avg. Typ cepth Max. Min. Avg. Max. :fin. Avg. - (T� (nn/I) (m9/1) (MR/0 At Mouth Phosphorous 0.07 0.03 0.05 0.06 Nitrate l 0.51 0.10 0.29 0.01 At Coalfield 0.05 0.02 0.04 Nitrate 3 0.53 0.10 0.01 At Mouth Nitrate 0.96 0.16 0.61 0.31 Nitrogen 7 0.53 0.08 0.01 At Coalfield 1. 0.56 0.12 0.40 Ammonia 1 0.04 0.01 0.03 0.03 At Mouth Anwaia 0.05 0.01 0.03 0.04 Nitrogen 3 0.05 0.01 0.04 0.02 t Coalfield " 0.07 0.03 0.05 Nitrogen. 7 0.1Z 0.01 0.35 Source: Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle -48- C TABLE 11 RUNOFF QUALITY SUMMARY MAY CREEK IiEHONSTPATION AREA BASED UPON A 10-YEAR STORM PRECEDED BY 5 DAYS WITH LITTLE OR NO RAINFALL# CONCENTRATION AT PEAK FLOW* _ ALTERNATIVE PEAK FLOW TOTAL LOCATION FLAN (cfs) am COLIFORH NH3 NO2 4 NO3 PO Existing Land Use 4 f Lake Washington Existing Conditions 280 1.0 1,0 x 10 0.02 0.3 0.05 2000 Comprehensive Land Use I 650 1.0 1.9 x 204 0.03 0.4 0.1 II 350 0.5 0.8 x 104 0.02 0.2 0.05 C Existing Land Use Below confluence with Honey Creek Existing Conditions 240 0.5 0.7 x 104 0.02 0.3 0.05 �. 2000 Comprehensive Land Use I 625 1.0 1.6 x 104 0.03 0.3 0.05 II 275 0.5 0.7 x 104 0.02 0.3 0.05 �. ;. Existing land Use fff Above confluence 4 with Honey Creek Existing Conditions 125 1.0 0.7 x 10 0.02 0.4 0.05 2000 Comprehensive Land Use � I 550 1.0 1.0 x 104 0.02 0.3 0.05 II 175 0.5 0.7 x 104 0.02 0.3 0.05 # Less than a total of 0.5 inches of rainfall in any one day. * Concentration in mg/1 except total c011form which is in HPN/100 ml. Source: U. S. Army Corps of Engineers' Appendix "A" to the Final Report. Urban Runoff and Basin Drainage Green River and Cedar River Bas-ns of Washington. July 1974. -49- r .0 t TABLE 11 (continued) RUNOFF QUALITY SUMARY HAY CREEK r)E1IDNSI-AATION AREA BASED UPON A 10-YEAR STOFH PR.ECLDED BY 5 DAYS WITH LITTLE OR NO RAINFALi,# CONCENTRATION AT PEAK FLOW* ALTERNATIVE PEAK FLAW TOTAL LOCATION PLAN (cfs) COLIFORH NH3 NO2 + NO3 PO Existing Lar.d Use Lake Washington Existing Conditions 280 2.0 3.0 x 104 0.05 0.8 0.1 2000 Comprehensive Land Use 1 550 :.0 5.7 x 104 0.1 1.1 0.2 II 350 0 2.2 x 104 n.05 0.8 0.1 Existing Land Us_ Below confluence with Honey Creek Existing Condition. 240 .0 2.2 x 104 0.05 0.8 0.1 2000 Comprehensive Land UFe I 625 .0 4,7 x 104 0.1 1.0 0.2 II 275 . -0 2.1 x 104 0.05 0.8 0.1 Existing Land Use Above confluence with Honey Creek Existing Conditions 125 2.0 2.2 x 104 0.05 1.1 0.2 2000 Cemprehensive Land Use 4 I 550 '.0 3.0 x i0 0.05 1.0 0.2 II 175 ZO 2.0 x 104 0.05 1.0 0.2 # Less than a total of 0.5 inches of rainfall in any one day. _ * Concentration in mg/l except total coliform - --h is in 1SN/100 ml. Source: Ibid. -50- t . i EXHIBIT ^A^ FISH AND FISH HABITAT ASSESSMLiT - MAY CREEK AND HONEY CREEK By Dr. Stephen. Martin, Ph.D. t I . Introduction The primary purpose of this assessment is to provide information about three miles upstream, it flows through a broad ravine with concerning the present status of May Creek (tower section) and a gradient of approximately 150 feet per mile. C Honey Creek fish populations and habitat. This information is required in the preparation of an Environmental pact Statement Honey Creek originates 1.2 miles southeast of May Sleek, at ap- the proposed May Creek/Honey Dew Sewer Inter•:eptor Project. proximately the area near the intersection of N. E. Sunset Blvd. Cu..struction of the sewer interceptor and trunk sewers in the May (Renton-Issaquah Highway) and Union St., and flows northwest for Creek Drainage Basin may often be in close approAimation to or approximately 1.2 miles through a narrow vallev to its confluence actually intersect with May and Honey Creeks. Hence it is with May Creek. According to local sources, the upstream two- f important to assess the types and numbers of fishes present in the thirds of Honey Creek has little or no flow during the summer project area, especially salmon and trout, to evaluate the area's months. The drainage area is associated with heavy residential potential as a salmon-producing system and to determine the development. potential project impact on the fishes of these creeks. Background information and data from a recently completed study on The project area under consideration includes the lower sectivn of May Creek fishes was included in this assessment. f May Creek (from Jones Avenue N. E. and S. E. 83rd Street upstream to 136th Avenue S. E. and Honey Creek- from its confluence with II. Methods and Materials May Creek upstream to the Renton-Issaquah Highway). A. Literature Survey - A thorough survey of the literature was May Creek is included in the Cedar Basin drainage system and utilized to obtain background information on the fishes occurring originates from the outlet of lake Kathleen, located at the 500 in the Cedar River watershed in general and in closely related ! foot elevation, due east of Renton, Washington. May Creek flows creeks in particular. westerly 8.6 miles to its confluence with Lake Washington., approximately 0.5 miles north of Coleman Point, near Kennydale. B. :ield Observations and Sampling - To survey the fishes present The creek generally follows a narrow valley that parallels the in May Creek, the electrofishing technique was employed. In this Issaquah-Renton Highway near Coalfield, then flows northwest and method, electrical current is applied to the water that has a west along the northern Renton city limits and into the Kennydale resistance different from that of fish. This difference to area. po:sating direct current stimulates the swimming muscles for short E periods of time, causing the fish to orient towards and be Twelve short tributaries, including Honey Creek and the Lake Boren attracted to the positive electrode (cathode). An electical field outlet, flow into Hay Creek. The lower three miles of the creek of sufficient potential to immobilize the fish occurs near the is associated with moderate to heavy residential development. cathode. From its confluence with Lake Washington to approximately one mile upstream, the creek lies in a flood plain, but from this point to i -51- i The electrofishing unit consists of a backpack power unit, station and only one Fass through the 100 foot station length was including a 12 volt battery, lot ; probe (cathode), and two copper made. This station was established so that an; significant wire screens secured to the operator's legs (anode). modifications in fish sper_ies composition or numbers in the flood plain area, relative to previous sampling, could be discerned. The electrofishing technique was selected for use in this study due to the small size of May and Honey Creeks and the fact that Fach statioe was 1D0 feet in length. Prior to electrofishing at fish captured could be identified, measured, and returned to their each station (except Station 10). two stop nets (112 inch mesh, habitat unharmed. stretch) were installed at the downstream and upstream ends of the sample area. Then the area was fished, moving from the downstream Data Collection (March 21, 1975) - For purposes of clarity, tawards the upstream net. Three persons were required, one to station numbers were continued in segocrce from the previous May electrofish, one to net fish, and cne to record data and provide a Creek fish report. Previously, stations I through 4 were located receiving bucket for fishes captured in the process. After one in the following areas of May Creek. Station 1 was 0.3 miles pass through the sample area, the fish obtained (including those south of S. E. 80th Street on Jones Avenue while Station 2 was obtained from the downstream net) were anesthetized with M. S. also located adjacent to Jones Avenue, approximately 0.9 miles 222, identified to genus, and species if possible, and measured south of S. E. 80th Street. Stations 1 and 2 were in the flood (fork length in cenrimeters for salmonids, total length in plain area. Station 3 was approximately 600 feet north of S. E. centimeters for non-salmonidb). All fish were then placed in 96th Street and 0.4 miles west of 136th Avenue S.E. Station 4 was recovery buckets and eventually returned co the creek. Then the locateu at the point where May Creek is intersected by 136th Ave. station was fished a second time and the fish captured were again S.E. (Figure 1). anesthetized, identified, and measured. This "removal" method was developed for estimating fish populations in small rivers where In this report, data from Stations 1 and 2 will be utilized in capture by electrofishing was the most desirable sampling estimating fish populations of the project area; how=ver� data from technique. Stations 3 and 4 (located in the ravine area upstream from the May Creek-Honey Creek confluence) were not utilized in this report. At each station, determinations of average width of creek, average depth, average velocity, temperature, and bottom type were An additional five (5) stations were esta,-Iished during this recorded. This information is included in an Appendix to this study. Station 5 was located in May Creek, 20C feet downstream report. from its confluence with Honey Creek; Station 6 was located in Honey Creek, 50 feet upstream from the May Creek-Honey Creek Data analysis included calculations of 1) the number and average confluence; Station 7 was established in Honey Creek about 0.6 length of each species per station, 2) estimates of total miles upstream (southeast) from the confluence point, near a power populat.on size at each station for all species captured, basea on transmission line crossing; Station 8 was located 1.2 miles the sratistical method developed by Seber and Ler-rend (1967), upstream from the confluence point; Station 9 was established in 3) estimations of total population size for each species and Honey Creek, 500 feet upstream from the confluence point. An numbers of each • ecies per project area acre, and 4) length additional station was established in May Creek, approximately frequency distri ., tion matrix for sculpins (Coitus spp.) captured mid-way between Stations 1 and 2, 0.6 miles south of S. E. 80th in the project area. For estimations of total population size, St. and adjacent to Jones Avenue. No nets were placed at this all data were utilized except when all fish for pine specie, were -52- I -. i captured during the first pass through the station area and none ft+� Sear• during the second pass. The assumption was made that all fish of srouoe+ • this species were removed during the first pass. ( - Total population estimates were obtained using the method ` developed by Seber and LeCrend (1%7), where n = the estimated species population of creek sample area N S f.a" ST. (c1 - c2) with cl = fish captured during first W - z g00 sampling at station, and c2 = fish captured during second ' $ �o a 1°60�°r04 . SC•4 1. feet sampling. var ( = cic2 (c1 + c2) i SE.8mrf SS "�B9j^ 4 = (cI - c2) _ Nl. 5 +..+ fir, y r From numbers derived, standard deviation and 95 percent confidence 7d. ST limits for n were calculated and the results presented in tab•ilar ` 6" St 5[. form. C•bM w n Z III. Results � — Literature Survey and Correspondence - Survey of the t WE xo• ST - i literature revealed only sparse information on May Creek and no information on Honey Creek concerning fish populations or habitat. ' Finn (1975) indicated that salmon utilization generally occurs in all accessible regions in May Creek, with coho salmon (Oncorhvnchus kisutrk), the dominant salmon species, sockeye salmon (0. nerka) and some chinook salmon (0. tshawytscha) present e` in the creek during the freshwater phases of their life cycle. t ba• ± Bell (1975) stated that continued uroanization in the May Creek and Honey Creek drainage areas has led to significant increases in erosion, due to higher runoff in urban areas, faster runoff (from lrnrer retention), and flood plain encroachments. This accelerated FIGURE 1. MAY CREEK AND HONEY CREEK FISH SAMPLE STATIONS. erosion process usually results in significant mortalities of 3 _53- i salmon. and trout eggs due to egg displacement from the redd or to B. Sampling Results - A summarization of fishes captured at each covering of the eggs or ee•.•eloping fry with silt. Also, station, their numbers, and -heir sizes are presented below. significant mortalities can result due to normal stream course Detailed information for each station is presented in the modifications; such modifications can be accelerated as a result Appendix. of urbanization. TABLE 1. MAY CREEP. - HONEY CREEK ELECTROFISHIIIC DATA Ajwani (1956), in a biological review of the Lake Washington (March 21, 1975) watershed, reported that spawning areas in May Creek had been No. length (cm.) st,:ously affected by operations of a drainage district in the Station Species (Pass 1,2) Average Range cpper portion of the creek and that gravel had been removed, resulting in increased runoff. He mentioned the presence of a small run of eoho salmon (Oncorhynehus kisuteh), some euttthroat trout (Salmo clarki clarki), and rainbow (steelhead) trout (Salmo 5 (H) Steelhead [rout (Salmo gairdneri) I1, 3 11.3 (8.2-16.0) gairdneri) in May Creek. Cutthroat trout (Salmo [lark' ) 6, 2 11.9 (9.0-15.2) Chinook salmon (0. tshawytscha) 6, 3 30.0 (7.8-11.0) Historical plantings of rainbow trout in May Creek date back to Cohn salmon (0. kisutch) 3, 1 6.8 (4.0-9.9) 1936, with the most recent planting by the Washington State Sculpins (('. :.tus spp.) 12, 10 7.4 (2.9-11.1) Department of Game, occurring in 1972 (Ajwani, op. cit., Descnaso, 1975). There have been no known plantings of trout in Honey 6 (H) Cutthroat trout (Salmo clarki) 5, 1 10.7 (8.8-14.3) Creek. Steelhead trout (Salmo gairdneri) 1, 0 10.0 ;xulpins (Cottus spp.) 10, 4 8.8 (5.9-10.5) Backer (1964) report- ! the occurrence of a new species of sculpin 7 (H) Cutthroat trout (Salmo clarki) 5, 0 10.8 (7.5-17.1) in May Creek. Cottus aleuticus. Griggs (1971) studied fish popL_aticr.s of Kelsey and Coal Creeks, 8 (H) No fish observed at this station the latter in the Cedar River watershed and only a few miles north of Hay Creek. His results indicated that the two creeks are 9 (H) Cutthroat trout (Salmo clarki) 6, 5 10.5 (5.6-IJ.0) utilized ;,y various species of salmon, trout, and suckers for Steethead [rout (Salmo gairdneri) 3. 0 14.1 (13.0-15.4) spawning habitat, and by other fishes for yearly residence. The Sculpin (Cottus spp.) 1, 0 10.0 dominant species captured were cutthroat trout, coho salmon, - various sculpins (Cottus spp.), brook lampreys ( etra planeri), 10(M) Sculpinad trout (Salmo gairdneri) 29, 5.5 (6.5-15.1) and sticklebacks (Gasterosteus spp.). Limited numbers of coarse- Scu'_pirs (Cottus spp.) 29, - 5.5 (3.1-8.5) scale suckers (Catostomus macrocheilus), peaoouth chubs (Mylocheilus caurinum�,and rainbow trout were also observed. Adult chinook so!mon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) were observed The distinction between steelhead and rainbow trout juveniles is entering both creeks, and peamouth chubs and coarsescale suckers difficult. They are identical to genus and species and are were observed in both creeks in a green or near ripe condition. usually separated by behavioral characteristics; however, rainbow �. trout have not been planted in May Creek since 1972. Note: Cottus spp. probably includes Cottus asper (prickly scolpin), C. aleuticus (Aleutian. sculpin), and C. rho;,.heus (torrent sculTin). -54- i Station 5 in May Creek was regarded as excellent spawning and Electrofishing in May Creek between Stations L and 2 in the flood f. rearing habitat for salmon and trout, with intermittent deep plain (Station 10) revealed slightly greater abundance of steel- pools, riffles, and extensive vegetative bank cover. This arei head trout juveniles and fewer coho salmon juveniles than were was more similar to the area represented by Stations 3 and 4, up- previously observed at Stations I and 2. The sculpin populatio,. stream in May Creek, rather than to the lower region of May Creek, appeared to be similar to that previously seen at Stations 1 and - represented by Stations 1 and 2. More steelhead Lrout juveniles 2, and no salmon or trout fry were observed. (Salmo gairdneri) were captured here than at anp other station C sampled. Also, this was the only station where chinook salmon From these results, it is apparent that Hay Creek, above the flood - juveniles (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) were captured. 'Tvo coho plain to the confluence with Honey Creek, provides habitat for at salmon fry (0. kisuteh), captured at this station represent the least two salmon and two trout species. Neither chinool,, nor cut- only salmon or trout fry found during these sampling periods. throat juveniles were ever observed at Stations 1 and 2. Cut- Sculpins (Cottus spp.) were fairly abundant at this station but throat trout were the dominant salmonid species in the lower reach were probably not all captured, as ten .ish were captured during of Honey Creek, but became increasingly less abundant above the the second sampling, compa-ed to twelve captured auring the first N. E. 27th Street culvert. Few steelhead trout juveniles were _ - samplir.g. observed in Honey Creek, whereas they were the most abundant saLmonid observed at Station 5, just downstream from the In Honey Creek, at Station 6, the catch was dominated by sculpins confluence. Although sculrins dominated the samples from Station - (14), although six cutthroat trout were captured also. Upstream, 6, only one individual was observed in the remaining three up- at Station 9, several cutthroat trout (Salmo clarki clarki) were stream stations in Honey Creek. f captured, three steelhead trout, but only one sculpin. Four large trout, each approximately 15 inches in Length and Upstream from Station 9, at Station 7, five cutthroat juveniles greater than one pound in weight, were observed at Station 5, May comprised the entire sample. Sculpins are apparently prevented Creek, during electrofishing, but escaped capture. These may have from establishing themselves this far upstream by a culvert at been spawning cutthroat or steelhead trout. N. E. 27th Street (Figure 1) and by the occurrence of extremely low or no flows during the summer period. Har.-caused erosion, in the form of cut trees and hillside slides was evident in this area, and only sparse vegetative cover was present along the creek banks. Upstream from Station 7, no fish were captured or observed at - Station g. There was greater vegetative cover than at Station 7, - but the creek was partially blocked in many areas by wooded - debris. c�1 i s 1 t -55- ..w� Fs'•« r-"�,y"'yagr4"'c. i._,."—'".'a�".-..-,-..-,-.�.-awa,.�..�...;�'.--c---"-wv�.+w..h... ,, -.,, _. .. Total population estimates for fish captured during both runs at From these estimates, and from actual numbers of fish species each station are presented 'below (Table 2). If a given species completely removed from each creek station during the first was captured only during the first pass at a particular station, sampling, projections of the total numbers of each species in the the total captured was used as the estimated total number of that May Creek and Honey Creek project area and the estirated total species and no computations were performed. numbers of each species per acre for the project area was calculated. For projected totals in May Creek, to its confluence with Honey Creek, estimates or actual numbers from Stations 1, 2, and 5 were multiplied by a factor of 21.5 (2.96 acres in project area / 0.38 acres in sample areas). For Honey Creek, the projection factor was 15.1 (0.80 acres in the project area / 0.053 acres in sample areas). Projections are presented below (Table TABLE 2. "rOTAl, POPULATION ESTIMATES OF THOSE SPECIES CAPTURED AT 3) . EACH STATION DURING BOTH SAMPLE PASSES TABLE 3. ESTIMATED PROJECTIONS OF FISH CAPTURED DURING Station Species c c n var n 95 % C.I. EIECTROFISHING SURVEY IN MAY AND HONEY CREEK 1 2 PROJECT AREA Est. No. Total Est. 5 Cutthroat trout 6 2 9 0.4 9 + I Area Species Sample totals Fish Per in Project Actual Estim. Acre Area Steelhead trout 11 ' 15 0.1 15 ± 1 Chinook salmon 6 3 12 2.n 12 ± 3 May Creek Steelhead trout 23 24 174 516 (Stas. 1, 2, and 5) Coho salmon 9 10 73 215 Coho salmon 3 1 5 0.8 5 ± 2 Cutthroat trout 8 9 65 194 Sculpins 12 10 72 65.0 72 ± 25 Chinook salmon 9 12 87 258 6 Cutthroac trout 5 1 6 0.1 5 + 1 Sculpins 114 172 L246 3698 Sculpins 10 4 17 0.4 17 ± 1 Brook lamprey 2 2 14 43 9 Cutthroat trout 8 5 21 6. 21 ± 5 Honey Ck. Cutthroat trout 24 32 604 480 *Estimates of sculpins and trout captured at Statione 1 and 2 on (Stas. 6, March 6, 1975 are presented in the Appendix. 7,8,9) Steelhead trout 4 4 75 Sculpins 15 18 340 270 i YT Analysis of these data projections indicate that May Creek (in the Honey Creek confluence. Two coho salmon fry were captured just project area) contains relatively large numbers of sculpins, but downstream from this confluence and may have emerged early from also harbors a significant population of steelhead trout juveniles the gravel. No other trout or salmon fry, including those of and moderate populations of chinook salmon juveniles, coho salmon steelhead trout, cutthroat trout, chinook salmon, sockey salmon, - juveniles. and cutthroat trout juveniles. Projections indicate or kokdnee salmon, were observed during the sample collections, that Honey Creek contains a sizable cutthroat trout juvenile and it is possible that either sampling time was too early to population, relative to the May Creek project area, but only a detect significant numbers, or that limited spawning and moderate population of steelbead trout juveniles. The sculpir mortalities during egg incubation reduced fry production in the population of Honey Creek, concentrated in the lower creek area, project are— is significantly less than that of May Creek. Considering the entire project area, dominant fish during the sampling periods were _utthroat trout juveniles, steelhead trout TABLE 4. LENGTH FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION MATRIX OF SCULPINS juveniles, and sculpins. As t'ie year progresses however, this (COT:US SPF.) MAY CREEK AND HONEY CREEK pattern of dominance may change, especially during spawning periods. Total Station Length frequency distribution of sculpins - Size distribution data Length (cm.) May Ck. 1 , 2* May Ck. 5 Honey Ck., 6, 9 for sculpins t.;ottus spp.) captured in the May Creek project area indicate two size groups from Stations 1 and 2, suggesting two year classes, one composed primarily of individuals 3.1 to 4.0 2.1 - 3.0 2 1 0 centimeters in length, the other of individuals 6.1 to 9.0 centi- meters in length (Table 4). The data suggest that this is also 3.1 - 4.0 22 2 0 probatly the situation at Station 5 (May Creek) , although a small sample size is inadequate for full interpretation. Honey Creek 4.1 - 5.0 7 1 0 contained several large sculpins (9.1. to 10.0 cm.), but no smaller specimens, less than 5.0 cm (Table 4). The data also suggest 5.1. - 6.0 6 2 1 successful recruitment of individuals in May Creek, but not in Honey Creek. 6.1 - 7.0 15 2 1 C. Life histories of May Creek & Honey Creek Salmonids - Based on 7.1 - 8.0 16 5 2 the literature survey and personal correspondence (Bell, 1975, Katz, 1975; Finn, 1975; Deschaso, 1975), it is highly probable 8.1 - 9.0 19 3 2 that developing eggs of c)ho salmon, steelhead trout, and searun cutthroat were present in various intragravel creek areas of May 9.1 - 10.0 3 4 7 Creek, especially in the area between the flood plain and the 10.1 - 11.5 2 2 2 obtained March 6, 1975 -57- " i, i Timing of migratory salmon and trout freshwater phases in May Creek is presented in Table 5. The major species known to spawn rrr�Ls in Nay Creek are coho salmon, winter steelhead trout, searun cut- nmsc of mccros=Ms.utwr rEY� YIX LTrr fMASrS throat trout, and chinook salmon, although sockeye salmon and kokanee may occasionally spawn in the creek. Cutthroat trout are rreww,tR MOST + pro', bly the only salmon or trout species to utilize Honey Creek $ i.. Lift fe,.e r M , n J J . s 0 S D for spawning purposes on a regular basis. c°"° Dp•cfifes"`i'• U.ee sw•nfN In general, peak upstream migration and spawning periods of these xncrsr.rrl e<.t1:,.• species do not occur during July and August. Coho salmon JYreni 1. f,ariry generally begin upstream migration in late Augvst and initiate Jw. out +israti.. spawning activities in mid-October. Juvenile coho spend one year in freshwater, then migrate to sea from March to June (Table 5). r•11 up.er. Sr,u.. csin Sp L% i Winter steelhead trout generally migrate upstream during the aa... xncr,rr,rtt A,..t.p. period from November to June, with spawning occurring from Jweei i, rnzius 4 1 December to mid-June. Juvenile steelhead out-migration extends Jw. out +isr,tt.n t from April to early July (Table 5) . Anadromous cutthroat trout upstream migration extends from July until January, with a peak t«ttr< up.er<e asf,tl.n from September to December. Spawning occurs from January to s'T�• spw,ity April. x,vtnSr.rrt de.etor. Jwadla reart+S Migratory timing of the freshwater life phases of the lesser Jw. out+isratt. occurring species entering May Creek is as follows. fall chinook salmon migrate upstream during September and October and .;pawn Saw«t Jp.tr<t..isf.tt.p from September to November. The period of juvenile out-migration extends from March to June. Sockeye salmon adults migrate Ircrsr•v<3 ew<l.p. upstream from July to October, with peak period during August and J""`"il` `e•`"'s September. Juvenile sockeye migrate out during the period from1 March to June. Kokanee, a distinct race of sockeye, generally spawn on the lake beaches, but if they enter the creek, migrate ste<u..e 0p.ertaa asr,u.n trove sp.Ynt.s upstream from late July to December and spawn from October to 1 y,.,1,,,• F eb r:.a r y. Jwut.< rrr1,S JW. M .l�i6lm Juvenile rearing of all salmon and trout described takes place in May Creek throughout the year (assuming successful spawning and rw.1t...Y. up.tr�asntiw CYe.1f«t Sp+wlwr egg incubation), with the exception of fall chinook salmon, with a juvenile freshwater period from December to Jur.- (Table 6). xnefar,va e<.t1.p. Juvenile cutthroat rearing occurs in Honey Creek throughout the Jwmut `..`ie° year in the lower reaches, assuming adequate sumwer flow is provided. If not, they may move down into May Creek temporarily. _58- r 'ABLE 6. BASIC LIFE HISTORIES OF SALMON AND TROITT SPECIES UTILIZING MAY CREEK AND HONEY CREEK incubation Downstream Species Age a Mac. 'Time in fresh- Time in salt- Higratior. Spawning E88 migration r (yrs.) water (yrs.) water (yrs.) Coho 1 yid-Oct.- Mid-Oct.- March-June salmon 3 2 Mid Aug.- Early Dec. Late Dec. Mid-March r- Steelhead 1-4 November-1_3 Dec.-June Dec.-July April-June trout (Htr.) 3-6 Mid-June Anadromous July-Jan. Jan.-Apr. Jan.-June March-June cutthroat 2-5 2 Rainbow trout --- Spring Apr.-June --- (planted 3-4 Life --- Fall chinook f Mid Sept, Late Sept.- Late Sept.- March-June salmon 3-5 2-5 Late Ott. Early Nov. Late Feb. Kokanee 2-7 Life --- Late July- Oct.-Feb. Oct.-Mar. Sept.-March December f Sockeye i-� Late June- Sept.-Nov. Sept.-Jan. March-June salmon 3-5 Mid-Oct. -59- _-y ., IA D. Spawning Habitat - Numerous observations of May Creek bottom The capture of coho salmon fry at Station 5 indicates at least substrate in the proposed project area indicates the presence of some degree of successful coho salmon spawning in this aura of May numerous spawning areas in at least 50 percent of creek bottom. Creek. Other species of salmon and trout are known to utilize May Spawning areas are typified by a loose layer of pebbles and small Creek as spawning habitat, including anadrorr :us cutthroat trout, cobbles overlying medium to small gravel or sand. These areas are winter steelhead, fall Chinook salmon, and possibly sockeye salmon usually located in or near riffles. or kokanee. Honey Creek is most suitable for cutthroat trout spawning in the May Creek harbors fair numbers of sculpins (Cottus spp.), which lower reaches, especially from the N. E. 27th St. culvert to its are predatory on salmon and trout eggs and emerging fry, and also confluence with Nay Creek. Approximately one-third of this lower compete with young salmon and trout for living space and food. section could be classified as adequate spawning habitat. The remainder is composed of compact sand or collections of large Honey Creek, a small tributary of May Cre_K, provides considerably cobbles, and is generally unsuitable for spawning. less habitat for spawning and rearing, and only cutthroat trout are presumed to spawn in this creek. Juvenile cutthroat trout E. Siltation - On several occasions, during and after periods of will probably be found in the creek during most of the year, moderdLe or heavy precipitation, May Creek was highly Lurbid and except during summer periods of exLreme low flow conditions (the ;.. muddy in appearance, due to the presence of large amounts of silt. upper reaches of the creek are often dry during most summers). ! On sampling days, even with clear weather and no previous rainfall Whether or not steelhead trout spawn in Honey Creek is unknown. for two days, the creek continued to carry fine silt, although bottom substrate was visible in areas less than two feet in depth. Honey Creek provides habitat for sculpins in it: lower reach, but Honey Creek was relatively clearer than Nay Creek, although this their numbers decrvase markedly progressing upstream, and none are ! could be related to its shallow depth. found ups ream of the N. E. 27th Street Culvert. i IV. Discussion and Recommendations Above the culvert, Honey Creek provides a relatively poor fish habitat due to numerous stream obstructions and d-creased r ' Nay Creek, in the proposed project area, provides habitat for a absent water supply during the summer months.* � small variety of resident fishes, including rainbow trout, when t' planted, and considerable spawning area for migratory salmon and Although there is normally at least a moderate degree of salmon trout. The fish population of this creek :s similar to that found and trout spawning in May Creek, and limited spawning ,n Honey in ether Lake Washington feeder streams. Creek, the potential for successful egg to fry development appears i limited. This may be attributed to several factors, including During this time of the year, the lower reach of Nay Creek rapid and heavy runoff during storm periods, siltation, cr^_ek (represented by Stations I and 2) provides habitat for small m andering, and partial obstruction by both natural a..d man-caused populations of coho salmon and steelhead trout juveniles. Up- debris (the latter particularly evident in _e Honey Creek stream, near Honey Creek, these species were also found, but, in drainage area). Spawning areas in both creeks are modified after addition, cutthroat and chi.iook salmon juveniles were present. every flood due to movement of gravel and pebbles downstream. The habitat types of these two reaches are somewhat dissimilar, with significantly greater natural cover and more pools in the upstream areas near the convergence with Honey Creek. The distance from the culvert to the Honey Creek origin is a. -it 0.95 miles. -60- h I s. Moderate to heavy Habitat heavy siltation, due to man-related activities Pe4uirements - (urbanization), and to natural causes, such as land slides, bank , cutting, and bed erosion, may adversely affect, and cause According [o Plan (trout, the major potential requirement for maintaining mortality to, buried eggs or fry in bott creeks by denying water present salmo,. and trout production potential in May and Honey interchange and smothering food organisms. Female salmon or trout creeks is to maintain water quality (and quantity, in the case of wash silt from gravel in the spawning area during pre-spawning May Creek) at levels no less than at present. Planning of creek- activity, however, after compietion of spawning, if excess silt associated projects should consider fish habitat requirements and has been deposited on the spawning area, there is resultant maintenance of natural cover and pool-riffle conditions wherever r interference with proper upward water percolation through the possible, and controls should be implemented regarding creek water s nest, Loss of dissolved oxygen, and lack of proper removal of removal, storm drainage system installation, and installation of catabolic (waste) products. The smothering effect also promotes sanitary landfills, culverts, or bank protection devices. fungal growth among the eggs. The extent of harmful siltation effects in May Creek and Honey Creak is not only dependent on the Salmon Production Improvement - . amount of material deposited, but on the type of material . { Undesirable materials include clay particleE, organic materials, Recommendations for improving salmon production in the May Creek- such as wood pulp fibers, and toxic residues in industrial or Honey Creek project a.ea include: agricultural wastes, including pesticides. Generally, salmon or _. 2. Construction of a panning channel, preferably in park-owned trout eggs suffer a mortality of about 85 percent when 20 percent - of spawning area voids are filled with sediment (Bell, 19731. area of the Hay Creek drainage area, to artificially increase Properly constructed sediment basins are recommended to eliminate salmon production. Depending on topography, an adequate spawning C this source of silt. channel adjacent to May Creek c,)uld extend between 150 and 200 feet in length, with an overall width of 1.2 feet and depth of Salmon and trout can survive high concentrations of suspended about three feet. Such a channel could be constructed for an matter for short periods; however, prolonged exposure to some es�imated cost of $7,500, including rip-rap drop structures and a types of materials in most species results in a thickening of siltation basin near the intake. respiratory epithelial cells and eventual fusion of adjacent gill 2. Salmon and trout production could also be enhanced by - r lamellae, interfering with respiratio,. Fish do not have gill providing drainage control in the May Creek and Honey Creek basins cleaners and must rely on water flow tnrough the gill chambers, mucous production, and intermittent "coughing" to remove foreign by such methods as channelizing the upper creek reaches, installing drop structures in the lower reaches, installing material. Evidence of gill irritation in salmon and trout fingerlings held in turbid water has frequently been observed by upland water and sediment ponds, and control via zoning on shore- fish culturists and can result in subsequent infection by fungi line management. { . . and pathogenic bacteria. Such gill irritation may be occurring it. May Creek and Honey Creek salmon and trout populations. In the ab_en co the proposed project, and assuming that the -. present trendsds continue, including continued urbanization and Juvenile salmon and trout rearing in both creeks may be advcrsely other man-related activities, the fish potential of May Creek + affected by water quality deterioration, decreased water supply, will continue to be adversely affected. This could lead, d y and general habitat deterioration. Low summer flows and high eventually, to the inability of the creek to continue as a C summer temperatures may often be critical and even prohibitive producer of salmon and trout. juvenile salmon reaming, especially in Honey Creek. -61- y� ti¢ Recommendations :,,lativc to Interceptor Constructio:: Impact on Fisheries 1. Construction of the interceptor should be timed to conflict Relative to the proposed project itself, if the above recom- as little as possible with upstream salmon and trout migrations, mendations are followed, there should be no long-term impact spawning periods, and downstream fingerling salmon and trout on present fish production potential of May and Honey creeks. migrations. The recommended period of construction is during July These creeks have been seriously endangered as fish producers and August. Siltation resulting from construction would be short- due to previous man-related activities in their drainage basins. term, temporary, and would probably not interfere with salmon Future planned development of the May Creek Basin, as well as spawning activities during this period. Juvenile coho salmon, continued development of the Honey Creek Basin, may further steelhead trout, and cutthroat trout, residing in May Creek, and inhibit fish-producing potential. cutthroat trout, plus small numbers of steelhead trout, residing in Honey Creek during their one-year juvenile rearing period, Discussions took place with the Washington State Department of would probably relocate temporarily, either upstream in May Creek Fisheries and Department of Game. It was felt that some or into lake Washington, and would probably return to their mitigating measures should be taken which would involve con- original habitat following termination of construction activities. struction of fish habitat improvements, primarily for spawning purposes. These improvements should be designed with the 2. Introduction of silt into the creeks should be kept at a Washington State Department of Fisheries and Game staffs after minimum. the interceptor sewer design has been completed. 3. Conduit intersections with the creeks should be kept to a Short-term project impact to creek fishes and fish habitat minimum, and where the conduit intersects with the creeks, it would res t from (1) temporary increased siltation and should be constructed overstream rather than understream. If this (2) temporary disruption and diversion of the creeks in conduit is not practical, the line should be buried at sufficient depth crossing areas. The latter would not be expected to be a and with adequate stability to encourage re-establishment of significant factor in the upstream areas of Honey Creek due natural conditions. Conduit intersections with Honey Creek are primarily to the very small numbers of trout present there. not as critical, as it is not a major fish producing stream in the However, in May Creel and in the lover reach of Honey Creek, same sense as May Creek, and has already been seriously affected juvenile salmon and trout, and resident species, including by both natural and man-caused erosion. sculpins, would probably temporarily relocate; however, some would suffer mortalities. After termination of construction Riffle areas in May Creek, potentially suited for salmon and trout activities, many displaced fishes would probably repopulate spawning, should be avoided if possible. their original habitats. 4. Where the conduit runs parallel to the creek, consideration should be given to post-construction plantings of shrubs or other vegetation to reduce erosion and for aesthetic appeal. Access to the conduit area should be planned so as to discourage motorcycles and motorbikes from entering these areas and further contributing to erosion. S. Technical provisions relative to conduit crossings should be followed. -62- C z REFERENCES C Ajwani, S. Bell, M. C. 1956. A review of the Lake Washington watershed, historical, 1973. Fisheries handbook of engineering requirements and biological, and limnological. biological criteria. M. S. thesis. University of Washingtoa, College of Fisheries-Engineering Research Program, U. S. Army Corps Fisheries, 148 p. of Engineers, North Pacific Division, Portland, Oregon. Anonymous. 1970. Comprehensive study of water and related land resourc_s. Deschaso, J. Puget Sound and related waters. State of Washington. 1975. Personal communication. (Fisheries biologist, Washington Appendix XI, Fish and Wildlife. State Dept. of Game, Seattle Office), Puget Sound Task Force, Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission, Fish and Wildlife Technical Committee. Finn, E. 1975. Personal communication. (Fisheries biologist, Washington Becker, C. D. State Dept. of Game, Olympia, Washington). 1964. The parasite-vector host relationship of the hemoflagellate Cryptobia salmositica Katz, the leech, Griggs, D. T. Pisicola salmositica Meyer, and certain fresh-water 1971 C'iaracteristics and estimations of the fish populations teleosts. of Kelsey and Coal Creeks, with emphasis upon cutthroat Ph. D. thesis, University of Washington, College of trout and coho salmon. In Stream Ecology Study: An Fisheries. in,erdisciplinary watershed study of Kelsey and Coal Creeks, Ring ( unty, Washington. Bell, M. C. :ngton State Dept. of Fisheries Co-Op Unit, College 1975. Personal communi ation (College o: Fisheries, Universic> of Fisheries, University of Washington. p. 107-123. of Washington, Professor of Fisheries Engineering) . Katz, N. 1975 Personal communication. (kesearch director, Parametrix, Inc. , Seattle, Washington). f a Yr -63- TELEPHONE CORRESPONDENCE (In addition to correspondence listed in Raferences) Mr. Francis Nelson, Chief, Technical Support Section, Environmental Protection Agency, Seattle. Mr. Jack Thompson, Fisheries biologist, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District Office. Mr. Ronall Pine, Mr. Eugene Deschamps, Fisheries biologists, Washington State Department of Fisher.es, Stream Improvement Section, Olympia, Washington. Mr. Walter Williams, Mr, Manny LeMier, Fisheries biologists, Washington State Department of Fisheries, Olympia, Washington.. Dr. Eugene Welch, Department of Civil Engineering, Sanitary Biology section, University of Washington. Mr. Dale Griggs, Graduate student, Fisheries Research Institute, University of Washington. Mr. Robert Matsuda, Ecological analyst, Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS _ The Washington State Cooperative Fishery Unit (College of - Fisheries, University of Washington) provided the electrofishing apparatus for the study. Mr. James Malik, pre-doctoral stud nit at the Fisheries Research Institute, University of Washington, and Mr. Mike Marshall of Norman Associate„ Inc., Bellevue, WaO., _ assisted in data collection. -64- r+ n t MAY CREEK I:LBCTROFISHIHG DATA March 6, 1975 r Station 1 (0.3 miles south of S.E. Both St. an ;ones Ave.) Station 3 (App x. 600 feet north of S.E. 96th St. on natural gas line, and 0.4 miles west of Newcastle Road) Station length: lOG feet Average width: 20 feet Station length: 100 feet Average depth: 1.5 feet Average width: 21.5 feet Velocity: 2.4 feet/second Average a 1.5 feet Temperature: 41.80 F. Velocity: 1.9 feet/second Bottom type: Predominantly pebbles and cobbles to 611, with Temperature: i.1.00 F. sandy bottom typical of stream edges Bottom tvpe: Dominated by cobbles, pebbles, and several small Fishes obtained: Table 1 of this report boulders; very little sand or gravel exposed Fishes obtained: Table 1 of this report Station 2 (0.9 miles south of S.E. 80th St, on Jones Ave.) Station 4 (At May Creek Crossing by 136th Ave., S.E.) Station length: 100 feet Average width: 20 feet Statiun length: 100 fee- Average depth: 1.5 feet (range: 1 to 3 .� feet) Average width: 21.5 feet Velocity: 2.5 feet/second Average depth: 1.5 feet Temperature: 41.90 F. Velocity: 2.1 feet/second Bottom type: Largely composed of pebbles and cobbles, with Temperature: 41.00 F. occasional small boulders and also sandy areas Buttcm type: Predominantly pebbles, cobbles, and small interspersed boulders overlying sand and gravel: sandy Fishes obtained: Table 1 of this report shure'ines with gravel Fishes observed: Table 1 of this report f •65- MAY CREEK AND HONEY CREEK ELECTROFISHINC DATA 'arch 21, 1975 Station 5 (May Creek, 200 feet downstream from convergence with Station 7 (Honey Creek. approximately 0.6 miles upstream from Honey Creek) May Creek confluence) Station length: 100 feet Station Length: 100 feet Average width: 20 feet Average width: 7.5 feet Average depth: 1.5 feet (range: 1" - 3.51) Average depth: 6 inches (0 tv 1 foot) Velocity: 2.4 feet per second Velocity: 1.5 feet per second Temperature: 42.80 F. Temperature: 43.40 F. Bottom type: Predominantly pebbles ar. obbles (to 8 inches) Bottom type: Larger pebbles and cobbles over gravel; with sandy gravel areas near banks. Appears to occasional sandy bottom; substantial sandv be good spawning area with lots of vegetation areas adjacent to stream due to erosion; cover and relatively deep pools (to 3.5' in vegetative cover minimal. depth) and riffles Fishes obtained: See report; spawning potential - 1/3 of area Fishes obtained: See main body of report Station 8 (Honey Creek, approximately 1.2 miles upstream from Station 6 (Honey Creek, 50 feet upstream from confluence with May Creek confluence) May Creek) Station. Length: 100 feet Station length: 100 feet Average width: 5.5 feet Average width: 5 foec Average depth: 4 inches (1" to 6" range) Average depth: 9 inches (range: 6" to 11 ) Velocity: 1.7 feet p-r second Velocity: 2.1 feet per second Temperature: 43.50 F. Water temperature:44.00 F. Habitat type: Identical to Station 7, except creek is Bottom type: Stream bottom is predominantly gravel, overlain partially blocked in aeveral areas due to fallen with pebbles and occa-ional cobbles (to six trees, other wooded debris, ant man-introduced inches in diameter). :n some areas, the stream debris; 1/3 available potentially for snawning. bottom is composed of contact sand. Fishes obtained: No fish were observed at this station Fishes obtained: See report 1 NAY CREEK AND HONEY CREEK ELECTROFISHING DATA March 21, 1975 ESTIMATES OF TOTAL NUMBER OF SCULPINS AND TRO-- (continued) OTURED IN MAY CREEK, MARCH 6, 1975 ALL STATIONS) Sculpins (Coitus spp.) Station 9 (Honey Creek, 500 feet upstream from May Creek Station c1 c2 n v(n) 95". C.I. confluence) _ Station itigth: '^0 fees 1 31 9 44.0 15.3 44 ± 7 Average width: S feet Average depth: 8 inches (11' to 11) 2 39 12 56.3 21.0 56 ± 9 Velocity: 2.1 feet per second Temperature: 44.00 F. 3 31 l0 45.8 20.1 46 ± 9 Bottom type: Essentially identical to Station 6 Fishes obtained: See main report 4 35 20 81.7 532.3 82 +45 Station 10 (May Creek, 0.6 miles south of S.E. Both St adjacent Steelhead Trout (Sa_mo gairdneri) to Jones Avenue) Station length: 100 feet (fished once, no net.i 1 4 0 4.0 0.25 4 +' 1 Average width: 21 feet Average depth: 1.5 feet (1 to 3.5 feet) 2 4 1 5.3 0.98 5 ± 2 Velocity: 2.5 feet per second Temperature: 43.00 F. 3 5 2 8.3 8 6 8 ± 6 Bottom type: Identical to Stations 1 and 2, May Creek Fishes obtained: See main report 4 4 0 4.0 0.2.5 4 i' 1 f , -67- tea_ . .. .e•Hia'o�'ir.iG+eSi ' . _:-.. _ ,. .. ..n�iai'lfBlBt�..m�ctfi�a�l��s� f EXHIBIT "B" MAY CREEK DELTA OBSEPVATIONS By Dr. Stephen Martin, Ph.D. - Fool Bridge I. Introduction I . o M The purpose of these observations waa to examine the nature I and extent of the delta area at the mouth of May Creek { relative to sediment patterns. Approxiwately 3000 cubic yards of sediment is deposited annually in the lower reach Scale in Feet of May Creek, forming a delta at its confluence with Lake O 100 200 Washington. The City of Renton dredged the river mouth area in 1972. 3 • 4 Knou'—ge of the nature and extent of the delta will be impor. nt in assessing the physical impact of minor quantities of silt produced as a result of the installation Foot Bridge of sewer interceptor and trunk sewers in the May Creek Drainage Basin. Gradual Off 0 2 II. Methods Bottom material was collected at eight (8) sample sites in the study area. Samples 3 and 4 were obtained !❑ the creek B bed immediately upstream of the mouth, samples 1 and 2 • were obtained at the creek mouth, and samples 5, 6, 7, and 8 were collected in the extensive delta area adjacent to Log Boom Log Boom the log rafts and south of the creek mouth (Figure 1) . Samples 1 - 4 were obtained by wading the creek (Samples 1 - and 4 were located in the main channel of the creek), while : S/ samples 5 - 8 were collected with the aid of SCUBA equipment. - All samples were collected in pletatic bags and returned to the laboratory for analysis. The weather on the date of - sample collect-on, May 11, 1975, was clear and cold. Lake Dolphins - - FIGURE 1 — MAY CREEK 6 DELTA - - BOTTOM SAMPLE STATIONS —69— s Lob Mift III. Results 6 Discussion The following material was collected at each sample site; At a depth of about ten feet, the bottom sut•strate gradually changes to a silty sand, organic composition Pr,.ceeding Sample Description lakeward, the bottom continues to gently store to approximately 30 feet in depth and is composed of sandy silt 1 (main channel Fine sand, with thin upper and organic material. The delta area is Extensive and in creek bed) layer of silt uniform, extending at least to the lakeward dolphins and under the log booms. 2 Fine to medium sand, with upper layer of silt In the delta area observed with SCUBA, depths ranged from six to 30 feet, but were usually grea_er than 20 feet . 3 (bar area in Fine sand to gravel and small creek bed) pebbles From these observations, it is predicted that the volume of silt contributed o May Creek and to its delta, during 4 (main channel at Fine sand project activities, would be insignificant if work is mouth) conducted in July and August, which would be coincidental with low creek flows. t i 5 (delta) Sandy silt; organic 6 (delta) Sandy silt; organic 7 (delta) Sandy silt; orgaric 8 (delta; near mouth) Silty sand; orga,iic An extensive amount of fine to medium sand, gravel, and small pebbles is present in the lower reach of the Creek, with finer sand in the main channel and gravel in the bar areas. The depth at this point ranged from a few inches to three feet. At the creek's immediate confluence with the lake, the bottom is composed of both fine sand in the main channel and fine to medium sand near the creek bank. The depth at this point ranged from approximately three inches to three feet. A sa 'y sill has been formed at this point (due primarily to wave action) and SCUBA diving observations indicated that this sill gradually slopes into a broad delta. i -70- _ EXHIBIT "C" MAY CREEK PLANT AND ANIMAL LIFE By Dr. Robert Ruthemeyer, Ph.D. Soils of -he Area Soils Along the Suggested Sewer Line Route f 2 the soil of the area is an important determiner of the vegetation, The Soil Survey of King County describes the soil. series of the associated animal life and otter interrelated characteristics. area. A soil series is the soil profile, that is, the sequence The drainage area covers 12 square miles. Three of the seven of layers from the surface downward to rock or other underlying King County Soils associations a.x found in the drainage basin. material. The soil :cost prevalent along the suggested route and A soil association is a landscape that has distinctive having the greatest limitations is the Alderwood and Kitsap soils. proportional patterns of soils and is named for the major soils Slopes are 25 - 70 percent. Distribution of the soil varies of the association. The drainage basin soil associations are greatly within short distances. Drainage and permeability vary. Everett, Alderwood and Beausite-Alderwoodl. The Everett Runoff is rapid to very rapid, and the erosion hazard is severe3. association extends inland tw miles from Lake Washington and Estimated properties of the soils4 are given for the Alderwood is north and south of May Creek. The Alderwood association is and Kits_,? soil series and others. The American Association of generally south of May Creek. The Beausite-Alderwcod association State Highway Officials (AASHO) rating of the soil is A-1 or A-2, is north of May Creek. Characteristics of these associations are: which is a soil having the highest bearing strength. All the soils of the route are acid in reaction. The Alderwood soil Everett Association series has a pN of 5.1-6.0. The corrosiv_--y of concrete5 is rated from moderate to high. Somewhat excessively drained, gravelly, gently undulat .ng soils underlain by sand and gravel ; on terraces. Vegetation of the Basin i Alderwood Association The May Creek Drainage Basin is predominately a woodland site in j its native state. The area east of 136th Avenue S.E. and south of Moderately well drained, undulating to hilly soils that have S.E. Coalfield Road and adjacent to the creek have been cleared dense, very slowly permeable glacial till at a depth of of the dominant species. The area has been planted to grasses 20 - 40 inches; on uplands and terraces. such a. Orchard, Alta Fescue, Rye and Timothy. The grassed areas are mainly used as pasturage of livestock. Beausite-Alderwood Association The climax species of the drainage basin are coniferous trees Well drained and moderately well d-ained, gently rolling to such as Douglas fir, Western Hemlock and Western Redcedar. The very steep soils that have sandstot:e or shale or dense, very dominant deciduous tree is red alder. Red alder commonly invades slowly permeable glacial till at a depth of 20 - 40 inches; logged-off areas. The soils of King County have been grouped on uplands. into 15 groups according to their suitability for wood crops. i -71- - d i :f The potential productivity6 for the major woodland p in the Flora Assemblage - May Creek basin is &45 - 550 board feet per acre per year. This is equivalent to 145 - 155 cubic feet per acre per year. lady fern Ahyrium Filix-femina There have been general studies of the Lake Washington area Swo.1 fern Polystichum munitum that include the May Creek Basin. Such studies as the Puget Common polypody Polypodium vulgdre Sound and Adjacent Waters and King County Shoreline Inventory Braken fern Peteridium aquilium give information on the mammals and tirds of the area. The wildlife occurring within the basin were not identified by live Evergreen Trees trappings or long-term observations. Correlation of the environment with knowledge of habitats of birds and mammals was Dcuglas lir Psaudotsuga menziesii used to identify species. Western red cedar Thuja plicata A wide variety of algaes, liverworts and -asses are to be found Western hemlock Tsuga heterophylla in the May Creek area. No detail accounting was made of these lower forms of plant life. The following is a listing of major Sitka spruce Picea sitchensis plants and animals of the drainage basin. Deciduous Trees Bigieaf maple Acer macrophyllum Vine maple Acer circinatum Red alder Alnus rubra White alder Alnus rhombifolia Oregon ash Fraxinus 1 Soil Survey of King County Area, Washington. Soil Black cottonwood Populus trichocarpa Conservation Service, USuA, issued Novenber 1973. Lombardy poplar Populus Nigra 2 Ibid., p. 8. Western choke cherry Prunus demissa Willow Salix 3 or 4 species 3 Ibid., P. 10. Mountain ash Sorbus sitchensis 4 Ibid., p. 36. 5 Ibid., p. 37. 6 Ibid., p. 68. -72- Other Flora Other Flora (continued) Kinnikinnick Arcostaphylos Common purslane Portulaca oleracea t Oregon grape Berberis aquifolium Kentucky bluegrass Poa pratensis Sedge var. Carex spp. Canada bluegrass Poa compressa Chickweed var. Cerastium spp. Cascara Rhamnus purshiana Western hawthorn Crataegus douglasii Creeping buttercup Ranuncalns repens Scotch broom Cytisus seoparius Stinking black currant Ribes bracteosum Orchard grass Dactylis glomerata var. Wood rose Rosa gymnocarpa Spike-rush var. Eleocharis spp- Common wild rose Rosa nutkana ,. Fire-weed Epilobium angustifolium Evergreen blackberry Rubus laciniatus Common horsetail Equisetum aruense 11,imbleberry Rubus parviflorus Swamp scouring rush Equisetum fluviatile Himalaya blackberry Rubus procerus ` Foxglove Digitalis purpurea Salmon-berry Rubus spectabilis Daisy Erigeron howellii Red elderberry Sambuscus callicarpa Pursh salal Gautheria Shallon Bittersweet nightshade Solanum dulcamara Alta fescue Festuca elatior var. Canadian goldenrod Solidago canadensis Creeping red fescue Festuca rubra var. Bur-reed Sparganium simplex Ocean spray Holodiscus discolor Hardhack Spiraea douglasii , Rush var. Juncus spp. Cat-tail Typha latifolia Lewisia Lewisia columbiana Nettle Urtica lyallii Ryegrasses var. Lolium spp . Small red huckleberry Vaccinium mytillus - Skunk cabbage Lysichitum Common evergreen huckleberry Vaccinium ovatum Wild lily-of-the-valley flarianthemum Red huckleberry Vaccinium parvifolium i Black medic Medicago lupulina Wild pea Vicia americans ; Devil's club Oplopanox Wild blackberry - Rubus ursinus _ - Common plantain Flantago major t P S+ ip i -73- Partial Listing of Animals and Birds The 1970-72 existing impervious area of basins is estimated at Within May Creek Drainage Basin 5 percent9. The Puget Sound Governmental Conference predicts Animals Birds that in the year 2000 there will be 15 percent impervious area with a population of 18,000. The design population of 21,000 Douglas squirrel American robin would be equivalent to 21.5 percent of the area being impervious. The total May Creek Basin area is 8,970 acres. Bewick's wren Environmental impact of Proposed Action Moles Geese spp. Gray squirrel Ducks spp. The placement of a sewer line in the May ' -sk Basin will provide Pocket mouse Common crow a desirable method of waste disposal for those having septic tank failures. This service will provide an incentive for future Mountain beaver Chinese pheasant housing developments. The clear.ng, grading, and cut and fill Frogs Fox sparrow of soils will modify the topography and surface soil conditions. These modifications together with an increase in ground coverage Cats (domesticated) Savannah sparrow by buildings and pavement, would constitute an irreversible Dogs (domesticated) commitment to man-made surface conditions frr a. _e:st the useful life of these man-made objects. Black tail deer Potential Short Term Imp: Water Quality and Drainage 1. Excavation stability and sail eron;oc: ..o construction. The present quality of water in May Creek is addressed in detail Mitigation: Sewer line construction may utilize liastic under fish and aquatic life of the basin. The median total pipe, resulting in a narrower construction width coliforms7 of May Creek exceeded the Department of Ecology than conventional concrete pipe. This method standards. Seasonal nutrient corcentrations appear to be will cause less disruption of surface vegetation comparable with other streams of the County and plant rcGts. Housing construction could be 75 - 150 housing Lake Kathleen is the source of May Creek. There is ponding and units per year over 25 years. overbank flooding in the upper and middle reaches of the Creek. A natural erosion process will occur on May Creek. Erosion Where potential soil erosion hazards -re high, problems are intensified by uncontrolled discharge of storm hydroseeded grasses should be used. drains at the top of natural systems. The southern arm locally known as the Devil's Elbow on S.E. 96th Street is presently an 2. On-site construction noise. example of this type of discharge. There is 3,000 cubic yards annually of eroded material deposited in the lower reach of Mitigation: The construction route of the sewer line is May creek, before it enters Lake Washington8. mainly within heavily vegetated areas. Trees and vegetation substantially reduce the noise leve'.. -74- 3. Dust or mud during construction. These factors can be influenced to decrease the Mitigation: High soil moisture of the area should minimize runoff rates in the basin. f the dust problem. Contractors should sprinkle the area to alleviate the dust _problem as needed. Mitigation: Housing contractors should retai- as much of the native vegetation as 4.s practicaL. Supplemental 4. Construction-related traffic increase and noise. plantings should be encouraged. Street tree programs and landscaping ordinances could be Mitigation: Housing construction and increased vehicular - instituted. Residential owners should be traffic carrying supplies will increase the noise encouraged to minimize lawny, particularly on level. T-affic and construction will conform sloping sites and maximize shrub and ground to the normal work day hours and should least cover plantings. disturb the tranquility of residents. A diversity of trees, shrubs, vines, ground Potential Long-Term Impacts covers and grasses help prevent serious erosion by intercepting and breaking the impact of 1. Increase in the impervious surface area, increasing runoff raindrops and by holding the soil in placewith rates. their roots. Trees serve as the first interceptor, shrubs as a secondary level, and the Discussion: It is predicted that the 1970 5 percent last level of interception is by ground level impervious land area10 (384 acres) could plants such as grasses, fallen leaves and increase to 21.5 percent (1,651 acres) by the mulches. By the time such rainfall reaches the year 2000 if the sewer line is constructed. soil, it has little or no impact velocity and seeps into the soil surface. Comparative runoff ratesil may be determined for the impervious area as pavements and roofs The tree interceptors should be native to the (C=0.90) compared with hilly woodland and forests area. Secondary interceptors such as English (C=0.20). The increase in impervious area would ivy, Aaronsbeard St. Johnswort, periwinkle, fire be 1,267 acres. The calculated increase in thorn, and blackberry may be planted November 1 runoff would be 1,153 cubic feet per second for to March 1. Other plant species which also the drainage basin area. Factors that would provide food for certain wildlife are: influence the runoff rates are: kinnikinnick, snowberry, salal, cotoneaster, Oregon grape, and red trailing raspberry. a. Interception of rainfall b. Infiltration and overland flow - Physical changes to the buildings could decrease the runoff rate. The downspouts could be sized c. Soil moisture storage - to allow a slower release of water to the surface d. Evapotranspiration or sub-grade drainage system. Rougher texture concrete and other covered surfaces would e. Runoff slope increase the water holding capacity and increase f. Peak flow evaporation. -75- Where these is a substantial increase in the provide a relatively safe and productive habitat. impervious area near the head of natural drainage introduced plant species is new housing areas areas, other erosion control measures should be could provide food and cover for wildlife. considered by the land developer. Where large 4. Increase in concentration of air pollutants due to automobile volumes of water are to be discharg^_d into the drainage, properly designed catch basins should traffic and fireplace burning. be built with a slower release into grassed waterways. Mitigation: Retention and additional plantings of green plant materials will help to cleanse and purify The sewer line route will be covered with a the air in four ways: crushed rock trail. This material will allow slow infiltration of water into the soil. These a. They dilute bad air by mixing clean air conditions will minimize erosion along the sewer (which they produce) with the bad. a route. b. Crowing plants transpire to give off moisture Z. Increase in contaminants entering water courses due to to cleanse the air. accumulations of automobile-related constituents from paved - C. Trees slow air movement allowing heavier r areas. dust particles and pollutants Co settle out. Mitigation: Where properly designed catch basins are d. Fumes and odors may be partially masked by constructed, contaminants would be retained fragrant smelling plants. within the catch basin. When thz basin is empty, these contaminants would be oxidized and 5. Increased demand on public utilities and services. rendered harmless. Vegetation along the water courses would also catch a portion of the 6. Some shade may be reduced over May Creek. contaminants. Mitigation: The sewer does come near the creek in several 3. Decrease in portions of the wildlife habitat, locations. The removal of some large trees may increase the sunlit area of the stream. There Mitigation: Factors such as fend, water, cover, space, and should be no resultant increase in water the ability to take care of special needs affect temperature. The sewer line is primarily north the wildlife's niche. King County is in the of the stream and thus not affecting the shading process of obtaining a park site in the lower of the stream. May Creek drainage area. Present plans are that the area will be a passive park. People most likely will be limited to the sewer line route and perimeter areas. The remaining area should _76- may...._ dew Awamaluftow 7. Change in visual character of the area due to the increased - presence of man-made objects associated with human activities. - Mitigation: Introduced plant species may act as screening to - reduce the visual impact. i 7 Quality of Small Lakes and Streams ic. the fake Washington and Green River Drainage Basins--Interim Report July 71 to - - { October 72, Metro, December 1973, Pg. 58. 8 Draft Copy Appendix A to the Final Report Urban Runoff : and Basin Drainage Study Green and Cedar River Basins of :lash, July 1974, RIBCO, Pg. C-16-4. - - - Ibid., p. C-16-2. E 10 Ibid., p. C-16-2. , { 11 Recommended Procedures for Storm Drain and Road Culvert Design, King County Department of Public Yorks (Hydraulics Division), Revised November 1971, p. 1. - ` # Y -77- n! ACKNoWLEDGMENr Grateful acknowledgment is given tc those staff members and individuals who aided in the preparation of this report. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle King County Division of Architecture Washington State Department of Fisheries James Hawthorne Bud Parker Earl Finn Charles Henry Joe Robel Richard Hibbard Peter Machno Division of Land Use Management ` Theodore Mallory Washington State Department of Ecology Robert Matsuda Robert Edmundson Leo Morales Edward Sands Gordon Wegwart Geof Short King County Property Management Washington State Department of Social 6 Health Services -. City of Renton Joe Piecuch Alvin Koch Robert Bergstrom Keith Wang Gordon Erickson Warren Gonnason Environmental Protection Agency Richard Houghton Seattle-King County Health Department " Gary Kruger Charles Flcat James Magstadt William Heaton Norman Glenn Mike Smith Anne Jenson Mounir Toma U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Puget Scund Governmental Conference King County Water District No. 107 Walter Farrar Steven Holt Sam Macri Donr_ld Pethick Jan Pilskoy Kramer, Cbinn 6 Mayo King County Department of Public Works Puget Sound Air Pollution Contrul Agency Roger Frye Division of Hydraulics Tom Kearn M. V. Svoboda Richard Warren Ed Andr❑sky Jerry Creek George Waanamaker Washington State Department of Game Quendall Terminal Company-Renton Douglas Bellingham John 0. Norman King County lark Department James DeShazo - Eugene Dziedzic Robert Jacobs Kennett. Tupper - -78- • ) a g�nrp��ao aa+Nivae s• ....,� - .-���•-- -- -- — wry- ` .'�«�-« Introduced by Dave Moon (e) "Drainage area" shall mean the watershed (acreage) ORDINANCE NO. 2281 contributing surface water runoff to and including the subject property. AN ORDINANCE to establish a surface water runoff policy in King County and requiring (f) "Drainage plan" shall mean a plan for receiving, the submission of drainage plans in con- handling, and transporting surface water within the subject junction with land development proposals. property. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY: (g) "Peak discharge" shall mean the maximum surface water runoff rate (cfs) determined for the design storm fre- SECTION 1. PURPOSES. The Council finds thar this quency. Ordinance is necessary in order to minimize water quality degradation by preventing the ,illation of the County's creeks, (h) "Receiving bodies of water" shall mean creeks, streams, rivers, lakes and other water bodies; to protect streams, rivers, lakes and other bodies of water into which property owners adjacent to developing land from increased surface waters are directed, either naturally or in man-made runoff rates which could cause erosion of abutting property; ditches or open systems. to promote sound development policies which respect and pre- serve the County's water courses; to ensure the safety of (i) "Retention/detention facilities" shall mean county reads and rights-of-way; and to decrease surface water facilities designed either to hold runoff for a short period 3amage to public and private property. of time and then releasing it to the natural watercourse or to hold water for a considerable length of time and then consuming SECTION 2. DEFINITIONS. (a) "Computations" shall it by evaporation, plants, or infiltration into the ground. mean calculations, including coefficients and other pertinent data, made to determine the drainage plan with flow of rates (j) "Subject property" shall mean the tract or land of water given in cubic feet per second (cfs) . which is the subject of the permit and/or approval action. (b) "Department" shall mean the Deparr,-nt of Public SECTION 3. SUBMISSION OF A DRAINAGE PLAN. All persons Works and Transportation. applying for any of the following permits and/or approvals shall �.:Dmit for approval a r.ainage plan with their application and/ (c) "Developmental coverage" shall mean all developed or request: surface areas within she subject property including, but not limited tc, rooftops, driveways, carports, accessory buildings (a) Grading permit and parking, areas. (b) Substantial dev-alopment permit (c) Flood Control Zcne permit (d) "Director" shall mean the Director of the Depart- (d) Subdivision approvo_ ment of Public Works and Transportation. (e) Short plat approval, except where the lots are 35,000 square feet cr larger -s0- 71 (f) Rezones (a) Background computations for sizing drainage l;1 Unclassified Use permits facilities: (h) Conditional Use permits (f) Building permits where the permit relates (1) Depiction of the drainage area on a 5,000 or more square feet of develop- topographical map with acreage indicated. ment coverage within the property (j) Planned Unit Development (2) Tndication of the peak discharge and amount of surface water currently entering and leaving the The plan submitted during one permit/approval process subject pr,-, -rty. may be subsequent'-y submitted with further required applications. (3) Indication c•f the peak discharge and The plan ehail be sup:, :emented with additional infor- amount of runoff which will be generated within the subject mation at ti: request of the Department of Public Works and property if development is allowed to proceed. Transportation,. (4) Determination of the peak discharge and The plan requirement established in this section will amount of water that will be generated by 10 and 25 year storm --It apply when the Department determines that the proposed permit frequencies at various points on the subject property. and/or activity: (b) Proposed -proveaents for handling the computed (a) Will not seriously and adversely impact runoff. the water quality conditions of any affected receiving bcdies of water, and/or (1) Lnere open ditch construction is used to handle drainage within the tract, a minimum of 15 feet will be (b) Will n. _ alter the drainage patterns, in- provided between any structur and the top of the bank of the crease the peak dischar;, , and cause any defined channel. other adverse effects I. :he drainage area. (2) Where a closed system is used to handle drainage within the tract, all structures will be a minimum SECTION 4. CONTENTS OF A D%r:'",GE PLAN. All persons o` 10 feet from the closed system. applying for any of the permits and/or approvals contained in Section 3 of this ordinance shall. provide a drainage plan for SECTION S. MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL DRAT .:E surface water flows entering, flowing within, and leaving the PLANS. f subject property. The detailed form and contents of the drain- age plan shall be described in procedures provided by the Depart- (1) Surface water entering the subject property ment. The procedures will set forth the manner of presenting shall be received at the naturally occurring location and sur- the following required informat' n: face water exiting the subject property shall be discharged at the natural location with adequate energy aissipators to minimize downstream damage and with no diversion at any of these points. -81- ( � t r IR"- (2) The ;:eak discharge from the subject prope-•y2} MAINTENANCE BOND. After satisfactory com- may not be increased due to t proposed development. pletion of the facilities and release of the construction bond by the County, the person constructing the facility shall (3) Retention/detention facilities must be commence a one-year period of satisfactory maintenance of the provided in order to handle all surface water in excess of the facility. A cash bond to be used at the discretion of the peak discharge. director to correct deficiencies affecting public health, safety and welfare must be posted and ^aintained throughout the one-;ear Exemptions from any or all of the foregoing require- W._intenance period. The amount of the cash bond :;hail be deter- ments may be permitted only after a determination by the Depart- mined by the director, but shall not be in excess of one ment, employing the following criteria: thousand dollars. In ad,iftion, a surety bond or cash bond to cover the cost of design defects or failures in workmanship of (a) Capacity of downstream facilities the facilities shall also be posted and maint. 'oed throughout (b) Acceptability of receiving bodies the one-year maintenance period. of water (c) Possibility of adverse effects of (3) The person constructing the facility shall retention maintain a liability policy in the amount of one hundred (d) Utility of regional retention facil- thousand dollars per individual, three hundred thousand dollars ities per occurrence, and fifty thousand dollars proper , damage, and shall name King County as an additional insured. SECTION 6. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE PLAN. All storm drainage plans prepared in connection with any of ti.e SECTION B. COUNTY ASSUMPTION OF MAINTENANCE. ding permits and/or approvals listed in Section 3 shall be submitted County is authorized to assume the maintenance of retention/ for review and approval to the Department of Public Works and detention facilities after the expiration of the one-year main- Transportation, Division of Hydraulics. tenar-e period in connection with the subdivision of land if: SECTIf)N 7. BONDS AND LIABILITY INSURANCE REQUIRED. (1) All of the requirements of Section 7 have The Department of Public Works and Transportation is authorized been fully complied with. to require all persons constructing retention/detention facil- ities to post with the director of the department surety and (2) The facilities have been inspected and cash bonds. app-�ved by the Department after their fitst year of operation. (1) CONSTRUCTION BOND. Prior to commencing (3) The cash and surety bonds required in construction, the person constructing the facility shall post a Section 7(2) have been ext< -d for one year, covering the construction bond in an amount sufficient to cover the cost of County's first year of maintenance. conforming said construction with the aprroved drainage plans. After determination by tt._ Department that all facilities ire constructed in compliance with the appro,tJ plans, the construe- - tion bond shall be released. - -82- .mum - r (4) All necessary easeme,tts entitling the County SECTION 12. sEVERABILITY. If any provision of to properly maintain the facility have been conveyed to the this Ordinance or its application to any person or property County. is held invalid, the remainder of the Ordinance or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances SECTION 9. RETROACTIVITY RELATING TO COUNTY NA.:, - shall not be affected. TEHANCE OF SUBDIVISION FACILITIES. If any person constructing INTRODUCED AND READ for the first time this 9th retention/detention facilities and/or receiving approval of 1974 drainage plans prior to the effective date of the ordinance day of December , reassesses the facilities and/or plans so constructed and/or 1975. approved and demonsrrates, to the director's satisfaction, total PASSED this 13th day of January , compliance with the requirements of this ordinance, the County may, after it,speccion, approval and acknowledgment of the proper posting of the required bonds as specified in Section 7, KTNG COUNTY COUNCIL assume maintenance of the facilities. KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON SECTION 10. APPLICABILITY TO GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES. All municipal corporations and governmental entities shall be required to submit a drainage plan and comply with the terms Bill Reams/s/ of this Ordinance when developing and/or improving land including, Chairman but not limited to, road building and widening within the unin- corporated areas of King County. ATTEST: SECTION 11. EFFECTIVE DATE. The effective date of this Ordinance shall be ten days after its enactment. The require- ments of this Ordinance shall apply to all roads commencing Dorothy M. Owen/s/ construction and/or widening subsequent to December 31, 1975. Clerk of the C,o uncil Further, all plats receiving preliminary approval subsequent 1975 to the effective date of this Ordinance ,oust comply with the APPROVED this 14th day of _ January _, terms of the Ordinance. In the case of zll additional actions enumerated in Section 3, the terms of this Ordinance will apply where final action by the County has not been taken prior to the effective date of the Ordinance. John D. Spellman/s/ _ King County Executive -83- i R4 of RED T o THig CITY OF RENTON MCNMMAL INAL01MG 200 NLL AVE.W. REMTOM,INASK 71056 w (i�6'uarles J. Delaurenti, Mayor e 'Eo swp January IS, 1976 REC,--'V ED Mr. John Wallace JAN 16 1976 MOORE, WALLACL 6 KENIICDI', INC. M.W.K. 1915 first Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 Re: May Creek Summary Report Dear Mr. Wallace: This is in response to your request for a letter regarding the City of Renton's policy concerning drainage retention in the May Creek Rasin. The City of Renton has not officially adopted any specific ordinance or policy in connection with drainage retention on the May Creek basin; h meter, retention facilities have been required on rer,-,t apartment dt .elopments in the upper reaches of the May Crec asin on Honey Creek. These retention requirements have been the same as those required in the County ordinance on retention facilities. These were required in connection with the •itigatior of adverse environmental impacts as a part or the environmental impact analysis and statement process. We feel that this to some degree has established an informal policy, and all future substantial developments within the Basin will he required to meet the retention requirements as established by King County. preliminary considerations have been given to the adoption of an appropriate ordinance establishing these drainage retention requirements within the City of Renton. However, these hove not as yet been presented to the City Council for consideration. Sincerely, WARREN C. GONNASON, r.E. Public Works Director MCG:cah cc: Mayor Utilities Engineer Design Engineer -84- c c CERTIFICATION & SUMMARY C OF PUBLIC HEARING C or - i SUMMARY OF PUBLIC HEARING Held Monday, June 30, 1575 at 8:00 p.m. Mr. John Barnes felt that an Environmental Impact Statement should Renton City Hall be written by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) . Renton, Washington Mr. Michael Smith felt that sewers should not be L:'ilt until a PRESENT: Geof Short. METRO plan was prepared for Renton. Roger Knotts, Pasco Realty, Inc. Michael L. Smith, City of Renton Eric B. Peyne, Renton Record Chronicle Mr. Wallace had a member of his staff read correspondence that Thomas J. McCann, DOE was received from Mr. James Hurt, attorney for Quendall Terminals. John Barnes, Citizen The Public Hearing on the Environmental Assessment was closed. Ed Newman, Citizen Lloyd Rongholt, Citizen Mr. McCullough then opened a public hearing on the Community Mark Iozzio, Citizen Facilities Plan. He again introduced Mr. Wallace, who discussed James E. Hurt, Quendall Terminals Attorney the Community Facilities Plan, including the Cost-Effectiveness Dona.d Norman, Quendall Terminals Analysis and the Inflow/Infiltration Analysis. No discussion Robert Ruthemeyer, Agronomist took place on the Community Facilities Plan. Steve Martin, Marine Biol gist Henry F. McCullough, W. a. No. 107 At 9:30 p.m. , Mr. McCullough closed the Public Hearing. Sam Macri, W. D. No. 107 John R. Wallace, Jr. , Moore, Wallace S Kennedy, Inc. Mr. McCullough stated that additional comments could be written Laurence E. Osborn, Moore, Wallace 6 Kennedy, Inc. to Moore, Wallace 6 Kennedy, Inc. (The address was posted.) Walter M. Isaac, Moore, Wallace S Kennedy, Inc. Jean Di Giorgio, Moore, Wallace 6 Kennedy, Inc. Mr. McCullough thanked those who attended and commended for their presence. He stated that the Water District did not have any final opinions and would take all comments into consideration. The Public Hearing was called to order at 8:00 p.m. by Mr. Henry F. - ullough, Chairman, Kin@ County Water District No. 167. The meeting was then adjourned. Mr. McCull, gh made some introductory remarks. He then introduced Mr. John Wallace of Moore, kallace 6 Kennedy, Inc. , Consulting E.igineers, who mLde a presentation which brought out the details contained in the Draft Environmental Assessment. At the conclu- sion of Mr. Wallace's presentation, questions were asked by the audience. Thereafter, public statements were read. Mr. Mark Iozzio opposed the assessment statement since he felt what insufficient care was given to the biological reserve area May Creek and that secondary impact due .o storm drainage was too great. -86- , -- - : wow s� My CNOa IMILKAPIOR f0 Ibth if. tiI(_IK__ 1' ./I101i it tote r r rJ: the 1leariry .n eu urn i+.+r.let e.,esr uaI 1r w.un intrcaplur in the atotrn I li.. ul µ.y rweeh Ilralu•h fWsin did telm, pla.:0 at 8100 P-M. to Jura 50, 1 • at tote IN't"s _ City RAI CA S. Mr. WC.l lauyh, for. larµn, W. 111a,11. W. wi l:+". and W. IMODins ure lu v+ent of tool. 14ai+g fan Hearinn on a Ceatendty if w iuf.e. Plan tar IN. my Cre.•h Dral.tega Itasln for ittste ,,lw greataoe,l teak•, unoer Public I-- 9'L-500 did tale PlecO at apfNuristefely 9:0W P.N. •tt ihu lo+tt`" city foul W- NL.+Ilarih, W. lens.n, W. Macri, W. woos,, and W. Nubbins .ere V•ee l .,1 this Pluarlr.l. W. Necri rupurt.d - the se tim tMI +a'• held June .5. 1975 at 9:10 A.M. at the Departaent Of [rulrgy, Nnrinwst R,g Potel Of/ice in Nrdworld, w.hiOltun. W. wCullou9h, Gordon 11,9vot f end Chaco, 1 la-•/ .ert Pre.mt. qla a's"'J .a. 1" Po. Application min Prejeels •IiW 1l.:E' 1, .b.•druclion peals ef.d the V.,Xrw of toot tout inq ws to aixuss Vrtcnlunr. and r q, latians qu c,niaJ IN, o.ard of cOnstr.e.tio- gents unicr Public la. 91-5W and Ralrons im N+. As s re.ull ul lhl.eauling a 0lstri, + lott.r teas aailm to one 0eperlsenl M ftul..ly oa J01y 1, , 1915, "rrl J to it. above steetlleJ, elth tons royJreit, M:.'r-ny 1, tbo uudrslgead, ,.calf, taut tue above aril torn.in to a ttw copy of an txarat of tat inut., of tue oaeti g bald July 9, 1175 by e1.e anard of Casdasloners of [ta;, County Water District i 111 denry i. :fcfullouin, Brea tJ,n+c e i J[ l _87- }p9 ie 4 � s ,F Y J arry f SIN3WWOD 6 t J c u.en u.oa.� F+ �f wwwaxcMw .ane.ao ' een�w I� .a ... •.... ..�..,v `. . . August 17, I' S r411,E QI WLSrI1MGTQN F,4Civ" 4r/1([ w COwYUY.r OLY[aiMklYi j{JI 3 L b6 .. r.... w......�•'.'... µW.K Hb. Jernifer Pariur, EIS C dlnator L u,c lu, 19'. `+fete at Yashin9tun 011iee of Ca ity Uevelapwent 1 Olrola, eA Y85Oa 1 :1: Oear Ma. Fa Ye.: Inank ynu for cim.1sting our Envi,w tal Asssssrrrt +w 5ewr IwtwCept", in the Mey Creek D,.inage •1_--_ ;��_ ; tlasin .,Wq ya.,r airs slam. n.trii• ..r,1..u,can v1u1 Yery irvly yours, d wr I1,. i:..I Id -c. KING COUNTY WTER D15TP11]t NO. IUT this Jett,. rs to :..Lu..e lrJrp r.r. 'I fire _ m.n ruuwantwl ...peat stalls ni ... .L, 'I..., Ifr..in.,.' t:ae iu i:ur w..ai tr ta.ilitic- :'L.u, a •t 'I!.. ,t r..l arwuq Ali MrF F. lllt'e/IpepA, presi"t J... s.thl�, till, t•. nay. I,.,n ua r.avrmu iM:si. CS J� •• j I i ( ty< —py— '4 e t��vgt� a hit' osb John P. Wallace. Jr. Ibym AA t(.�a.t4 ll M M r June 12, 1975 . .. ....�a.. .. `.ei id ra�tlm •• Page two ..�..,,.�.,� June 13, 1Y95 Federal Register, Volume 40, No. 72. These regulations were effective as of April 16th, 1975. The Washington State Euvlronmvntal Protection Regulations are net yet finalized, but it is my understanding, when complete, will substantially track the regulations of the National Environmental Policy Mr. Jahn R. Wallace, Jr. A.:t. For this reason, all comments In this letter are based Moore, Wallace a Kennedy. Inc. on the WEPA. 1915 First Avenue Seattle, NA 99101 In those regulations, sub-part A, $6.100 sets ' ft Environmental Assessment for Sower forth the purpose and policy of the National Pnvlronuental Re: ur a 1 t epto /M,,Y Creek Drainage 6asln POlScy Act: 'HEPA requires that agencies include in the Dear Mr. Wallace: decision-maki:g process ,late and Thank you for your letter of May 39th, 1975 inviting careful consideration of viro:mental PO- coments on behalf Of our client, Quendall Terminals Company, effects of proposed ac bona, explain m proposed on the Draft Emlroulental Assessment for the Nay Creek Sewer action euvtheir alternatives effects Of proposed Interceptors, which was recently Sent to W. we are sincerely action and their avoid or minim for public appreciative of the opportunity to have an input in the effects avoid or actions and adverse environmental assessment statement at a time while it Ss enhance of proposed entalq and restore or still being worked over, so that the final version can enhance the ervu onmental quality ea such address all Of the problems required under existing law and es possible.' particularly those problems that most directly affect nay Under sub-part A, 66.109(b) the environmental client. sasesements moat be submitted to the EPA by its grantees an I Initially, and as a complete aside, I rote that contractors, as required in sub-parts E, F, G and H of the they refer to the swayer of Quendall Se- ale as JohnO. regulations. Sub-part E Is the one apparently applies to Norman. rerhaps in subsequent drafts this could be corrected your project. This sub-part to designated 'Guidelines for to reflect his correct name of Donald O. Iceman. Compliance with r&PA in the Title II Waste Water Treatment Works Construction Qrants Program, arW the Area-Wide Waste Cuing to the merits of the draft of Volume 3 sent Treatment Management Planning Program.' to us, it to obvious that substantial effort bee gone Into Initially, I must take issue with the conclusion the dram in assembling certain kind Ot information and reacted In the draft environmental assessment that the 4 presenting thee. in an organized and 'nte•estieg fashion. However, 1 rote that on page 1 in the in croducCian, you project has an 'insignificant impact on the envirorrmeht, that -he purpose of the assessment is to seer. the based upon the findingr listed in this report and supported [squirementa -f the Wa4anal ErrYlroumental Polcy Act and by the appendix.' I believe that Nis conclusion is not the State of Washington Environmental Policy Act. It is in supported by the facts set forth in your draft environmental this area that I have some suggestions how the assessment assessment under the MEPA regulation criteria. Section could be amplified so that •-t will in fact comply. As a 6.SI0 of :Lose regulations provides - basis of reference, I used the final regulations of the i National Environmental Protection Agency published in the E _ - . - _ __ - . .womsw..t�'aw�F'a-....7t.vw-e.•r-•-- 1 i John A. Wallace, Jr. John A. Wallace. Jr. June 12, 1975 June 12, 1975 - Page three Page four 'An ErS will be prepared on a treatment -Particular attention should be given to worts facilities plan, 20S plan or other changes in land use patter.•; changes in appropriate water quality management Plan energy supply and demand; increased develop- when: (a) The treatment works or plan will ment in flood plains; aignif!E!! changes in induce significant cassava (either absolute ambient air and racer quality or ;wise level: changes or increases to the rats of change) potential violations of air quality, water in industrial, comrcisl, agricultural, or quality and raise level standards; significant residential land use concentrations or changes 1a surface or gro+tnd water quality or distributions. Pactars that sMuld be can- quantity, and encroaeheet s on at lands, sidered In determining if these changes are coastal zones or fish and wild life habitat: significant include but are mot limited to: especially when tiraltenad or endangered The vacant land subject to Imcrsesed species may be affected.' development pressure as A resul' of the treatment works; the increases in Populations 1'he Draft Environmental Assessment, states in the which may be induced; the faster rate of dmscription of the land that the land is fairly sparsely change of population; changes in population populated m;w but that with them sewer project, the land will density; the potential for Overloading be irretrievably and permanently Committed to residential sewage treatment works; the extent to which use and increasing density. Therefore, under the definition landowners may benefit from the area subject of Significant Effects under the specific regulation requi-- to inc-eased development; the asture of land ing EIS preparation, it is clear that this project will use regulations i;. tee affected area and their signifi. ally effect the environment and that, ACC075ingly, potential effects 0, development; and diliter- an EIS will be required. on, changes in the- availability or demand for energy.' The nest point 1 would like to address in your Draft Envlromnttl Assessment is in relation to the require- one of the key focu_ts of the Draft Envirwraer.tal ments of sub-part Z. $6.512 ♦retitled 'Procedures for Asessment is that tie entire reason for pitting in the L*21 ti nq the WEPA.- Under sub-section A which deals sewer system is to increase the Population capacity of the with the requirements for an enviromntai aesesamen4 it area to be served. On page 11 of the draft environmental is provided treat: amassment, Table 2, it is notftJ that the estimated pnpu- lation without sewer in the year f 30 will be 12,000 but 'TM analysis that constitute an adequate with the proposed sewage system would be somewhere between environmental assessment shall include: 21,300 and 36,00a, that ie, two to three times the increase (1) Description of existing environmental in population if the project is adopted. This increase is without the project. (2) Description cf attributed solely .. the installation of the sewer system- the future sevlrotoent without the prcject. _ (3) Docurntstfon. (a) Evaluation of further, on this point, sub-part 0 of the WEPA altenutivcs. (5: Encromntal impede 0' - aegu)atiuns, 96.200, 'Criteria for Determining When to the propoavd action. (6) Steps to minimize Prepare an E15,' sub-paragraph (a) defining 'Significant Adverse effects., - Enviromntal Effects,' P,0v1Jse: -92- t John R. Wallace, it- John R. Wallace, Jr. June 12, 1975 Jure 12, 1975 d_ fag. five Page six Undcr sub-part (3) which deals with the documen- hazards in connection with those facilities r tation required, it provides first that the agency should be as required under Executive Ord••r 11296 consulted relating to, among other things, the 'flat"' of and shawl, as far as practicable, consider the facilities. Second, among the agencies to be notified, alternatives to preclude the unernnomic, they specify that the HUD regional office will be consulted hazardous or unnecessary use of flood with if the project involves a flood-risk area Identified plains to minimize tre exposure of under th flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (Public Law facilities to potential flood damage, 93-216). As you are undoubtedly aware, as of this date lesson the need for future federal ex- there has beer no formal designation of Way Creek or any peneitures for flood protection and t other areas as flood risk areas; however, may Creek has been flood disaster relief and preserve the preliminarily determined to be a high flood risk area unigee and significant public value of because of its history of slides and siltation problem. The the lood plain as an environmental most recent example of that, of course, was in 1972 when the resource." City of Renton secured substantial federal flood relief funds in order to dredge out May Creek of the siltation that In order tD provide sufficient information sc that had come down the creek as a result of the storms in 1972. the EIS may address the prnbless, I believe they should and On page :6 of the Environmental Aasossae t, it is stated must be considered as alternatives in the environmental that the storm water runoff will substantially ir.crease as asuessmant as wall. the area is hardened as a result of intailatloo of the sewer project and subsequent residential deve Lpment. In light of Onc fi-,a1 point on the flood Control Act of 1973. the fact that this is a noted flood risk area and will Under that act tine definitJ on of flood damage wax greatly certainly be designated as one formally at such times as all expanded to include dam " rot only from flood water but other such areas are designated under the Flood Disaster from mud a n muds idea s well. With the siltation problems Protection Act of 1973, I believe that Wuo and the Department in Way Crer.: I believe this change to be of significance in of Commerce, neither of wham are listed as recipients of determining the applicability of that act to the may Creek + this environmental assessment on page VI of the Environmental flood plain. - Assessment, should receive a copy of the Environsental Assessment and be given an opportunity for input and comments As it relates to t;w requirement that the documen- at an early stage, along with the other federal, state and tation discuss the timing of the facilities, it is in this local agencies. area that I believe, as I attempted to point out to you in my earlier letter, that the Environmental Assessment Draft Finally, on the flood plain aspect, I would direct is Ccflcient. This deficiency is based on the mission from your attention to S6.216 of the *EPA Regulations which seta the Draft Env.roeme,.tal Assessment of any detailed discus- E forth additional procedures that must be followed. Under soon t.f the alternative of installing the sewer system (b) of that section, it provides: prop.,st,d before any provision is made for a storm drainage control ysto, rather than installing such a system con- _ 'If an EPA action may directly wane or currently with a store drainage control system or after such induce the construction of buildings or a storm lraioaye control system had been implemented. It is other facilities in a flood plain, the cleac from your Draft Environmental Assessment as in, for responsible officinl shall evaluate flood instance, page 16, 29, 37 and at other parts thcoughout the ` t —93— i .'lfY1 ". -x .:r�+frfi^'.,+�n,....w��•rnraa.ew r. wt�waiww,Y man' ms'wow_!`.++nm�tmNTr sa'xna.!�^+^a marM!FIMa+ _.:. _ f .': "VeNNO Y'. E h 1 John R. It .lace, Jr. John R. Wallace, Jr. June 12, 1975 June 12, 1975 Page eight Page seven efforts are not made concurrently or before the sewer Draft Environmental Aageeaneot, that the effect of install- aystme is installed, to sffeetuste atom e�slnage control. ing the sewer district proposed will be to Increase the On page 37 of the assessaent, they project, based on the populati-:n within the May Creek area which will re,alt in an h19Co Report, that without adequate storms singe control, increarw in storm "ter runoff and a further degradation and by the year 2000, a peak flou In cfs wtl� x 650 and even pollution of May Creek resulting from the increased popula- with maximum implementation of all recommend>d erosion tion. Tt has become very clear In the last few years with control measures, that the runoff will bg 350 efs. On page examples like eellev,.e: and Mereer Island, that once s sewer 6� under the potential long-term impacts, you state that: district is installed, and residences cc ttructed and people move in, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to at that 'Czmparative runoff rates may be - point in time, ha•'e the people vote 1 mn assessment to determined for the impervious areas cover the installation Of a storm drainage control project as pav!mmts and roof compared with The Base tact is evident in May Creek itself, where in 1967, hilly woodland and forest. The increase a storm drainage district was temporarily imposed, but then in impervious are, would be 1,267 acres. was voted out by the people when they discovered that it The calculated increase in runoff would would cost money to lmplessant the atom cont.ol measures. be l cubic feet per second for the this means that the only realistic alternative, if a store drainage basin area.. 1,31"ge system is to be implemented, is to implement it concurrently or prior to the sewer system. In this way, the The 1153 cfr figure is almost twice t x 650 cfs ' storm drainage system cost would be borne by the developers figure that RIBCO had used. I. should be noted t-ere that at tite time of construction as an sdd,tional cost which the 1972 store which coat same $50.000 to $60,000 just to would be incorporated �.•to the total coat of the homes on dredge and remove the milt, resulted fret, a at-,, of 360 eta initial sale. It wmad also be mush more economical to and that this was m more than what is catalog... sa a install the storm dra -,agw control sy-tem concurrently with the sewer system " that the excavations necessaryfor the normal tar-year storm. This means that there a, ool chance every year that such a atop could occur and o nDso LEte sewer system could serve for installation of atom drains char : that such a atom will occur once on tlA .•erage and pipes as wall. It is also necessary that the City of every tan gun. My client is reliably advLe.! by Milo Ren.on and Xing County page appropriate zoning measures. Bell, one of the experts utilised by you as ,u'tant in some of which are already in force as you indicate on page the preparation of the Environmental AaaemYe- ' r- tteMmnt of your Aaseasment, designating specific areas as It ile that Barbee Mills would be heavily damaged, if .ot totally areas which would preclude any constroution in those or is, wiped out if a rtorm resulted in s 650 cfe at "a mouth of and designating other areas as residential areas, but with the creek. Yet, it is clear from the data coats'ned in your appropriate safeguards and pr,isions that developers must Environmental "easement that unless maximum erosion control insure, through holding tanks and other devices that the runoff at., construction is no greater than occurred prier the yearures are implemented before con650 ction operha, that b to the constructioi, en the property. It is my understanding the year 2000 there will be such a iti cfs or perhaps a 115E cfs runoff[ under the same rein conditions that now causes a that King County has already commenced drafting and imple- 200 is runoff. mentation of ordinances and regulations along tho:;e lines. Thus, when translated from statimtir< in the The data provided in the ute Environmental report to reality, A sasmnt cleanly indicates what wil. appen if maximum Po y, whet you note talking aDou� than you -94- i t{ 1 E t i i i t p i i y+ky+ 5 I AM f Jobs R. Wallace, Jr. John R. Wallace, Jr. - June 12, 10 5 Juoe 12, 1975 ' page nine page ter, f- recommend implementing the sewer system without concurrently Sub-part E, 96.512(b) provides thtt a public 'vplementing necessary atom draimg� measer and erosion hearing must he held before the facilities plan is adopted. control is the absoluce certainty that Quendali Terminals 1 note that on page V of the assessment it states that a and Barbee Mille, lot ited at the south of Way Creek, will be public hearing will be held Monday, June 10, 1975, at 9:00 flooded out when this residental development occurs. These p.m, at the Becton City Ball in Renton, Washington, and that name floods will, in an_itioa, result in substantial damage the review period will bw from June 1, 1915 to July 15, to other residential owners along th banks of Way Creek 1975. I am sending a copy of this letter no all propee farther -wpstream. noted as recipients of the draft environmental assestme,t and Would request that this letter be mad- a part of the Wholly apart from the damage to persons and record of the public hearing held on June 10, 1975. In property that is Inevitable unless storm drainage control is addition, I em firwarding a copy of this letter to the iLatituted concurrently with the sewer yaten, air drainage Depar teent of Commerce and to HUD so that they may request control 1s also recommended as essential on page 49 and 60 from you a copy of the draft environmental assessment as of the report to safeguard fish and wildlife. These. recom- wall, if they deem It advisable. I request that a copy of - mendation, taken by and large from the same CISCO Report, the final environmental statement be sent to me and to my make clear that it is essential for the benefit of all, that client when completed. f the sewer system rot be installed without adequate provision made at tic same time for JWm drainage control. Again, I thank you for inviting our comments and - hope that this letter has provided some assistance in det .'l- Ina necessary r.In summary tt.en, 2 believe it is essential that Y revisions so that the environmental ansessme the Environmental Assessment, in order to comply with '-PA will comply with existing WEPA regulations. As I stated to requirements under the regulations, completely and adequately you, in ry _nitial letter, it is certainly nwt the intent of address the alternativeo of proceeding with the sewer control Quendall Terminals to delay in any way this project, but - system before any provision is made for atom drainage only to assure that the draft environmental assessment and control, rather than proceeding with the sewer district later EIS, fully discusses the alternatives. Hopefully this - concurrently with atom drainage control or after atom will lead to appropriate decisions by public officials to drainage control has been implenented. implement concurrently these necessary storm drainage mea- oures so that the result of the construction of the sever - knother point that f believe is twt adequately district end later population increase will sot wean the covered in the Draft Environmental Assesemeat to the destruction of my client's facilities and the property of - apparent conflict between the dense residential use foreseen others as well. This destruction is unneceseary if proper as inevitable once the serer district is installed, and the atom control measures are implant ited, but will be Lnevit- - SLoreline anagement Act of Renton which envisions most of atle if :hey are not. this area raintained as a 'conservancy environment' area _ which would allow little, if any, new construction. In Sincerely yours, order for the City of Renton to decide between those two corfliating cejectives. I think the dlcotomy sho- h be rZyMT50W a BURDELL i presented to them and to che citizens so that the, can haves - full opportunity for input before a final decision is max. by,1 Jamse E. Hurt JEE/Pmk _ -95- r RING COUNTY Rp fflM%X TO Me. JAM 9. WWrIS lLrt15 Of NMe Il, 1175 �J WATER DISTRICT NUMBER 101 "°"'" StMa IIfTM AVENUE SE all tF VUE,M.Srt y Arb .fM '44151 - The vrrnclwk I.lot of dr. Most.. let rs !-ea Llec the .ecoadan mpsct apulu un ipses,.1 es µnrlo result/n fron c4c construction of r tan sever Interceptors wold great[ July 2, 1975 r 75-i-IC affect surface s,.m deal�uv In the nor Cre.1 Cral.s. Main. Mr. Burt tests )5 that ou action should be liken to dereluv sanitary aver Interceptors vi thou., stl r, Pun_.. Seam at she sue [lee, building evr6c4 Hou dralage tsc/lltiu. asen a AM.a+ assonsee nwalue !<aowMe Y W.0 7a reapoae to Mr. Murt•s letter, there is a need for isondlats action to W. Jewess E. Hurt Ferguson and burdall build ..after, aver feu r<epwra. Dn page 6 of the Draft Enviroeaencal assess. people's Motiorrel Pepk Rulloing sweet Is a shovl nenerous sa is caedt- Sattle, Mash 4g Tun 9e171 '•+P rV M daivf held failures. These [a14an have not yet resulted in any serio a health hatard such au the sproadirg of disease vithla the Wesel honever. the pv[entlel for such . 'ftu+ticn I. s serious Dear W. Mort: ws.tbll Lty. Manor.. [oflete have be-. flu.Wd vita . spec Ul dye, Wish Later Enclosed Is a copy of our eaewasnis to yt-r letter or Juror 12. .ppear.d la road.ide ditch.. and other : f.,e area. This broulht about share- We vl II y,bl ish }roue Ishtar am' wf consents In to Ilal Errvlron rent of the use of san, nuns by the S:etcl. flee Cr my Health Departeent Wen the ercup+nts Moved. Mtel Assam w t. Should you .Ash to co scant ..,the" please do Mantel w by July 15. The weer 9mllty of May Creek, as detrained free ■IICO atudtn., sham 1. Very Truly yours, the Ewfroneental ".e..nenc, Table If, on polls 78, .how v.,t<r eality MIND C"TY WATER DISTRICT M. IOI deterio-.Lion. If lie of .eptle taxers sere to cantina., the darner of further deteriorartoo of May Creak cwid occr• Wich wind ha traoaaJtted to take 1lsary F. McCullough, President paved on eatstim unLer quality and .epcie took failure, it is evident that IM:sh arc losure .eueto are needed to Miet;ato this possibility. ¢: Mr. Jola R. Wallace Mr. Ares ld Robbins Mr. Paul C. Patterson A atom dra/ase study has been swede In the May Crack Drains$. 1sin. In ik-. JWr R. Jeff. both the Eevriroeaent.l "at..ft end COMp.rAealve F.so, nferer¢e w. or _ to the recant Ill" study, prepared by eW U..'.. ASMy i ex of Engineers' App."Ia A ro the final report Urban ItuooV an. fisfn Drainage - Ceeeg liver .W Cedar River Mel. of V.sb/aeon, July 1974. Thin .cud, .er, the pwllMJiop , 1 '1 -96 -..:�. �x -.+JVin� it1�1f3�o1Y,._...v • _:.... _„�.�iyb.YfOkly„ ..-eai _. - ,.�__--.. �__..x:...__.:...�.e-� _ .:__ ._ �,. �_.:.._.._ _. .:. _ ..,i..,�.::=�:�.r..- r { report on cM wrt.oe dral..age for the slay Creak Dralmhe ".I., ant other.. O.dlusm, Mo. 22gl provides roach of thr ,-^tectton sough[ by Mr. hurt's latter. Oche, studie., predating the &I" study, very rode fay May Creek. The KIM county Ordinance ft. 22SI, together with restrictive zoning in certain areas[ KlM Canty Ordinance MO. 1527, which relates to land use c.gulation In A grant by the federal En lronmoul pmtecolar. agency was adds to METWO under tiv.d bossed Areani aid shoreline mmgmene pn,grm are indicative of Section 2011 of PL 92-500 to further study, wurig .thee➢, non-Petri sources of progrem now ur.dervay by lu(al gover,c,-La to atrvapt to deil with the drairlZe pollution and ..[lass ar.1, This study I. ..posted ro tor cumpi.ted slth1. problem brought up by Mr. MOIL. { two .Co.re In Na Euaf mmmntei Aaseswens, we tried to point out that the lapuct cC aeveu Whil. thv 208 acudl la going can, King County has s took force It wo,k on COPOSLion growth will not be felt for stout five "are. The reason for develop . surface dra Lsage prole. for :be muempc rated amm of the w..ec Y• li.ns fa that under "i.r .t plural the earliest onstewett.. of sees in[ercentors Present plans call for ac Lt. b/ VIM Cwoq tc tapttmtrlf took force recomeo- Would begin lu 197b red De completed in 1977. To mks use of the Inecmcpturs, lateral ..ours Will have coo be built, which Would relief-e either e.1.1,1—iadunt dada.. within ore Year. of LID or abe court rue ion O[ seadn by dews loV<rs. our ettlmeca ary that Dy { King County has ".zed Ordinaew Ni. 2291, which ws refbrred to in Ne Emwron- IWO, . very naalnai elf... on population, hecaute of .warts, could ba antlel- mental Rssea..t can PA'. 27. A c.VY of this o[dinarce is attached to these "red. Or. page 11 of our Draft EIS we eatlmu Ch, Main population to range eO�enca. The heart of Ch. King tlauety ordinance sL.t-al betwneo 9,000 and 9,bW "ople to 1960. Without towers, we e.tlmto , pow Ltion or 9,004) in 19". -SECTION c.. M"TMV ROWlguElrt3 FOR a„ 21gAlsal PIwMS. { wcur redL +(1) Surface rtor or- ring the wbjm" property ehail beDur L.gp Ch.. five pars the tcllowln�g ac[lone will have recetvod at the naturally _ arr: g Iur:a Llop and wztxw outer ..I[lm Lhd subject property shall a dlsehsegrd 41 tbu "rural 1. KTgO'a 2t ,Illy soil have been cow:lee was locs[/or with ad,,"to energy dissipaters to m/nla/ta duwnetram Z. King Grunq uIll Wve etmpiawd Work on • surface do truMe Pcngrr. dead{. and with nc diventoo at env of thew Per"cl i wed e(2) 1%& peak diackarg. frm the awh)tct Property my out be In thou. [Sou .I., IL is care ...C. t[o asswr that action haw. co. .he Increased due to the Prupasad dove lomen.tsr and ef.ove lrograr ut:l be urMe,mY it it avwers o now thin fE tsa n installed ever "(d) ge[enti.n/decent ion "cillt Les MILL be provided in order proje.. Would be del.yed. to dodI. .I1 surf.[+ ester In eacwa. of Lha peak dlacharge. "Esapclow, ftm as,, or all of Lies foregoing r.qulres rCr my be At the present Lim, there are M, roue . Mr. t "Nod, uee6 eri control scow it "nuitt.d only site, . as, risi"thin by the departa,:nL, ..w•loylng would al In the our Clerk Dossier goals. Mr. he at. letter meat lots, t would also be meh care ecm,adlul to imtall :he .form drat rage control cyst era the f.ilwlng criletlet "(a) capacity of doampt.. facilitfe.; cuncursystems c1N the Wove, siesta to the' the o .drainss and pipes for Jw r "(b) deeepcabil-cy of ....iwLng bodies of adder-, sewer system could serve for installation of storm drains sod p[Vas as watt." v(e) Possibility of - .s. eff.L. of rstaatior; and "(d) Utility of regional retention fae/\I[ias.. It is not known, at this time, wh< re surface drainage will be handled In Pipes, Wish drsirag+ m"Homo[ t structures echniquez, with drop ➢crtu a or a comblnatloo of dt storm drainage techniques. A. With seven, atom system need to to ezameinad for affect, cost, and environmental +yeti. 5 d _2- 7 -97- t E .-,,..-n.. ...._. ,.•Mp-.. ...m-^�.erw*M�em'asin:.. _... ..,.., :;, -... . 7�i1� Soo 1 1w Al - t �.� i. �..1 sr...�a...:�.:���.- t4�w.�E�.�.- ._ �-.� -+✓� ... _.._ .ter .�.._._ � � _..-.-.aa.�! Instal i In, a atom drainage system cosurrently with a sever systm Is Out growth in to twain could eaceed the 12,00D population projected for the yeat necessarity going to save Evans, Due to mMoteg, tonne tlom, catch W.iu., 2030. What the •112,000 pupilatlonw figure r..resents is the resultant popula- am Delmemnce reasons, the Lw system should W -irysicaliy separsred. ,ion if no ewers were 10 W added at all Dew the basin. Based w "at acclona. It is possible to •etuae that if sever intercepture Co_ent would Out be Wilt at al. tint, a sire eapcmle. pteceaeal approach weld a be undsrt.k.,, Mich wntit include pupping amge to other drainage baron. ""a Draft gnvirotrnt l Asnesaren[ .rate. in the description of the land Sur, sauems are aentioned on page 20 of the E.rlronenral Aaaeassnt. In that the land 1. fairly sparsely populated oov but that with the ..at project, that event. population grouch could oc<ur where severs would be Wilt. Keveetr, the land will be irretrievably and persistently comltted to residential use the high cast of sever Installation to property ewm is, cost of puyfng .ratio. and im evening dean ley. Therefore, under the defln/Con of Significant Lffects and lack of State and Federal Aid would either preclude on adequate atom under the specific regulation requiring RIS preparation, 11 1, clasr that this drainage sy:tm or develop a further pie<meal progress. project aill signiflraatiy affect Vie enelromnt and Ebel, accordingly, an EIS will be reyul tea.^ cam nt Reply Mr. list states that one of the key focuses of to Draft Gnironsnra) Aasessmnt is to increase to population capacity of to area to be served. This is There in w question that with severs dvnstmctad, Is" Oil be irret,l.sebty indicated by Table 2, page it of the fuviroomntal Assesseent, whe•e the .111. coo atcted to u.bm level opmnt. Dwleel, ;here err other Terrors that will .,ad pro)ected Popul.,joo for 2030 1s within a range of 21,000 to 16,000, If also emit this lend .., mbar, use, including: sew✓Des vere to W Wilt. wills the at reed population would be I2,000 with., severe. (1) Existing lead net file atog and zoning. (2) Publlc truescan... lu ;rump, roads, mt., facilities, schools, Re..,se parka, sad the Ill.. The planing for developaanr of Del --scam portion of the Ala, creek Dealing. Smr cora;L ctlo" it a very laportant ei✓wen, in changing land use, but it fa Mast. ass dune before sewers w. nand for the area. Mlgh density housing only one of Deny $uch aiDDms. units are planed and zoned for may portions oh ttr project ara ulna, both King 0ouncy and Renton. viety high density dwelling welts evict be sevens. COD_ent as iadlcaeed on fable 109 page 43 of to Coapreb•:wive Sewrage Pia,., ere sslst- ing 40,100 fast of scut. lira are /mralied wink. to dralu.ge. beef.. The ... in the flood .let. rape r, I weld dir,ct your atrantl. to Section preens, Itma were I.aul!ed by the city +f lemurs or by developers, +ad are 6.214 at the MEPA Regulat um ,fit Sets fort additional prxedures that Dust being gaped to another drainage Basta, be followed. Umber (b) of that anctlon, It providaa: 'If an EPA .tit-. my directly cause or more the comt..Lion of Shaul. the presently proposed /aurceptor serer. me be built, there is every bulldi%a or .act taclllties In a flood plain, Vie responsible LwOl on that A furao. pi-meal approach to smr comtrwctlon will nab nfflelal shell evalasU flood hasarda In coru,ectior. wit those pL._e, v.t amge rayed to other drainage hasim. In that event, pupa latioo -4 -S- -98— a - iacliiuea AS rr",.d uMe, Eaecuefre order 11296 and stall, as Ear [be par-fails alibi. be My lre.k area [hack via reams In aw torn.... in at.. tact I.Aaff o-I further da{radatlos and pollution of /lay Creek . It as P.....cable. 4..Aarr Alternation... ai co t.ptu todra the to the ..,v j use of (land laic to .tn3du rM ..pour+ Lu bect� very clot in the left Era yeah ufth <aa.plve titre Gel levee aM @! Lassrdees we ,arcessentY p .r facilities to potential EIoM dafsgea lasses the wed ter future Yereer island, ,,at carte • sever district is !mulled, and sere/deorrr cow federal erpvrdlt.res for flood protect(o. and flood dt..wr relcef strutted and people rave ln, l: fa rent difficult, if not la reslble, to at Eleod plate aM preserve A* ui l9ue and Significant public velure of ties that polar is [le., flare the people at. In r.. assssern[ to cover the In- mad A •tore drslege control projac[. The seae fact IS evident In as an t.vf r."«,-el r.Aaar'..' Play Greek lust(, ube re in f%], a store d..tsge district ra rewporail} , (.posed, hot [hen us voted out , the people when they discovered that I: •'In order to prwvM self Shield Laiar.a[Ion as that the EIS any address the _ would coat .wavy [o f.pleweer, store wacnvl sraures. This cane that thantrobler, I believe they ahoulJ and aura us consideredasale+rmrtvas In the only real b[Ic alter..tire, if a scowe drainage sits is to be Srloenr.d, ewiro,.emal ass. venene .. waIt. Is to Lplrar.t 1[ concurrently or prior to the ewer vats. in this way, arias final point ee the Flood Control Ace of 197J. UMer that act the de[- the store dufnµe .yota cost would W borne by the developers at the cis of ininon of flood dirge vas greatly expanded to Include darge rut only free construct[• as + additional tort vbj,b aceld be incorporated into the total ee Lose of the hv. ran fs1c1.1 ad a r s. It arld also W d rt- ac rea icat to flood writs We free sod and rds[Ades as call. With the siltation probler - in My C.... i believe this casaba to be of sEgwl Eluore I. det.mitrigl the lnatal the scat. draasog. •-.ntrol aysts covert natty .Ith [at sever sY¢.s - so Chat the .sweat hem sreeeuq for coo seven gets c•aJd .sees for 1..[al la- .ppll..biliby of that act car May Crack (land plain." [low of sun dra/ns and pipes a ..rile It is ale nac:..ery that the city of U... M King C.wn[y pus app[aVEIar.e AA-I% rev s..ter, fear of vhlri are {eoPoafe already Ia tort. as you iMf use an pa{. 12 of your bsesuen[, dew lgsttry in cAe.klry the IUD flood imur.ace P. At tin KIM Coat sthuuse, no specific areas as fragile areas which voted Prelude any comeruttion thane areas• and Aedgentla{ other, ..e.. As residential areas. but rich appropriate (1.4 at... or flood be. . teas were .Awe o. clear asp: aver, Ian ..Ee{w rds n-0 pr.via le•u that haelopen art (niece. through WidIK tanks ant lclpauou of EW me- r con[rolllq cons.ruction In tIlanflandPlato area, AM otber do+hers, then the rvnufE after eonsrruerlon b no greaser than occur..-eJ King Covaty bar passed UrdLmWvS Ik [52] and 1526. prior to the construction or. rM Iraperrl• It 4 ry mdersuM.n{ that Kfry Coumy has already c..ad dral[Iry aad Soplv.e.ta Uon of ordlnaore. and Gees. r.{ul a[lem almg [M.. llnaa. -As 1[ relates to the requiresne that the doc ­rntacion discuss the [Lin{ or the fullltl.a• 1a 1s 3n thin area titer i believe ... char . + Ewlrot..t.i ^ill happen prat.led in he bran n vt renal Assesasa.ly at bliY a the .es lac _ will heppuu rt rater eE[erta ue not rds co.•curn-fly or be[ore the sever A.sersr.t Draft 1f de[lcirec. n1s de[lelvrcy 18 based on the eelsslon free c the trait [wires,. A.....awa[ of ..y d.ull.d discussion of the alternative s ys[s is insulted to of[ectwu store drainageoat rot, CIA ,ale Jl o[ the ..aexsrnr, they project, beaed on she KifKA Keport, that without adwl,au of ins, I11q the saver •tram proposed before any provision In sands for A a[or. - atore dninaae cant,.I, by [be year VICE), A peak flan In ..fee -ill W 650 AM drainage control fYstas, rather [hen Ine"111 ( such A sysas concurr.otly with even v/th tale.. r.plstaratlee of all ree.Med snow ion tout rut sunau rear A scar. &Eaton. umrot s,cs or of,., such a .teas drainag. con[cai slate ch at the ru roff sill be $50 at. On page 63 under she pocrnt/al lo•y1-tees had We. Laplerated. It Is class free year Coft yarlrorwsnut ..sssswvnt Tracts, yea mate rhea whet she of Caet of troullln{ the sewer district Irepomd Al be to irceea.. _ .y- 6_ I f .99- n .«,.. s ICORararlve runoff rates Sal be detervyined br the Imparvlaw rr . .1. usemey then, I bet fear It la .1...list due the Gnvironan[al ARe.Amroe, se, parsers and roof compared with hilly vssdlsnd sail tarests order to "Will with MEPA c."Imaena .Woe the regulations, complet sly AM i.e.. 1. Imprvinw area would be 1,767 acre.. The calcula a I.9usrely Address the altarmttws of proceeding wick the saver control system fmre.:a In ruouff vm ld be 1.153 cable fast or, .ecaW for rW s_ a.'a.r stay precision Is rile for aeon[ drainage control, re[6ar than proceeding qr taste area.• r.. ,a sewer district concurrently with storm drainage control or after atom are rage control has been Implemented.^ eyba 1151 cfa figure 1. .Immt twice the 650 If. figure that gl{YO had oed. It should be mced here that the Ill? storm which test sot $50,000 to $60,010 gra,. . Just to dredge and '.. the silt. %..lead Irani * Sao.of 750 tea a . Saba[ [his .. sae more them what la catalogued As a reimal [co-year atom. This Many of the raced coassnts have base r.spMed to I. the overall nspona. Aso t,-r there is a on chance every year chat such a atom would occur aW gwever, It is certainty a valid oegamea[ that. oar houses are bd11, Property chase that such a &tam will occur am* on the average every eon awns.. generally rate.. to car th.Sadve. for surface draimge 4pravernc Rent 1. relt.bl, .&$.ad by Milo WI1, one of the ..yens utlll.zd progrom. Recant it. 1. {ellevu. sW Were, Island certainly ask. owe _uotultant in the preparation of ch. tmt,.moonral A....." Srate- .wpiciou. thaw, peoples action. A drainage district was tammrarlly impwed sm u..c pr^ea hill. weld be heavily assailed, if not totally wiped out If in r C...i ko 1967, then .ot.d out when y ProPla discovered 1s weld cos[ money A atom resulted it a 650 is a[ W mouth of the creak. Yet, I. t. clear from to rk, f emenrs. It Is !mprw tq.ercan[ to Dear In mind that the Eml masnrai W de_. contained In your Invlroarotal Assesarn, that unless mist erosion Asses Assaf Stct.muu ..I der.mine the affect of .a ertioo and the methods• cou[ral sera%va are impl Saemed before cona[ruce tan occurs, that 4Y [fe year if any, of mlelgatlq that effect. "a Increased residential devrioueent could i 7000 there will be such a 650 cfs or ptrhap. a 1153 If. rumff under the acme produce t4 lwmlt/u of those atem ft.. aW ProbeD:e would dram{e the QueWAll cal. conditions that emu caw. a 790 is mmff. properef es to the Wren[ sn[funed In your :ester, if that ❑o+ is al!auad to discharge Into My Creek. We believe that KIM County Ordinance Mo. 2791 low- o7hus, whew [rawl•4ed frss statistics in W vepr[ to reality• what you are rides the County with the statutory rontrol to prevent W discharge of atom r.lkieg about Man Yoo recahe,eW (aplasaeied the sever "at.without •on- flow to *%test of these currently being discharged. Pur[her, if a surface currently fsplamntfug necessary atom drainage wasuret anll «ualon, court disaharg, utility which tiny gllig County Task Po.. on Surfer. Oralcage 1♦ is the absolute cart.iney We quevdall T.m1.1a aril garb.. Mill.• located at presently vu Sal irng on L aautl irked, R appears that the current peh discharges the mew ch of why Creek, veil be flailed wit when this reef dent dal dre.lepmrnt to [key crock could effectively be, reduced. Scan if all .:immi% were arranged, occurs. These ear flood will, 1n addition, caul, in 'cletase ial demo a to It would still re cat r. detailed plans far i iementf 9 P m n . surface dulnage pro{rss. other residential n.reere along the banks of My Creek farther upstrem. Throe p1.. have kill yet Dee. de..eloped. 'Sim,' y .;err f.. the dam,. to 1e,AOSa .W peuperty that I. twvl[.D1. W.I. Cossent %tom drainage control is lwt'tuted concurrently w b the sever systu, atom dra[mee .meal .S .lea recomms d1*4 as ..semi.: an page E9 stay 50 of [he •'Anther point that 1 believe is not adequately covered in the Deaf[ C iron- rrpor[ to eat.guard fish sed w/ldlifs. These rer,meodatiuou, LzloeO by And large mental .vusesnt la the appa runt couflicc b.[waen the dews ram ident lal w. fruor the Sense IrIsCI) gaporc• Sake clear that It la essential for the benefit at face... as inevitable once the sever district is lnaulle 1. .W the Shor*ll. •Ito that the Saver %yatrm rot be Installed vldoelt Ad.yuA[e provisions eade hoocowr, Act of gaocon nblch emtslona met of this Area rinta!red as a at the ass [/Sa for atom drainage control. •cena.rvamy, seal roar-roc' Srea which mould all. little, It p, m. romat..ctfon. - -I00- C In ardet for the Cicy of Renton to decide beteeea these tom aonfliecln{ 06- ir )ecClvea, I think the dichotony should be presented to then wad to the cttitevs ao that they tan have full oppercovlty for tapes before a ftasl decision is side. "Sat-wsr I, 5cction 6.512(b) pravides thct a public besriud oust be held before the feciltttes plan is a6rpted, I rote that on polls v Of the Asaeawent it •facet that a Ooblic 1.,bR rill be held Malay, Jose 10, 1975, at 8:00 p+. at the Renton Ciry hall In Ranson, 11"b/tstoe, and 'hat the reet" per'" n" be frw Juse I. J975 to July 0, 1975. 1 a s M, ad a copy of thia /ettar to all people rated sa reeipleats Lf the Daft Ewelronsentai "as.." ad would request that this letter be arde a ,.art of the rewrd of the public htasi% held on June 10, 1975. In addulon, I ass forcrrdigi a ropy of this letter to f the D.",.nt of G,werce and to DID se that thaY w1 rsquast Iran less a COPY of the Daft Rmrirmrntal As.'esarnt as well, If theY dew It adetwhla. 1 raquoc that a CLOY of the final rnv/roomeKaf scacenent v riot to as am to wry clieot N,en completed." RrnpoNa The ShOtelise wnadeaent Kt anly aat.W for 200 feet frw the shoreline or net I.". A very ..It percevmRe of the total Osten arse Is in the cowsrvancy suelroseent. No conflict eale[s 6acweeo the a tvllne hanayeaent plan wad the Cosa—b..fee 5etterade plan. L t -IU- i -101- RANG COUNTY WATER D15TRJCT T^^� NUMBER 107 KM Zadary Saaa 0 afaft •,ian DapartrAni of CVmrr.unly SYWn 11'1l.pet well sl :u t l t e:n.*ASH 9MYlf .11174e msl rw,n D Sr.a,na,,Caumy F.wvew U I Enyw sl aaltM DwkWwrMH A,w nA,, (i PY ra u+W i:yaos...: afRYlo 75-1-113-5 IM1..W.d r.r c rms.w� June 20, 19f5 s.c..aay Idu,a Jam MRIM LAND USE MANAGEMENT DIVISION MAwvsa E"APD a SAND,DIPEC TDe ...x+u.•. wll y IUaa Canary Ca.aaaa Sawa.w/,aNam 911a Na an I•nd the Management Division Ici t.I-I VcU W. Edaard U. Sand, Director Jose U. U73 2Da JUN 1 9 C�75 fV7 King Count. Courtfnuse Seattle, Ilasn!,gtua 9910e N.W.K Mr. John R. Walisos, Jr., P.E. Da., W. Sand: Moore, Wallace F Kamf.dy, Inc. 1911 Flrsi Avenue flunk you for your review cents on ♦ka draft Enair ..,tal Seattle. WA !tell Assesswent for Saver Intanepi•w9 In the May Gesk Drainage Sefln. He: S.D. D7 Draft Envirtmmantsi Impact Slaaement Va love tei Fed M Mr. FlUpatrlck, and It appears that we Ikrar Mr. Wallace: .ill rend a sharel!ne aanagemant perwlt In the City of Renton, Having reviewed he aub�ect EIS this Division concludes that the proposed compreiwnsive plan conforms with the King Cuunry ComprehenAive Plan but net King County. The work in May Creek will require a shoreline management permfl, and at such tines more rigorously detailed rehabilitation apoeitcafona will be la spent to Hydro-seM eM landscape wMraver we prrnida required for the mitigation of physical impacts on the stream. Additionally, saver I Inns. hydro-seading or other erosion control messurea shoOd be required fur all eresfun pn ne balks, nI Just those within the Ceunly parks. Very truly sours, For additional fnlerautlo,. - garding shoreHos management requirements. III C0ll17Y OhM OIYTAICT ND. 107 contact Mr. Tom Fitapaln . of this Uivlalo:•. telephone 341-E292. Yours very tettly. Navy F. Mccuffogh, President fM:sh Edward D. Sand. Director Land Use Management Division EY03:09:mq Attachnnnl -102- f A. (•1� 0 IY;t 0. lo.elo 155 let Ave. E.Y. µ_.j.tt, (ell) the relatloNhip usween local short-N» case of IseaOueD. W. 960-'7 ch",unsant and the rintenane. end enhancement of load-tare Juna 7D,1975 pruductirity; and (r) ally irnr/»iDb nial irratnavabls coeeltean" or � atnuld Mr. Jnln M. Yailate. Jr e6.AL.E rsecoec.. Mn,h could be imolred in the VrWo It he iopleeentmi Moo». Yallau A Kee 1915 Pir.t A--- Meeli zing that Uu, dr.f' Phrtiarntel Aseeaa,elt (91A) for Seattle, Washh, seear +ntercW Wn In the May Cress HraLags basin was prepared to fulfill g791yG1•+ bran tarry[ for Satyr Interceptors, ro1.1111 the rngw rarnte of Wth CIM Me4iaal .1 thei�metN1 Policy Act actlo aid r mien for Wetartfr treatrr` )qAs can the SCPA. W cueply sith t a re{�".:•aim/ of the ptrllwraYU1 ProtKtlM { ,tn. Aga<y (EPA) roof 'ft197 w rites -t or 33 UPadere l0z51aatP,Wu), II 9usaCOntteiun tion Act Aamarnte or a draft ft L. m play C, caw accur.oy of the daft e!A en M,T Creak Main threshold M."Ic dSO- 107-tion "tter DUtrict Ma 107, halleroe. Yuluerton cy true ra,paelbla official fra. lip Ce " satyr Distrtet Eo. 1o7, ehlak SPF191� state. ct pap .:) ":,at "Chia Pro Jret ha, m eial0alfte rt l�tnoDDctortod DY mrlroeasot,based .Won the :1ldlpa tis.ea in tifa r,po the atperdts.a It r.ct, the inforesCa+ provided in the EL W especially In ea1i It ^C" Of the appatdlA (Page. 62 dws pctclu/i rely sown teat tsar W. e tots r}cr action, e lte ce: if lsPlasented, All have a /IAU%Seent impact on the the eon tro..r.iel nature of this sa Jor action proposing w build soy Crest Basin and Men Creak ltaelf. eewr Interceptors en tea May Croak Basin .ra ado public upon I b.car Slme this as or action aipUfluntll affeetip Ufa sovlreraent imulrvd nth the Dsela»tlon of MCEatlre IaWet for bli proposM Jerre reouires an Pin+ra�enUi 1.Pet S,,,,se +t according to SUA, this BL Are. M.E. lnt.rcwwr S,ouel by W City of Morton"'Public Mork. Depart- should iWt wti dy tM rqui»ssoU of IPA for tbs folloslld reeeonae inert car!car Ula year. 0 rsily, 4 carets addresaau to Mr. Robert L IVaaa W Eegu Uttms o[ AA tttle 40--Prctactlon of the Mer,atrm cooe.rnip tha Jena, Ave. M.E. Drevemal apply N this Co�e•nity Inrirureent--Part 55, YMeral 01, roes J9. /19. Pao. 11.197� reo,,ltie, Pien for Mal Croak Drainage limn, ad 1 refs You to the flnal AinrorsoUl Aerasernt on the Jones Are. M.E. ud+iah to oral W.l. free t) j`.'H'7-E PnrlemamiuUl Mertes. the Benton fuolne Worts Daps--,teent. M .dayua t. secs/ascot of eapectd envtrarntel i:paets conalaten HAT ICU DL1'EIER IOW akU true rerpiireernt, of the Ytlnnal 0rvti'otwn4l Poi ivy Art Of �—� els upifD appeared U tie M,Z.errl-Chra+ic le ct Mel z). { (Yl U.S.C. Yy21 at /N•). Ie iequlrad u N Yens{ part or 19'i5, It ors iglnted out that Ue rtiy affect to faaal so are.re U f,cliltlre plarip enlci.tad after April 30, IV A, w Creak Ua.ln could ,immtfleantll affect tna local enarea.re.e In enN )5.917-1 ,lace ale action scald Dr•Vot, rapid uiteNtetict o[ this area. In 2) S5.91}IY Coyiiscte el th gnvietv+untal laws. Such uses eha:e rlor aeticte /lpufleentll affect the aelrurnt, m p�vlr. Cal Lappet EUtwat (EIS) is earr.nted pureuai+t w tie State that the treateent .o m sill coaplY w1U all porntnant reauiraevnte ShVironmentel Policy Act of 19" (u aaeMe] in 1914). and also Man of the Clean Air Art and other eppll-abl- Pad.ral, State W lou= fader.l fundlng or f.der.l aetiu.s all. Inro:rW an EIS pursuant U V. mvirwrntel 1w. sad ragelatlDna. r National EnrlrarnUl Policy let of 1969 +. warrant". It to evident that the ..sou/.tad hrelolaent of May Creak Basin "aultlad frs the the ro'>poeal' is official lam thus fee fulled w cnAlY site WA and IRPA Much reyutre that an EIS be uret»red for all rJor aentoas efgm'Scantly eatetruet3ct of the eewr irtercpwra sill uuN an if p onr:raaen<.1 Lou,a failing to comply a th the dearsdetlm of tea t .top natural auriOLO'llng even if Dreteetive affeetip the ut+riivrenrtt, tharefore. :r,urn arc riot<W. In order w e.ap/T seta tte SUU prlrora..ul shove cited RYA r 18ticaa. The propobed May C•wt Ur>lraea niacin Sasar Polity e a or 197• ed. In the reto sulDb With Is 1, (and this applies lntwrea{.tcr Ps^.allure Plan le hot -rapt frte the 1tIS peoceas seeurdlp he to the Lead Aeanfy Ling County M tar District Mu. 107 as —11 eS the w tea ,uune" uu Fi+riioiaentel ysiity guldeiliw t<- MEPA and tfo Dparteent of Ecology or the State of WshingNn) am re"Wl Un pidaiiues N,h,n up by the Ceunell on PllrirornNl Policy (CUP) for SPJ'A (lad draft i. CEY sa, ,ataDll.:.' w Previda ptldellne, w .I1 branches of gQapter 45.21C.070 (e), pYreroment tncluc....y .late e(me.., D,Elitical aubdirislop. p+blie .+d t Include In every rec•',esseditlun or report can Prel.o/aas for legle- L ter Y .t1C,mv. sections 4.7. aaIDifip4'a 1 can ant.,.na, and eeundu Clay J latle, seal other rJur actions slgufleently affeetip the quality 6 W Y!' of tea en,,mosant, a detallsd steteeent by the reapn+eibLe offie U7 4( ♦ItJvwW+ Uu Pr ol�u w prepared Project oaecrid lm the gJA prered by ctl (1) the sovlicrultal lapect of tell propiaad settor.l aWrs. Wallace A paned:. Inc. ew id Dr bly tlliv " seem a.f +tam present ell) W "Va. snvieeamial effects uauch cannot a erol0.d Cater mnalttY proalr resal4ang true /ptic U,k-oraipfiride eeepege Leto .houuld the proposal be Imlemar:cw; r (lit) alUenativp to the Frcp,.md action; _ 3 A way Creea and . Ily u.W taL. YaakangWn, parhap. swam sere roriala 'S p,viomSly, this +Joe pashas will tare a aWific..L secwNary la iset m W fMirwraent- .Relation and ...IS. water rinuff eauvd by be toot Creel Drainage begin. The f I,, wl M.ro t, know what critarU was ortetllatim of t ^asin etnuld the prota.ad Pis be lslasarewed. The used by thw r,pcSlble offlc,.j of it. lead agency, Cilia Canty Water first Step would draw vP and afore. ordltsaeas t.Ieh w'I; anUln District 39.1W. to detcrelre that thus Project will have an tastalifteant ..as rv'loff w't aw derelupmeat Sees. robber then ell. cure .to. iapaut un Um onvlrors.ait as is stated vn page 29 ' II.a ban MIS .lain water Seel alp '.r May Creek than wIm pre-davelopeoAt cosiditione. iw ac .rate, when wi page 6 of the l'IA I. gtatas that the resin Unt even tba.gh the eutiau test to proposed Ietim will at tne urbanisation will cause clearing, gradi:.t, filling ant other sailftcetlnne goals of loci , rM,sLLve pipet by etabting ❑.e ,A.stem portion of or the tgography uaeh ..it have .,or tapact m to flora and coaequen<ly May Cease Dre"ge begin W set 1ta band Use Plan' (P.24), this compre- fauna of the NSy Creak iwsln ? If the 1•rpusod project doe. In fact succeed sse.. 'I. to outdntd and has nsv.r been re.iewe0 to . CIS. I carver- in Solving the paveslit water 'polity fullutim pmbless, to tradeoff se-ea at" that the ho bn plaroaag Caseasion uj acbeAilad to rev3les tho had., warthwhll. In the tug run. The EIA addresses Sense of the eneirun- May Croak I,exin tc+Pralanalre plan later tote year. Before ocmit:ing adetsa .ffe:U of Irtenal vas uro.catation an page 2f: Ills as Ibly a U..Lopd area of ltay CIS" W IntenglY. wel-MIsatim, 'Yle pup•tlStim growth Idllrh sears bring aGut would cr"t. aWitl.i the o sprohsetes plan should et revs eed taAug Into secOwnt the effrct surf.ee rwnrffs. Store drainage (Ling into tts tooy Creek re,:eiving of ranff from, urbsNad se'e,,S on tw ::oodplaln at the mum of May waters will bring wlt: it sands, and aedlvewtary seterlal, litter, Croak. Tina is aesusily touthd on briefly In that Eta Id the Section stre.t oil, lead. lawn fertllfsar end S.rdt, spr.,., all ear which nfeeeang to adtlast-ng to adrene Intact on, .a enelrornent on page 27. area Sea te<eKous effect un the quality of water In Mvy Creek and Lake Yashingtm. May Cr.rk Valle,, �y. I one Of to few resmlng wildlife All O, ,ros ICesa as well as tie bm:eased deaul for Public tranaportsticn ai.tats and potmtlal pan eats within clop proxrslty W the Penton systaeao snswla, etc., Sot W treated to the fullest extent pissbb'e in ueWn center. In the Jwos AS.. N.E. inceres+tor CIA, Nay Crask Va11sy aJ Paafrorn.nta] lseet Stater .. we ebaroctarlyd In the following mousier; J The May Creek . Th to a WwWtill In plal warns insvql Shad LM repodiDle official fail U prepare nn CIS On make Stoo,tu erne city. Thli ors to still en a prlutl vas mdenlopr. Major .etim significantly, ,uen affecting the Slay Creel [gain. should It state ter me mat pert (Abstract Pleet}. a ty lsentd, pwsuant to MEPA and !CPA cols rcsWnSible official To Contritwte U the uebanaUtim of this valuable WA resours. by abould he peelarea to encounter legal aetaon to roils the else iaim. Wilding intampWr, sewers, at this ties is clearly a Astor decialm gitTJMTi Vk 'f) by :UVFAPI, IN All hIS A19 C0S'-M=IVWas':e SIUM .lgelficantuy affeetl,, to May Creak bat.In. Tes olgeiag dispute "or Ta fol)nwipg altorattva Ise not teluded 1n the CIA on page 22 the Aubwrtn Interceptor bas Mwatreted test secol Lary lepacts aSsoctatd Said Should be fully dlaeusaed in ordee to Wslify under EPA-* foal vim proposed ajar soil. ar. to be corotdard in eras theasheld aster- .,ask watIm grant raguLti::v regWlyg Title It of the Pderol Maker olatim as to whether or set an k.5 should be preWted. Pollution Cmt^ol Act .WodrnU of 1972 (P.L. 92-,DU): 35.917-1 The My Cre.� featagS ilealn CIA states on page 25. Pacillti.s planing wdhicb is In1'eLtd after April 30. 1971, asset The secondary onrlrVese6tai :sect of the PropoaSd aetim is dlffi.:t saoeposs the foil ig the me aaUnt deasal npp-opelsU by the to oeaewrs, Since not all s.eondary intact is diroctiy due to couL—oc- Regional AY1raletraW it. if intareptor .ewer.. ilowev.r, such Of the orbsniaaticn that will talk. place b.Ween 196(1 SSt 2 50 will he tIlo d or ....lent. (d) a cost-effeetl verse s s ir.ls of ,.Ur01tiv.0 fa Crests" worts by time eonetuetia of sewn. and for tlhe wart+ treateent systes, (e' of which to treateant writ I. Tat ear the hest this atatesnt as In emtraltetim with Ue subsequent a art. Ta which conslm of the .yatea ,e) and the Molu ar tto tr.atrat works w be + section Of t o 0"tes W Spa.a Cia tit. are W ba 41&1a mat: a.. Moll reflect to cos u-.[factlw-,wa Growth of latim in the too, Cr. a tTalge PaNst will depend n¢Sit,�taSi. .ddeJ on the abillty of the land W hold p 1..... €ba:.s and Negwlatlf of EPA Title Awe Froteetbs of the WILWat sewer., tb, x.g Canty ".lth Drpsrtrnt will act. 1sS vtro®eent-_;•Swat )5, Pdseel Nstatet rul. j9, #29. Feb. ll,i9& likely to i.sa asptic tank-drainfleld pareJU W People wishing to .- Wild Lowe in to ars....The j,OD,latim pmjeetlm imisatsa that ♦ study of the ars01 sl.ting cower facllltaaa ,ndlates that the growth will continue at spre:fos Sly the praaeet me until 1.960. arse ltready coessittd to or6SnlSet,m and In ...Iowa : :ed of sewer Thoreaftee. the .^- wtetlm growth Will doullM N Wilding perodta Interceptors, CaoadSl. and Enrol Ds Creak aalMcan 6o servled by mail be isasd met sslactlr.ly....by the year 2000, without Sewn sirply ettanoing me ItStm trust k line 'Oeated at N.E. 28m which 11,000 people Sri astlstd W it" in the May Croak Dreunege 7a810, craw. the troswey Seal tvweete W to lea. Washington IntarcWtor. eosard to . po,ilstlm that raegea between 14,5W and 21,000, This facility la • sap Wtlm lY and B' Sewer lntercpWr. aMuld sews a built. By the year 2030, Coro .. estimated U be 12,000 so its May Creole D..lage Death without se.are, wait IS sty oOnetu. ,.h, the proposed Past and west Ceesuydal. Interceptors a range of bar.. 21,000 and 36.D People would I,r. t: the emuld and {.aK of the Nagy IXW interceptor in.l ding a Systems a of gravity py ,slag. basin sewer. he wilt (page 25)• —104- r KING COUNTY iat.liw r.ay.rtad to tM A.myd.l. lntercapt-rd .r I14tn Ava. S.L. and WATER DISTRICT g.F., iDOtD, thin wLaid c�.MP/elely aL l,4" tM '"d to Wild tn. NUMBER 101 My Crass lo4reapa-r. TI.k coat of this alterrwtivd. accoadiria to Paali- ai sry irrvsat/pti-d, wouid Da "ubtentLllr lwe that the Pr sal to pilaw 1111NAVE St dtI l*VVk.Mllin viola •m )KS)al aervlce AamyGla aN 1w,isy Dew Crask 11"In ueim to I6y Creel Intareeptor. In addttlun, ,h.a aiterrJlire plan would no$ ancouraas ,oanlzatlon of tt' u-deve l.pe.l May Cre4 Valley and upper raalwu which are e.eltglcal ll aoawte lzsasuMmasa seluitiw arss. ems' ra'f"m' 75-1-11 I-5 r-a c I•ya Tara You for your lntersat, s.e••aar August 15, 1975 aam a i� r YOWIAn svmerelY• ss w... / I , Foul- 25r^^' ass 1stst Aaanra WAR loxxfo Izsagwh, W 98027 MI/It Deer W. lozz,o: l Tfrnk ', . for yrvir review wants on iM draft tnvlrorwental Assessment for Sewer interceptors In tM Nut Creuk Dralnx9n 9asln. • A draft. of New cousanta 'ass read at lM pul'i" Marr:•A halo you Dring ,p soMa important dissents which wl:l W handled were .lone 50. IW5, by tt.e Dmrd of Cosiset•vwrs for ALy Co,aAy Vate. v fully In tlw Ilnal Environsantal Assassaenf. It is uP to tM En- No.ID7. vlramMntal R-taCtlon A -V 'EPA) ahet Ml an Envlro'wwntal la- •' I would like to re9ueet s 1111 of the Flna. Eorlrorwenul Aseeaa meet as pact Statement will W prepbr by tMs. soon u it a availabia, t1a•:k row. with r jard to aater runoff, ring County Ms pissed Ordin- ance No. 2281, which Ilmits future store wtsr run-off ihroush tM reguireo construction of retentloaldstection fdCllitias, as Indicated: SECTION 5 WVNIMTORY MQUIRCENTS FOR All DRAINAGE PLANS. cc: RaroN-Chronic u, F.ric lryna (l) Surface Hater wtdrlM the wb act rooert shall M re- Ceath OaarOorn calved at tM naturally occurring Ic-a lo- 'nd wrfaco - Aen Ysetm ester exlf l'w the wb' t or- -rt sMl' M dlscterged at wrfen Gannaae. iM natural locatlon with admisate sl.,w diedMtors to Gordor erickson Inimlze Oownstres da ede and with . direrslon at any - Nalter Jasper o• Louse oo Its and Peter S. Maclw Chuck FIWd lal inc ease dischar, •roe tM ;n o�.sar rot W Increased aue�td n-w• dwyel d d lopes 1' and lit Retool ion/docent ion.facilltles must M prwidud in order to ha'dle all surf acn wtar In exRzs of tDy,Eask d.s- 0ar Lxs,ptions fr. any or all of the test 2r M rs" resents - - M Pe lied oal Flat a determination qr a deo- - - taw t awl I 1M f II ing vicar la' I Cal Cppoty of doan.trspl tact i iti 1 � r _. ._. - �.. ..._.. ..,n..�...,z+--:+-....,...�,-,-.-...s......aw....a..x..�rrr, - .. ,-<.�,m„^Itlaa,:•a _: s—'7=+sLt24E12':...�� ,,..:. .. R 5-190 SAN-1 MAY CREEK TRUNK - CORRESPONDENCE 41 TO EPA/DOE GRANT 12X W. Mars G. lortiu W. lark C. lozzio August 13. 1975 August I3, 1975 Pape 3. page =. (b) AccrsfYlllty r 1 i Dd/es of .earl ic) possibility of @over if is d retention; The overall cost for this alternate is core tint the overall cost of Interceptors in IYy Creek. "it ywy truly yoors, (d) Utility Of raR'pml +et"tis rulN tiles. ' KING.C01pITY W.-.ER DISTRICT Iq. 107 A copy of MIS entire rdicanra Is sn?ef In the appmdl. of the final Erirmeantal Assesseeet. Several eddltlohel sro91401, are pms"tly cmdrWay to banal, stoto drainage. They iscluda a task force study by King Ccunfy de surface dralneg. and a 208 RIBTD wy on surface drainage of the May Crom Drainage Res, aflle rana'y F. NiZultokpk, president these stu9les we going on, and .nil. a laid sse study Is ndeisi". 1Mish as indicatnd by vwr lettw, a Sierloos health hazard mv e ists In cony areas of the May Creek uralnage Basin. Coosa wily, sears are waited A Elolnq Rat rese„s rehenNV mists In the bey Crew Wall". This reserve frould he ucletall destroynd through mtenalve store .tar d.09S, avan If •o am aoesfr'Ytlon In the May C1.k Drainage Basin fare to to" "ace The -itigeting esswres, Indicated above. Would help lepleaant m, ovairal l surface drainage pr.gres, "Ira say preserve MIS resrvn The KIN County perk 0101lun WS red som land ndjarant to May Creak. All lane that the King (Awnty Pa.A Olvislon Wants to acquire cannot Oe purcnaeM because ct Insufflclant runts. The growth of population sndan In the Enrirosi wfal Assasseant on page 11 Indicat..s the Imp of population growth that can be as ticiparb . The filth colrn of this table SNOWS ae esti"te of Ofn- lesl population, If no saner cona}ruc1,ton takes place. Homier. Sides savers already mist In the drslnage basin; It Is passible is expand they sour systes. For aample, the City of Merton presently plans to swan Sias areas near Hazen blgh ;crool. The saves at 11 he conne:ted to misting severs Or to a puping station. piecomal construction In the basin is a.pwted to go on, ragrdfass of WMtrw safer Ifffrceptrs we Wilt. lack of 11 trcepfr s Sfy Constractldn World probahly create a population samt,19 hetaaes the molest pOp- ulatlon In Table 2 ant the projected popui.tlr. Recant Dept Sod Clancll of Govrceent ppulation projections indicate that the growth In the May Creek Drainage Basin .III he closer to or beer ppulation projection then to our median or high population prOJectIons. A cost ettwtiveross analysis Is ekallg 10 for yor rwciw at the office of King County Matt District No. 107 The final EIS graphically depicts an alternate similar to one ya descrlbea. (Sea sap A-A) -106- - ;yam. _..� .. _OTh,_.. v =••es.,._. f: r 1 WIN 7 l 1 W. R. E ( yy urw..r aw,rr w.r.fu.t rota i«na Jul 331.ea1975Ri1lace, Jr. li /i. 1 {.. y Yage 2 S hti e;c�V July 3, 1975 An 8 !J!5 ticar e ,er of trips between w Creek y and Bellevue aid Seattle, for _ example. This is the basis on which gravity mmdeis arc cuutructsd. AA W.K we are glad to we that sttigpting seams have been included, suchas the - ( W. John R. 1% ace, Jr. hit additival assures to prevent air fusion ice act should beMixidust, ga g� r iagx eat lace 8 reeedy, Irc. included. 1915 F - 1915 First Avenue Seattle, Krshingtm 98101 'fiwik y.0 for the .ylv,rt Hitt to cOnaent on this assrssaent. subject: Hay Lrwk Drainage bssin 3 v;r Interceptor Draft virtal As.essmmt, hey Creek Very truly yaws, Fn uemn Dear It. hallos. A. R. I6hokoehler Air Pollution Control Officer r We have reviewed wlns III of the draft uzrir®Dal assessamt fu h tie Nay Creek drainage area sewer interceptors received by this Agac7 Jute 2, 1975. This review is made specifically of the air quality features of the stmaamt, hot may also be applicable W the statement J. R. hoarsen in Smirr Air �7ollutim ifsgiseer We can appr.cime the fact that anyone attagtuig to male A forecast - r of Whether or not mbimt air quality levels will be altered as a result AD:JNP;dn t- of the installation of an interceptor sewer system is faced with a eau- moral problm. Ihis is due W the fact that the impacts are largely secardary, casas d by possible resultant iactress, us pupaalataa tensity which is in turn perruttod by the intraixtim of sewers into the AT". - Asswepties haw to be made as to the amount of growth that will occur. In the case of the draft assesssmt for the shay Creek drainage basin, It is uclear fm the conclusions that are reeled derive fro tie assumptions that were made. For example, forecasts of traffic iacreawl, ... are sloe on page 7A. A staStvmnt m page 29 clearly indicates that «.... there is m gemtion that the westt[n portion of the hay Creek drainage basin will beset urbanized. The conclusion at the bottom of that page, however, is that the project has as insiyhificaot impact m the: mvtrm- sent hosed tghm the fidirgs listed in ef.is report and supported by the ..�"",•" appendix. The appendix does not rest any crosiderattm of air pmlety. tb believe that sae rationale for this conclusion should be shorn in - �•'w•`�-` ,„« the report. - ^••"•^« A paragraph ha- been included an page 29 which states that the growth . that ocaus sight be duo to ircrmsed residewe by [Lose don are �- employed iD or Dear Reatos's industrial arms and thus '\oild tend to sh6rten mussobile trips" and reduce "air pollution due to u[enled sutaobile trips". 7his may be a part of the rationale for the ces- �� elusion, but we do not helieve that this is a realistic awe. In the - fist place, is is eat reasaable to asses that the new settlers will "•"« all work in the RUHm area. And in the secal place there is na question that growth itself tiaevitabil will result v, immose tr - -107- KING COUNTY WATER 015TRIfT NUMBER 107 La{A I19TH AYFM1/E SL of LLE"I WA" 1110011 •rn YM On' WMlla l"CMY6Y}EM n � r i. IrYrt r Mt:./�Y 75-i'108-5 1'rvfM A.r c v.. August 12, 1975 �'«Ylwf hIr N Jww YaYM.I!� l.nn M x ri W. A. R. 1)ewlYSA tar Air Pollatim Cwvtrol Ott Icw Puget Sound Alr ibrlutiow Control A"wy 410 least IMrison Street Seattle. Ieashingli. 96119 Geer W. Dammkoehler: Ttunk you for ynur rWlw counts to our d Aff Enviraliantai Assessment for Seer Intercepters In ttu ttay Creak Drainage Basin. we .111 ado a sectlon un the anticlpate0 iwpect on air quality Due to the secondary Impact (population Imrmssl droop" about LY the proposad Intercptor severs. we teal that ine wstern portion of the E!y Cr Mk Draimye Basin Is unique in the Pg.f Sand Raglon; It Is sparsely settled am extremely close to the mos• cwscantratW 7Nushial aaployuent area in Puget Sound. Your crama.ts aO tar travel are correct, aM w .III charge our anvirorrental essesseent accordingly. Vary truly Yours. KINGFY MTEIJ57RICE NO. 107 _ Y C Henry F. sccuilaogb, Presidawt - ®tx- WA)LM(,!!Na SIAII HIGHWAY COMMISSION Ldar Wauae. x- Jv1ye, 1975 ()f lAR7MiY7 nit IIH,HWAVS WL �n r y7S ,e,_ue. p In. acco ld tffK n,aaY yuw [tar [6e .ptwrtwttY to her new tbl• lalorr[loe ad r reald July g, 1975 .pyre.la to • copy of the (lee] rorlrorestal stataart Mara it is completed. Sincerely, f G. H. AMRtuafM ft. lope 1. wal Lae, Jr. Director of aighry. (bare, wails- 6 Mandl, lac. q Seat lira Avenue Seattle. Washington 90101 b Gaiety waterwaterDlsttee g107 Planning[ Research for My lia Greet Seger Service plaealgg. Research and State Aid f Mefc fwirorenul Sta[�eat a .nh 0na. W. Wallace: RA/1aD Mfererce t1 ande to your lettu of Way 29, ttawatittleg the ahmet fapact ce: Y. C. 1ng.rt w;.ttaciwrt .ratsrat for our tnelar. while Lim coostruettaa of the propoW summer vys[r Will Aare r slPfficast direct isper on State glghuays In the err, ware coacetW abet tie lrcreue to stare rter ree-off resalttr{ fre" fatare ge'e"Opart. The . - puteatlel enter, for deye to drsi~ facilities associated rinh Stage _ Route WS doe W higher .trra velocity rd lncrnaad bd fond deposits within hisbwy right of ray.the clod of record to 195 cf. (water gasoarcr Ra" for arstlegeoe - Para 1 - Surface Water Records USCS)1ad, In noted on abeet 62 of the eevlrorestal use..ret, apprunirteil ),000 Cubic yard. of rt.1t.1 ... d.fo.ltd la the haler reach of the My Creek Mein Inch year. A Malww Potential 1=rtaae of 1,151 cf., ... ftegoeecY unbuntn, In fareceat ee sheet 67 of the avesaleot. _ -.- 1. table 11, sheet 17 and 18, 10 year stain flew for year 2WO ere idlu[d ta be 650 cf. fm.Coaprehrare r,od Use 1 W 150 ld cf- in' dee"Man"com euaouoa U.. H. The /rcrrse 1. store ..ft, coop than ad higher cesultaa[ creek vUrcley rill, so doubt, Ircrenr had load - depodta to the loner reaches of May Creek. ins feel that the Wtiooe available ter altlpdag the layact of Imreasd - ator. water rue-otf on My Creak shoold be "Alwtd and P...at" le the - final eaviroaratal atatseat. _109- t n (�� KING COUNTY 1 IYATER DISTRICT ]6-1-116-b beifA ItRTMAVENUE SE.SELLEVUE,WASH.9aDmf.Ptt 746o751 Pa8. 2 YJ.VIO f1i C(WYLb101et mRY" a.e..c ucGm.gh TS-1-11{-S Th/s study we the prdd fsafy rero th rt m e surface dralwEe for p•mw„i the May Creak Dialra s Basin mad arberm. Other studies, predating YaJ C P.m. 5"asisr 24, 1915 the RIBCO stall, to sde to[ May Crack. S u Nr n �Nw. A Brea[ by the PNeul f Ptromes0t Peotutlos study, a ors cage ...w.• to -W is Urdu esctlos lle {f pis g2-SOO ce drainage. rt Ibis +sop{ cis non- ton to of tallmithl .d surface do leage. Tlls stud] Is e.yetcN to M comletW rl thin ton forte. Mr- C. h. Mdrays, Dfrec[cr of dtghea Ya Mashin{[os Scat. Illgbos, Cnmlwio. Lhila the 2W study is gol" on, King Comfy Me . task force d.gWay Ab•Inf.trarlos Building at tort co deslop a setter. duiea{e p.grm for the wlneorporated Olymli, Wahiagton M8 area et am Cow[y. Presort plans call for action by King Counq In laplmms.t cash[ force recommendations within sea year. Art.: Mr. M. ■. (,off Kisg rnesty ham passed Ordfaance Mo. 2281, oblch we [ofard to Des[ f. COIL to the 4v1[awen[al Assessment on page 27. A copy of this ordinance is strechd to am. catch.. The Mar[ of the gaag Count) ocd iadaca hunk You for we rmvism, cemesu as the Eallromest.l Amasses- {Lama: meot for Satyr Imurcmptors In the MY Creek Dcatea8. "Its. 'S4TlOM 5- MAa18ATOeT KP(jU[RITILItTS ftH AI.. DRAIBACE PIJINS. Thore is . need tot Immediate settee to Mild sat[aq Sourer latureptorm. Ca page 6 .f am Draft 8aviresn[at As.ememee[ is A (1) Swrtmcs eut.r muting the subject Prup.tcy shall be [a- map aNiujug nuearma septic tenh-dr.t.fleld failures. Tbme fail- reamed at at satcrali. occurring Location sd surfu. urea have trot Ye[ result" in any serious bealch hazard such as [M w[u eslcls{ the {abject property shall be discharged reading of disease vial. a. baste; houses, the peamtlay for or the utusl location with "equate aw,gy dimmi"rora -n a sl[wctos fa a serfaw pammallit, ■ma-ow toilets have boom a. .lnimlas dnws[ram message and ufa ru, dlv...1. at flesh" etch a Nu1al dye, Mich Later .ppamrod to roadside ditches may of thew pole[.; and sad ocher surface ems--. Mi- brought abort aha[.ma[ of am use of ammo Mona by IM Seettl.-King Conte) 8e.lth Dept,[meat wbem the aeeu- (2) TM peak discharge ffm the sublact properly mY not be pasts moved. iscremsed don to the "OP." developmou; ad The ..ter quality of MeP Cre.k, Am determined free 219M studies, (2) M[m[tos/delmtlos fscltlttes at he prnvtdd In order show I. the C{vf ros.ul Ysesmemt, Ta41c it, os page 28. ales to balls .11 sartme, weer is eau.. of [M peak dis- .tat quality deterioration. If vas of mmpafr t-uke we- to cos-toes, eRer{e. Baeaptiwm from smy or all of Me I...going re- the danger nt further d.[.riococlus of May Creak could occur which gmiremmtm my he perelttdd only after . detersioati.•n weld be, trauumitted to tess, Mashl scom. by cM department, emplo".g the f.1lotrin8 cr1[.rl.: gamed on, sno[ing wet. quality ad sapnc teak La1hum, it is (a) "patty of douos[rem fse111[ies; ee Ldout that sewer. are meeded to Itivc. this possibility. (►) g,cm,tabillty of ramilvtag bodlam of ..tar, (c) possibility of adverse U.ts of uteat too; end a o[oo dralu8e mind, hat been Ws 1. ch. Mal Cc.ak oralaa{e (d) Y[lli[Y of r"iseal racemaloo tacillde.." basis. 1. both the Enuir.cal Amewsmeo[ and Cmpcobwslvs PW. ,at.,.. we made to the rcceaa RLAM study. plapereA by as D.S. ftolaw. se. 2281 prwtde. ottcb of the protection sought by the ■igh- Arb, Poops of Enginceu, appendix A [a che rtml Report, Deeds ■arft wy Camisole.. the Kin{ Cawty Ordi nose. M. 2281, together with MIA Mat. DUleage - Crsn Rtv.r sad Coder Blemr WLm of W.h1a{tr. -mtrictis most" In certain arms; BIM County Ordinance Re. 1527. July 197A. .bleb release to land use regulation I. fled Mtard .rm.; ad .1sat, Ilm mamagmest program are idtra[ime of proaty mow uderu.y by y tau/ g.vermea[s to " a"t M dual mill eke draimage probity. �110� NINON" WA I i SePtrbsr Z4, 1915 75-/-Ili-S 75-1-116-S P.O. 4 P.,e 1 In iM feeiresevntal Yseseown.. r trld to Point w1 Losi the Time cenecroctles effect Le both Pbase fad !tiec !I, rceu- ispsct of Pswer. .m wyulacir N no,, will oo[ M let, toc oboe[ fivo ssry to IkrvI.LI, Protect [be Pre1K[ front dea[rrtice by chs cuetly f Tou. iM reawh for this is eM[ uder pioneer pleos cka sat hest ac[les wf t!s e"ar, rill Provide oone of the ascrearT cr[rol ad reset.". et sower tatercep[oia weld by.. to 1476 red M cLmpls- [Ceres west k,olc1im wersll twat/y he cony 0willM re this Nitlal [d Ls 1977. To We eat of the laterceptars, lateral rrers will have teet[OI, tea it I*(al o its pre of the dicier will derr'ieca[t less to be bull[. whlcb weld re9Nre st[hsr estdltessor of LID or the resod l) abeee fE let[ b he educed. candu W. Y L n+�d t, [he silt Coostre[tim of anwera by developo[s. wor u[[se[te are that by two, Iwd Is the serer Wl{1 be rwdocd. a very seminal eft.t r popwlsrtm, be�wuec wl Powers, twW on, noti- Llpacd. tin "No 11 of wr Drat[ [mitaerreaal limpet, S[aLawwt, w Is arise to lWsdbrtee prKad with IM re I (Le., /rm Dacha Ls notion" rM basto popwlatlon to rrae he'.. 9.UDD ad 9,600 psolLe Ev ie ""n,fEd. ut swile Creek aM Mtt .e [o eel loves [w ixsae Ls 1980. Yfthowt edit'., we eat irte a Popov lair of 9.000 1. I9dW. Malmo Yzard, we mltdt ywr vrittea wppori of eur Effect. D.riy thuon five fears [M fol Lowfo{ actiow will have occwrrd: Ye cee'ed ran, fellwly: 1. YETsO'a 208 otd) WIll Rave hcrn ctmPletd. 1. 44ufy etatvwrl caecrol ((hdinaKe b. 2291) will •troll) ellelnate not 1Krrse fa stow dralmss rm- 2- ILSn4 County w111 haw cooPlotd work on a surface off. dra/rp Prows.. 2. 7Lecaauey rwtroctiw rthnda In P'otKt uM pipe will In those five yen, it la rre reaseosbls in rear ibe o".. Prwile rune er.wuol of cbe covLfnued cutting of the Madan the shove pcwpreea will be ndetes' It sewers are 1"""" say creed, <aoyuw, then rvduc/y tM dowst era wureeec vow of [has If 'M seer Pro).t werm bs "toy"- Plane 1 work will Mre on dotrtrntal ettec[ m hey I. sill. Intentlyd CIy revia popmutlas nalrtd by toe PoDer w Stmd Ceril . wErk of Cornsents Idicate 'hot too papelatioe Srwto w Let ,sy Crest � ' w Ura/nade Beale will aPPEoaco tM love[ Popularise h' 19tei, [oche' 'lee 4. ♦ r'Iwe bemae beaLeb lrnblr does e.isa pac[L[WlaElf the eedt. or hither Cwrvoo - FIVE' 1. ie s [otregenne" the es'aedarl I• tM atea Co M rrvd [y [M ft.. ! effect of oe. .. weld be eat[taely .11 by Else Tea[ 20C), PraJK[. a Tht 9roPoaod tT Creek lawu►to[ is dlvl Md Le[o two (2) pauses. 5, twv1W Py S o[ ena C 11 of Govervre[a PSM4'tix 1 of which Ins, I will -us t[m Mb xate 'D' to the cos". of baP Creek ea[taa[es td:cata a rdacd awcadarT IePK[ des, tc ad Yoeoy Creels -- s dl... .4d 47SO feet, a P:.ese ff -111 nu rr pgwlstir prwrh. surly frm None, Crseb rim 136ck Awes. S.[. -- a dletsKe of aMrm1- Ayte, ckeot .w /or Your revive cooretP ed we hope Last yw rtely 775U frt. tooter with wr fledLy. The let rEopcor .opcwEA Imo Position I vtit poerelly necetco already Very barely ]ease. der-loped L.- Secondary etfKrt of so lKreane to s[oea d'ata gs, rwotf in Poser I will be delool, lbs ly eex�,.sa LIN a[Ye ae*vd by [ii WTd DI W. t07 111 ! the interceptor .re aired/ divel"ol- PKthor, Lbw . ► M Caemr) * o'disa e.. -tit PrwtY r'hde of [merol wee say i-<r isr Lo awes/fine cba[ may eccer. - tlrecy P. MrG.el loyh, The ?lay Lrrk taeyoe Ire 136tls serene S S. to aar A y Cre 1. r frewidrL erne subject to cmcLeual curtly at too sir o W red Loch twc nag gPM:jd Will crti. to' ao ledefidts PKtd o1 Line rrll sane overall rthot of cwt[o!,ly such [e[[ly ass bar, deeelopud- K: Me. Yana 1waa Pow. 9Ir- of PWifc Yorke, Aevton We. Tod ennui, IET90 sr. Cerdr YeBvart �. Mergee drrdmen. IPA i -ill- 1 .. - ,veese Q W,SNINACM Staft - HIGHWAY COMMISSION 1#VAYfMf Nf 11/ 11161IW.1r1 ta...r cvaan�a sane. �sm� >ra-seas - octeMr )♦, lfr5 Kin d•wa p. at., loath, trealdet 1�iOYatr tlater District /1h7 Sm d 119th k.enue amall dells.a, fMhlgcm 9f006 died fouatf " Creak salter] lsrr Swett. halt farl ronrul ftataear hear tlr. tl ullwsh: I ufer.su is wee to roar letter of fgtarar 24, trwl/ly s"Atterl isfarattm concerning the draft scataac for the absw Proposal. w be. re.ieved this i.foratloa add ante that rear Carta d the lapacts related to t«reasd rumff ad pocoat Ll slit load Is slay Crash dm N t«rued derelogmt, will be dtlWd br atar.tory emtrsl aftarsad b1 tlsg meaty Crdiaac. No. 22d. w .dra that If t►. may Crab rraff i rate fa controlled by strict abereace to the prmlatwa at the erdleasce, hoth to tied tb,a.q sed the City of tlatm, poceer�l reset( Impacts at ! Play creek s.s«latd with increased de.el;asac will be alal.rel we are cepltar of the and m correct the e.er lacrmlag health ow bla r coafruatlad saistlag restdasls ghoold res propossi be delgd W, t are'me co«lute that the m.lrmsa4l stability .f May Crack should be ad"astely aiet.ined tbroagh afwc.c of Drdlasac. 2291. 1 ife weld ISke to thask lw for lwr rsas/der«la of as coats, tle.se proride us with s cwr of your ftal arfressatal docaat tAes It to - cowlecd. fl«anly, r Directoror at elgsmre y, iv.��Alv i daal.test Director 1. pt.1m. tlemreb and trae. AM i mc:4b W. C. bodart Wf� 2eYa Wll«e ' _ C r I F JUL i rJ�J l M.W.K I. Final t6i/es and ■mqulatrms (pedrral Req. Vo1.40.No,72.Part III) - 333 bo:h bwwfic'ial and datriawrttai effects s:to,ld be clnssifled as having sigmlticant effects, turn if EPA beliaves that the net John C. Ravers effect hill be beneficial.. The net effect rill actually be 57a4 37111 M.S. no Chan" to rater quality, as construction of the intercrptar 3eattla. Wash. s6105 July 10, 197'. rand eacnautgc ;ne source of pollutim for another. 'Surface Jnhr lint tare lbOre, Wa.:,,.-u i RennedY. Ina. run Ott rater gw impacts litY problems and development will re- A. Seat First .rirug: place sanitary sewer testa, as the major environmental SYttic, tLstingwn 'JB101 7 prabins 1n this arw.^3 Re: OswmunitY Facilities Plan for Yastewater Treatlmot ^[n detersiminq the siifican a proposed actim ca of •s Works Older PL 92-SW (lay track M.insge Easi.) yt - iepact, tha unique characteristics of •''m project Ores should It has been stated that 'the M., (Yee" Valley is a rwdarfvl 3 .e carmfully emsidwred. For eramp.a, the proximity to park- biological reserve incise the urban city.- 17e wlue of such a lands, historic sites or ..Id and scenic rivers may eke the close-in oYw space is ittcreasirq. and tecamlrq more rralisad, impart sagni(1Cant^ (section 6.200 (ai(4)) The significanco as ever-more lan.i is c�it1W to urWnizatim. In as mw:h vs .1 the yr upesW action is also affected by the true! of emir.- '•emsiructin of the saniury saner PI-)act will Olio develap- vwrsy, acc.rdirg to part (a)(a) of this same set tlon. ••In a rent in :hc area, as wivisloned by Kidj ('panty and uty of - Pur,lic bearing, held in December 19Ta those present at the - Renlm cuwpr ehensr ve plans,--2 'heFnvi ror�en�al Prot^<tiun - Agancy (EPA) should prepare a full Envisouren•at Impact >•[a te- public mav2inq Here gererallY opposed :o further lard rlevel.y_ ment.-a The int.rceptor, as proposed rr, the Cowprebaesive sent (EIS). ii:ere are three maim,reasons for this course a action; 1. Rules and tna:¢rnLq the pr eparatimm of Sewerage Plan, would go beyond elimination of current drainfield ftegula born c - failures to •he point of allowing and promoting a five-fold - E1S's by ttw ITA, 2. the legislative history of the !taxi. .1 ineraaee Son the areawida populatiou. The direct relationship Environmental policy Act (MEPA) regarding coordinated advance e brtwen the proi,oscwl facility and consequent land level nt planning, and 3. the Kole Of this project to st imula[leg urtawiaa[iam. oar - 3. Draft imviranmenul Impact Statament Jaats Arenuc Northeast 1. Draft Enviro n nmetal Impact St a:anent. Jtres Ave. NE Sanitary Sewer. Sari wry Sewer. Abstract Sheet. Page ame Abstract Sheet. page I. 2. Ibid. Page it. a. Voluse I of the Cow inity Facilities plan. Page 11. -. p� a Now" IF e - .: �aieri.ar*�eelR)6r®rlimdirke�tr®Ion ___ 3- -4. wkes vital the pnaparation of a ^do-ail d ale iawent^ on the part concentrations or distributions. sectors that should be con- siderod I. determining it these ch.nges are significant include of the EPA. Section 6.304 contains the following directawe its part (el. tut ago not limited to: the vaunt !and subject to increased me instructions are that the ^21S small describe the ex14wt to development pressvae as a result of the treatmeat works; the which the proposed action involves ttafe-efts botw.-an snort term increases in popelation which may be induced; the faster rate of envi ranmental gains at the expense of long tare gains or vice- chaag, of populatim; chAng0s in population density; the poten- versa... Consideration should be 91vcn to stgatf[caet decreases tial for ovorlvediog sewage treatment Irks; toe extent to which or wandLall wins in current Property wines from imPlemeoxl.g laedwners may tensfat fine the areas subject to Increased develop- the proposed action." TM best vehicle for anaalystmg these and want; the mature of land use regulations in the affected area other Imported% ynestions remains :he sevt[omennaal Impa.- Sta e- and their poteotla effects of development; AM deleterious sent changes in the a"Llabillty or demand for energy. Subpart E of the Rules end Regulations concetmt '+Gulde7 toes The case of the Roy Crook Drainage Basin includes all but a tee foi Compliance with NEPA an time Tile 11 Watewster tresimeml of these factors, therefore the action is new of significance. kbrks Con:tructim Grants ProW..^ Section 6.510 Wil serve 11. MEPA and its Legaslatays history as the conclusion for this first Portion of thew cttwments. 'lost BEPA infused into the dscislw making process in 14L9 "6.510 Criteria for pteparatiom of emvisoernul aspects stale sea a drractive as +.a env_rorueo sal impact statements that was mtmts. mesut to iylemvnt the rbngcesslonsl objectives of Govevnwgnt In additiw to considering the critersa to 56.200. 1,ir RoVianal coordination, a cower eneosive approach to envirwrntal manage- Adminisiratoa shall assure that sa il1S will by prepared on s went, and a determination to feu problems of pollution "rbilr treatment works facilities plan, 206 plan or other Appespraata water they ace still of manageable proportions and nhsle alterrutiv¢ 4.1ity management plan site.: (a) The treatment works or plan will induce significant solutions ar4 still awilable^ rather than persist in environ- changes (either absolute charges or increases is the rate of change) menial decision-making wherein "policy is established by default in zeal"trial, commercial. agricultural, or residential land use and ,nectiw^ arid at.irtsse Ul decisions -continue to be mode in -Ilta- { I y. _6_ { wall but steady tncramcats^ that perpe.rata the mifi+oma of a g,pemdis.^ yet on tmm sac page the question of secondary the past wIth.'t being dealt I,b wail -.hey reaa:h crisis Pre- islwet is dtsaa xsd as mavoid+GL. '•lance wears are built, portions.... 5 This is from a decision of the circuit Vert in { the restern ya,tiw of the my ¢esk Drainage Rosin sill become Rational Reswrces Eefense Council "'Sea Morton. V a laL*r urtw i,ed. nothing tetuld prevent this from happening." Arc rc docisiou (1972) the ..It aWeed With Clew '-•+atty Mar Turk, to aasrme tL..t er Wniution ad multiplication Of the pupa let ion that the Federal Power Ceoaiasion should prepare their ouo SIS ate twsigtl taunt saQaC[s7 ... M. at course is re.Y.irea to rather than ruhhar-stamp the statement prepared by toe meW Turk Yk! its mtmn Jmall^anl. but LIN alltad conclusion in [6e +ra@if- f pore, Authority. meel can way serge t0 [wteSe Ll,a lrSue. A ftnal precedent in this field eas set by the AWbarr leter- :]:•tc luaion. ceptor, for the cases are similar in sewfal respects. A n ibe My CY t Oratnsge f4s1n Gas the potwtial to become interceptor is the last major core facility in the Metro plan a wiyua K'um .p.0 Praurve inside the urtan cilY. It also f moil* "the soy Greek drainage basis is the last "Joy basin has ibe po,.a[irF to become a lac r+tive laud development. adjacent to Jake Washington without switary samer interceptor Act,ie•_mummt of a balance tea rreen these tmu directions could mad collection sysaams.^ 6 She Ambers Interceptor Was originally Oast W serve0 by the prapu c.tlon and circa lotion of an designated to have On significant impact w :W erwirormlent- rvtraemermial Impact Statement. The responsible official could ( An EIS .1, deemed necessary Whom too full "ape of the pcopostl be those is dmlr¢ of Klrr; fnenay later (it strict M,abar 307, action becz. evident. sure t61s t• the 1*a.i agency. The LPA on the outer harm], is III. Ur Wnitation, My Qwk and the Interceptor bound GY its omm regulations and by legal precedent to prepare The Fnvir urrrcn tal Ass*sanent (Yol:af III of the Facilities >a EI, of ila n.+n. It mLLgbt W more ecanr siul for a single ESS fi plan) contains, on page 29, the fo11w21-1 ooe sentemcm cwcleaiw. t.: ;.mr prepared. iheref xs. lot the EPA perform its function as "Ibis project nos an insignificant impact me the vheiramosent, Wad a Protec tar of saYiromaental 9ma lit r, let Ju EPA pc.raze an E75 upon the Li.wiirys listed in ibis report SOI supported by the teach esl+for as all the al+.- +as. lilovn :he mzaimw of expert S. Anderson. F.R. KEPA to th* osmrts. Jose MPtias Emiverstty Proms. rnput and camomant and imwres the highest quality Wtiliz+tiw of t 1Y74. page 1E1. 6. Jones Aventiu. EIS. page 2. the• wYgw tWs1We-sga+t*-mile Open space. The most economic" -IIS- KING COUNTY WAFER DISTRICT ^�NUMBER 107 1WHAetAM1Ea1 aE llE nM,wash saai e M tasRsl eoaauw raehsssese.o am•ro aM tr_.et i•ial of the Ms, Croak Mathege Bassn can t,a provided set ehwr�e. 7S-1-t 17-S nurse fw only via the BTS process hod Its interdiuiplirury APFI h etc �'�'�' Aeghet IS• 1975 lessee, r.e r to enviro nlal and land ux planoie9. Iles Meuoslf s r.+ IV. luM C. Bathes SMa with M. E., .S 7oY - S-1 �,a....s. /•.C- Orr W. Barees: [ These you for your rwlhe comesats a the Eavlrolarntal i s' 1 tY Asxsswhet fot Saes, latwc;Wors la the May Croak orelnhge Be,W It Is w to the EwlronnerMal Protactloe Agslcy (EPA) It Item "Owe he Ewlrw fal i+ect Stateewrt, as you rhr�M. your lefts, elll be In the f(m, Ev i,oraental mf u mamt for EPA to valuate. Very t,uly yours. RIME IMTEA TAICT 00. 10I --I --- hrry E. 1tLe1lough, Preslb t cc also: W. WL Jaspers Mahe Mr. Joan Bsggs Dr. M- Mahby W. mtt Usk W. noMas spas, Mt. Be." Ilc Qsllough Ma. a Ith F7ehr horn Ilr, Mark loss]. -116- —n'- ICING fDUNTY WHIR DISTRICT NIOYIBfB 107 ( faw11 ssnM evtsna s a ai,�.,�,L venom.s®os .rat lKarl euar,sM uuWaisxaw ern.ro July I5, 19]5 eve c ram. aa.x Ja.wn f Maxe.ax ILA( CBF,-A S.9a MAIN W. Michael L. Seltk 5e02 M.E. 7th Street M"ca, seshlogto, se055 Ad.,ptlah of Lhls plan would in kfrect Le placing the cart before ! the horse. A program of Citizen .nvclree.ent. Wn .h c..rCOMS itself With lxar W. Seith: the foreulation of a groath policy fur this area, should hove precedence. Ttene you for y.w cammants on tine liwlroown•ai Issesxvnt far So. Interceptors In tea My Creak 0rainagr Basin. The population density and future land use oust ore deterained before At The Kapoaea May Creek fatercptor Is dlvl0ed Into is (1) cowprenensive neweraga pl-tn is cansidered. plu>+s, of enich Phase I Will run frow Reroute B to the cootlu. of May Crewe and tbney Creak, a distance of 6750 toot, and Pnas.: II Intensive laud developeena will cause etcessive urcen renoff and Will r¢n e¢srerly trues Ibeay Creak ro 176th Aveaue S.E., a dl starw:e of apprmbataly 7M test. the destruction of Kay Creek and eventual dsgradation of the "ter The wore proposed In Phase 1 consists of interceptor, of eh,ch quality of Lake Walning Lan, .II out apprmisNely 1500 feel ilws le the Clfy of Ponta. street r lght-of-Wy and in no sy, effects May Creak. Without a growth policy, the only alternative would be to provide suffioiant sewerage capacityto alleviate resent septic ta:fk failures In the disc,.tston of growth. IT Is nDrainage to lft.r. COlta D present Cwlfding aesla In tea seraAry ly w ng On In the basin Con- struction u/ rave moony Is presently goiry on In tea esf In lw. Wive only allow natural growth in the area. spite of rf Ftwittea s p growth^ o build by pestle In 1M orate. In short, the May Creek Sewer Plan shuuld not be adopted because The City of Renton Is p'aming to build resent. On se I,ad is ead either rear Ilaeae is ,," t to serve presently less or areas the effects of tnis proposal would have a serious detrisental loped srvm " flo pop xis[ serge to iris[Cry gist sty Ihas or have .1 construction n to salatl erg seaK Ileac On Iutt slat ions. The piece- wuc faciliiesw of severs will se m as resg as TM rhea for on the env iroruen t. such facilities boa owl his. s- A Leeds are presently k,iy haled almost n entirely ea ItCa1M hoards. Actnrd l De to the Kea seni tartan thra tea 5atlth prey Counntly a lists i Department,unnt. . d y serious co f Kichael L. (Mike) Smith the w to Melts presently exists in .any uthewereJ -ref f uecauss iM bolt Is rot able to peeped, dissipate the sewage effluent I'muO2 Northeast 7" Street adjacent septic tarWs. for aAsspb, t.of If. f en,Mite In the d Raul,, adjacent it hoses to tea Assessor's 11 of Olwt Fence Ranch. Ws In the dl lions leg/11. This wTK Is op-i:aieat to !ar serge. Renton 41 . . _ ...e.an.. _,^, .. ..�'we4esvi'ewwp49lpl,:-... .�•iyygF..... �.sr. .�.,tayranuP.w-- --_ ,.te,veaseasgpfnv„+,vppelyseebx ,.40: t W. Mlchael L. Smith M'. Micheal L. SmIM Pa:M 1 pegs 3 Health problems also exist at the Adems Vista subdlylslon, Mar The r Structlon eft•+t In both phase 1 end phase 11, Ibzen High School, the May Valley Hlghle.s (176th and S.E. 171st mecumary to physically protect the project from destruction Strest) and Lake Boren Where multiple septic tank failures have by the cutting action of the strives, ..Ir provide sove of iM bean noted. Oar of the bacic problems is that severs are needed mmcessery oon'rol and reduce the existing overall cutting action. now. Because of this par t'J control, the physical condition of the It Is unforturote Wt the material presented In the Draft canyon will deteriorate less rapidly than If left In Its present EnWrorenntal Assessment Statement In regards to storm drainage condltlon. As result the silt Ixd In the stream will be re- problems In the May Creak basin has been misinterpreted by most duced. .a".. TM presentation In the final will change to alteylate this problem. The material prated wee a direct Coot* it. the Vry truly yours, 1974 U.S. Army Corps of Engi Mars report entitled, "Urban Runoff and Basin Drainage, Study. Creep and Cedar River Basins of flash- NIING COUNTY W11TLR 01 STRICT NO. 107 Inoton'M con- . This report dealt with the present and future stone '� J flows e recommended store dralrage management In order to trol ram Idture flows and proyldeum rdial efforts to what. the L , ---- existing problems. Henry F. IkCullough, Ptemldrt With re,Tard to future storm Water runoll, King County had t*1+sh passed Ordinance No. 1181. whlch limits future storm eater rvn- oft through fta required constructlon of retention/detentlon fa.- I titles, as IMicated: SECTION 5 - Mi"TORY REOUIRIB"IS FOR ALL OPAINAGE PLANS I. Surface .a}er interim tire sublect property shall r,a received at tM naturalIv occurrlol [.at de am sur- face rater exitlM /M sib lest proDertY sh be dis- charond at , natural location +I th edep a enargY dissloators to minimize downstream damage and with no diversion at any of these points; and 2. Tha pack dlscMrge from the subiect Droperty rev not M lecredsad dos to iM pro Dosed daveloq w t; and _ 3. fecllities must M provided in order to handle .10 surface water In excess o1 1M peak .!1 charge. at appears, therefore, that if this ordinance Is enforced, that any Increase 'n future stop Oral hags runoff should be control lei' The flay Creek canyon from 136th Avsoue S.E. to luMy Creek Is an , area subject to continual cutting of the stra bed and such cutting .itI continm for an Indefinite perlod of time until some wrap mothad of control I Ing such cutting has been deysloped. Seyrai pro- grems arm presently underway to resolve this probl, they Include a 'ask totce study by wing County on surface d-„,nags and a 708 RIBCO st -_y on surface drainage of the Mao rr- Otal.age Basin. The structures referred to In the Corps of Englnmrs report are to M located genoral ly In the canyon area to code of ft. curt Ing art the new It i ng sl Ifar ion. —118— E • u�cr�u ota... DEPARTMENT wawa""wawa" wawa' jlll j 6 NlS "`"1�-r i OF GAME '' �t ii v—...... Mr. Wallace -2- July 11, 1975 µ W.K fY�Yr /ra,a M C— �,., -.n....-.. �,.r e....G/,iui F it i 1 sot population. As reported in The Growth Issue (Report of the Task Force For Yw.b O(l..p,.. m:.a.ay/w i.. , a_.w Citizens Participation, Octobe�9A,page 3) 73 percent of our citizens aW ranted population ed growth ion or decrease, thereby land use ply favoring a no-9rwta or limited groree policy. While current land use plans call for development of the May Creek drainage (particularly the western end), July 14, 1975 rejection of large-scale simmering of the drainage at this time will serve to frxibit future growth in the basin. The basin is an acknowledged area of soli i...taoilfty. It supports commercial and game fish and wildlife resources which, could be severely impacted or eliminated by development and increased . runoff. Rejection of large-scale sewing will promote the concept of limiting W. JoM P. Yal la<�. Jr. P E. 3 L. S. Moore, Wallace h kt,.iedy, Inc. growth and development. 1915 sirs[ Avenue You .toted (page 20. point ?) anticipated health hazards where severs Seat-ie. Washington 98101 cannot be emit. flow great are these health hazards expected G be, if such Attention: sing County Water District b. 107 - Bellevue. Washington severs are not Wilt? No figures or projection lyre given to support this point. Dear Mr. Wallace: The arguments presented regarding conflicts between health regulations Your draft environmental assssment for serer interceptors - plus remedial Measures and legal restrictions governing lot sizing present Community Facilities Plan for Wastewater Treatment forks wrier Pl. 92-500, a serious issue. Perhaps the legality of 'exclusionary zoning' can be tested to light of documented threats to other resources as a result of development May Creek Drainage Basta - was re:sanied by our staff as requested. Our (page 20) comments follow ywr report format. . 7ne energy used in transit to and from work is an important rnriron- Dea<rt lion of the Enviro�rent Dental Iss, fbrerm, dwindling fisheries neswrces and urban mvirorm tul quality are also important environmental concerns. Can a 'spawning channel' We agree with your comments regarding increased erosion due W iy silicate the development (Drainage, pages A and 5), This Indicates the need for prior or er (Page 20}. development adeaua rely? This qunlfon should beconcurrent design and 11Proval of facilities for storm "ter control. Develop- seriously considered (page Went of a storm drainage system concurrently or prior to safer system installs- The section, Alternate '.A- and -A-A' warrant comments (page 21). tim could have distinct advantages in Gress of gainin3 funding aM Public These are listed below and address Points I and 3- support for storm"ter facilities. We suggest this be discussed as an Alternative, and given ',borough consideration in the final impact statement. 1. fkmen access will probably be, in itself, a serious threat to Your discussion, Community Plans (page 101, refe" to a RIRCO the Pritinuatf on of natural reproduction of resident and study - A Summary of Studies and proposals. This report Proposes sewer lines dat'" cos fish is May Creek. Vandalism arid/or fab1G[ degra- for the May Creek 8es a as you stated. The report also proposes various dat'on due G turn activity wi;l greatly Impact current structural and now-structural runoff controls in the drainage (Urban Rff) Wildlife use. ao study for May Creek. We suggest inclusion of this in your discussion. 3. Removal of streamslde vegetation due to construction is almost Al terntives tu the Proposed ?cum always extremely deleterious, often destroying fish habitat. fuming of wort activities might mitigate immediate impacts (such You noted that, vfthwt interceptor development, growth and as fish mortality, which Is unlikely anyway). but c_-Wlete development would be slowed and land use plans changed ipa9e 20). �'h a replacement of the species and vegetal diversity and ed abundance of growth is act"Ily more responsive to the desires of the statt's -lag g might save this t weanf-may is seldom ingaccredient. p Land- scaping fight sate rats important habita6 ingredient, e d at a high cost. Restoration is seldom accapllcheV m the degree described In project proposals such as this. O �1 Mr. Wallace -3- July 14. 1975 It. Wallace -a- July U, 19 5 Fruit a fish habitat protection point of vier, only '8w Is If acceptable alternate, ether than the 'M nothing' alternate (page 21i. prwpio? stations Mitiytime Tha Adverse Impact On The Emirament Doe To Construction my be 'i Murmalous', wt can probably be concealed with far less andscaping flan what would be required to mitigate fish losses, which are a renewble An asswmptioh Is aside [net strew. flows, temperatures, and - ter resource if habitat is available. quality will still be conducive to natural reproduction In the future (page 28, point 2). It should be recognized that development following severing will Emirormental Impact of the proposed Action probably increase flows and pollute the water, thereby eliminating spawning. The following comments are in reference to the saction, 'Casstructior Mydroseedim is frequeatly Ineffective in holding steep slopes, - In the Creek" (page 24.1 Coed trusting in the creeks will have seer* 1mp+ets depending upon soil type. This should be noted to the final report (page 18, on the creek environs. Truly effective restoration would «quire a eocvrte pobd 9) „ff,.rt f- .nnnr^ .nd z!nt.in :;awning grd.cl:, era --- as:art :fec t ire Wank vegetation regs mth, and soil stability. This draft does not adequately explain plans for the spawning channel and egg boa ( page 28. point 10). Will this be only for sal man . Who will Law-flow construction will Mr a 'minimal' effect only in regards wintatn the facility? to salmonid reproduction. Strew food supplies will be severely Impacted. Sedimentation would be severe and my resident fish would be affected. Ittlatiza,ship Bet.een local_:hurt-Term uses of Man's Environment and maintenance 7= —t oTlo%T— tefttr Increased use of the creek proper by people my well spell the end of salmon and probably trout repooduction, especially if development follows. This section Indicates severs will be replaced as required (page 2V). We do not agree that direct mvtr. tal impacts .would repr*s*At 'minimal now frequently will the sewers have = be replaced? If they are beneath the impact. We recoamrd that this cmclusi✓i (page 24, hottom) be explained In :reeks, stream restoration (if successful) will be disrupted again at a later the final draft. date. This s"Id be rccb"ized In the final draft. Given the anticipated -urban- runoffs described under, -Environmental Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resource Which Wauld Be Involved - Effect on Water Quality' (page 2C), how will the overall water quality be I*the proposed Act—lon-5-imuld It Be Implemented Improved in May Creek? Is existing drainfield leaching A great threat, or does it outweigh that of the urban runoff? The type of mitigation referred to in this section (page 29) only mitigates impacts to Moon, not resident fishes. Mittgating The Adve, Impact On The Emirmment /AMeMi. - Exhibit -A': Fish And Fish Mabttst Assessment - Key Creek and Money Creek The statement regarding maragement of water courses is intrinsically valid (paragraph 2, page 27). but in Act") practice, all too frequently Apgar-Y, -^ attempt was rile to assess Impacts uWn salmon and/or we,11-Intentioned development controls are overridden. Thus the validity of trout moductivity ("lathoK'. page 39) in this wtim. Some assessment of these controls AS mitigation for the project are negated. Further, even with strew productivity could have been achieved with redid sampling. out-migrant controls, dawage to the stream which is allowed may be critical, siMe the c,unts, spawning counts, etc, and we, find no indication of the va.ue of the stream environment is already impacted to a degree. resource at present. The appendix, as a general surrey of standing populations. is very grad, but little information concerning Saime or kokanee productivity The qualifying langua3e (e.g. contractors -should be- required.. was evident. as practical, planting 'should be' encouraged etc.) used to describe mft{gatlm is of concern to us (page d7, paragraph 3). Clearly, the controls established The paragraphs regarding limited production due to con-caused to protect the enviroment are not completely assured. Experience has shown increased flows and sedimeatatton ('0{scu:sim and Recommendations% page 48-49) us that mitigations are rarely completely realized. We refer you W 'A Case points out the threat of further developomot. i Study-The Sad Story of Thornton Creek' (A Summary of Studies and promosals, RISCO: woe 33), 1 -12u- ,. -�'•`--"_ --a.arso+rea..n,-.:�-.�:.tf'Y[:.�%:.iY16 - `_.e`Ii�IElP1e.'ri[� 1. --- t i -1 lii� 1-r71. TY -- � J '.Y.Ii�r�i J1.7T171CT Mr. liallace -E- July 14. 1975 :..z:.: 11.t.awarvwF SF o.c4ivuZ.was[[.saBOa•tM Hma7at Me,to ironer 'General Habitat Requtrements' (Page 49) it is noted that _w��a 75-I-ill-s .,the major requirement for ri retaining present U)man ind trout Praductiun ' potential in May and Honey Creeks Is to am intain meter quality (and quantity, r.z c ew.,,;,.. S"Le 1 24. 1975 in the case of May Creek) at levels no less them at Present.' It Should " ,N der recognized that flows no greater than the Present maim are also required. Resident fish production ePAIM nt must include rec"CIt"a of adequate cover (vegetation, cut banks), food supply. and spawning gravels {'Salmon Production lrprovwent', page 49). Chanoellzing and other constructing nor 0eparta®e o! cam. may eHmina to resident fish habitat. 1'ow however,harer, Y have beneficialNiu m orb Ccylr,l 9q effects on downstream habitat. More information on this is needed in the report_ OlysplA, wasbiaµtun 9ESOi In regard to the Section, PMONNlnldt1a Relative La Interceptor At": Flu. 1-.ssee s. octedric, west. Chief Construction (page 50) the following should be noted. Siltation world not Lwirnemeuul M--- eve., utvl.l. ne:essarily be temporary (as contended in point 11 if it sere not Purged from doemstrea. gravels, either by flows, spar[49 fish, or mamally. 1R Gettree: may tot be flushed out amtdmatically. Fish would return only If the habitat in which they can relocate were truly there. Assuming successful relocation, Title letter is In reapww to your letter of July 14. 1975 and the t impacts Oyer tulawe years should be considered. What effects are anticipated conm.era contained therein in reteree<s to Civic Draft Ewv r "' within 15 years or leas? beas+,esoq btetesam[ w tie proposed May Creak with the or. . e Avoidance of ' it_...,n and other objectives implied in points tap ursit Levi roacm,al Aseee.eeet Ewteeeed antes wick the Impact o and; three (page 50) can best be accomplished by avoiding placing lines in the the ee[tre D1a:.1 lasts. The Proposed Interceptor of about { curets. 16,500 feat b sited [o ed Bear only a will portlw aE the dream l."Is of May Crash. Recommendations inciude9 in point four are acknowledged (Page SO). If fish resources are to be protected, technical provisius 'nmsV be followed. The etch Flue May Crest Ire ft. ear le divided the nvn (I) thaws. et whack Claw 1 of it rr taw Ysahole "m" to [he coat lua of May In reference to the section, Impact on Fisheries. we offer the following Creek sad meter Us". A dUtaace of a750 feet, sed Ineae It will sr w tree ome, Creed o txu Avenue E.L., • d/stae<e of Learnt (p:ge 50). You recommended Implesentsti On of erosion contrrl mass"". lowaml t [ This should " an integral part of the project. Placing sneer lines out Of spproa , 77s0 feet. the creeks coupled with limited development, and urban runmeff control - would be The work pro"*" is Fl sou I totrsises at also fart of interceptor i a better way of controlling erosion. swwer. of Mich all but appry Wlely 1500 fare lies to the City of Thank you for the opportunity to read and coamesiL an lions, sta!sent, dsaton .rues[ elmkt-at-vay a" is no wy effects May Creek. The Me Rope our camerits sill M helpful. apprcelvmte 15s feet tbst ilea beyond the said of the to" rimht-ot- wy crowns He, Creek two •1. . a" Honey Creek Dote, all within the Sincerely, peopertiee of the Llem Cowty earl mlvlsles. The proposed K—Ydale lete,tap[or will c... May Creek ears. All of [M Tropes" four (4) THE OEPARTKR7 OF 6W cramilegm rslk be at sppraWtely " deQsee to the treed bed. i I We Its. ►ads le co.tsct with the delver:" a" Casa Depa"..ta slot. r aI_ laceptlw at this "eject ass fall, came., that Ga rstoratlan Eugene S. Dziedzic, Asst. Chief off... are wvceewr, [a ow,ca.e the acme caused by those cross, Environmental Mleagmmet DOW" sham. it is .11 to retell :bat the Hsttic[ has ahead, "...blfshed r ESD.jb cc: E. A. Chitewd, Regional Manager Agencies -121— U.Trt. of Cue of C. 15-1 117-1 7i-1-111-1 Sep[esO r e[ 24. L975 e ,g3subs, I4, 19/5 Pals 2 am 1 Its villiwasuas to conp.Y vita these Oeparerecs- t"ulre is 4 1. RetaK ton/dw.eptler tscll/tler A.C.A be proaided regard to strm r.s[oraUtu b> its prime ectlalct. ie MAY Crest le ordas . bawls all surface mete[ Is routine at an peat dlubKp. to amroent=uctim at Am """"Los fame clue Margin It. I. Ilaebls "a,- " a result of field inapec[l. inch Yeears. J. [able ad 4fsr, m- of the creps4p hen Memo mood to a ease deals- IL appeal a, far.fou, chew t this erdlepKe Is engage". that my Robert P1 ahlt positive nal the Repoydals, la[erca for has be.m relocated to la'[uK io fa.. score dranaR< ruaoft should br controlled. b.paas A assets, of apsloKs The llay Creel cmypo I[sa 1160 Avenue S.[. . RmmY Lrenk 1s an area As m alrerea[Ive to luca[Lq In Memory Creek, w are proposing go sahlecc . continual rusting of as stsm bad and sw:h cutting vi/l rove the Yon.. oast Interceptor fgs the attar ram of Mo.p Creel swclemo for me Ldefinite Per1N of Use uatfl =se oarnll rthod frtu Oevll•u glbw in MAY Creak. by thin .l+reclen, the Ksbir of catro111" such ca.<las has hem developed. Sever..) proSsem are of d[sturblo[ ',he f4herir 4 Mopoy Crept Km rtstwlly elWsatN. Pseees[ly y of Kin . sepolae tines .. drai. Thep fechide s cost farce e<udp et [log few[1 s sar2eu /u tease ad a 20p b1pC0 a[adY Iles:yWtum of the Ramir.t on surteca destaese at the May Creak D.l.le 4afa. it is unfortunate but the s=cerlal press='" to am Orsft [aallum- agscructur. referred to 10 am carps of bgiomr= gepo[c are . he natal Menem' ScalemK 4 gsprd to egos Ireton" problems Le .ocaaad &~.If, to the canysa are. co coarro1 the Cuttlrq And the the May Creak baste h,-s been e4laterprecN by Asset mo*"Oes. The 'taultin al lta[1w. presmcat/s in che ►(sal ysaf[nsasr.l Asereasanc Ststm=et mill 7. cowcovatiw effort to both Ruse t and Flares 11, to bon <haogN . aflouter. this potables. physlca111 ►retK[ the p'o1Kt [rep destruction by the cstClq ..efts gee Material presented won a dig", quote frs an, 1974 Atey Cmepa of the asrm, vIll provide sae of as necessary es[rot ad reduce of tn[loepu report mUcled, vurhee Rumtf ad 6aln fhataSe [tr>, the salstlag ws[Sll earths{ sells. a.. nt [LLS p='Ua/ csrrol, Canna ad Cdar ■i.er pmfep of Wshlestee.' This report deal[ ulill am physiul caedlCiar of the canyon mill H4rtorate less rapidly the presmt sed futurestore flaw Andreconvene" s.v d[alnage [ben if fsf[ In Ito present condition. AM a repult, the tlsherlm d ah maoagvrat to cmtroi am future tiwe and prod" repodlal efforts wid to whoa." slue [Ge =lit load in the *Clean mill he reduce. y to ."to the ."it., Probloep. Altusatlw to the Proposed A<[ls With regard to future store motor rveoff, [lag County hm pssef Ordl- neece Yu. 2281, sFla line/. future at.. "car ramff throes am loans. Thule fas. to proposed I. am se eanl eieress met 6errtu ga s►ta requlyd Crina[rucgl on Of retsetioo/desamcl. facilities, m idluted: loans. The ergs pAM the to ne .rved by topla V I ad Close II is a3raadY urbmltN ad she [read co this soar probebiY 'meat he sa- SwTIOs 5 - M Tm RfIIOIfi[Np1R5 Fos All "MACE a 41 reread. Tbo urbmt.'lm go this pole[ is Air by -"tad A Vm foreign hazard dep to the rececdd failure of vptic '..,art miry I. Sarfoce motor m.rty che WIKt proepr[> mull bon .pater. The Ruse I eel phase 1! prmlect is responsive . rho. reca/wd At the .[orally Krmn/tu brill. and w'- nerds" earn wter settle! Lbs Fajen Propecir shell be dls- <heTtd a[ a m saga[ leu.I. vicb ed g.es sturdy In [d dt scants of grwcb, it le mcepaaq . vac ire oroeac of dimlm'ors to Ai"M. dawetrm deals Ad vile ro bul4lq .[pads tea flu May Csepk the 4sla. . of '*revs ed saw diversion at any of tlwo points' and "ara. Is desplsigns p [[leg po le the o. Me ro apt. of ..your" "ro gravlbv dNlrem by psgls 4 the gas, ep Yos ldieate le Your letter 2. The peak dlsrAer-p, from, :Jls het", ogawrty, May Our ne /Tires Crouse [sw). Th. City of teats 4 Fistulas to W34 severs tpermafed dw tc the upon" Nvalgret- sad on m focusing basis mYl4 rameWish school.to / .to Vaulty Prl.. asame[ad areas Ad un either pt R= ng Vl[Y lines .,u flw to ss4,tiug =amer It. or lift sut4sa. The Piseaneal rrssrucalep of to v111 de po as laag ae the Sad for men teclli- tfu mks.. Sever tuads are preepotly h=md Atari, entirely w -122- f peer. of Lose we11. at 11 75-1-11]-S 7b-i-{1]-f ' SepLaob.r 14, 1925 Sgteis, 24, 19J5 tpogo d Page S bwlth luucds. &c...died to the at. u.lta,law frs the Se.btle- FmrLxumaeoul impnc[ of yropoeed hctlo King Coaety Health bepartment, a nary serious thr�t to health - E' presently estate in many ..,ad area. Lecws. the it is as, able we ft.. with rise ,armratlo esda and. as stated barat.befare, we to properly dissipate the sewage effluent frog aptic tanks. Per hays establiahe! a "tract record" to thew utters. ex"Pta, conform count 11 cha ditches adjacent to bo•s. is the Assessor's Plat of loses Fence assch us, f. the aLlllos (agJl). S. sdlues.latlo I, bused to xCar durlvg cwuttaction. The This weer Ss equivalent to raw barge. Yulth ptoblema also sale[ tractor will by 1".1.401 to eaatul hi. ...ra if. .. I. a. p.s(ble. .t the &daces Plata euhdivl.los, seat Yaza Ylgb Schnol, the May Valley " .1. ...,d at coatterad wolcoring of his xuvlli.. by the [leg Ylghla"a With and Y.C. I2191 Street) end take Brea. Were slti_ Cauaty Park Mardian. •he gift Count, fiepartmeat of Nydrw'.Ica and ale —Pt]c tenth imitates have been "cod. One of the basic Problem- tha Uep.[eaen[t of Plia,i.e and Lama. I. the[ severs .re odd env. �. Am stated Surface, as are um,bLe to make a factual evaluation of the The soils 1. the bast. are at unstable an 1, ebnract.risN by the effect of people en Coe Ltnberles. The cotrol of tblo elauoc Iles - .torysus of the slopes in May Creak ad Yore Cresh caoyws. The besad the ,ta""ry paver. of the gorerovoul agemtw spa...Cis, very cability of ch. soils make closes poorly W",.bls a. rtu:wrn this project. of $.,tic Cook effiro2. [acting of the ..Ise bed Co fasey Creak and flay C...k usyna dons occu, u rstarted to herein►t fore. Can- The reetts, of at►ae .if is discussed heretofate. Certainly the I.- I wtrmtloa techniques will leprove cutting is May Creak and the r.loca- text,,". Yet. will reaeve dulafinu effluent It. the aft.. 1 We of the ft.., bey tou�cep"r hill S.C. ch. Impact On, Navy Creak. lflttga[ift the gdwca Iapsct Onfo the ul roeaat TM ".pauel.g craasl" ►f Or.ass Pc. the marlma ,bolo- he T eefore.L of WAI.eaco b. 2281 IS en Ol v a etatvtorT rputrent. poW Midis, i Last retained as • eo.ul Coot. ed chat cut.1..cea ab" v r arias bill,, Of t of [het . affected. " the future to directly the aop.al- ad Gas: CePresesCo urea ldicud [het thin is Irehebu, .et s atla- Wllq of the &gerio of raced, locld img the Department of tram. factory mitigating effolt, 11a ate a &{resat that other tlalortee' C,habllltatton atbods to be specified by the Oroartaaall are In order. Le agues. that tie .tsar. at. lops,". It I. our Ca.ta[{an that cha c..alroc[/os Col the protect veil bare , poelu,e affect o Ch" lmpac- Nran e... may have base a nubs"a[Ll tacker to the de,ettarat Lan of °Ion. Lha fisheries. PerhePs the a<gaisltlo. of each of .he lad [breach - which the ietarCOP[or runs by the King r-owetP Park Ctvtelo any Ptwlde "lie we cannot &aware May Creek's lmproreaaa east rehabllltatlo during hatter control of tbeu her. &et Lett/a. IY are usable to make . fec- the nab tea yea.., w test that our act cove corfvd vfth tM action - .w1 j..dgmawt o. this utter. - of •!her con-end agnostics. would prwsa . .lallat catast[ophy fro - urting iv My Crash a It did to Tboreto Creak. lir foal the. Our The removal of .ereamaide vegetative for costtuc[lo, of 'his project a111a say bftfa ran rehshllt utlo of Mot Crake rather than the death will rep[eaeat & vary call percentage of the total atreem,ide cous,. 1[ May Crank. dlthoush destgw of the Project is at complete, it In e.tt"Ld that ♦ - total of twlve (12) crass legs, ssa of the .,let, "Ill newt end It Ike coated that flows will be tocreesd al; slightly, L. at all, and of Lbes at 90 degrees, more or lea., to, the this" of the O"Oess. be patlutlan will he r"vcad to the ..teat that septic t&ak effluent will Pointe of previously, we already have a "track record" at coma Ctue.lo. be r.dvod. work in gay Creek which probably &mods the tool length of the work pro,oaed. This "track record" Cocladan .......sloes s[taraz and Coal u. " slow sot the fact that the area affected by construction Is wnd by the gift c...ty Park elv"to., 11 Cis be emoted that they will specify f Alt.rrate "g" to a nor. er,amaire eotutio I. the sad. of the era ash, mecesmaq .solo cce[reb, a. sox[toed haratobe Eorq the coeucrw,i trchmigwa. "ILL acre likely - lapruve the fisheries' reswrc&s uthcr than degrade !ben. The better of channel ad rgg bus hem has. respdd to - heratrafere. -iZ3- f i a _ wept. e7 t:w. Ueyt. of G.n. )S-I-l17-S 75-1-It7-5 agps►sr 36, Lflb Sp<sb.r U, H1S nv r 7. !ay 6 RelactaosA 1p eatwen Iasi skor_-Ten Use. of Mee'e ycrtrosmt 1. Mcceseery c~t.tfoo rcbee. to wrotcct the fire will pro- and 1y{ sad E beccssmt of ices,-Ter. hodacelslty ride wr coastal of rise "tiered cuttle{ of ties Map Creek caeyr, ter, redecim tie. doveatre.e woesrat oy silt. The seed 1. r.1.. the Dips is rests. Sams cl.mly aed sLre- aaxe work will beneceseery. Capertawca /edicaces cleat """l <. ibs t work will base r detr{s mpr effect s M.y Creek, but torch say ucc.slavally dame/a the ripe, ,eauiraq repair a., re- f. ell probability will RaslA improved [(,bards' ruources. plusamt of short ..vesu. 5. ♦ «rtor, bsetr hrltb pro►las, does sabt Nrcicwlar 1 to the APPeedls - Exhibit •'A' - rfw and yiM 1a►Itar "..emase-Ptt' area to be eersed by He Me" I plolecr. Crete aed Mossy Creek Very truly yours. Wrt.s cbe time that elccrro-tishtol s, dose. redd sampne, ws sr KM G011atT MTM 0• C'S W. 107 pee.lbd .lace the saLra already betched. We ate, however, 110st- dinl ao animate of the potmctal adult sal.oe popl.elm in she r feet to Our Eeslmtoest.l A"ee.eeseC. The 9wet's of "e iure.se le sssisr flows is rrromded to berets- Wry P. tictal3ou{b, lrrldm[ before. ft app",. that tbs [mtr.1 rceeesn to rsateol r lsriOse 003j'ad is e.1l.bl. to the sseu Lee. wedltiomal .1timtioa .sawn to restdre fisheple. will be diuw se mar or. 11i.res Coeaess, file. of Public Yorks, 1e"tee o Mr. Robert ifd Dept Bert Is the yloel ixts ss r escal N,eest StateeK. . f Cr E.s e, Seattle Mr. Jae Rabd, Dept. of of tL ea, Tsvater E..touttm efforts see wbj.tt to cbr rastmv aed sodimintoma of the Mr. Ted IYllan. M[TTD, Seetcle k affm ef ted aieuits. This rulres er will ►e "bared to. it wpart, y, tsRedwoodE Mr. wcr" Mmcasery, EPA, ■ad.oed Plud1 of cM W.rc"tor parceldl to aed t. for t►r.ed of Me scream will be avoided. Crosains as aeer to 90 degrees sou pas Lble will be made. is order to lsedlately proceed wleb Pha« I W. , ftr 71e.hole sR- cou(L" of iloeey Creek sed May Creek) to relieve the bps Wltb barard, we solicit your written ",,art of our effort. w fully realize that thou uewl pd.s for the work must be reviewed by the "partmrst for complfau. vicb tW Depre.re'. eq.irrsots sed fully expect to proride vheeever c,setruceiw effort to accessary to set the (Irert.mr of Car sequlrrred. We cmtool ch. failoui.St - I. W.11q sututon cmtml (6rdiseece b. 2261) will drteaLly sllst- sate se lscree« 1. storm drslrle rvmft. 7. Apprwsd c-aetewcriu" methods by the aftectsd slesclss Nil rya time primary {mpect m thes fisberiss of the cmecrulls of ties _ Project. -124- A f ... .. }.y..�Y DE PARTN.iENT .a.,•• - OF GAME «..,.. .. ..._.... OcWirtr b. l�/5 t p r.s 1 a ty Rt.r 1ltstntt b. t0i aIti I tA Sw 96 fi 1.Yu. CA `b(M. xY: Wry crtsc Inwr"Wr { Atteottoa: sr. Mr IJ0nf), Dear 91r: T'I. letwr is w response w your reprat for at ttt.a .upport of yc a .frert . wt. Pr,-If.t (p. 6. Your i.tWr of 3.ptarher 24. 1975 W the d'W'taeot of Ore, oiy pl.). I as oo ufis ® s.b/f of b. Aless". of our Olpyla offlce %I hl. repett. .as tar tbl. offl.. f At the wi..i I clip W "p Lrmsr nn wr appaarnl of your effort. n - ,p.uR•ylty W And I tvrwtt.f am only. Tour C[nat.aLwt bnn it In u- aluo tecnntglws end.tannin of phs.e II .111 an.f.r t t.n.ftt w tarn. of ..trwles .tabtlity .as fish ra iwt see in .ly apprltns. ",serer ee e t rt. . rectrl y,sptnL am this W-i at wl. ttaa. ft .14 .aa.er.se the rL., 1Lt.'iet or I" .rUe.v t aLtain plty.l.al s.reur.aa.ts .1th .htep w conflra *him omt ttm; ..r our part s. caul! - ll,e w .a...t tr. wr a�.lustton of potential "apart, of rasa It t trvc- ( tlon .e r. 6. f., Rea. 1. At tt.o t.s, e. fr.) Maas. I em b accuaplx.ttre .i W . ..alas of tapsa:t - upon 16Y cl M wrirw.a. sos szi.lwu art b rlts umemo maNtrsllm in t1.a L atao.tleo pl.ew. we toot for w mt..tos ywr btallod plwn of ,wruttom. Vary tr.ly joss. ,.. , 9aeert I.. Hauer _ 14droultc Iar..tlptar cc S. Dt..,zlc • + D. Jaist.eo J. R.b l —125— J __ __... :.... .. ..-. --..._...-..ram.,-. - ...w+r+,+-•Is.�.,-a...e..!.•s+..-�...arr:.�s+e�y�a-.nc - .... ..:. . . . ...,, - ,... -t.= _ .r Par. iota R. 11111 e �i Jpop uly 15, 191S WASHINGTON Deportment of g- _ FISHERIES lim t6 rather limited data eon way pleas Pooul anions, the aditltlm for mswtton is present rind. to were rose pleased to onto Nat ar post tlon for owtetat oleo µw,K present than attpr, thtowrp maintenance of ester opollp and gwetlb at levels m its% than at eraM, .as Sues Luoad in the report. oaweax o sva'n r..u.r.,aa— se hands Joe 411nx that in see areas, however. tin! Meinnical assessment My not �e.u.o. wvw.....�a.w tutitiv portray the potential value of the fly Cork drateune. Mile the 1 tro- July 16. HM ductory paragraph indicates that it is fPWo t to assess the stream's m::o- -fair the resultant literature survey. cormspmdance, personal � 'tfon, and data collection all elate th existing Production. We art confident. and this is Indlcatad in the report, that present production Is ins than historical And potential production for meadrommus fish. tt Is suSPtcte't that NaY Creel is prodKrgIWTw Its potential hecause M habitat dete.rloration resulting from Mr. John R. pal lace, Jr.. P.E. {L.S. watarshad dem lopMnt. and that Accalerated land develmuntnt fnllmvfrvi conStrue- Moore. Wllare a Kearedy' Inc. tfon of the rate water %ystm cal it Only result in further de.cllen of fish 1915 First Aveena poowiatlar. If the Ambient r"mimoents stated In Dr. tartin's remrt Are to 1915 First t01 exam, be Mt, it e111 he essential to Nvelop a Systen to chains) the quality Areal gwAmtfty of Stain water ruonff that All ultimately occur fnllwl/ this Protect. Mar Mr. Wallace: !. sParunin9 chrornel has t.Nn suggested as • Possible nitfnathri facility Your draft favironental Assessment for saner intercepters ion the May Creek In hot➢ true bfol Or'—' Assessment and the draft Enyinwrentai Assessment. This draimem basin has peen reviewed by this Department. Sinn It h SrArs to be a is conendable, roever. we have several reservations at this the. Adequate sizable project with totaa.tfal direct And ferondarY impact Span the stream, wa Spawning Area is only One ragmirevent of several salmon and treat species. Cohn have several comments. their steelbead, for example, must rear in fresh water theSuimut the year, and Huth rrOAKtion and Ability tam %arrive are totally del" Sri drrlm this Period A substantial portim of this system of sourer tr.terceptors will be located me water quantity red wallty. Spawning channels, Sr egg t"atim boa facil- where crostructfon could have h direct Impact now MAY Creek. It Is stated on Sties, renuire anal Operation Apt MinVnAnct ClSts, red me would he lntentted pane 13 that 'the serer interceptors NII trawans In or near Miley or ate? Cteks', to sae if this has beer; considered. anu again on page 39 that Construction rMY Often he to Close APPvrxlMtlon to or actually interact Ath Mal mat honey Creeks'. Of Interest and C,Wmeem IS Dee ct Hue crated effect uoOn the Stnm during eonstroeter q as well ai the Actual extent of the develo1P t that will he lowatrd within the stnM, and the predicted with the impact of %tarn eunoff project elated water quality, cat W. nether and location of Stream ceoiste". It is rpcn+uirrtd 1n the Assessment cannot hare! with the comcluflon [bit the ulation world have an insignificant to us tt that than will be an fnpact, and ue cancer with your proposal for tiniwl of impact inn amaFt be de ultimadanttely fish acrificeens. It would Omar he MA that construction wort luring July end Awjwt to mfniefzt fisher m; 4eeraee. We he- A decision s to arse ta mark to ulttOws. w thcrifice a Of then or all of the lay lie". however, that then should Het better geantificatfon of the feemnt and Creek alp mad tree, fee mitirias, gfu urea "ter of they proble eon N develop total area of Impact. man saepilta RASYrK for dHofALinq /YLRIe eater gw)1ty erohleM. Probably our major cancer elated to this prated I$ the %eclm&" Impact Thant From for the opportunity to convent on this draft Environmental that w111 Occur in futon years with Increased pneulatim, area development, had AssessMnt. {ecauOe of Par interest to Nfs project. we regn'st that a caw resultant increased rates Of storm ronoff. The adverse effect of Surface rat Sff of the final EnvirhremtOl Assessment he sent to "- is reahintied in the Assessment. but the sarloesness bed d-note of potential Sincerely, - harmful effects do mat appear to be Adequately addressed. Sloan stwral of he taut and salmon specie in the stream ever thron~ the Year, r world be Interested to know about predicted reef polity And geantty dart Pg SMvw- IOw- :.l� I i flu vonths, as well As during hilb-nme pert Ws. Possible lea flows am itay C• .Mmsow recognized In the Fish and Fish habitat Msessver,t - May Crab. and Mavg C_A" Acting Fisheries Envirtimental Appended as E"IMT"R , are Sam a se a re:'mem - Coordinator ASseasamI. Dr. Stephen Martin's Fish And Fite Habitat Assessment noes a 4and lob /n re:: {. L. Lu"Aad Dept. of F nIopY bringing together the available lsformotim on May Creek fish populations, And t. S. Ozeidzlc - Dept. of mare In describing existing fish usage elthin the Project area. Simla war possess -126- } KING MINTY NO DISTRICT i.-:vosbmr a. lyJa NUNI M 107 2 49bi. 1[9iN.YEfrOt S F Ill_lE V V E ..aN,traM •M.]NPrii -a tot aeebtrles at ea, . I. " eha edee.e As 4 N a feeetold e1eLe fa .aete feom tW Me:ra lloo to Naaealb st I ight raoolr of f"L runo of coeewa.aLa 13-i-116-f la►wtioo NL! Ms 1w Lo61A sd LNa[t.Lf etEar. 6w M 'L6' [r.estgs her home.mead LP a wre d.t"tbla twtttoo ad [he vr..aam Lealbl. lu.,c.pwl Ns b<oo tel«acd to b,ec. a oober of sp rr c Prrw Sto[[beC 74, if/S '.trlgo f S nVv7 o.n ra•ara .e arm t. of l.V to ewe the fr m oey9" law l.toospcor I of St" Y.moNCree,the .trca l/a of i1Cas, f"Ie s of t.s ,rbt" L l[ea -+wr;Ert L! Lis relouftw, a►< KNloma of dlu^rbtry the [Inver lee to .u.rmr. �n creek are vtr[eally el Ll wted. ft. ley C. lohosoo ut1q ➢lehe".. Ew Iloa.acel C000dleet.t ilte Eatee CptK teopahad to ?"to E rill teamra,ly sere4a 0<ptitu - rt Ileh.rloo olr'.dy e.V.Aoyad •coos- Loead+., of"". at an faeraaaw 1. Loom 11i, :.<ousl tdaList[e[la 11dL. %Maxi deal.M. WWII AS them. I Yill M +"teal, sfpiy becrH ` 01,.pl.. ka 98504 the sews Sera" by the MEsr[stee, are [1[aad, deaeleped- ! Pw.thr..r KIM Comely oadtaota.-ill Psoo1N"Md. of car oral au .a, 1.1[.soo Ia .too f lw chat oey attar. C<aL lase: the tka.. It ,rt[k, all wltk" tb& p[op.rtloo of .be [lq Tbis t.ttu lL 1. roopnoo. in ,er IsttV, of le11 15, 1075 ceeeq Put 0a1/otee, Ntaoo of Cx [opoLEapk, of I" uqw, W Me ..of. c.a.csiod cotrats Ss wfwe to tN D[tlt oil, regol'. W.Asoltely eight (a) uosstgs of No, stook. Eoelrorsoe yoo.a000t S1.1ah<ot fu the Rgossa "I Creek le- " "Wass to..Us ,awed Move oor tom/ [d .Lw will bV bAioa to,c pca,. The Dr.tt Lav 1[weYul AoSWWWt s"Ite tst ds[lt ."Vee W teoeelq. We belle. a., the tr Lsg lrpart oe ` with the 1part a L" ootlt. Dealege LYL. the KoWeoO le- Me tloboeioo whit 60 Lisbt beLaao<ae will cwtSae go dw- o t[reePt^r of abme 1E,500 feet la "'" u he uar ca11 s cosh Wattle With Me rlsh KISS and Come ItWeCotoesta to the o E)l . ,,:,rttw d the sera v4MCh of Lay Cre". ;,f c000 L-wtlm wh/_b wtit Sell 1. th.r LWatt. The Kstosd AV CCSN leL.artpt" AS dleldd low " (2) Ylrk 4ud to fate+. stoma wear reo-oft, Liq I:aaLY be. Pbaoo, of Stich phs s I.111 two from 11+owol.1 !o Ebe cat W. tWsaA dad�_e M. 22411. Nleb Netts toter. score ..tor ..- a3 my Creek ad Low, uoik. a d"wra al Alm lot•, [d *ft tbcoMb W Cowman ccoocrlYtlw of retatloo/d..e.tfoe I.- p6u. it will room :.Koel1 from Batley (.coat ro DUN Aes.w. S.L., cll/t Ls, a td Sc.td: a dlat.ec. of .ppros Wtel, lfw fool. SLOT ileI S. ffAYA'fOL, [UldlLty@iR4 t0L ALL pYiYC[ Tb. York p[op..ed to Mass 1 comm/tte a( 675o toe, sl lr PIN5. u[cWt. .wt, of dtyb all hyE AMWee—o-'s 15D0.teu LW in the City at Lootoo %crass 1101-11-w, red " oo w, at/.rLs (I)_ v_r aec.. Wr.+•tt chm rrN1<at .too.Cf, aholi_6e :Lay CCook. The appror Wcs 1540 ftsl tbat al.. Mari CAM hed xaH M wt 11 .rCr[tiq l-eatiw .ad of Cho load cij6L-et-ra1 claws MAN Creek Wrw flown, ad Loety r�r_u ult be eN1s ptoM[ct —1 be Creek once. oil rick" tropartl.s of Lt' Llq Carty talk 41, .ve- At oobe.l Iacaolom wtrok eletlsata w- Tb< propwad Lsrpd.L late[ceptor .ill craw *law Cre+1L owls e4 ar a LL" d[rR.[el doeat. sM All of Cho Kotaead five (5) Cret"Me Vill he at "Prah arml, oo dl.e s/om at oo1 0[ [bwe ooletr 90' to tM tr." bed. .ad Y. hole be. L Cctl a l w1tL Me r"borfom b"olt- 2 'D'e dlacbs[ . f.a the of, sac mot .to .hoc. tba tocep[iw of this woloct And tally .., MAC _ facrooad d.e to [k. D oposd d lwswt-_sod the teotor.ttw effo,t. Me oecess+rT to earcae that drag. uw.d b, Lhoom croaslefo- it Se w11 to recall MCA the [te[ri t in- g.trLlomj iscosttae fACIULIe6e.at AV KaOMEt L has [1,C"I soWN 1Ed Su dllla[ase to Cathy M&AI the De- - arde[ to 1 Cho.f all arEx: wtar In locos of the A parteoots reaairooests to rogerds to .v.a Coototettoo by its took disekar[.- J -1Lqq 7-qr - - , [faun Lae I JJ.nn 15-1-sea-s /S-l-Ili-3 s.r[sebec Zi, !9b Mill I fept*beau ,ego 1 regstraue.t. sed folly sspact Ia "awl" vAet.w.[ costcocrls It appears, Wratote, tbet it ebte SCSI.. t. sotwced I. the etfoet 1. ,w.e.eary to sec the ytsberlu' r."i'sments. l.wra that am, Lac,ea.d scom dral.+d. rwo-ut: .bwld W cao- IS.Lied. Ye cwteW W folloWivg: W ace were chat )w rouse shot tbe pc.pnocy To LT. roof.. St. of Nay C[..k W III nos dlataxe dwoetres Ira cbe cs- I. [a3ntleg su[u[oq catml (fxdloae to. 2283j - yos ,tea hno been aIgWtIed by the [lq Cooney PSvk goISSltsot Sod well be left to 11. onteral seat. Soa Wstw orb. 1. .tw d wIJI .t.tea .palmate. almate .a in.reau la sta. dr.taate ruo— this, thnte Will be So d.velopesot aloe{ My ' is be r—.sy Et. Park area. o Those I ut the Project Le os.dei to wsecae An s1St LAS 1. AP "" tona[vucatw stbdS by the effaced .ectono with heSeSd toessted h Septic Lao e.". dlersal *,Ste. is the dev.loped ntsea; coeaaltaerly. sw.I. ... moodsd Sger lno will *epee [Y paWp Aspect ow the tt.berLs of who. We b.:i.o the, be elWea[!w o/ this oaTlaua bleb oroblm .111 .,grad. the urea by the I.-- of sortie tso tbe car -uttlw at W yrojnt[. efflo.et few Nay W Sony Ct.eho. y. beuaeary cnnot[octlw *Nude to Iee[ec[ the ITS. Nay Creek canyon fro 114th An. S.L. in gory Creeb is So area aubjett to costttwal w[tLtg of [be Scrag bed W P+Pe will pew/de some ..".1 of the _sot gaud cwc ling of Se,b tu.[in, Will Cwtlteep tog r IWeflSlta period d Chas So- III .a- w.ea11 ,.thod al cascollseg set cottleg b how Wray Creak cry.., oWa r,btcltt thisdouotroa*.Wrest davelapN. S.eeral ptagtas are Tro,esely oWscauy to t.rl.. able p+nbles. They Setld. a CS-1, fwce St." by Its ce ory of .Sle- w It. dtst.ag. .W a no &I= saw, an If.. dtow a. of the Nay Creak Livelong* Wls. Y:a..e t nark Nil ha.. no deerlwental etf.,t on The coestmce tw after[ In both rhos t sW "a" [l, Nee Creek wt V all probablAfty alll provide isprored tish- n.cesory l.a pbT.ieally r[.tert W Wajact frw datrs[tse by th. Csa[tsg etitw at the attea, w111 ►rwl" none not W scs- Sties ree.stras. nary .,I.a co,[tol SeS redec. tine nine leg ..*It netts{ "Ilee- Seenes of Ibis P.Seibt toaL,.l Ibe pb,.Leal cpWl[lae of cY caf S. A sntbno Web health nobly does es LSG Nr- yts will deteet WAts leas VSSWIY [ban if left to lea Prsso.t <a- Attlee- A. a SenLlt tbe floe I-o a►sol be wWced sin0 rho tlwtsel/ :, CASago eo is eervm by the Phnoe [ p+oject. Silt lout I. the 61 See .111 be r.k.d. Ye[y SrYly )were, We are le agr.t tbaa a„S Wesot tlsherla poal.tfa 4 Less Nee sthe hist""L Pgelation. Ys .•s .SsbL. to .see Sea ^ilbG YATri Cr W. lW tuts[s pStsetlal rals.ir because nth .. era incise, aft.ctt.g Wt sesesoe.ac went 161th no M. s cas[rol. I." .s .1 these large fetters V the ryriated sad s,tepletW lees tl,b- Leg et the stress. M*ay F. YrLsllsyb, hallo[ W:sb 1. order to laud Le.:f pretend With rhos. 1 (1.... few ce: M. YYrts Case Son: {tractor of FLblic Yorks, {aeon tbni.ole -r t. toeflno .( Ness, Creek Sod flay unej t. r.ilw.e M. Aeb..I Pf let.; Yp.rtwt of Gee the bona. bl[le bossed, wo selrrit yr[ Yrltco s.pgott at oec ak. lw So►l. "Shw. ut Fa.hwtlno .tfact. Ye (wily realf nos Shot tY acswa, Plano fs tY troo asc M. Tod IYllm y- IL.C.a bs ravitwwd by the (ieNrtsent ton [sSr less, with W Serarrars's US Gordon Wgwett; pot dr. We.,. Noe.goauq; VA -128- NOW ffOJtdP. • r - - o',a 'e-. uFef1NF+!YtMso. 1 M l KIM Camomile, later oletrl[t fief - 1 Oeta6er 10, 1975 _ WASHINGTON Pye 7 Department of FISHER'NS ti aryllea lm wine tadlu[ne • froFasd .urtly wits of tlecrnbCv la)5, - and a f1a1.6fat date of L)[esber 1976. W a•IN Pant out lilt( wrk ritb/n or that will affect the flerly atrra rent r Mly Ie 4"roed for neoths of - - t 1., 3.1, lid the flr.t . .eeia of Autos( le order to •lo ulse the fnpact -. I.ueuc tort open the fl.h.r7 reeMrcen of ffe9 Cred. aO'rrpe aevn. a��rs .u.a Jill. leaaet 1. .rfates la rctera.ce to Pillow t, I.Ileobole 1 u time tsa- floc et Iffy Cred sod fhs.Ydev Crete. W ri.b to eMbilt. that ulY approval Octs6er 10, 1975 wrlit. for Phar 1 crwut be cr.lder.d la neY re, m a"..I of Ph. 7 - e1U.er le to letlaw or deelp. W spprecln . Y...r c.nywr.flr L our .11lo,11ve efforts to protect, per fiet.atr load ngrste Intl fiderT reso-,tcee of the Sul. of Ys.blytM. KIM Co.atY Wlee ►utract #101 SLreatT. 1 / Si15A - IleeIt Armes S.K. (dot•{ /,'11 �I a.11evr, YaWelytr 9t006 ^- G tleren: CIft/.1R 11.Y Crrk teterceput - phesn I Itaycrak Trlbotary We Yuhfe tM "!A-" IMI:JI:nb - cc: fs! - OI Ys►L W be. revfewJ the prellstslry pins, and 4v. inside r oe-site re.I.v of the above retereacend proj.ct i«.tad la the Of of 4ace1M 37 it file Sh1t line. Wallace 6 IL eteel" tnc. Section 13. Toinebly 74 "tell, 1anple S Knee. Y.M., 1n KIM Coeoty. Durint aK oo-vl[e ...1.0 .1 In Y—, letter dated Seplraber 24. 1915. YM Moe 1N/feted . rtst eve I+act. W casot .tee., to the[ . M. It tenet - - t lyact Is Awvltefble. The detrae of laps[ vlll W dln.clly related to .- [be 1,r1 dnuific A" the swet of effort tilt Is pot forth by lhv -on- - - tractor to .ceo+ll.b ahr Pro3ect 16 a snwr else rlll Pooled lbe - .cl.l]at b.bltat. - Tllc ,:.I.tneevit of on. of the cvo.tup sod the teaaYda le lnaeropaor r Ilolluated In tbC letter will help to sla4lrr lbe l.peca .p a. time strew. - - Ib.ever, r nl.0 r .aded that clenef nt the st newts teed nete11a1. .1utr.ne and M»rtrcea of r.eh trues let w Id Iead to off..t elm ues voidable lyaee.of [Ills project. - - Ye haler also r..el v.d r elpplfutlan tar It YYdrrllc. lroject Appr...l I— Plot.e 1 of fells p,.).,,. 1ef.ell r ea lerlt. the gprovaI for Tar 1, .111 n.ed 1. e.vler It.. .hwlot [lie rIROIIS t of the crMslnSt es per - m-cite ravlw of Sep Isobar 16. 1975. Kb.pr PIL. .bould .lr n6ole hone _ - the ..miler If.. rill be eublllydn t... If. fore', a/eoUM, and locatlM 01 alrr.r bed Control. It r.d. W wrll .Sr elpRecute the opportual f, _to revfetr filling fodlutlot awe .prey rten will W h.adled Neo they ar -129- rl J l j�j KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT MIMBIR 107 yrNA 1191NAVl NNE S1 "111VVE WASH.9MI06 . PH 74e0H1 ! 1 WAS:J::.;i::: t:i:71?<... .!':• � Acre TO 1 MUMn•/1 t.erMbS �e[i. ID7 SOUTH MAIN, SEATTLE,WA-M104/ @J 1497 'O. r.,,�4,!%• -.d 75-1-110-1 �•,i 1./ Sgteaber 1d. 1977 aw,x 7....•., �Mfr� W.nWn. Mr.f�-nlrl M�NA•.tl• W cg:=i-er wZsNr y 16 1975 Mr. Nsrttn Mker, Eaecutrve DI[etter S.q..r uus The Vaehingaun Envtrosentel Couocll 107 South Msln i•:r,o�77'd..rw. e• Sa:a[t le, lteskiestm "I" Slchacd V. ?both Chief YPA. IBxlroOvmUl Iapaet Seetlm twu1` 'c�.sl•1::u 1200 Gth A. SUBJECT: MY CMiE[ INTERCEPTOR ;. Seattle, Voahiogtco Dear fr. Mker: irWc"`ee�./.e D7ar Mr. Shells Thank You for -eodf08 us a cuPY of You[ r-vteu naenn to car joe a::uftinAtm tirvimtuentAl Council at it. 1n> e• Ang Ella Protectlor. Ageac Y. m July 1. 11 rewolvad to requast 6 A altd respo—ible local Lllr._ offici.10 to ,.Ply with She National ihvlronlMEt I Policy Act Very truly Your-• cad State Eevirovmtal Policy Act where foderal fla da are BIt1C COIM7:' WATER DIiTt ICT NO. 107 sade ars/labia for tM cututruction of aewga taste ayetess I. for bsalm. •A"r+N� e ' Alydths Y. hawe receeptoilsd lMA kr Jec LwatlmltT fra W Xenry T. McCullwEh. President v v.vrr;.rs,s coll.tI g the Rufair..r y.temotor err km,7xt C5 JO'J-PsN t e collecttm and eWier ryatea for tM realdeotlal liev.lopamt m r+w sew rw wWs ae the shorwa of lake Sedob in IAeat. Canty. 'his 1.tter Sa to MM:]ed Mqueet am t., 1•oU t out that a snwimlasrtal /cpact utateaent H .e.vr�..`u,sss. is neeassAry a.a rao^�_'_ hY 1. for tM sewwr interceptors in E6 Creek Has1n. Ob � nc er ro .trcUwa should the May Crack PmJact ha Euriud Or daeiAlm erta to food the protect wtll -~s"'„W r,vµe ' an adequate u.rvimnesAtA7 iapwt ataltEYsent is cooplated. look fotw:ud to your noepllerce with the law. s.•r•.A.+uW a.s Since^ly u. Ww�vrrr Hartfs Baker $eeutive Dlxwoto= mWjer�i.yat��y!�� co: Mr. Chuck P/ood Mr. John S. Wallace —130— .-: _.scat..,_ G t Mr. John R. Wallace 1 JIR. 1y 191b July 17. 1975 Page Two AI WK Y ftq 3. There should be wore detailed analysis of the impacts T111i. CITY O1 RRNTON of construction o do the creeks and valley floor areas,the and the design and construction alternatives oral Lbl e. f ML CIPAI INALCHNG M Alit t AVE fG W*NTOM Wa mpai u AVEnYGAeeaTT Wrm 0 PLANNING Dt PAelaak Nt A- !t was noted that the coliform count in May Creek is high 355 75se due to human and animal wastes. If these high counts %azro s<ME Jul 1475 are imarily due to animal wastes or fertilizers, A Y 15, sewtr line in this area would do little to reduce this colitorm count unless Lrhanization displaced the agri- cultural .,as in the area. The sources of these contain- Events need to be documented and the affects of a sever - Mr. John A. Wallace, Jr., Y.E. k L.S. interceptor clarified. 4' Moore, Wallace A Kennedy, Inc. 1915 first Avenue S. More detailed Study should he made of the COMPativility Seattle, Washington 98101 with futl:+e County and City Recreation and open space plans. Dear Mr. Wallace: 6. Specific problems associated with the various soil types we have reviewed the Oral- -+franmeutal Assesment Volume in .he May Creek A Honeydew Creek areas need: to be Ill, prepared for the King Coin. cater District No. 10; project studied- Also there could be serious erosion problems titled, -Community Facil+ties Elan for Waste Water Treatment in the ravine areas prior to site restoration as per Works in the May Creek Drainage basin. It is our feeling that your proposal. We also noted that hydroseeding is pro- due to the size of the project and the vari.,.s potential signi. posed for erosion control. Hydroseeding.probibiv will fiCint impacts resulting i,om it a full Environmental Impact not be sufficient erosion control on the steep slopes, Stztevent pursuant to the -tote Environmental Policy Act is and would not constitute + sufficient mitigaiieg veasur^ - necessary. In our review Eve noted a number of areas of concern for the loss of the natul. vegetation in CO.* ravine chat we believe need to be addressed in preparation of subsequent areas. Environmental Reports. 1. There is also a question as to whether alternative The specific issues that we are most concerned about are systems and modifications to existing systems could as follows: adequately serve future development at a lesser cost and at the same time negate the need to con the interceptor 1. The Clty of Renton Comprehensive Plan indicates a green- directly through the fragile May Creek and Honeydew Creek belt - recreational use district in the May Creek i r: ine areas. These additional alternatives to the - lioneydew Creek valley and hillside areas. UrbAnizatlom proposed action need to be studied in deta'1. $pne eumples of these areas would not be in conformance with the ale as follows. intent of our Comprehensive Plat. Dutomentatiun of the desirability of urban growth in these areas needs to A. 110th Place S.E. interceptor: be preset i. This pr.J act connects to the ongoing Junes Avenue The secondary environmental impacts associated with tat - Sanitary Sewer Project. "he I10th Place S.E. urbanization of the areas around the May Creek h Moveydew interceptor project is incapenJent of Elie May Creek Ravines need to be studied In detail. Such iepacts Creek trunk line. Dues this project qualify for as loss of natural vegetation,changes in vegetation types, funding as an independent project? Does it loss of natural wildlife. increased run-off that could serve communities in existence before 1972 negatively impact the water quality of the Creeks, increased as required in PL 92-500? - erosion, increased siltation, the reductipn of Stade En the ravine areas affecting water temperabirt and qualilYv and f the effects of urbanization on the fish funi. i f -131- i t i i ,ate s _. .. ....-- .Weems•�. KING COUNTY ,+/ATER DISTRICT �f— NUMBER 107 Sapea IIOTM aof MM s E MI LI WE,e.IH.1aDJs . PM 74"751 Mr. John g. Wallace July 17. 1975 ,p Wr,y ea many to Page Three r wr wcr aa.s^ 75-1-115-5 P'Wowwe Poe C rear'" September 24, 1975 8. Kenneydale West and Cast Interceptor, saa'Me° This proJect is tributary to the existing �...r.. sanitary sewer at Kenneydale tlameatary ""ts school. it seas that this existing •-^ '^"' sanitary sea" is adequate to serve this Mr. condo. e [or trick...trick...same sub-bast.. Is the proposed May Creel planning Duu trunk necessary to serve this Sub basin? Flaming Dep.rtaent Cut of {e.rm C. Honeydew Creek Interceptor: 200 MI 11 awns. South learn., Washington 98055 There presently exists two pump station; In the honeydew creek area twat seem to Mar v. tricLen: be capable of handling the ma JOrity of the load that the honeydew interceptor Mi. lWlt:r 11 /e response [o Tour letter of July 15, 1975 trust is proposed to carry. It Seems that and It. current .....load thareto I. nfarery a to that Draft En- the add;tlon of another pump station vl-onsrnul lesesaaent st.,..t .n rho proposed May Creek Liter- near the north end of the HaneJeew inter- captor. the Draft ynWit..tal 7u+oeLw.t StatmenL dealt With ceptor line y'mpi ng iuto the Kenneydale the Lpec[ on the satire drainage basin. Ile proposed Interceptor area connecting with the existing serer of id.t 1.,S00 toot 11 pit" near only a small portion of the at the Vennyddle Elewent-ary schOoi would at,. length of May Creek. We wish to repo" t, your letter eliminate the need for the Honeydew u.t.n the pW,,c.ph masb.t. in ywr letter to order that the Corr.- Interceptor altogether. We feel. Thal this I..to. eay be readily maintained. alternative definitely needs further study. 1. 2b. {rem belt-recreational use "Ugric[ in be May and Money U. We also recommend studying the feasibility Creh areas are recognized In our interceptor .raver ptan. M of allowing no connections into the May ci ,:of,,jus sewn are e�eccd to be bell[ In the park areas. Honeydew Creek ravine areas in that future Ln the Proposed gre.a belt areas, the density that is propoa.d urbanization of the-e sensitiWir am is could by the sbueellme management program sd the rioting zoning have substantial and Irreversible impacts. ordinance Is expected ro be adhar" to. Consequently. urban- Leackow, of cis. aeel{ruited valley and blllside area0 to not .mpeccd to occur. 0n Its, other hood, mach of the A square Think you for the opportunity to renew this draft state- rles propoa.a to be .ever" 1. ourside of Kenton'. deulgeared went. We hope that our comments will be helpful to you In studying Wall., and hlllaldo gr... ball area. It is this other .... the impacts and alternatives to the proposed project. ehicb has icon urbanizing and where extreme sepltz rank prob- ity pro ketl7 exist. Mr 9alre I Trial, Creek) Conpreh...lva Very truly yours, See.re{s Flaa r. .,at... Rmta.'a pU.. soaked oLd Dance a.�d / shor.11ma nanasm..I protrm. 4, ,: ! In via of rho fact Iha[ nrbmt+»tan of the May Creek art" +Borders T. Erichseli 6v.ey rr.ok valley era hillside 1s not intended, much Impacts Plaaoinil Director aW Lou of "Cur*] vegeutlm, changes In vegetation types, i love of natural wildlife, reduttton Of shade In the ravine WC7;MLS:kh area, etc., ore or a... Io the 4...it.. 10 `atr.V' —132— : )5-1-I15-5 l5-�-115-5 rage 2 Pa'. 3 The work sed In phase 1 consists of about 6150 liner tea[ - PraW 4. 1[ /r lMay Creek co segregate. hurts waste erne ocher known which f of intercepwor sae.-, of which dl ow, apPrazluteiy 15W tart earara May Creek. Mom.ver, a further discus too of known wa to- lies in the Cityof Renton street rl he-of-wa and to as wa [ Y e watt, quality re will take plate In the Final Environmental Asase- conflux May Creek. Pass I vlil rwa f[om se It w ll" to the hunt. The h probl a treat, to time the that eats lea ptriou. x conflux of M+Y Creek am BOseS Cruet. Pate It will ra oar Avian health aceblse created by [a [allots of the aeprlc wank terly from th.,: point to 136[h Av.aa S.E., a distance of dlsporal systems to the area and It Is frout this record tat we _ approaimal.ly 7150 fee[. com,leded that at lea[ a Portion at the conform Count Contained Pasha lI of the ro <t tlgs easterly from Wose> .rum ro 176[b 1n May Creek Is the rezult of to effluent from the falling - P jut , septic Came systems flowing into the creak. We believe that Avesue S.E. am Is in the May Creek realms. This area curree[- chore can be se disagreement with he need to abate the human 1, 1. subject to sob.canClal calif.$ of The It.. bad Jun to h+mit► hasard that turrencly exists to she area. the present atom drainage flows. With regard b, water ruseff, Klna County as passed Ot Llaoca No. 2281 hatch limits further a. Mare detailed dlsn:aslos of WOOLY am City recreation and Olson - storm water roaff thrw,,h the re,u lred ...scruction of rate- space plams will take plxe So the Final Favtrawotal Assess- ttos/detention faculties as to Acated: rot. Some of these details are discussed to volume 1. Compre- f SECTION 5 - MxaMWsMRT R,WIRgHMS FM Alt DRAINAGE PLMS analve Sesame. Pima. 6. We arse csea d that careful cmtr�l of aroslon 1. nory dodo, to I. Surface rower astatine the suhiect property shall be cones:uc[lon and for a period of time after the completion of received At the get ncell, seearisg lecatlom am the Project. We anticipate that careful control of The cooatruc- surface water setting to sabfect ►ropers[, salt be it.. prawn... .111 he maintained am vie are assured by both the - dl.carfiAd at the natural locatim with edesmete Department of Came am the Department of limbers** that those emery dfssiMtorm to mafstae douss[ream dame dap.rtaao[. will closely manitor the activitle. of 'he root raaor and Nth On df.emloa at ame of these Polar,; during shim period of ties. We are eves that the King County Park Dlvleia, "Ack is affected by thl. coca Traction, ill spm- 2. The peak diorar a from the at►bet Pmamr[, may ac city the remedial methods to preserve the integrity of the mess- be incressed due to the pmoposse d.velOwa; am Asti. I. the to". am... t. Reteaeta/detention fmelltt/ea swat a Provided in 7. for Ceu-EEfec clveaesv Aalyata, volume Iv, bee iov.stlgared the - order to handle all serlsee wat*t is secAsa .1 the .at of alternative yr[ame. Thew *yet.. are shown graphically peak discharge. to the Final Favlromaeetal Agessamemt. _ Ducing The construction of the project, the it" will crags the a. Time I10[b Place S.E. Interceptor 1. being proposed for fund - cteek a weber of time. both ar Sall, fed am., rho bottom of log a It arum &*toting housing. Much of this awing - Cho :task. The sethm, of coostraetla "thin Che creek ases ezbted la 1910. a Obtained from aerial phecos. The 110,h will be carefully catr.itm by the Dspmrtmesra of Fisartes Avenue 5.2. Interceptor 16 Independent of [he MaY Creek cm Game, In order to agate the priasp impact on The flsarloa Interceptor sod eppeem to be qualified for f-ming as an of the strew. Comutructles [eebelnMwa mecASAa Cy to Protect [he tndePwdat project. line (rah it. cattle, ae,/o. of ,he staea .111, 1. fact, provlde _ some control of that cutting and Nil redua. tee ."nut of the b. Toa attermete rou[ev wore studied for the genrytale later- - cuu,ing had the Project not fen installed. captor. Alterme[e "A" comma. to May Creek. Alternate a[llisse an eebrime amettarY satyr, a lift station sm a _ In s.ry, the stcom." eaeiromaentol ImPae" as toetslead in force met*. Altarmsv "A" cost waa &.Clear" to a $778,176. this paragraph will either be ammal 01 w-exlsunt. Alternate "8" wham estimated to Two S323,880, Wwwver, Alter met* "A" was dammed mare com[-etfecclw than Alternate me", - I I. The cuostmc,ton tecal,we used 1. this Project .111 be aublact due to the extra operation and male[amnce cast of the lift i to ch. sc,u[l.y nod control of the Klag COOMEY aparmenl of sraetom. The 2cyar sexual cat for Altareaea "A" is - -( NYdraollcs, the star. ap.rtomats as plsartes eed Came am the $5A8,1b0 *ad for AI[ermeu "e" Is $645.620. - Ktq Comfy Park DI,i.los. lr mould appear that kith these e,eoctes' controls, the Aspect s the creek am valley flumelater- .IIIt be .1O1.1red am tut, to rs.penae co [air regN ragsm s. Three . Alternate a "A her edted moms the gone, Creek (- lro.e wmo.L. will be nepted by the seilods of reestablish- moo, of tural sevlrrvwe[ a. ".Imd by Cuts. .$..Cie.. - - -133- s t L,r Etk;Y A' a 75-1-,IYs z Tin CITY OF RENTON eye 4 in R allMlarAL M[IIDIIq LtteLI AVF aD 11FYiW.wAtn.tM:tS f AVf PVGAAA4TT.t4vOM PIAMMIMG DEPAIII41Mt a "b" eat 111au threw One11Et eu[fose ad abado¢a Lhs alu iPd �e 775 - 7550 Sunset Litt Staff..; swede .14 he puwPed to Che Matta 0—C- yfd![Pls at N.E. 7tb street and Aberdeas Avenue. Altarwate 'C' .fit".- October 3, 1975 eristlaa lift st.t lows ad prpa awwaae to the Metro sewn[ a. t.t. 7ch Strew[ and Aberdeen Awwwa. Cuoatructiom costa of Afteruu "A", "V sad 'C" are 7403,5"; $191,258 aed $425,708 Henry F. McCullough, President reape<[lvely. swwaq the 20-rear net for Attaining. 'A", "B" king county water District No. 101 ad "C' are 5585,220, 41,192.020 and $947 260 ruspsctively. 5806A - 119th Avenue S.E. Bellevue, Washington 98006 In 1. .1 rhos fa.t that meat Yaolsataos uE the Carry. .1. 1. ancld paced, . sau.0 -„nnsctiosa will be needed or altowwd. Dear Mr. MLCullounh: 10 order to rsdiacely Proceed with ebaes 1 (t.e. it. MaMnle We are in re Lelpt ',f yuur letter dated September 24. 1975. "B" to wativa of lions, Creek and May Creek) to rellesw the human We agree th,t there is It critical need for sewers in the health ha[ard, we aolictc ymrr wtt[[eo eaPport of —1 dtor[. we Eennyd+IC area. It appears that many of our concerns have fully realite [hat the actual pins, for [iw, work eust be rwiswwi been answered. especially with regard to direct and indirect by the City of Aea oe for gomplla.a with Can City's ra9wlrwaence effects of the Phase 1 of the project on the May creek ravine and full, xpecc Lo Prwlde whatever cem[rwctlon wlturt Ia ow, area. etcause of this a full Environmental Impact Statement ceasary to wen the Clty', railelrss¢s. may Cat be necessary for Phase 1. we conceal the follw/q: 1, was felt that a detailed Environmental Assessment should include discussion of all the impacts sad alternatives, and 1. Ealstind statutory control (0rdtosaae Ow. 2281) will virtually passible mitigating measures, whether required by various ellat.te an I.C.. In score drained. rurof t. permits or not. This would eventually be beneficial to the project in relieylcg certain concerns. 2. Approved coentrectlea methods by the affected ads.les -111 ae- Bata Che pt Wr, lmpace of the em.:rwc[ios of the project. This Department feels that Phase I of the project is crt Liiailr needed in the remnydale area above the May Creek ravine, and we 3. Ilsceaaary cooa[[wction wethda a P[orecr u.e pip. will Provide support your efforts to provide the area with this much needed nose cost-.1 Of the co.leand ®[clan of the May Creak canyon. utility. We also support your statement that no serer con- tlw.n reJocfo, the dot ". ..E aE alit. sections will be needed or allowed in the immediate ravine area because of the eAlsting and proposed land use for this area. 4. Phase I work will have ."It al effee,L m May Creak. We rill also assist you during the construction phases in relse.ing any possiole impacts on the hillside vegetation and 5, a w[ime 6ataa health probl. toss eat" parcicwlarly Is the the creek )[self. area to be sacred by tho Plume I Project. If you have any farther questions please contact this Dep+rtmen'., Very truly yours, Vary truly yOYra• KIMG(�t/B�fIT "Itla TLLLT W. 107 1�f`�G i.. James L- Magstedt Agency`TP'.`—M.C.Alogb, Presta.c Asst. P)a Ito Vf for w: Mr. warren lory. PubliWorks. .an, Olreccw[ et Public Y , teat. By: Michael L. Smith Mr. Zed Mallory.y, ISTW Mr. Gordon 0edwart. D.O.C. Assistant Planner Mr. Warren Mon[domery, EPA MLS:aas -134- r ion frF ft,. ,Ar y PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT .e y re-erne ceeuy/DOrARTrmwT OF Pumi.tc Mua,rN ; `. .<sar. wne>..e aa.uw.w.ea..n••veto. __ _ R DESIGN EN;rNEfimG 775-76J1 w aaaml M mAt1 Re MLL AN.m. IIEMlom.TRAIN a!R e atED aEv:f* 1a®ary 12. 1976 <awRaeu teas«aa. o..M♦M. w.<.........t.,..+. September 9, 1975 AWAY GARRET!,W YM Mrore, malla,n a ven+wdy, Inc. 1915 Ptret •aenue Saattle, maahi:pton "lot Attention: Mr. dorm R. Vall., dr. Reference: May Creek lnterceldrr Stets - %tore TIT-* CIMMyy Co Wa unty ter District Kp. 107 Rellerue Gmtlammx Wsningto, n War., Le swim to you[ letter of •2, 193 erarritt lei Pe9ardiny: Llarontty - Ut. :e water the riea1 anlrar+ontal arsesmrnt for the May crsee tntarcaptor. 7Ydbwent Works in t+r - silage System N') Everwrwwnn r I.T.oaucI.T. teat A fall attel Kett . a o.Rannc Is not a+cexary for the tm.oIsacti. of awn Later- Gentlemen, uto- within ties Ma) creak Basin as deacrlbxl older hose 1. we feel Phase T cam be accaalisead with a r/nie traact upon may This department rises not anticipate any si9nif:unt lnrir�nlntrl Creak a.wlrons. problem attributable to tht mentioned project. in considering the present ar �Topornd /a.F vae of Laaltate ra, lInw Very trwly ywrs, area, the affect To etieu/ate development fv of a secondary iRpact. 4a,ia. r, x eleh to mybaai.e the Reef for awn aervicve in Wr developed Kearydale and wormy Iry arose. Vtrva asset repo eat tea last w owed yor v ear areas within clM City. P iris, Ph.D., N.P.X. C ef, Fnrir rental health Servlces very truly years, Ply:rb �i ra C. Geernaaen. P.L. Pipit W[ta Disattor Rrt:an wera.ee ..0 tr r. to.,.A.. .aww. .r. voa n. ......., �..,.. eon e.. -135- t ._ .,.. "- -. _,...,-,.. ._ .._. �.......:-. ....-.e-+m-...,—...ra..R_auaar...:..�......,w..<,:-...,.wr..-.rm.r.�M-*--r - ..,. _ . _ F ,Ct�•aE�e�'4'l4atfy'St.tMK.ely.�pe..F:,�. county Coulft King/ Soma Is wasIngaIn 51Ias W affi g n[ ® to[r,O SpNn[� uw+ry Ja .f F<Nwre 1m D 9prv^ve,C.un11'E<eruwr p a ce e..+r Iasi Esrrr.Bs Dw+tr+n Depawwasm at PUWk worts .�7 Trown Is t1yIa[.pwcb .Mtn t OeSMs[drwb, ) C- Yehe[s[. ACtj. Director 949 asq Cour..ry.nsirIaeaav9wlmnY PA{D(y DIYI3IDN,mmssgxxageaA� Sens..vemwwm"IN M]3 K"GIain1,-111 MwMa ua ,wa v- aw[ i61H 1..-.Ill October 1, 1975 S.pt.eher Is, 1975 1 ewi Moore, m.11ace A sennedy, Inc. 1915 First Avenue at[y K Seattle, Daahingtos 98101 Mc. tam"ov. G Osb.e Dear Mr. Wallace: Haul. Wallace A se.eady, In 1915 first Ave. BE: McIao Nu. 2574.034. dated September 23, 1975, Seattl., Us, 98:U1 concerning May Creek Metro Interceptor a, May creek Iot.rupwr The above nemo requested written approval of "the concept Of constructing an Interceptor sever in the May Creek flood Out plain from sambole "8" on Jones Avenue to the conflux of Money Creek and May creek." Up. having revieved the prepos.A Hey ra.ml Imser- cepta[ It. u it rdato to wr May Creek Were sabow 1 review of the concept plans and a field y thist tom of the Park, w approve of the cuucept; havers:, final .nosh has b ro de have been earthed out by tnfa division approval will be rmtlagent upon cone,-remev fees tbs and it been own an that the concept and Coate are papartsent of swains and Urban Dave lopaa.:_, and our acceptable ao dawn on the plows. depar[onet's [.rtee of 1-1 Real Pt-.a Abu — v—t C. ace . liskt.r ./red yips installed bon Ma,h'd. #13 tee.vet, the aboveapproval is not an ore approval of I. Heavy7 Creel. the protect. Theeconstruction plans for the he project must be The to this cts blon for our t have ins and approval. Sf acerely, The eecor eve effects of the protect have not yet been re- vlaved or evaluated,ed, and the above approval should not ^ construed as such, t Bub J...b., Moser It you have any qto tionscoma t Mr. Ed the •tome comments, C.pit.l 4graroneat yrogro please feel Rce to contact Mr. W Andrt[►ky of 3M-3874. Very truly yours, UP / cc Orb Ia,Nt. bee Maxon WIILIAM B. GIILESPIE pass Hoar. Division Engineer Division of Hydraulics DDG L:gb —136— FFCOMMUNITY FACILITIES PLAN OR WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS UNDER PL 92 - 500 MAY CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN COST VOLUME FECTIVENESS IV NALYSIS SEWER INTERCEPTORS KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NO. 107 MEW METROPOLITAN COUNCIL K'-;G COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NO. 107 C. Carey Donworth, Chairman Henry F. McCullougl., ;ommissioner Stanley P. Kersey, Auburn Paul C. Patterson, Commissioner M.F. (Mel) Vanik, Bellevue John R. Janson, Commis3lone_ Isabel Hogan, Kent Sam Macri, Manager Robert L. Neir, Kirkland Aubrey Davis, Jr., Mercer Island Avery Garrett, Renton Wes Uhlman, Seattle James K. Bender, Seattle George Benson, Seattle Tim Hill, Seattle Paul Kraabel, Seattle Phyllis Lamphere, Seattle Wayne D. Larkin, Seattle John R. Miller, Seattle Randy Revelle, Seattle Sam Smith, Seattle Jeanette Williams, Seattle CITY OF RENTON Selwyn L. "Bud" Young, Other Cities John D. Spellman, King County Avery Garrett, Mavor Paul Barden, King County Earl Clymer, Councilman Ruby Chow, King County Charles DeLaurenti, Councilman Robert B. Dunn, King County George Perry, Councilman Thomas M. Forsythe, King County Kenneth BrLCe, Councilman Edward Heavey, King County Henry Sci.ellert, Councilman Dave Mooney, King County William Grant, Councilman Tracy J. Owen, King County Richard Stredicke, Councilman Eill Reams, King County Warren Gonnason, Director of Public Works Bernice Stern, King County Marjorie Arnold, Unincorporated Areas L. Thomas Eckstrand, Unincorporated Areas John Fournier, Jr., Unincorporated Areas Jim Shahan, Unincorporated Areas A. Dian Worthington, Unincorporated Areas Hanford B. Choate, Sewer Districts Richard S. Page, Executive Director r - -A, p :. COMMUNITY FACILITIES PL .N FOR _ WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS IN THE MAY CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN JUNE 1975 VOLUME IV COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS s ' a KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 40. 107 CITY OF RENTON MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN SEATTLE MOORE, WAL.LPCE 6 KENNEDY, INC. ENGINEERS•SURVEYORS-PLANNERS 1915 FIRST AVENUE SF.ATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 TABLE OF CONTENTS page Page GENERAL PHASE I INTERCEPTORS Purpose and Scope i XFNNYDALE INTERCEPTOR 26 Authority 1 Alternative "A" 26 Identification and Selection of Alternatives 1 Alternative "B" 27 Engineecing Criteria and Assumptions 2 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 27 Pipe Sizes G C inclusions 32 Preliminary Sost Estimates 8 Comments 32 DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS OF TiiE SYSTEM HONEY DEW INTERCEPTOR 32 OF INTERCEPTOR SEVERS Alternative "A" 32 MAY CREEK INTERCEPMA - PHASE I AND II Alternative "B^ 32 MAY CREEK INTEPCEPTOR 10 Alternative "C" 33 Alternative "A" 10 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 33 Alternative "A-A" 10 Conclusions 38 - Alternative "B" 10 Gom!rents - 38 - Alternative "C" 11 MOTH AVENUE INTERCEPTOR 38 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 11 Alternative "A" 'A Conclusions 25 Alternative "B" 38 t Comments 25 £ Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 39 4 r i A TABLE OF CONTENTS (Conted) Page Page Conclusions 41 NORTHEAST INTERCEPTOR 53 Comments 41 Alternative "A" 53 ' PHASE II INTERCEPTORS Alternative "B" 54 SOUIHEAST INTERCEPTOR 42 Alternative "C" 54 Alternative "A" 42 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 54 Alternative "B" 42 Conclusions 58 Alternative "C" 43 Coments 58 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 43 LAKE BOREN INTERCEPTOR 58 Conclusions 48 '_ternative "A" 58 Comments 48 Alternative "B" 59 LOWER NORTHWEST INTERCEPTOR 48 Aiternative "C" 59 ^ Alter-itive "A" 49 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 59 Alternative "B" 49 Conclusions 64 Alternative "C" 49 Comments 64 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 49 FINAL CONCLUSIONS 64 Conclusions 53 APPENDIX 65 Comments 53 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd) Page MAPS Map 1 - Vicinity Hap ' Map 2 - Drainage Zones 3 CONDENSED INDEX OF TABLES Tables 1 , 2 3 3 - Estimated Population 6 Sewage Flows 5-7 Tables 4 through 10 - May Creek Interceptor 9-24 it 11 " 13 - Kennydale " 27-31 to 14 " 17 - Honev Dew " 34-37 n 18 " 20 - 110th Ave. S.E. " 39-40 " 21 " 24 - Southeast " 44-47 It 25 " 28 - Lower Northwest " 50-52 11 29 n 32 - Northeast " 55-57 11 33 " 36 - Lake Boren " 60-63 _ ae�.wwc< _.�.. .. .•ram� �e)v.-++.wt>. .. ;np _ .. -. '' ~ `:•: j w OIL I ...'„^"'r 11r+" 11...r'""rII..Ir,11�w✓ /�"f.'F I.✓r �✓r r�1 ri ..r^• III.'::� .:111'r"�- �~ I..' �rr y `�^"..✓ 1 A✓' rr� 1 . i I AP r GENERAL { Having determined that positive action is required, the next step Purpose and Scope is to determine the type and degree of action to be taken. These A cost-effectiveness analysis of wastewater interceptor facilities alternatives are discussed in detail in Volume III, Environmental is required by Section 212(2)C of the Federal Water Pollution Assessment Statement. Control Act Amendments of 1972 (PL 92-500). In February, 1974, f the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued guidelines for Interceptor alternatives were first selected by study of basin the evaluation of alternatives for Waste Treatment Works including contour maps. Routes were then checked and revised by field trips the procedures to be followed when conducting a cost-effectiveness to the basin. Several possible routes for an inter- tptor sewer analysis. were identified. The alternatives selected were evaluated by co.nparing construction, operation and maintenance costs, service It is the purpose of the report to present the cost-effectiveness provided and degree of .nvironmental impact. analysis of the proposed May Greek wastewater interceptor sewer between existing Metro manhole "B" and Point "D" located at The May Creek Drainage Basin comprises an area of approximately approximately 136th Ave. S.E. as shown on Exhibit 3. There were 8,970 acres. May Creek is the stream in the main drainage basin several alternatives originally considered. This report covers and there are several sub-areas within the main drainage basin. several that had the lowest test ratio for service provided. EPA Only those sub-basins in the lower reaches of May Creek Drainage guidelines of February, 1974 have been followed in preparing this Basin were considered in this system of interceptors along with the f report. main interceptor. These sub-basins were evaluated in this analysis because of the number of dreinfield failures and the increase in Authority populat' :n within them. The various interceptors considered are shown in the Proposed Interceptor Sewer Lines Plan (Exhibit 3) and The authority for preparation of this study is described in detail they were named as follows: in Volume I, Comprehensive Sewerage Plan for May Creek Drainage Basin. 1. May Creek Interceptor 2. Kennydale-May Creek Interceptor Identification and Selection of Alternatives 3. East Kennydale Interceptor 4. West Kennydale Interceptor _ The foremost alternative in any proposed construction project is 5. Honey Dew Interceptor to do nothing. In the case of the May Creek system of interceptor 6. Southeast (S.E. 96th Street) Interceptor s vers, doing nothing is not a viable alternative because the 7. Lake Boren Interceptor tailure of drainfields within the basin is creating a pollution R. Northeast Interceptor problem in May Creek. A detailed discussion of the drainfie'd 9. Lower Northwest (S.E. 91st Street) Interceptor problem is contained in Volume I, Comprehensive Sewc-ige Plan 10. 110th Avenue S.E. Interceptor and Volume I1I, Draft Environmental Assessment for Sewer Interceptors. The description of each will precede the individual cost- £ effectiveness analysis and the locations are shown on exhibits in the appendix. ,1 e�_+: �s.•.c..,..�w-+,.-3 rgwrr+�we.n z"'�sup'..:'. "'z.'�,.1.'.— `:. � _ _._ -'�_ __ _.....�.__�_ _....-.��._......,-.� ._..f�,✓ The first step in evaluating the system's interceptor sewers was Flows - Flows from indiv' i.+al arainage basins are shown or. Table to evaluate the main interceptor of the entire basin which is the 1 - Year 2u00, Table t - Year 2030, and Table 3 - Saturation May Creek Interceptor. The analysis of the May Creek Interceptor Population. These flows are at the point where they contribute required consideration of an egtivalent sewer service. The to the Interceptor. analysis of this service is further clarified in the paragraph Design Flow = Peak sanitary flow + winter infil* -atfon + inflow explaining the preliminary cost estimates. Sanitary Sewage 60 gpd/cap Infiltration 600 gpd/acre As stated previously, there were several alternatives that were Inflow 500 gpd/acre originally considered but only two or three warranted the full Peaking Factor detailed analysis. Useful life expectancy of the various Upper 2000 acres 3.33 com-ionents of a system are of major importance in an evaluation Major Areas 1.75 and following are the main ones. Lift stations are estimated to Population - King County and Renton zoning utilized for population have a replacement period of 15 to 20 years (mechanical and density. See Volume 1, Comprehensive Plan, for a detailed electrical equipment), while the structure and pipe have an population analysis. estimated life of 30 to 50 years. Existing technology and Planning Period - to the year 2000. materials indicate that both structures and pipe should have a full 50-year life. Using this, it can be assumed that the The design flows given are those established by Metro. The mechanical and electrical equ`pment would have to be replaced at population data was also furnished by Puget Sound Governmental least twice after thr riginal inscallatfon to match the life Conference but ac �usted as shown in Volume I. The planning period expectancy of the stru_tures and pipe. was stipulated by the Environmental Protection Agency. The above criteria were followed in this analysis but it should Engineering Criteria and Assumptions be noted that the upper portion of the May Creek Drainage Basin has a very low density zoning under the existing :Ling County Pipe Material - Zoning Ordinance. Using the established design criteria by Metro Gravity line in existing roadway - concrete and King County, there would be minimal domestic flows because of Pressure line in existing roadway - plastic, cast iron, population density, bu the calculat(:d infiltration/inflow would fiberglass or ductile iron be the same regardles,. of the numler .;f linear feet of sewers Gravity/pressure line In stream flood plain or hillside - constructed. This w. il also hold true for the sub-areas plastic, fiberglass, cast iron or ductile iron considered, but the infiltration and inflow will not be such a Aerial line along stream bed - plastic, fiberglass, asphalt large percentage of the total flows as these sub-areas are located lined steel (using a wood protective encasement) In the lower section of the May Creek Drainage Basin and have a Roughness Factor/Flow Coefficient - C = 110 for all pipe higher population density ratio. Tables 1 through 3 shuw projected Detention in Pipe - All gravity pipe designed o drain dry; flows for the various sub-areas for the years 2000, 2030, and for pressure pipe to have detained sewage during .on-pumping that unknown year that the area will become saturated. The locations periods. of the zones are shown on Map 2. -2- f r W ZLLJ ` f r I o i rf a� a As stated previously, strc-Mures and pipes have an estimated life These assumptions are consistent, thereby providing the same - of 30 to 50 years and mechanical and electrical equipment 15 to 20 rationale to all interceptors and their various alternatives. years. We have analyzed t - above information pertaining to flows and life expectancy of the facilities and therefore have made the Pipe Sizes following assumptions: The size of all sewers and pumping facilities are dependent upon (d) 20-Year Planning Period: the calculated total flows (domestic waste plus infiltration/ inflow) . Population proje,rions were developed on a sub-drainage 1. 20-year life for all construction (mechanical, basin basis, thereby allowing pipe line sizes to be determined electrical, structures, and pipe) . in the most economical fashion based on flows at designated points. 2. 10% of construction cost for 06M (operation and It is important to establish reasonable, realistic population maintenance) total for 20 years for sewers and estimates within sub-basins, in order to more accurately determine force mains. the size of the interceptor in a given sub-basin. Since slope is 3. Lift stations 06M and power cost to be interpolated a critical factor In design, and if a line size was marginal in from Exhibits 1 and 2. carrying capacity, the next larger size pipe was utilized. This 4. 35% of construction cost for overhead. selection of the next larger size increases the total construction cost by only a small percentage. (b) 50-Year Planning Period: Summary of population and peak flows for the years 2000, 2036 and 1. 16.67-year life for mechanical and electrical saturation populations are shown on Tables 1 through 3. Interceptor - equipment. sizes are shown on Exhibits 5 through 26. For ease of reference, 2. 50-year life for structures and pipe. the number appearing within each hexagon on the Exhibits is cross- 3. Construction cost shall then be the basic pipe referenced to the cost summary sheets of that interceptor. and structure cost plus the cost of the lift stations plus the cost of replacing the mechanical am equipment twice r.s required to handle the io :eased flows at each list station site. 4. 15% of construction cost for 06M total for 50 years for sewers and force mains. 5. Lift stations 06M and Dower cost from Exhibits 1 and 2. 6. 40% of construction cost for overhead. Most facilities require the greatest amount of maintenance the first Years. This is the result of correcting the undetected de. _s of construction. For this reason, while the total maintenance cost for the 50-year period is hl6her than the 20-year period by 50%, the yearly maintenance over the 50-year period is less. -4- , J TABLE 1 EK MATED POPULATION_AND SEWAGE FLOWS BY ZONES FOR YEAR 2000 y r Peak Inflow Total Average Domestic and Flow Flow Peaking Flow Infiltration Per Zone Zones Acres Population (apd) Factor (BPd) (Apd) (mad) Is 2,000 2,864 171,840 3.33 572,227 2,200,000 2.772 r lb 3,455 4,949 296,940 1.75 519,045 3,800,500 ..320 2 844 4,576 274,560 1.75 480,480 928,400 1.409 3 363 1,310 78,600 1.75 137,550 399,300 0.537 4 75 495 29,700 1.75 51,975 82,500 0.134 r 5a 136.9 776 46,560 1.75 31,480 150,590 0.232 5b 3.2 (2,000 gpad) 6,400 3.00 19,200 3,520 0.023 5c 5.5 (4,000 gpad) 22,000 2.00 44,000 6,050 0.050 6a 67.6 147 14,820 1.75 25,935 74,360 0.100 r bb 27.5 (4,00) gpad) 110,000 2.00 220,000 30,250 0.250 7 249 957 57,420 1.75 i,,�,485 273,900 0.374 8 56 148 8,880 1.73 15,540 61,600 0.077 9 284 1,021 61,260 1.75 107,205 312,400 0.420 10 453 1,084 65,040 1.75 113,820 498,300 0.612 11 560 1,289 77,340 1.75 135,345 616,000 0.751 12 214 1,284 77,040 1.75 134,820 235,400 _ 0.370 Total I 1-12 8,794 21,000 1,398,000 -- 2,760,000 9,673,000 12.433 13* 176 925 55,500 1.75 97,125 193,600 0.291 Zone connecting directly into Jor es Avenue Interceptor. {' For location of zones, see Nap 2. - - Totals rounded to nearest 1,000. 1� -5 TABLE 2 ESTIMATED POPULATION AND SEWAGE FL40WS BY ZONES FOR YEAR ZWO Peak Inflow Total Average Domestic and Flow Flow Peaking Flow Infiltration Per Zone Zones Acres Population (apd) Factor (apd) (god) (mad) la 2,000 4,910 294,600 3.33 981,018 2,200,000 3.181 lb 3,455 8,484 509,040 1.75 890,820 3,800,500 4.691 2 844 7,845 470,700 1.75 823,725 928,400 1.752 3 363 2,246 134,760 1.75 235,830 399,300 0.635 4 75 849 50,940 1.75 89,145 82,500 0.172 5a 136.9 1,330 79,800 1.75 139,650 150,590 0.290 5b 3.2 (2,000 gpad) 6,400 3.00 19,200 3,520 0.023 5c 5.5 (4,000 gpad) 22,000 2.00 44,000 6,050 0.050 6a 67.6 424 25,440 1.75 44,520 74,360 0.119 6b 27.5 (4,000 gpad) 110,000 2.00 220,000 30,250 0.250 7 249 1,641 98,460 1.75 172,305 273,900 0.446 8 56 253 15,180 1.75 26,565 61,600 0.088 9 284 1,751 105,060 1.75 183,855 312,400 0.496 to 453 1,857 111,420 1.75 194,985 498,300 0.693 11 560 2,209 132,540 1.75 231,945 616,000 0.848 12 214 2,201 132,060 1.75 231,105 235,400 0.467 Total 1-12 8,794 36,000 2,298,000 -- 4,529,000 9,673,000 14.202 13* 176 1,585 95,100 1.75 166,425 193,600 0.360 * Zone connaCOng directly into Jones Avenue interceptor. For location of zones, see Map 2. Totals rounded to nearest 1,000. -6- TABLE 3 ESTIMATED POPULATION AND SEWAGE FLOWS BY ZONES AT SATURATION - Peak Inflow Total Average Domestic and Flow Fiow Peaking Flow Infiltration Per Zone Zones Acres Population (gpd) Factor (gpd) (gpd) (mgd) la 2,000 7,400 444,000 3.33 1,478,520 2,200,000 3.678 lb 3,455 12,784 767,040 1.75 1,342,320 3,800,500 5.143 2 844 9,965 597,900 1.75 1,046,325 928,400 1.974 3 363 3,385 203,100 1.75 355,425 399,300 0.754 4 75 906 54,360 1.75 95,130 82,500 0.178 5a 136.9 2,007 120,420 1.75 210,735 150,590 0.361 5b 3.2 (2,000 gpad) 6,400 3.00 19,200 3,520 0.023 5c 5.5 (4,000 gpad) 22,000 2.00 44,000 6,050 0.050 6a 67.6 638 38,280 1.75 66,990 74,360 0.141 6b 27.5 (4,000 gpad) 110,000 2.00 220,000 30,250 0.250 7 249 2,472 148,320 1.75 259,560 273,900 0.533 8 56 380 22,800 1.75 39,900 61,600 0.102 9 284 2,638 158,280 1.75 276,990 312,400 0.589 10 453 2,798 167,880 1.75 293,790 498,300 0.792 11 560 3,424 205,440 1.75 359,520 616,000 0.976 12 214 3,317 199,020 1.75 348,285 235,400 0.583 Total 1-12 8,794 52,114 3,265,000 -- 6,457,000 9,673,000 16.130 13* 176 2,389 143,340 1.75 250,845 193,600 0.444 Zone connecting directly into Jones Avenue InterceQtor. For location of zones, see Map 2. i Totals rounded to nearest 1,000, 7 t Preliminary Cost Estimates Estimated annualized cost of each alternative, including operation Table 4 gives a summary of the estimated construction cost based and maintenance costs, power costs, and cost of collectors to on June 1975 prices for all the interceptors with their related provide equivalent service, is shown in the tables. Since precise alternatives. location of each line has not been established, detailed construction problems could not Le considered and the estimates reflect only At the Sottom of the table is a note which provides the estimated relative diffe-ences in cost of the alternatives. The costs used construction cost of Alternative "A" for the May Creek Interceptor are reasonable for making comparisons of alternatives to determine less the cost of the sewers required to provide equivalent the most cost-effective route. Actual construction costs can be service. determined only after the scheme to be used has been selected, precise route location established and the project plans completed. In the cost comparison of alternatives, the cost of replacing A detailed breakdown of casts for each alternative is presented in mechanical and electrical equipment in the lift stations was the tables. Construction costs of lift stations were determined by included in the construction cost for the 50-year service period comparing each lift station to a base lift station price and analysis. Therefore, in any alternative where lift stations had adjusting the price according to flow through the station and to be constructed, the initial cost ' be higher. It was pumping head. Lift station operation and maintenance costs and assumed that the basic structure was designed to handle the power costs were taken from the Lift Station Operation and additional equipment when needed. Maintenance and Power Cost graphs, Exhibits 1 and 2. These graphs were developed from present day (January 1975) construction, operation, and maintenance costs. For any cost-effectiveness analysis to be realistic., it is essential that each alternative considered provide the same degree of service as all other alternatives. As an --ample, assume an interceptor is located on a residential street. The sewer, in addition to being an interceptor, would act as a collector for that area. Consequently, in another alternative wherein the interceptor is placed in a location that would not provide local service, the cost of providing a collector sewer must be included in order to provide equivalent service. It was assumed that the same degree of service was provided by all the interceptor alternatives without additional lines except the May Creek Interceptor. Additional sanitary sewers were required to provide equivalent service for all of the various alternatives chosen for the May Creek Interceptor Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. The location of the May creek Interceptor changed considerably for - the different proposed alternatives. .g_ TABLE 4 MAY CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN SYSTEM OF SELECTED INTERCEPTORS SUMMARY OF COST Estimated Total 20-Year Cost Interceptor Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Recommended Description "A" "A-A" "B" "C" Alternative May Creek $2,394,380 $2,709,860 $2,564,140 $3,594,400 "A" (with equivalent service sewers) Kennydale 548,360 --- 645,620 --- "A" Honey Dew 585,220 - 1,192,020 947,260 "A" Southeast 214,000 --- 675,000 618,800 "A" Lake Boren 282,940 --- 762,440 880,880 "A" Northeast 239,911 --- 562,620 545,920 "A" Lower Not .rest 127,700 --- 404,680 473,063 "A" 110th Avenue S.E. 234,66i --- 234,300 --- "B" Notes May Creek Interceptor, Alternative "A": May Creek Interceptor is shown with equivalent sewer system. Therefore, if a total gravity system is chosen, a portion of the cost for May Creek Interceptor could be deducted as the other interceptors are part of the equivalent system. Totai estimated construction cost of the Hay Creek Interceptor without equivalent =ewers would be $1,098,947 or $78,673 per year for a twenty-year cost of $1,573,460. All .��.� �.v.�—.�.�.J�.r..a..—.- .�-- .�.. ♦_ter-�... ��a it-�.. _ .—.� DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS OF THE SYSTEM OF INTEPCEPTOR SEWERS MAY CREEK INTERCEPTOR - PHASE I AND II MAY CREEK INTERCEPTOR (Exhibits 4 through 7 of the Appendix) The May Creek Interceptor Cost-Effectiveness Analysis with that area east of 136th Avenue S.E. in the PL•y Creek Drainage equivalent sewer systems overlaps into the other interceptors, Basin would utilize a line on the south rim. This segment would but this total evaluation is necessary to determine the cost require two major lift stations, one at May Creek and 136th Avenue effectiveness of the May Creek Interceptor. Alternatives "A" and S.E. and another at a point where Honey Creek merges with May "A-A" are gravity systems and provide for all future service to be Creek. by gravity. This system would be located near and/or in May Creek as required. Alternative "A-A" has the same basic route Both Alternatives "B" and "C" would reduce the amount of but approximately one-half would be constructed above grade construction immediately adjacent to May Creek itself compared to (aerial). :alternatives "B" and "C" both have lift stations which the amount for Alternatives "A" and "A-A." Alternative "C" would involve cost evaluation based on assumptions stated previously. not require as much construction near May Creek as Alternative ' B" but would require approximately the same amount through natural Alternative "B" would be constructed along the stream from the areas. existing Metro manhole "B" (Point B) to approximately the point of convergence of Honey Creek with May Creek. There would be one Alternative A„ (Exhibit 5) major and one lesser lift station in this system. From Honey Alternative "A" begins at Metro manhole "B" and runs along May Creek, the basic system divides with the main line going up the south bank then continui easterly, - y r> roximatel parallel to Creek to , 2 Avenue S.E. , consisting of approximately 14,70U the crest of the south bank, to 136th Avenue S.E. A major lift feet of 24" 1" and 18" pipe and utilizing conventions! construction. station adjacent to May Creek would lift the sewage from the area east of 136th Avenue S.E. to that point. The other portion would Alternative "A-A" (Exhibits 4 and 5) follow around the top edge of the north bank with a lesser pump station lifting the sewage from the lake Boren sub-basin. Altertative "A-A" follows essentially the same route as Alternative "A." The primary difference is that in this Alternative "C" would be constructed in the roa.: iLo the stream alternative, a portion is constructed above ground and includes a walkway on the pipe. See architectural rendering, Exhibit 4. from `he existing Metro manhole (Point B) to a point cf conve,gence of the stream that drains the Kennydale area into May Alterrative "B" (Exhibit 6) Creek. There wr,uld be three major and one lesser lift station in this system. Alternati a "C" provides for that area north of Alternative "B" begins at Metro manhole "B" located in Jones Avenue May Creek from 136th Avenue (,.E. west to be transported along the (108th Avenue S.F.), then southerly and easterly along Jones north rim of May Creek then down to the Jones Avenue Interceptor Avenue anal then adjacent to May Creek to its conflux with Honey (which is scheduled to be built in 1975). This segment would need Creek. At that point the line divides with one segment going up one major and one lesser lift station. The area south and all of an old railroad grade along the northside of May Creek to a point _iO- which would be at the approximate intersection of 130th Avenue 7.�sement and tht old railroad grade. The line then proceeds S.E. and S.E. E9th Place, if both streets were constructed. At easterly and northerly along the old railr,,d grade co a point _ this point a force main discharges sewage pumped by a lift station which would be at the approximate intersection of 130th Avenue located southeasterly of S.E. 9ist Street and 132nd Place S.E. S.E. and `,.E. 89th i'lace, if both streets were constructed. At The other branch will leave May Creek at its intersection with this point a force main discharges sewage pumped Prom a lift Honey Creek and go southeasterly up the bank, then continue station located southeasterly of S.E. 91st Street and 132nd Place easterly on S.E. 96th Street to its intersection vi.th 136th Avenue S.E. S.E. (also known as foal Creek-Lake Boren Road). At this point a ` force main discharges sewage from a lift station located east of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 136th Avenue S.E. adjacent to May Creek. This station will pump all the sewage from the May Creek Drainage Basin Located east of Table 5 provides the analysis of a 20-yeaw .._sign period and a the pump station. 50-year service period for the May Creek Interceptor. Tabie 6 is a summary of the construction cost estimate for the May Creek Alternative "C" (Exhibit 7) intercepto with eduivalent service. Tables 7 through 10 denote the indivi:.u�l Line segment cost for each alternative as Alternative "C" begins at Metro manhole "B" located in Jones referenced on the Exhibit maps. Avenue. The southside branch goes southerly along Jones Avenue to a point where Jones Avenue turns and •2s easterly. The line continues southerly, across May Creek and up a drainage course to its intersection with the right-of-way of N.E. 128th Street, then east along N.E. 128th Street to a point where a force main di=^_harges sewage from a lift station located approximately at the intersection of Mav :reek and Honey Creek. A gravity line continues easterly up :he bank and along S.E. 96th Street to its intersection with 136th Avenue S.E. At this point a force main discharges sewage from a lift station located east of 136th Avenue S.E. adjacent to May Creek. This station is the collection ,)oint for all sewage from that area of the May Creek Drainage Basin _ocated easterly of that pimp station. V' nouthside branch begins at the Jones Avenue Interceptor (uot yet constructed) at S.E. 80th Street and 110th A•,-enue S.E. then continues cpurherly and easterly along 110th Avenue S.E. and 110th Place S.E The line continues northerly ale:tg 112th Place S.E. and then _asterly along S.E. 88th Street to its intersection with li6th Avenue S.E. The line then continues southerly along 116th Avenue _.E. to a point just south of S.E. 90th Street. At this point a force main - discharges sewage from a lift sta+ m located approximately 800 - - feet southerly. From the lift station, the lira -oes southerly f and easterly to the intersection of the Seattle Transmission Line -11- � AMMWE TABLE 5 - MAY CREEK INTERCEPTOR COST COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES ' f DESIGN PERIOD 20-YEAR 50-YEAR and _fERNATIVES� ALT. "A" ALT. "AA" ALT. "B" ALT. "C" ALT. "n" ALT. "AA" ALT. "B" ALT. "C" S Total Capital Cost ( $1,65. 301 $1,868,880 $1,202,153 `.1,263,038 $1,651,301 $1,868,880 $1,353,321 $1,623,92� Annual Capital Co�t1 82,565 93,444 60,108 63,152 33,026 37,378 27,166 I 32,478 Sewer 0 b M.2 8,256 91344 6,911 6,315 4,954 5,607 4,O7t 4,872 r Lift Station. 0 6 M3 --- --- 41,050 88,150 --- 43,15G 92,600 trr OverneaL4 28,898 32,705 21,038 22,103 13,210 14,951 10,866 12,991 Annual Costs 119,719 135,493 128,207 179,720 51,190 57,936 85,257 142,941 rj otal Costs 2,394,380 2,709,860 2,5049140 3,594,400 L2,559,500 2,896,800 4,262,850 7,147,050 1 i 1Livide the total capital cost by design period. 210% and 15% of annual capital cost respectively for 20-year and 50-year. 3From Exhibits 1 and 2. - 435% and 407 of annual capital cost respectively for 20-year and 50-year. 5Sun of annual capital cost, sewer 0 6 A, lift station 0 S M, and overhead. 6Annual cost times design year. Includes capital costs of re,..acinq mechanical and electrical equipment of lift stations. _ -12- TABLE 6 MAY CREEK INTERCEPTOR WITH EQUIVALENT SEWER SERVICE SUMWaY OF ALTERNATIVES ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST f ALTERNATIVE "A" ALTERNATIVE "B" (1) Yiy Creek Interceptor ........................ . ...... j 1,098,947 (1) May Creek Interceptor ...... .................... ..... j 248,130 (2) 110th Ave. S. E. Interceptor. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. ...... 115,580 (2) Southeast Interceptor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... ...... 497,056 (3) Kennydale Interceptor ............. ........... ..... .. 88,957 (3) Ncrtheast Interceptor . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .. ...- ......... 225,808 (4) Southeast Interceptor .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ..... ..... 149,627 (4) li0th Ave. S. E. Interceptor . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .......... 115,580 F (5) Northeast I-terceptor ....... .. . ... . ....... ..... ..... 198,190 (5) Kennydale Interceptor ......... . ..................... 88 ,957 ... .... j 1,651,301 �6) Lower Northwest Interceptor Total ............. ...... ......... .......... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 26,622 Total .. ... ..... ...... ... ......... .............. .... $ 1,202 ,153 ALTERNATIVE "A-A" 4 (11 May Creek Interceptor .. ...... . ....... ............... j 1,316,526 ALTERNATIVE "CO' (2) 110th Ave. S. E. Interceptor . . . . . . 115,580 (1) May Creek-Kennydale Interceptor ......... ............ j 415,778 (3) Kennydale Interceptor 88,957 (2) Southeast Interceptor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 429,188 (4) Southeast Interceptor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ......... - 1*9,627 (3) Northeast Interceptor . . . . . ,. . . . . . . . . 219 599 (5) Northeast Intercept, ....... .... ...... .. ..... .... (4) L1Cth Ave. S. E. Interceptor. . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... 198,473 j 19b 190 Total ...... ........ ........ .... ......... ... .... 1,868,biO Total $ 1,263,038 -13- z TABLE ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST MAY CREEK INTERCEPTOR ALTERNATIVE "A" WITH EQUIVALENT SERVICES Line* Quantity Description Uoit Cos[ Line Cost Total Cost Number of Units of Units MAY CREEK INTERCEPTOR 1 '200 LF 18" Gravity Sever $ 114.7 $137,700 2 450 LF 18" Gravity Sewer 39.54 17,793 3 5700 LF 21" Gravity Sewer 54.66 311,562 4 350 LF ( 21" Gravity Sewer 47.02 16,457 5 1400 LF 24" Gravity Sewer 50.40 70,560 6 1300 LF 24" Gravity Sewer 28.85 37,505 7 4050 LF 24" Gravity Sewer 37.40 151,470 33 EA S: edard Manholes 900.00 29,700 SUB TOTAL $ 772,747 14 EA Culvert $ 9,000,11 $126,000 14 EA Stream Crossings 14,300.00 200,200 SUB TOTAL $ 326,200 TOTAL $1,098,947 110TH AVE_ S.E. INTERCEPTOR 14 5170 LF 8" Gravity Sewer $ 15.35 $ 79,360 15 —650 LP d" Gravity Sewer — 30.80 20,020 18 EA Standard Manholes 900.00 16,2C0 I TOTAL $ 115,580 *See Exhibit 5 for line numbers. (continued next page) -14- i (continued) TABLE 7 'STIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST MAY CREEK INTE rOR ALTERNATIVE "A ' UITH EQUIVALENT 55RVICES Line* Quantity Description -� ,; �t Cost Line Cost i Total Cost I Number of Units of Units L KENNYDH E INTERCEPTOR 18 1700 LF 18" Gravity Sewer $ 15.07 $ 2 � 5.619-9 19 280 LF ! 10" Gravity Sewer 27.83 7,792 20 480 LF li 10" Gravity Sewer ) 52.83 25,358 21 250 LF 15" Gravity Sewer ) 27.83 ! 6,958 9 EA Standard Manholes 900.00 I 8,100 43 EA Hill Hoiders 110.00 1 4,7J0 1 EA St.,am Crc sings I 10,400.00 — 10,400 — — TOTAL $ 88,957 i _UTHEAST INTERCEPTOR _- 26 4200 LF 8" Gravity Sewer $ 15.35 $ 64,470 27 150 LF 8" Gravity Sewer 23.94 ( 3,591 28 ! 1600 LF 10" Gravity Sewer 18.35 29,360 i 29 I :50 LF I� 10" Gravity Sewer 24.83 6,208 30 4GO LF ` i. ;ravity Sewer 2F.12 11,248 24 EA I Standard Manholes 900.00 21,600 25 EA )Jill Holders 110.00 2,750 1 EA Stream Crossing 10,400.00 10,400 TOTAL $ 149,627 *See Exhibit 5 for Line nwgbers. (continued next page) -15- - i (continued) TABLE 7 ESTIMATED CGNSTRUCTION COST 1 MAY CREEK INTERCEPTOR ALTERNATIVE "A" WITH EQUIVALENT SERVICES Line* ( Quantity Description Unit Cost Line Cost Total Cost Number I of Units of Units I _ - 1 NOP.TH_ SST INTERCEPTOR i 35 4900 LF 8" Gravity Sever $ 19.91 $ 97,559 36 620 LF 8" Gravity Sever 25.38 15,736 37 1000 LF 8" Gravity Sever 23.91 23,910 38 I 500 LF 10" Gravity Sever 49.91 24,955 22 EA Standard Manholes 900.00 19,800 i3 EA Hill Holders 110.00 5,830 I EA Stream Crossing 10,400.00 1.0,400 TOTAL $ 198,190 (. %ND TOTAL ALTERNATIVE "A" $1,651,301 i ' ee Exhibit 5 for Line ntmber. 1 3 ANINUMMM 1ABLE 8 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST MAY CREEK INTERC?4MQ,S_ .4LTERNATIVE "AA" WITH EQUIVALENT SERVICES ( Lines' Quantity Description Unit Cost Line Cost Total Cost Number of Units of Units MAY CREEK IN RCEPT R — 1 1200 LF 18" Grav4.ty Sewer $ 114. 75 $137.700 2 i 450 LF 18" Gravity Sever 39.54 17,793 i 3 3700 LF 21" Gravity Sever 50.16 285,912 4 I 350 LF 21" Gravity Sever 41 .52 14,532 5 1400 LF 24" Gravity Sever I 50.40 70,160 6 I 1300 LF 24" Gravity Sever , 28.95 37,635 7 4050 LF 24" Gravity Sever 37.40 151.470 6050 LF Pipe Supports 17.25 104,362 6050 LF Walkway 23.25 140,662 33 EA Standard Manholes 900.00 29,700 SUB TOTAL $ 990,326 14 EA Culverts �) 126,000 14 EA Stream Crossings 14,300.00 200,200 SUB TOTAL $ 326,200 TOTAL COST MAY CREEK INIERCEPTOR $1 ,316,526 i 110TH AVE. S. E. INTERCEPTOR SAME AS ALTERNATIVE "A" TOTAL CC`ST 110th PLACE S. E. INTERCEPTOR S 115.580 _ 'See Eshibi� S for line numbers. (continued next page) -17- (continued) TABLE 8 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST MAY CREEK INTERCEPTOR ALTERNATIVE "AA" WITH EQUIVALENT SERVICES 4 lKF.NNTDALE INTERCEPTOR SAME AS ,;LTERNATIVE "A" _ t TOTAL COST KENNYDALE INTERCEPTOR $ 88,957 i iEA,ST INTERCEPTOR _ SAME AS ALTERNATIVE "A" - TOTAL COST SOUTHE'.oT INTERCEPTOR TS 140 627 i NORTHEAST INTERCEPTOR SAME AS ALTERNATIVE "A" TOTAL CAST NORTHEAST INTERCEPTOR - _ S 198.190 �+ GRAND TOTAL ALTERNATIVE "-AA" _1 $1,868,880 . 'See Exhibit S for Lire mrmbers. IN Jill TABLE 9 ESTIMATES! CONSTRUCTION COST MAY CREEK INTERCEPTOR ALTERNATIVE "B" WITH EQUICALLNT SERVICES Line* Qu�ntityD�esfcription Unit Cost LineCost Total Cost Number of Units MAY CREEK INTERCEPTOR 1 4050 LF 24" Gravity Sever $ 37.40 $151,470 2 1300 LF 24" Gravity Sewer 28.85 37,505 3 500 LF 24" Gravity Sewer 46.51 23,255 14 EA Standard Manholes 900.00 12,600 1 EA Culvert 9,000.00 9,000 _ 1 EA Stream Crossing 14,300.00 14,300 j TOTAL 248,130 F - S0VSI I171�u�1CJR _ 8 150 LF 15" Cavity Sewer $ 27.94 $ 4,191 9 2300 LF 18" Gravity Sewer 28.85 66,355 10 I 400 LF 21" Gravity Sewer 31.87 12,748 11 900 LF 24" Gravity Sewer 47.40 42,660 i 12 3450 LF 24" Gravity Sewer 60.00 207,000 19 EA Standard Manholes 900.00 17,100 10 EA Hill Holders 110.00 ' 1 ,100 2 EA I Stream Crossings 14,300.00 i 28,630 2 FA a,lverts 9000.00 13,500 4:500.00 J SUB TOTAL $ 393,254 18 1400 LF 18" Furce Main $ 40.93 $ 57,302 19 1 EA Lift Station D -IB 46,500.00 46,500 (6118 BPm, -03 td Sl TOTAL $ 103,802 TOTAL $ 427.Q26 "wee Exhibit 6 for line numbers. icontinued next page) E -19- - - �+�A.wT.*=,...-,. _. __. .,x—_•a.. ..,_.. .,*set... 11�.-,.��>. _,:;-,r' .. ,w t.. . . _ f r (continued) TABLE 9 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION .AST MAY CREEK INTERCEPTOR ALTERNATIVE "B" wljT EQUIVALENT SERVICES D Line Quantity ^eacription -� Unit Cost i Line Cost Total Cost NL=ber*, of U of Units NORTH FAT P 22 10" Gravity Sewer ; 14.85 $ 4,010 23 ; 10" Gravity Scwer 19.42 34,956 24 ! F 12" Gravity Sewer 21.91 67,921 25 370 LF 115" Gravity Sewer 27.91 10,327 18 EA Standard Manholes 900.00 16,200 14 EA Hill Holders 110.00 1,540 1 EA Stream Crossing 14,300.00 14,300 1 EA Culvert 9,000.00 9,000 SUB TOTAI, $ 158,254 31 I 1_850 LF 8' Force Main $ 14.64 $ 27,084 37 EA Hill Holders 110.00 ( 4,070 33 1 EA Lift Station LE 36,400.00 36,400 (1228 gpm, 94 tdh) SUB TOTAL $ 67,554 TOTAL 225,808� i OTH kVE. S.E. INTERCEPTOR 2. 36 5170 LF 8" Gravity Sewer i $ 15 35 $ 79,360 i37 650 LF 8" Gravity Sewer I 30.90 20,020 IIF 18 EA Standa*.! Manholes1 900.00 16,200 1 TOTAL 1 $ 115,580 ' " ee Exhibit E for line nz mbers. (continued nest payer -20- k (continued) TABLE 9 EST THATED CONS.'RUCTION COST MAY CREEK INTFRCEPTCR ALTERNATIVE "B" WITH EQUIVALENT SERVICES Line Quantity Description Number* of Units of Units Unit Cost Line Cost Total Cost C KENNYDALE INTERCEPTOR _ 40 1700 LF 8" Gravity Sever 15.07 S 25,61^ 41 280 LF 10" Gravity Sever 27.83 7,79E 42 480 LF 10" Gravity Sever 52.83 25,358 43 250 LF 15" Gravity Sever 27.83 6,958 9 EA Standard Manholes 900.00 8,100 43 FA Hill Holders 110.00 4,730 1 EA Stream Crossing 10,400.00 10,400 _ $ 89,957 TOTAL LOWER NORTHWEST I'•EERCE_PTOR _ 48 I 980 LF i 10" Gravity Sever $ 24.41 $ 23,92E 3 EA 1 Standard Manholes _900.00 I 2,700 TOTAL—.t— 26,622 GRAND TOTAL ALTERNATIVE "B" $1,202,153 *see Exhibit 6 for Zine numbers. f -21- t TABLE 10 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST # MAY CREEK INTERCEPTOR ALTERNATIVE "C" WITH EQUIVALENT SERVICES Iane Quantity - Description� Unit Cost Line Cost Total Cost Numbeti` I of Units of Units MAY CREEK - KE?QNYDF_LE INTEK EPT_ - 1 �- '480 LF 15" Gravity Sever 52.81 $ 25,349 2 250 LF 18" Gravity Sever 47.83 11,958 1 650 LF 21" Gravity Sever 3 59 21,834 4 290 LF 24" Gravity Sever 3,.:3 9,612 5 4550 LF 24" Gravity Sever 37.40 %O,I ;p I f N 18 EA Standard Manholes 900. OO 43 EA Hill Holders 110 ( 3C I 1 EA Culvert 9,000.00 I ),000 1 EA Stream Crossing 14,300.00 14,300 SUB TOTAL $ 283,153 11 1500 LF 18" Force Main $ 37.91 $ 56,865 ' 16 EA Hill Holders 110.00 1,760 1 EA Culvert 4,500.00 4,500 I Z 1 EA Stream Crossing 10,400.00 10,400 15 I 1 EA Lift Station M-16 59,100.00 59,100 (8018 gpm, 187 tdh SUB TOTAL $ 132,625 3 TOTAL $ 415,778 `See Exhibit 7 for Line numbers. (continued next page) -22- Z , TO EPA/DOE GRANT I3X TABLE 10 (cont'd) ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST MAY CREEK INTERCEPTOR ALTERNATIVE "C" WITH EQUIVALENT SERVICES Line Quantity Description 7nic Cost Line Cost Total Cost Number* of Units of Units f I SOUTHEAST INTERCEPTOR 18 150 LF 15" Gravity Sewer $ 27.94 $ 4,191 19 2250 LP 18" Gravity Sewer 28.85 64,913 20 300 LF 21" Gravity Sewer 31.94 9,582 2i 3450 LF 24" Gravity Sewer 60.00 207,000 17 EA Standard Manholes 900.00 15,300 10 EA Hill Holders 110.00 1,100 SUB TOTAL $ 302,0£6 25 1400 LF 18" Force Main $ 40.93 $ 57,302 1 EA Culvert 9,000.00 9,000 1 EA Stream Crossing 14,300.00 14,300 28 1 EA Lift Station MC-lC 46,500.00 46,500 (6118 gpm, 103 tdh) SUB TOTAL $ 127,102 ,TOTAL $ 429,188 NORTHEAST INTERCEPTOR 31 1800 LF 10" Gravity Sewer $ 19.42 $ 34,956 32 3340 LP AV' Gravity Sewer 21.91 73,179 33 1000 LF 12" Gravity Sewer 25.91 25,910 20 EA Standard Manholes 900.00 18,000 SUB TOTAL I $ 152,045 "See Exhibit 7 for Line nwnbers. (continuer next page) -23- 3 R.. (continued) TABLE 10 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST MAY CREEK INTERCEPTOR ALTERNATIVE "C" WITH EQUIVA..ENT SERVICES Line Quantity Description Unit Cost Lilt. Cost Total Cost4 Number* ( of Units of Units NORTHEAST INTERCEPTOR (continued) 36 1850 LF 8" Force Main $ 14.64 $ 27,084 37 EA Hill Holders 110.00 4,070 t 38 1 EA Lift Station LB 36,400.00 36,400 (1228 gpm, 94 tdh) SUB TOTAL $ 67,554 TOTAL 219.599 � 110TH AVE. S. E. INTERCEPTu., ' 41 300 LF 18" Gravity Sever i 5 15.35 5 4,605 42 650 LF II 8" Gravity Sever 30.80 20,020 43 3450 LF 10" Gravity Sewer + 18.35 63,308 i 44 400 LF 12" Gravity Sewer 21.35 ' 8,540 45 11050 LF 12" Gravity Sever 23.80 24,990 18 EA Standard Manholes 900.00 16,200 7 SUB TOTAL $ 137,663 48 750 LF 8" Force Main $ 14.28 $ 10,710 49 ! 1 EA Lift Station NL-17 ' 50,100.00 50,100 (2078 gpm, 227 tdh SUB TOTAL $_ 60,810 TOTAL $ 198,473 GRAND TOTAL ALTERNATIVE "C" $1,263,038 - "See Exhibit 7 for line numbers. -24- , Conclusions l Alternative "A" is the most cost-effective for the 20-year design period and the 50-year service period. Alternative "C" is the least cost-effective for the 20-year design period. The initial construction cost for this alternative is less, but annual posts for operating and maintaining the three lift stations make this alternative the least cost-effective. The difference between Alternatives "A" and "A-A" decreases from a cost-effectiveness standpoint for the 50-year service period; therefore consideration should be given to a modified version utilizing segments of "A-A" in Alternative "A." Comments While Alternatives "A" and "A-A" cost more for initial construction, the cost of annual operations and maintenance for the lift stations make these alternatives more cost-effective in longer planning periods and have greater flexibility for growth and service to the drainage basin. Alternatives "A" and "A-A" are gravity systems; therefore no energy will be consumed in operating the stations. Fewer manhours are expended in daily maintenance, thereby reducing cost. They would also eliminate future engineering and constru^_t'on costs. There are significant differences in the alternatives when considered environmentally. These differences are discussed in Volume III, Draft Environmental Assessment." i S _25- 3 AMOMF S PHASE I INTERCEPTORS KENNYDALE INTERCEPTOR (Exhibits 8 and 9 of the Appendix) The Kennydale Interceptor would consist of three segments if the goes easterly approximately 400 feet; then at a 45 degree angle May Creek Interceptor Alternative "A" or "A-A" is constructed. 400 feet in the southeasterly direction to its terminus. One segment would be that section connecting the Kennydale area to May Creek, another segment would serve the north and east side The other .rain branch, West ale Interceptor, begins at the of the Kennydale area, while the third segment would serve the old railroad right-of-way andd N.E.N 28th Street, then westerly to west and south side of the area. the easterly right-of-way margin of N.E. 27th; then northwesterly along M.E. 27th Street 300 feet; then southwesterly across N.E. Alternatives "A" and "B" are identical to each other in 27th Street and the school yard to the easterly margin of approximately 90 to 95 percent of their lengths. Alternative "A" Interstate Highwry 405; then southerly along the easterly margin is a total gravity system connecting into the May -reek approximately 600 feet; then follow the property lines to the Interceptor. Alternative "B" has the east and ...rt1 side flowing cul-de-sac of N.E. 27th Court; then southerly on an easement by gravity and connecting into an existing system on N.E. 28th approximately 150 feet west of and parallel to the west right-of- Street. The south and west side flows by gravity to a low way line of Jones Avenue N.E. to N.E. 24th Street; then easterly point (approximately 300 feet west of Jones Avenue N.E. and N.E. along N.E. 24th Street to Jones Avenue N.E.; then southerly on 25th Street). From there a lift station would pump the sewage Jones Avenue N.E. approximately 300 feet; then on easements 300 to an existing sewer on Jones Avenue N.E. and N.E. 20th Street. feet easterly and the 950 feet southerly to N.E. 20th Street; then easterly on N.E. "th Street to Dayton Avenue N.E. Alternative "A" (Exhibit 8) } Alternative "A" begins at proposed manhole M-K/M-9 on to may Creek Interceptor, then it goes southerly under the tree.. and up the ravine past the old railroad right-of-way and N.E. 27th Street to a point approximately 300 feet southerly of N.E. 27th Street, then continuing on the easement but going easterly to Aberdeen Avenue N.E..; then southerly on Aberdeen Avenue N.E. approximately 180 feet; then going easterly on an easement for approximately 1200 feet, then southerly approxima sly 70 feet; then easterly approximately 180 feet and across Edmonds Avenue (116th Avenue S.E.); then along the east side of the sidewalk along Edmonds Avenue to N.E. 20th Street. Another segment of the East Kennydale Interceptor begins at the southerly manhole on Aberdeen Avenue N.E. then southeasterly at a 45 degree angle across the playfield approximately 300 feet, then southerly approximately 700 feet. At this point a short line is extended westerly to Aberdeen Avenue N.E. while another I -26- i I - I I, I i i I Alternative "B" (Exhibit 9) TABLE 11 KENNYDALE INTERCEPTOR As stated previously, Alternatives "A" and "B" are identi�ai for COST COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES a major portion of their system. In Alternative "B" that section from May Creek southerly up the ravine is omitted. The East DESIGN PERIOD AR 50-YEAR t N.E. 27th Street and continues20-YE _ Kenn dale se segment originates a _Y gm easterly and souther' as previously described. and T , southeasterly, y Y P " " The West Kennydale segment terminates at the cal-de-sac, in N.E. ALTERNATIVES AL, . A' ALT. B ALT. A' ALY. B 27th Court and the lift station would be located at the cast Total Capital Cost $378,176 $323,880 $378,176 $382 3157 margin of Interstate Highway 405 approximately 700 feet northerly of N.E. 24th Street. The remaining portion of the Vest Kennydale � tnnual Capital Cost1 18,909 16,1.94 7,564 7,646 segment is as previously described. The force main begins at the lift station and follows the easterly margin of Interstate Highway Sewer 0 6 M2 1,891 1,619 1,135 1,147 405 to N.E. 24th Street; then easterly along N.E. 24th Street t-.- Jones Avenue N.E.; then southerly along Jones Avenue N.E. to the Lift Station 0 6 M3 --- 8,800 --- 9,350 existing sanitary sewer located approximately 150 feet northerly of N.E. 20th Street. Overhead'' 6,618 5,668 3,026 3,058 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Annual Cos_5 27,418 32,281 11,725 21,201 Table 11 shows cost-effectiveness analysis of a 20-year design I Total Coen 548,360 645,620 586,250 11,060,050 period and a 50-year service period. Tables 12 and 13 are the L cost estimates for Alternatives "A" and "B" respectively. The line number in front of the various segments is referenced on the Exhibit drawings in order that the unit cost, quantity and total cost for the segment in that location is readily identified. 'Divide the total capital cost by design period. 210Z and 15% of annual capital cost respectively for 20-year and 50-year. -From Exhibit 1 and 2 of the appendix. 435% and 40% of annual capital cost respectively for 20yea: and -year. m of annual capital cost, sewer 0 6 M, lift station 0 b M and overt-ad. ` annual cost times design year. ?Includes capital costs of replacing mechanical and electrical equipment of lift stations. -27- f } Adk- KL TABLE 12 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST KENNYDALE INTERCEPTOR ALTERNAT'9E "A" Line Quantity Description Unit Cost Line Cost Total Cost '.umber* of Units of Units �— i KENNYDALE-MAY CREEK INTERCEPTOR i1 600 LF 10" Gravity Sever $ 52.80 $ 31,680 2 I 150 LF 15" Gravity Sever 27.94 4,191 3 EA Standard Manholes 900.00 2,700 31 EA Hill Holders 110.00 3,410 1 EA Stream Crossing 10,400.00 10,400 t TOTAL $ 52,381 AST KENNYDALE INTEPCEPTOR 7 800 LF 10" Gravity Sever S 23.32 $ 18,611 8 1960 LF 10" Gravity Sever 19.42 38,063 9 140 LF 10" Gravity Sever 16.35 2 ,289 10 180 LF 10" Gravity Sever 75.40 13,572 17_ 1910 LF 8" Gravity Sever 17.08 32,623 12 720 LF 8" Gravity Sever 24.88 17,914 13 1200 LF 8" Gravity Sever 13.96 16,752 23 EA Standard Manholes 900.00 20,700 7 EA Hill Holders 110.00 770 r TOTAL, $ 161.33) 4 t f *See Exhibit B for numtur.:. (continued neat page) S ` -28- (continued) TABLE 12 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST KENNYDALE INTERCEPTOR ALTERNATIVE "A" I' Line Quantity Description Unit Cost Line Cost Total Coat - Number* of unt' � cf Units i WEST KENNYDAT.E ?NTERCEPTOR _ 17 125 8" iravity Sever $ 15.35 $ 19,141 18 i KC ' P 8" Gravity Sever 43.00 34,40 19 35 f r' 1 i0" Gravity Sewer 18.64 65,613 2r, SCE - 10" Gravity Sewer 16.35 8,175 21 8r ' 4 10" Gravity Sever 73.64 5,891 2� 451, L' ( 12" Gravity Sewer I 20.97 9,436 24 Standard Manholes 400.00 21,600 fN& : � $ 164,456 TOTAL ALTERNATIVE "A" _ $ 378,176 *See Eshi.bi. for line raeabere. i s _29- 1 TABLE 13 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST KENNYDALE INTERCEPTOR ALTERNATIVE "B" Line Quantity Description Unit Cost Line Cost Total Cost Number* of Units of Units EAST KENNYDALE ITERCEPTOR 1 1200 LF 8" Gravity Sever - $ 13.96 !$ 16,752 2 1910 LF 8" Gravity Sever 17.08 i 32,623 720 LF 8" Gravity Sever 24.88 f 17,914 ' 4 140 LF 10" Gravity Sever 16.35 2,289 5 950 LF 10" Gravity Sever 18.55 I 17,622 6 1280 LF 10" Gravity Sever 19.42 24,858 7 180 LF 10" Gravity Sever 75.40 13,572 23 EA Standard Manholes 900.00 20,700 � TOTAI. $ 14e 330 I WEST KENNYDALE INTERCEPTOR 1 10 400 LF 8" Gravity Sever ; 13.31 ; 5,324 11 1200 LF 8" Gravity Sever 15.35 19,341 12 800 LF 8" Gravity Sever 43.00 34,400 13 460 LF 1C ' Gravity Sever 16.35 7,521 14 1200 Lr 10" Gravity Sever 18.80 22,560 15 820 LF 10" Gravity Sever 19.14 15,695 18 EA Standard Manholes 900.00 16,200 SUB TOTAL $ 121,041 '.See Erhibit 9 for line ntmbers. (continued nest page) -30- rir.+�:u,v rr (continued) TABLE 13 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST KENNYDALE INTERCEPTOR ALTERNATIVE "B" lLine Quantity Description 1 Unit Cost Total Cost �us6er• of Units of Units 1 WEST KE KYDALZ INTERCEPTOR (continued) 18 1950 LP ` 6" F-rce Hain 12.31 24,005 19 1 EA ; Lift Station R-1 32,500.00 32,500 (330 gpc, 61 tdb) SUB TOTAL Lines 18 and 19 _ $ 56,509 1--— + TOTAL $ 177,550 GRAND TOTAL ALTERNATIVE "B"_ 'j 323 880 *See Ex%:ibit c 'or Zino monbers. i t ) -31 t t Conclusions Holm DEW INTERCEPTOR (Exhibits 10 through 12 of the Appendix) Alternative "A" is the most cost-effective alternative for the The Honey Dew Interceptor Cost-Effectiveness Analysis assumes �.; 20-year design period. The cost effectiveness becomes more under Alternative "A" that the May Creek Interceptor has or will pronounced if a 50-year service period is considered. be constructed so that a gravity system can be constructed, thereby eliminating the need for the three lift stations that are #. Alternative "B" costs less to built initially but the annual cost presently in use within the Honey Creek drainage basin. 5 - of maintaining and operating lift stations quickly raises the cost above that of the gravity system. Alternative "B" considers that the May Creek Interceptor may 1 . never be built and all construction of the Honey Deu Interceptor Comments is out of the creek area. Both Alternatives "B" and "C" connect into existing systems and to reduce interruption of existing - While Alternative "A" is the most cost-effective, it does cos: systems and traffic, a drain-dry force vain is proposed to carry more to built initially as it has more linear feet of sewers and the sewage to a point where the existing system tines are large 1 the construction of one segment would be in difficult areas. enough to handle the increased loads. e All gravity systems are normally the most cost-effective if Alternative "C" assumes that the May Creek Interceptor has not F a heen constructed but is ex eceed to be built some time in the { planning periods are over fifteen years. p - future. The interceptor is proposed for construction in Honey - ,- Thete are significant differences in the alternatives whet: Creek, making it pssible to finish the system later into an a11- ' `. considered environmentally but, as stated previously, these gravity system whey. the May :reek Interceptor is constructed. differences are discussed in Volume III, "Draft Environmental Assessment." Alternative "A" (Exhibit 10) Alternative "B" has the possibility of being able to have both Alternative '•A" begins at the junction of May Creek and Honey ' segments, East and West Kennydale, flow by gravity into the Creek at manhole M-H/M-16 in the May Creek Interceptor. It then existing line that goes westerly under Interstate Highway 405. follows the lacer portion. of the ravine in which Honey Creek .� _. The most westerly portion of the existing system is undersized flows from its intersection with Union Avenue N.E. (132nd Avenue � and would result in reconstruction, which would raise the initial S.E.), thin southerly along Union Avenue N.E., where it will : F construction cost of Alternative "B" considerably higher than connect into the existing system, eliminating the need for the _f Alternative "A"; therefore the construction cost was not covered Sunset Lif- Station at that point. in detail. Alternative "B" (Exhibit 11) Alternative "B" is made up of several segments and these are - 'eseribed as follows: Provide a lift station located at the north crest of Honey Creek a,.� the PSP&L Company easement (appr- _ely S.E. 104th Street and 124tn Avenue S.E.), then easterly or. S.E. 104th Street with a force main to a gravity segment located on Union Avenue N.E. i -32- 4 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Provide a second lift station located at ti-e north crest of Honey Table 14 shows a cost-effectiveness analysis for a 20-year design Creek and 126th Avenue S.E. (approx.'mately intersection of 126th period and a 50-year service period. Tables 15, 16 and 17 show Avenue S.E. and S.E. 106th Street if extended), then northerly on the cost estimates for Alternatives "A," "B," and "C," 126th Avenue N.E. with a force main connecting into the force respectively, denoting the segmented line cost and as identified main on S.E. 104th Street. on the Exhibit map. Gravity segment beginning at S.E. 104th Street and Union Avenue N.E. (132nd Avenue N.E.), then southerly along Union Avenue N.F. to the southeast corner of the intersection of Sunset Blvd. and Union Avenue (location of existing Sunset Lift Station). Provide a new lift station to replace the existing Sunset Lift Station at this point, then a force main that goes southerly to N.L. 12th Street, then westerly on N.E. 12th Street to the Transmission Line right-of-way, which is a high point, then southerly along the ! west margin of the right-of-way with a drain-dry force main to N.E. 7th Street, then westerly along N.E. 7th Street to the ; intersection of Aberdeen Aver.,:e and connect to the existing gravity system at this intersection. s Alternative "C" (Exhibit 12) Alternati, e "C" is divided into two basic segments. One segment is gravity and the other segment consists of a lift static" and force main. The gravity seg_-ent begins at the existing Sunset Lift Station and follows the same route along Honey Creek as - - - Alternative "A" to its intersection with the PSP&L Company - easement. The other segment begins at the intersection of Hone) Creek and the PSP&L Company easement with the lift station and - then through a force main southerly and westerly along the P 3F&L . Company easement to a high point at approximately Monroe Avenue N.E. and N.E. 12th Street, then continuing southerly along the - - PSP&L Co=pany easement with a drain-dry force main to its intersection with N.E. 7th Street, then westerly along N.L. 7th Street to the intersection of Aberdeen Avenue where it connects to the existing system. - -33- IF TABLE 14 HONEY DEN INTERCEPTOR COST COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES PERIODDESIGN 20-YEAR 50-YEAR and ALTERNATIVES ALT. "A" ALT. "B„ ALT. „C„ ALT. "A" ALT. "B„ ALT. ^C" Total Capital Cost $ 403,599 ! S 397,258 $ 425,708 $ 403,599 $ 592,5217 $ 509,1357 Annual Capital Costl 20,180 19,863 21,285 8,072 11,850 10,183 Sewer 0 & M2 2,018 1,986 2,128 1,211 4 1,778 I 1,527 Lift Station 0 & M3 --- 30,800 16,500 --- 32,917 IF ,133 Overhead4 7,063 6,952 7,450 3,229 4,740 4,073 Annual Costs 29,261 59,601 47,363 1-,512 51,285 33,916 Total Cost6 585,220 1,192,020 947,260 625,600 2,564,250 1,695,600 lDivide the total capital cost by design period. 210% and 15% of annual capital cost respectively for 20-year and 50-year. 3From Exhibit 1 b 2 of the appendix. 435% and 40% of annual capital cost respectively for 20-year and 50-year. - 5Sum of annual capital cost, sewer 0 & M, lift station 0 & M and overhead. 6Annual cost times design year. 7Inc.ludes capital cost of replacing mechanical and electrical equipment of lift - stations. tq. _34. '. f - _ AP TABLE 15 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST HONEY DEW INTERCEPTOR ALTERNATIVE "A" Line Quantity Description Unit Cost Line Cost Total Cost Number* of Units of Units 1 1000 LF 12" Gravity Sewer S 27.81 $ 27,810 2 40 LF 12" Gravity Sewer 12' .43 4,857 3 5790 LF 12" Gravity Sewer 56.43 326,730 4 270 LF 15" Gravity Sewer 19.30 5,211 5 70 LF 15" Gravity Sewer 84.30 5,901 18 EA Standard Manholes 900.00 16,200 59 EA Hill Holders 110.00 6,490 1 EA Stream Crossing 10,400.00 10,400 TOTAL, $ 403,599 'See Exhibit 10 for line nwnbers. -35- TABLE 16 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST HONEY DEW INTERCEPTOR ALTERNATIVE "B" Line Quantity Description Unit Cost Line Cost Total Cost Number* of Units of Units �- 1 2450 LF 112.1 Gravity Sewer $ 25.70 S 62,965 10 EA _andard Manholes 900.00 9,000 SUB TOTAL $ 71,965 4 600 LF 4" Force Main $ 8.43 1S 5,058 5 1720 LF 6" Force Main 12.43 21,380 6 1 EA Lift Station HC-3B 33,800.00 33,800 (170 gpm, 75 tdh) SUB TOTAL $ 60,238 8 6?0 LF � 4" Force Main S 8.30 $ 5,561 9 1 FA Lift Station HC-2B 31,iOO.00 31,100 ' I (70 gpm, 48 tdh) SUB TOTAL $ 36,661 li 1150 LF I8" Force Main 14.30 $ 16,445 12 5100 LF 10" Force Main 16.47 83,997 13 3950 LF 10" Force Main 20.95 ( 82,752 14 1 EA Air Vacuur_ Valve 1,500.00 1,500 15 1 EA Lift Station HC-lB 43,700.00 43,700 (2292 gpm, 115 tdh) SUB TOTAL $ 228,394 TOTAL $ 397,258 'See Exhibit #11 for Zine numbers. 2t -36- r TABLE 17 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST HONEY DEW INTERCEPTOR ALTERNATIVE "C" Line Quantity Description G..,it Cos[ Line Cost Total Cost Numbe-• of Units of Units 1 300 LF 12" Gravity Sever $ 40.08 $ 12,024 2 12900 LF 12" Gravity Sever 57.41 166,489 3 340 LF 15" Gravity Sever 32.68 11,111 11 LA Standard Manholes 900.00 9,900 63 EA Hill Holders 110.00 6,930 S - $ 206,454 SUB TOTAL 7 2250 LF 1C" Force Main S 18.21 S 6(),973 8 2870 LF 10" Force Main 16.32 46,838 9 3950 LF 10" Force Main 21.15 83,543 10 1 EA Air Vacuum Valve 1,500.00 1,500 11 1 EA Lift Station HC-IC 46,400.00 46,400 (2292 Spm, 188 tdbM SUB TOTAL $ 219,254 TOTAL $ 425,708 "See Exhibit 12 for line m mbere. 37 Conclusions 110TH AVEW E S.E. INTERCEPTOR (Exhibits 13 6 14 of the Appendix) t Alternative "A" is the most cost-effective alternative for the the 110th Avenue S.E. Interceptor is the only interceptor that 20-year design period. The cost effectiveness becomes more does not connect directly into the May Creek Interceptor. It - predominant if a 50-year service period is considered, will connect into the Jones Avenue Interceptor which in turn AltecoTmects into Point "B,"" the terminus of the existing Metro - cost of tat costs less to build initially, but the factor i Interceptor. This interceptor has two basic considerations cost of maintaining the lift stations soon becomes a factor in and they are: (1) the proximity of existing homes, and (2) f . raising the 20-year cost above Alternative "A." the best location of an interceptor for service to the area. Comments Alternative "A"' (Exhibit 13) ;j While Alternative "A" is th, most cost-effective, it does cost This alternative begins at the Jones Avenue Interceptor manhole , more to build initially. Since most of Honey Creek is privately- J1-M-14/NW-1, located at the intersection of S.E. 80th Street owned, easements would be _equired; but even with easement and 110th Avenue S.E. , then southerly on 110th Avenue S.E. and acquisition cost, it does not appear probable that either 110th Place S.E. for approximately 1,350 feet, then easterly Alternative "B" or "C" would be the most cost-effective, ba::ed on S.E. 84th Street (not open), then continuing easterly and on the 20-year design period. The 50-year service period, which northerly on easements following a stream line to a point is a realistic life period for a gravity system, shows that it approximately 1,080 feet from 110th Place S.E. , then is extremely superior as far as cost effectiveness is concerned. southeasterly approximately 1800 feet to S.E. 88th Street, then t easterly 1,500 feet which !s a point 300 feet easterly of the Construction of either Alternative "B" or "C" would be much more intersection of S.E. 88th Street and 118th Avenue S.E. Another disruptive to existing populated areas. segment begins at that point in the above described segment 1,080 feet easterly of 110th Place S.E. This segment continues There are significant differences in the alternatives when northeasterly on an easement following the stream line. considered environmentally, but as stated previously, these differences are covered in Volume III, "Environmental Assessment." Alternative "B" (Exhibit 14) _ This alternative begins at the Jones Avenue Interceptor manhole Jl-M-14/NW-1, located at the intersection of S.E. 80th Street and IICt1- Avenue S.E. then southerly, southeasterly, easterly, and northeasterly on 110th Avenue S.E. , 110th Place S.E. , and 112th Place S.E. respectively to S.E. 88th Street then easterly on S.E. 88th Street to a point which is approximately 300 feet - a easterly of the intersection of S.E. 88th Street and 118th # m Avenue S.E. Another segment begins at S.E. 84th Street and 110th Place S.E. ; then easterly and northeasterly, following a ' stream line on an ease-ent approximately 1,980 feet to 116th Avenue S.E. -38- 3' 4 - r These lines in both Alternative "A" and "B" would have to be TABLE 18 increased in size to carry the increased flow if the Lake LlOTH AVENUE SOUTHEAST INTERCEPTOR Boren Interceptor and/or the Northeast Interceptor are COST COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES discharged into them. Considering the uniformity in slopes between the two alternatives and other factors it is assumed DESIGN PERIOD 20-YEAR 50-YEAR that the cost will be proportionately increased. and ALTERNATIVES ALT. "A" ALT. "B" ALT. "A" ALT. "B" Cost-Effectiveness Analysis --- — Total Capital Cost $ 161,843 $ 161,575 $ 101,843 $ 161,575 Table 18 shows the cost-effectiveness analysis for the 20-year design period and a 50-year service period. Tables 19 and 20 Annual Capital Cost' 8,092 8,079 3,237 3,23'1 show the cost estimates for Alternatives "A" and "B" respectively, denoting the segmented line cost and as noted on Sewer 0 S Hz 809 808 48b 465 the Exhibit Maps. 3 Lift Station 0 6 M --- --- --- --- Overhead4 2,832 2,828 1,295 1,293 Annual Costs 11,733 11,715 5,018 5,010 Total Costb ! 234,660 234,300 250,900 250,500 'Divide the total capital cost by design period. 210% and 152 of annual capital cost respectively for 20-year and 50-year. 3From Exhibit 1 and 2 of the appendix. 435% and 40% of annual capital cost respectively r 20-year and 50-year. SSum of annual capital cost, sever O 6 M, lift station 0 6 M and overhead. 6Annual cost times design year. -39- t, TABLE 19 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST 110TH AVENUE SOUfNPASY INTERCEPTOR - ALTERNATIVE '•A" Line Quantity Description Unit Cost Line Cost Total Cost Number of Units I of Units _ 1 2000 LF 8" Gravity Sewer $ 15.35 $ 30,700 2 3980 LF 8" Gravity Sewer 19.86 79,043 3 650 LF 18" Gravity Sewer 30.80 20,020 20 EA Standard Manholes 900.00 18,000 128 EA Hill Holders 110.00 14,080 TOTAL $ 161,843 *See Exhibit 13 for Line nzunbers. TABLE 20 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST 110TH AVENUE SOUTHEAST INTERCEPTOR - ALTERNATIVE "B" - Line Quantity Description Unit Cost Line Cost Total Cos[ Number of Units of Units _ 1 4780 LF 8" Gravity Sewer $ 15.35 $ 73,373 2 1980 LF 8" Gravity Sewer 19.86 39,322 3 I 650 LF 8" Gravity Sewer 33.80 20,020 24 EA Standard Manholes 900.00 21,600 66 EA Hill Holders 110.00 7,260 TOTAL $ 161,575 *See Exhibit 14 fo.- line nccabep-. -4C_ li Conclusions Alternative "B" is the most cost-effective alternative both in the 20-year design period and the 50-year service period. Alternative "A" is less than 0.2% higher than Alternative "B" on the 20-year design period or the 50-year service period. Comments Although Alternative "B" may be the most cost-effective, it will require considerable more linear feet of sewers to connect the existing homes to it. Alternative "A" would require less additional sewers to service the existing houses. The easement cost could be considerable. The area -pest of the line is basically undeveloped, therefore property owners may be reluctant to grant easements. In view of all the problems and cost it is recommended that Alternative "B" be 'he location for the 110th Avenue S.E. Interceptor. _41- a yApl4�a.mT+rvxelr�rana/:+ . _ .. . .,- PHASE II INTERCEPTORS Introduction - "? Y The Department of Ecology under Referendum No. 27 provided a loan is a possibility that the May Creek Interceptor may eventually be � for an extension of the existing May Creek Interceptor from constructed to H,,aey Creek and the Honey Dew Interceptor would be i manhcle "B." Volume I, Comprehensive Sewerage Plan, covers the built. This condition would allow the pump station H-LC in its J entire Hay Creek Drainage Basin. Volume III, Draft Environmental location (as shown on Exhibit 16) to serve two areas. Alternative Assessment, covers the western urban portion of the May Creek "C" considers the possibility that the May Creek Interceptur may Drainage Basin. never be built and that there would not be any construction in t the Honey Creek stream area. Both Alternatives "B" and "C" would T, - May Creek Interceptor is very complex and is detailed in discharge into an existing system owned by the City of Renton. earlier sections of this repott. Due to the complexity of the These alternatives require extensive lift station operation now cost-effectiveness study, it was impossible to separate Phase I and in the future. (Manhole "B" to Honey Creek) from Phase II (Honey Creek to Manhole "D"). As a result of this inseparability, it was necessary '.lternative "A" allows for fut growth with no extra (. to include a cost-effectiveness study of the alternative inter- construction cost, while Alternatives "B" and "C" require - ceptors, Lover Northwest and Northeast, which are tributary to the additional cost for minimum growth plus extensive annual operating Hay Creek Interceptor. cost. - t The Lake Boren interceptor was not funded. It is in the May Creek Alternative "A" (Exhibit 15) Drainage Basin and is a part of Volumes I and III. Since it is in Z - a problem area within King County water District No. 107, the Alternative "A" `egins at a manhole M-SE,A-29 in the May Creek } District authorized the preparation of a cost-effectiveness study I rceptor. It would then -o southerly up and out of the Creek z of the Lake Boren Interceptor. an existit�. +ry of Seatt water main easement to S.E. %th _creet. At th.. ;point one gravity segment goes westerly and These four interceptors comprise Phase II. southerly on S.E. 96th Street for approximately 3450 feet. The other gravity segment would go eastei.y and jutherly on S.E. 96th Street, then southerly on 138th Avenue S_ to approximately N.E. 1 SOUTHEAST INTERCEPTOR (Exhibits 15 through 17 of the Appendix) 21st Street approximately 4100 feet from the beginning of this segment. The Sout.'teast Interceptor Cost-Effectiveness Analysis considered three possible conditions that could exist. Alternative "A" Alternative "B" (Exhibit 16) assumes that the May Creek Interceptor has been or will be - € constructed by the time the Southeast Interceptor is constructed. Alternative "B" has the same system on S.E- 96th Street as _ This assumption therefore allows a total gravity system. Alternative "A." but its method of disposal is different. The two Alternatives "B" and "C" are gravity systems down to where gravity segments are approximately 3450 linear feet westerly and 4. Alternative "A" descends into the May Creek Interceptor• therefore southerly along S.E. 96th Street and approximately 4100 linear all three alternative systems are virtually identical. The feet easterly and southerly on S.E. 96th Street and 138th Avenue - - - methods of disposal are different. Alternative "B" assumes there S.E. They are connected at a lift station why- , S.E. 96th Street i -42- r ,'. 1 1 and 132nd Avenue S.E. (City of Seattle water main easement) station at this point, then into a force main that goes southerly intersect. Then a force main runs southerly along 132nd Avenue to N.E. 12th Street, then westerly to the City of Seattle's S.E. to approximately S.E. 98[h Street, then westerly on an transmission water main right-of-way, which is a high poiot, then easement to its intersection with the Puget Sound Power and Light southerly along the west margin of the right-of-way with a drain- Company easement; then southwesterly along the east side of said dry force main to N.E. 7th Street, then westerly along N.E. 7th easement to S.E. 100th Street; from here a gravity system goes Street to the intersection of Aberdeen Avenue, where it connects westerly to 124th Avenue S.E., then southerly along 124th Avenue into the existing system. At this location, the downstream S.E. to its intersection with PSP6L Company easement, then portion of the existing system will not need to be enlarged to southerly along the easement to the stream line of Honey Creek. handle the increased Loading. That portion of this alternative At this point there would be a lift station, then via a force main from '_he lift station, located at Sunset Blvd. and Union Avenue along the PSP&L Qompany easement southwesterly and southerly to a N.E. , to its connection into the existing system could be sized high point at approximately Monroe Avenue N.E. and N.E. 12th in conjunction with Alternative B of the Honey Dew Interceptor Street, then continuing southerly along the PSPSL Company easement (Exhibit 11) provided it is designed into the system. with a drain-dry force main to its intersection with H.E. 7th Street, then westerly along N.E. 7th Street to the intersection of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Aberdeen Avenue, where it connects to the existing system. At this point, the existing system would not need to be enlarged to Table 21 shows the coat-effectiveness perioanalyd. Tables fo- a 2, year handle the increased capacity. That portion of this alternative design period and a 50-year service period. Tables 22, 23 and from the lift station southerly to the connection into the show the cost estimates for Alternatives scan n"a," and "o existing system could be sized in conjunction with Alternative "C" re spectively, denotir,¢ the segmented line cost and as noted on of the Honey Dew Interceptor, provided it is designed into the the Exhibit maps. f system. Alternative "C" (Exhibit 17) Alternative "C" has the same system on S.E. 96th Street as Alternatives "A" and "B" and the disposal is similar to - 4 Alternative "B," except it utilizes a different force main route and location for the second lift station. The two gravity segments of the collection system are described in Alternative "A," one of - - which is approximately 3450 linear feet westerly and southerly along S.E. 96th Street and approximately 4100 linear feet easterly and southerly on S.E. 96th Street and 138th Avenue S. E. Both - - segments flow by gravity to the intersection of S.E. %th Street _ and 132nd Avenue S.F.., where there is a Lift statior. then by force main southerly along 132nd Avenue S.E. to s high point located at approximately S.E. 101sL Street, then by gravity southerly along I'2nd Avenue S.E. (Union Avenue N.E.) to the { ( southeast corner of the intersection of Sunset Blvd. and Union i Avenue (location of existing Sunset Lift Station); a new lift - _43. i TABLE 21 SOUTHEAST INTERCEPTOR 1 COST COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES DESIGN PERIOD 20-YEAR 50-YEAR and - ALTERNATIVES ALT. "A" A_ "B" ALT. "C" ALT. "A" ALT. "B" ALT. "C" a Total Capital Cost $ 147,573 S 311,045 $ 272,280 $ 147,573 $ 405,7407 $ - :07 Annual Capital Cost 7,379 15,552 13,614 2,951 8,115 7,257 Sever O 6 M2 738 1,555 1,361 443 1,217 I 11088 .l Lift Station O 6 M3 --- 11,200 11,200 --- 12,267 12,267 Overhead4 2,583 5,443 4,765 1,180 3,246 2,903 Annual Costs 10,700 33,750 30,940 4,574 24,845 23,515 , 1 Total Cost6 214,000 675,000 618,800 228,70C 1,242,250 1,175,750 IDivide the total capital cost by design period. 2102 and 152 of annual capital cost respectively for 20-year and 50-year. 3From Exhibit 1 and 2 of the appendix. `. 435% and 40% of annual capital cost respectively for 20-year and 5"-year. 5Sum of annual capital cost, sever O 6 M, lift station 0 6 M and overhead. 6Annual ccst times design year. 7lncludes capital costs of replacing mechanical and electrical systems of the lift stations. -44- TABLE 22 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST SO'(J WAST INTERCEPTOR ALTERNATIVE "A" Line ¢+entity Description Unit Coat Line Cost Total Cost Numbef* of Units of Units 1 250 LF 8"" Gravity Sewer $ 1.6.90 $ 4,230 2 7100 LF 8 Gravity Sever 13.35 108,985 3 450 LF 10" Gravity Sewer 18.35 8,258 29 EA Standard Manholes 900.00 26,100 TOTAL $ 147,573 *See Exhitrt IS ffr Zir.- nwnbers. -45- s TABLE 23 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST _ 1 SOifrHFAST INfERCEFIOR ALTERNATIVE "B" Line Quantity Description Unit Cott Line Cost Total Cost Number* of Units ^f Units 1 8300 LF 8" Gravity Sever $ 15.35 $ 127,405 2 400 LF 8" Gravity Sever 16.90 6,76P 3 1500 LF 10" Cravity Sever 18.35 27,525 �35 EA Standard Manholes 900.00 31,500 �• SUB TOTAL $ 193,190 6 1200 LF 8" Force Main S 14.80 $ 17,760 7 1850 LF 8" Force Main 14.70 27,200 8 1 EA Lift Station SE-1B 52,667.00 52,667 1 (747 gpm, 258 tdh) TOTAL $ 97,627 s DOWNSTREAM EFFECT ON HONEY DEW INTERCEPTOR (ALTERNATIVE "C") 11 9120 LF Force Main size in- $ 2.90 $ 26,448 crease 10" to 12" 1 12 Lift Station HC-IC cost decrease -6,220 13 Air vacuum Valve cost, no change 0 TOTAL cost increase, downstream effect $ 20.228 TOTAL, SOUTHEAST INTERCEPTOR ALTERNATIVE "B" $ 311,045 'See E.rhihit 16 for line rn.,.•nbera. i E -46- i WOOL TABLE 24 ESTIMACED CONSTRUCTION COST SOUTHEAST INTERCEPTOR ALTERNATIVE "C" Line antity Description Unit Cost Line Ccst Total Cost Number 's of Units of Units 1 7950 LF 8" Gravity C-wer $ 15.35 $ 122,G33 2 450 LF 10" Gravity S 1 18.35 8,258 30 EA Standard Manho� 900.00 27,000 SUB TOTAL - -- $ 157,291 5 2100 LF 8" Force Main $ 14.80 $ 31,080 6 1 EA Lift Station SE-IC 50,367.00 50,367 (747 gpm, 237 tdh) �_ _ SUB TOTAL $ 81,447 DOWNSTREAM EFFcr,T ON HONEY DEW INTERCEPTOR (ALTERNATIVE "B") 8T0 LFF Gravity Sewer size $ 3.46 $ 8,477 increase from 12" to 15" 9 1150 LF Foroe Hain size in- 2.60 2,990 crease 8" to 10" 10 9050 LF Force Main size iu-- 2.90 26,245 crease 10" to 12" _ 11 f Lift Station HC-1B cost decrease (-4,170) I 12 Air Vacuum Valve cost, no change —0 I TOTAL cost increase, downstream effect i $ 33,542 TOTAL, SOUTHEAST INTERCEPTOR ALTERNATIVE "C" � $ 272,280 "See Exhibit 17 for line nwnbers. -47- ,i S.° k Conclusions LvwER NORT..WEST INTERCEPTOR (Exhibits 18 through 20 of Appendix) Alternative "A" is the most cost-effective alternative for the The Lower Northwest Interceptor i;, a short interceptor which 1 20-year design period. The cost efft t'.veness becomes more serves two problem areas. The Cost-Effectiveness Analysis pronoun,ed, if a 50-year service period is considered. reviewed three alternatives of transporting the waste that would be collected from the area served. Alternative "A" is an all- Alternatives "B" and "C" are very similar and there could be a gravity system that wo-i.ld be constructed solely on easements. slighL reduction in initial construction cost and 20-year cost The assumption that the May Creek Interceptor has been or will be if they were designed into Alternatives "B" and "C" of the Honey constructed to manhole M-13 is the prime consideration of this 'S Dew Interceptor. alternative. Comments Alternative "B" analy^is is based on the assumption that the May Creek Interceptor has not been built or may never be built. Alternative "A" is clearly the most cost-effective because of It also assumes that the 110th Avenue S.E. Interceptor has been or tl.; short run needed to dispose of the sewage from the area it will be constructed prior to construction of the Lower Northwest serves. It is also a full-gravity system, thereby eliminating Interceptor. the necessity of annual operating cost of the lift stations. Alternative "C" analysis is based on the premise that effort is Alternatives "B" ane "C" both have extremely long runs between being made to keep all construction for the various interceptors their collection and disposal pc -s. These runs could be out of the ravines and timbered areas. It is assumed that the shortened only if the existing system that they run parallel to May Creek Interceptor is not or will not be built; therefore, two was rebuilt to handle the increased capacity. This method would lift stations are required to serve this sub-drainage basin. cost considerably more and b, more disruptive in those areas where reconstruction would be required. If only the sewage that would be collected from this sub-basin is discharged into the 110th Avenue S. E. interceptor, there would be sufficient capacity in the line size of the 110th Avenue S. E. F Interceptor. Therefore no additional cost would result from the discharge of the sewage from the Lower Northwest Interceptor into the 110th Avenue S.E. Interceptor. E -48- Alternative "A" (Exhibit 18) The second lift station is located north of S.E. 89th Place right-of-way at about 121st Avenue S.E. The force main runs from ' Alternative "A" be 'r.s at manhole H-LNW/H-13 of the May Creek the lift station along S.E. 89th Place and S.E. 88th Street to Interceptor, then upstream on an easement approximately 2100 the easterly extremity of the 110th Avenue S.E. Interceptor. linear feet to the southerly margin of S.E. 89th Place; then - I northerly 100 feet in deep jacked crossing to the north side of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis S.E. 89th Place. Another segment begins on the line just described approximately 650 feet northeasterly of the beginning Table 25 shows the cost-effectiveness analysis for the 20-year of the interceptor (manhole H-LNW/14-l3) and goes northwesterly design period and a 50-year service period. Tables 26, 27 and 28 up a steep bank to the crest of the ravine approximately 300 feet, show the cost estimsces for Alternatives "A," "B," and "C" all on an easement to its terminus. respectively, denoting the segmented line cost and as noted on the Exhibit maps. Alternative "B" (Exhibit 19) This alternative begins with a lift station at the same location where the two gravity segments join together in Alternative "A." The two gravity segments are as described for Alternative "A." - From the lift station a force main goes along the gravity segment approximately 300 feet to the southerly extension of 116th Avenue - S.E. , then northerly on an easement approximately 450 feet to the intersection of S.E. 90th Street and 116th Avenue S.E. , then continuing northerly cn 116th Avenue S.E. to the intersection of S.E. 89th Street and 116th Avenue S.E. , then by gravi:v to the 110th Avenue S.E. interceptor located on S.E. 88th Street. Alternative "C" (Exhibit 20) - - - This alternative has two lift stations with force mains. One segment begins with a lift statiou located just south of S.E. 91st Street approximately 350 feet westerly of 116th Avenue S.E. The force main from this lift station runs easterly approximately - -- 350 feet to 116th Avenue S.E. , and then northerly on 116th Avenue S.E. to S.E. 89th Street, then by gravity .ram this intersection i to the 110th Avenue S.E. Interceptor located on S.E. 88th Street. I i i i I TABLE 25 LOWER NORTHWEST INTERCEPTOR COST COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES DESIGN PERIOD 20-YEAR 50-YEAR and — _ALTERNATIVES ALT. "A" ALT. "B" ALT. "C' ALT. "A" ALT. "B" ALT. "C" Total Capital Cost $ 88,073 3 139,773 S 91,757 $ 88,073 S 222,5717 218,5167- Annual Capital Costl 4,404 6,989 4,588 1,761 4,451 4,370 Sever 0 6 M2 440 699 I 459 264 668 656 Lift Station 0 6 M3 --- 10,100 17,000 f --- 10,767 18,133 Overbead4 1,541 2,446 1,606 704 1,780 1,748 Annual Costs 6,385 20,234 23,653 2,729 17,666 24,907 Total Cost6 I 127,700 404,680 473,060 136,450 883,300 1,245,350 lDivide the total capital cost by design period. 210% and 15% of annual capital cost respectively for 20-year and 50-year. 3From Exhibit I and II of the appendix. 435% and 40% of annual capital cost respectively for 20-year and 50-year. SSum of annual capital cost, sever 0 6 M, lift station 0 6 M and overhead. 6Annual cost times design year. - 7Includes capital costs of replacing mechanical and electrical systems of lift station. a -50- r I i TABLE 26 s ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST 1 LOWER NORTHWEST INTERCEPTOR i i ALTERNATIVE "A" Line Quantity Description Unit Cost Line Cost Total Cost , Number* of Units of Units 1 650 LF 8" Gravity Sewer S 19.91 $ 12,942 2 2350 LF 8" Gravity Sewer 25.41 59,714 3 I 100 LF 8" Gravity Sever 46.17 4,617 i 12 EA I Standard Manholes 900.00 10,800 TOTAL —-- - $ 88,073 "See Exhibit 18 for Line nwnbers. TABLE 27 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST LOWER NORTHWEST INTERCEPTOR ALTERNATIVE "B" Lire Quantity Description Unit Cost Line Cost Total Cost Number* of Units i of Units i 1 2350 LF 8" Gravity Sever $ 25.41 $ 59,714 2 100 LF 8" Gravity Sever 46.17 4,617 i 3 300 LF 10" Gravity Sewer 18.35 5,505 11 EA Standard Manholes 900.00 9,900 SUB TOTALS 79,736 6 750 LF 6" Force Main } 12.91 $ 9,682 7 350 LF 6" Force Main 12.30 4,305 g 1 EA Lift Station LNW-1B 46,050.00 46,050 (533 gpm, 195 tdh) i SUB TOTAL $ 60,037 TOTAL $ 139,773 'See Exhibit 19 for line raonbers. p -51- Y , h ry TABLE 28 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST - LOWER NORTHWEST INTERCEPTOR f� ALTERNATIVE IVI I Line Quantity Description Unit Coat Line Cost Total Cost Number* of Units of Units 1 300 LF 8" Gravity Sever $ 15.35 $ 4,605 1 EA Standard Manhole 900.00 900 SUB TOTAL $ 5,505 4 1200 LF 4" Force Main $ 8.30 $ 9,960 5 650 LF 4" Force Main 8.91 5,792 6 1 EA Lift Station LNW-2C 37,700.00 37,700 (267 Fpm, 113 tdh) 7 1 EA Lift Station LNW-3C 32,800.00 32,800 (266 gpm, 64 tdh) SUB TOTAL $ 86,252 TOTAL $ 91,757 'See Exhibit 20 for line nwnbers. -52- ... rr, . NORTHEAST INTERCEPTOR (Exhibits 21 through 23 of Appendix) - Conclusions — f Alternative "A" is the most cost-effective alternative for the The Northeast Interceptor's basic system remains the same 20-year design period. The cos- effectiveness becomes greater regardless of the point of discharge. Alternative "A" assumes _ for this alternative during succeeding years. that the May Creek Interceptor has been or will be built up to the point of intersection of May Creek and Honey Creek by Alternative "B" is the highest i -:itial cost but at twenty years the time the Northeast Interceptor is built. Alternative "B" it becomes second most cost-effective. assumes that a portion of the May Creek Interceptor way to or will be constructed (up to manhole M-13) and/or that the 110th Alternatives "B" and "C" limit growth and become more Avenue S.E. Interceptor has been or will be built prior to costly. construction of the Northeast Interceptor. Alternative "C" i assumes that no portion of the May Creek Interceptor has been or Comments will be built but that the 110th Avenue S.E. Interceptor has been or will be built before the Northeast Interceptor is constructed. Alternative "C" would be the most disruptive to the community. Alternative "A" is an all-gravity system. Alternative "B" could become an all-gravity system if that portion of the May Creek Alternative "A" would be the least disruptive to the community. Interceptor is constructed up to manhole M-13 and the Lower Northwest Interceptor is constructed, or the Northeast Interceptor There are significant differences in the alternatives when is modified so that it would go in that direction. Alternative i considered environmentally but as Ftated previously, these are "C" relies on a lift station and a rather long force main, but discussed in Volume III . Draft Environmental Assessment. as stated before, the system is in the same location down to manhole NE-1, and could be converted to a gravity system if the May Creek Interceptor was extended. Alternative "A" (Exhibit 21) Alternative "A" begins at manhole M-NE/M-17 of the May Creek Interceptor, then northerly up a steep embankment on an easement to the abandoned railroad right-of-way, then one segment goes northeasterly on the railroad right-of-way to NE-16 approximately 5045 feet. The other segment goes northwesterly, northerly, and northeasterly, leaving the right-of-way and goes on an easement f: following the crest of a ravine until it reaches S.E. 91st Street which is approximately 1745 linear feet. i i -53- Alternative "8" (Exhibit 22) This alternative utilizes the same two segments as Alternative Table 29 shows the cost-effectiveness analysis for a 20-year "A," but instead of the connection going southerly to May Creek, design period and a 50-year service period. Tables 30, 31 and the discharge goes northwesterly by gravity to a lift station 350 32 show cost estimates for Alternatives "A," "B," and "G," feet south of S.E. 91st Street and 100 feet west of 116th Avenue respectively, denoting the segmented line cost and as noted on S.E. , then a force main northerly on an easement approximately 350 the Exhibit maps. feet to S.E. 91st Street, then continuing northerly on 116th Avenue S.E. to its intersection with S.E. 89th Street, then in a gravity section to S.E. 88th Street, where it would connect into the 110th Avenue S.E. Interceptor. Alternative "C" (Exhibit 23) This alternative utilizes the same two segments in its collection system as Alternatives "A" and "B." In Alternative "C" at that point, where the westerly segment and the easterly segment meet there is a lift station; then from the lift station there is a force main on an easement northerly approximately 200 feet; then easterly on the easement to S.E. 93rd Street and continuing easterly on S.E. 93rd Street to 120th Avenue S.E. ; then northerly on 12uth Avenue S.E. to S.E. 91st Street, then easterly on S.E. 91st Street to 121st Avenue S.E.; then northeasterly on 121st Avenue S.E. to S.E. 89th Place, then northwesterly and westerly on S.E. 89th Place and S.E. 88th Street, respectively, to the most easterly manhole of the 110th Avenue S.E. Interceptor, which is located approximately 300 feet easterly of the intersection of S.E. 88th Street and 118th Avenue S.E. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis The cost for each of these alternatives and the cost analysis of each are in the following tables. There would be an additional cost to increase the lines and lift stations in the 110th Avenue S.E. Interceptor and the Lower Northwest Interceptor if the sewage from the Northeast Interceptor is required to be transported through those facilities. -54- Aft- TABLE 29 NORTHEAST INTERCEPTOR [ COST COMPARISON 'JP ALTERNATIVES DESIGN PERIOD 20-YEAR 50-YEAR and ALTERNATIVES ALT. "A" ALT "B" ALT. ALT. "A" ALT. "B" ALT. "C" Total Capital Cost $ 165,458 $ 254,213 y 242,700 $ 165,458 ($ 327,0327 $ 318,396� Annual Capital Cost' 8,273 12,711 12,135 3,309 I 6,541. 6,368 Sever 0 6 NZ 827 1,271 1,214 496 I 981 955 Lift Station 0 6 N3 --- 9,700 9,700 --- 10,367 10,367 Overhead4 2,896 4,449 4,247 1,324 2,616 2,547 Annual Costs 11,996 28,131 27,296 5,129 20,505 20,237 Total Cost6 239,920 I 562,620 545,920 256,450 1,025,250 1,011,850 IDivide the total capital cost by design period. 21DZ and 15% of annual capital cost respectively for 20-year and 50-year. 3Prom Exhibit 1 and 2 cf the appendix. 435% and 40% of annual capital cost respectively for 2D-year and 50-year. 5Sim of annual capital cost, sever 0 5 N, lift station 0 6 M and overhead. 6Annual cost times design year. 7Includes capital costs of replacing mechanical and electrical systems of the lift stations. _55- "r f i TABLE 30 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION? COST - NORTHEAST INTERCEPTOR ALTERNATIVE "A" Line Quantity Description Unit Cost Line Cost Total Cost Numberk of Units of Unils 1 6790 LF 8" Gravity Sewer $ 19.86 $ 134,850 f 2 I 350 LF 8" Gravity Sewer 25.91 9,068 i 21 EA Standard Manholes 900.00 18,900 i 24 EA Hill Holders 110.00 ' 2,640 TOTAL S 165,458 *See Exhibit 21 for ?ine mmrbers. TABLE 31 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST , NORTHEAST If,`TERCEPTOR ALTERNATIVE "B" Line Quantity Description Unit Cost Line Cost Total Cost ' Number* of Units of Units 1 6735 LF 8" Gravity Sewer $ 19.86 $ 133,757 2 1180 LF 8" Gravity Sewer 25.91 30,574 3 300 LF 10" Gravity Sewer 18.35 5,505 26 EA Standard Manholes 900.00 23,400 59 EA f Hill Holders 110.00 6,490 SUB TOTAL S 199,726 7 750 LF 6" Force Main $ 12.91 $ 9,682 8 350 LF 6" Force Main 12.30 4,305 9 1 EA Lift Station NE-18 40,500.00 40,500 (461 gpm, 140 tdh) SUB TOTAL $ 54,487 TOTAL S 254,213 "See Exhibit 22 for line menbers. -56- TABLE 32 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST NORTHEAST INTERCEPTOR ALTERNATIVE "C" Line Quantity Description Unit Cost Line Cost Total Cost 8mber• of Units of Units 6790 LF 8" Gravity Sever $ 19.86 $ 134,850 20 EA Standard Manholes 900.00 18,000 6 EA Hill Holders 110.00 660 -- —SUB TOTAL $ 153,510 5 I t09 LF " Force Main $ 12.30 $ 9,840 6 500 - ? 6" Force Hain 12.91 6,455 7 2100 LF 6" Force Main 14.35 30,135 6 EA Hill Holders 110.00 660 9 1 EA Lift Station ME-IC 42,100.00 42,100 (461 Rpm, 156 tdh) SUB TOTAL $ 89,190 TOTAL $ 242,700 "See Frhibit 23 for Zine nwnbers. i i -57- Conclusions LAKE BOREN INTERCEPTOR (Exhibits 24 through 26 of the Appendix) Alternative "A" is the most cost-effective alternative for the The lake Boren Interceptor Cost-Effectiveness Analysis reviewed - 20-year design period. The cost effectiveness becomes greater three different alternatives to serve the area. All three during the succeeding years as the full benefits of an all-gravity alternatives basically follow the stream line from the lake down system are realized, to S.E. 89th Place. Alternative "A" assumes that the May Creek Interceptor has teen or will be constructed up to 136th Avenue Alternatives "B" and "C" are similar as they both utilize lift S.E. (Manhole "D") by the time the Lake Boren Interceptor is stations and these annual costs increase as the flaws increase. constructed. Under this premise, Alternative "A" follows the stream to its intersection with May Creek. This allows a total The Northeast Intercepter is like most sub-basin drainage systems gravity system to sense the Lake Boren Drainage Basin. which, to be most cost-effectiv_, use an all-gravity system. Alternative "Bffi' is based on the assumotion that only the Northeast Interceptor has been or will be built, and connects into that Comments interceptor. Alternative "C" assumes that the May Creek Interceptor has not and will not be built nor has the Northeast Alternative "A" is clearly the most cost-effective from the Interceptor be n built or designed to carry the increased loading beginning (construction cost) and throughout the 50-ye,.r service that would be required if the Lake Boren Interceptor connects into life. A minimum amount cf easements will be required and it is it. Therefore the interceptor must connect into the 110th Avenue not anticipated that these costs will modify tLe cost effective- S.E. Interceptor. ness as all three alternatives require them. Alternative "B" would provide gravity serivice north of S.E. 89th Alternatives "B" and "C" arc practical if the May Creek Place with lift stations located at the intersection of S.E. 89th Interceptor is not constructed, but other interceptors are Place and 134th Avenue S.E. (Coal Creek Road) and at the south required to make the system work. end of the plateau south of S.E. 89th Place, approximately 200 feet s. ith of the corner where S.E. 91st Street runs into 133rd Avenue S.E. Alternative "C" is basically the same, only the point of 'ischarge of the sewag changes. If either Alternative "B" or I'(" are used, then portions or all of the Northeast, Lower Northwest and the 110th Ave. S.E. Interceptors would have to have larger size pipe to carry the increased loads. This would increase the cost proportionately in the gravity sections and would be a considerable increase if Alternatives "B" and "C" were used with the Northeast and Lower Northwest Interceptors. 1 Alternative "A" (Exhibit 24) Alternative "A" begins at a manhole in the May Creek Interceptor (M-LB/M-30) which is located approximately where the stream from Lake Boren connects into May Creek. The line then goer uortherly generally following the stream to Lake Boren. -58- r s , Alternative "C" (Exhibit 26) Alternative "B" (Exhibit 25) ' , Alternative "B" begins at the south end of Lake Boren. A gravity Alternative "C" has the same description for the service portion sever goes southerly following the stream from as Alternative B, only the force main from the lift station Lake intersection of Boren to a located nor, i of S.E. 89th Place is different. The force main ' :ft station at the northwest corner of th, inteerse starts at the lift statioi and goes westerly and southerly -,. S.E. 89th Place and 134th Avenue S.E. From this lift station is S.F. 89th Place for approximately 3050 linear feet; it then goes a force main that goes westerly on S.E. 89th Place to the City of westerly using the abandoned railroad right-of-way for Seattle's transmission water main right-of-way (Mercer Island approximately 7th linear feet, then northerly - 124th Avenue 2050 linear Easement), .th�r6 t esouLnerly abandon and westerly approximately S.E. approximately 450 UTi ar feet tc its intersection with S.E. most linear fee[ hole the abandoned railroad right-of-way to the 89th Place, then westerly on S.E. 89th Place and S.E. 88th Street most easterly manhole of the Northeast interceptor matel Another to the most easterly manhole in the L10th Avenue S.E. Interceptor, segment commences at a lift station located approximately 250 feet which is located 300 feet easterly of the intersection of S.E. southeasterly from the intersection of S.E. 91st Street and 133rd 88th Street and 111.th Avenue S.E. Avenue S.E. This lift station is a collection point for the area south of S.E. 89th Place. From this lift station, a force main Cost-Effectiveness Analysis goes northwesterly on an easement to the Intersection of S.E. 91st Street and 133rd Avenue S.E. , then on 1.33rd Avenue S.E. to a Table 33 shows the cost-effectiveness analysis for a 20-year manhole 250 feet m rtherly of S.E. 90th Street, then by gravity design period and a 50-year service period. Tables 34, 35 and approximately 430 linear feet to S.E. 89th Place, then easterly 36 show the cost estimates for Alternatives "A," "B," and "C"' to the lift station at the northwest corner of the intersection respectively, denoting the segmented line cost and as noted oa of S.E. 89th Place and 134th Avenue S.E. the Exhibit maps. - -59- TABLE 33 LAKE BOREN INTERCEPTOR COST COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES DESIGN PERIOD 20-YEAR 50-YEAR and ALTERNATIVES A-P. "A" ALT. "B" ALT. "C" AIT. "A" ALT. "B" ALT. "C" Total Capital Cost $ 195,127 $ 203,060 S 272,321 $ 195,127 $ 335,9327 $ 426,7697 i Annual Capital Cost` q,756 10,153 13,616 3,903 6,719 8,535 Sever 0 S M2 976 1,015 1,362 585 1,008 1,280 Lift Station 0 S M3 --- 23,400 24,300 I --- 25,267 16,267 Overhead4 3,415 3,554 4,766 1,561 2,688 3,414 Annual Cost' 14,147 38,122 44,044 6,049 35,682 39,496 Total Cost6 282,940 762,440 880,880 302,450 1,784,100 1,974,800 iDivide the total capital cost by design period. , 210% and 15% of annual capital cost respectively for 20-year and 50-year. 3From Exhibit 1 and 2 of the appendix. 435% and 40% of annual capital cost respectively for 20-year and 50-year. 5Sum of annual capital cost, sewer 0 6 M, lift station 0 6 M and overhea3. 6Annual cost times design year. 7I--ludes the capital cost of replacing mechanical and electrir•al equipment of lift stations. -60- t TABLE 34 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST LAKE BCREN INTERCEPTOR ALTERNATIVE "A" Line Quantity Description Unit !lost Line Cost Total Cost Number* of Units of Units —_ 1 2250 LF 10" Gravity Sewer $ 19.41 $ 43,672 2 700 LF 10" Gravity Sewer 27.81 19,467 3 480 LF 10" Gravity Sewer 48.64 23,347 4 1580 LF 10" Gravity Sewer 52.81 83,440 5 70 LF 10" Gravity Sewer 82.87 5,801 16 EP. Standard Manholes 900.00 I 14,400 1 EA Stream Crossings 5,000.00 5,000 TOTAL $ 145,127 "See Exhibit 24 for line numbers. -61- i 3 TABLE 35 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST LAKE BOREN INTERCEPTOR ALTERNATIVE "B" Line Quantity Description Unit Cost Line Cost Total Cost Number* of Units or-Units - - 1 600 LF 8" r,ravity Sewer S 15.35 $ 9,210 3 2 2250 LF 10" Gravity Sewer 19.41 43,672 3 480 LF 10" Gravity Sewer 48.64 23,349 12 EA Standard Manholes 900.00 10,800 1 EA Stream Crossing 5,000.00 5,rt00 SUB TOTAL $ 92,029 7 850 LF 4" Force Main 1 $37,905.00 8.40 $ 7,140 8 1 EA Lift Station LB-2B 37,905 (452 gpm, 114 tdh) SUB TOTAL $ 45,045 10 1100 LF 8' For a Main $ 14.91 $ 16,401 11 950 �F 8" Force Main 14.30 13,585 12 1 EA Lift Station LB-1B 36,000.00 36,000 (1381 gpm, 89 tdh) SUB TOTAL $ 65,986 - TOTAL $ 203,060 *See Exhibit 25 fo,, line nwnberc. -62- 4k 4 y s E TABLE 36 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST LAKE BOREN INTERCEPTOR ALTERNATIVE "C" I Line Quantity Description Unit Cost Line Cost Total Cost Ni.mber• of Units I of Units 1 See Alternative "B" 2 See Alternative "B" 3 See Alternative "B" - See Alternative "B" See Alternative "B" SUB l -_-_ 29 Ater 7 See Alternative "B" 8 See Alternative "B" (LS-LB-2C) SUB TOTAL $ 45,045 10 1.200 LF 8" Force Main $ 14.91 $ 17,892 11 4850 LF 8" Force Main 14.30 69,355 12 1 EA Lift Station LB-LC 48,000.00 48,000 (1381 gpm, 210 tdh) crB TOTAL $ 135,247 TOTAL $ 272,321 *See Exhibit 26 for Zino numbers. }3 _63. re-erg- i Conclusions FINAL CONCLUSIONS - Alternative "A" is the most cost-effective alternative for the It has been shown in the preceding analjses that for each 20-year design period. The cost effectiveness becomes greater interceptor considered, a gravity system quickly becomes the most during the succeeding years. cost-effective. This is true even if the initial cost is substantially more. Table 4 shows that the gravity interceptors Alternatives "B" and "C" ar similar and their annual cost are considerably the most cost-effective for a 20-year period. - increases each year as the l,opulation increases and the lift If a 50-year service period is used, the difference becomes even station equipment wears out and/or has to be replaced because of greater. The gravity systems do not require the unending use of the increased loads. energy for pumping in a society where energy may become extremely expensive beyond our power to envision. Alternatives "B" and "C" both utilize two pimp stations and Alternative "B" would require the sewage to pass through one Environmentally, there are problems encountered in the more lift station if Alternatives "B" or "C" of the Northeast construction of any of the gravity interceptors, but in most Interceptor were used. cases the scars developed during construction are usually completely healed within five years. With proper construction Low flows in the early uses of Alternative "C" would require that procedures, the area can become even more usable as a natural additional water be added to reduce detention time in the force area. main. Careful selection of routes, care during construction, and Comments immediate rehabilitation of the area where the lines are = installed will provide the needed sanitary sewers by the most Alternative "A" is clearly the most cost-effective even in the cost-effective method and would not damage the area permanently. initial construction cost. Easements will have to be acquired avid this may cause Alternative "A" to be more expensive than The following are the recommended alternatives for the various Alternative "B" in initial cost, but it is highly improbable that interceptors: Alternative "B" would be the most cost-effective for the 20-year planning period. 1. May Creek Interceptor - Combination of Alternatives "A" and "A-A" 2. Kennydale Interceptor - Alternative "A" 3. Honey Dew Interceptor - Alternative "A" 4. Southeast Interceptor - Alternative "A" 5. Lake Boren Interceptor - Alternative "A" 6. Northeast Irterceptor - Alternative "A" 7. Lower Northwest Intercepter - Alternative "A" 8. 110th Avenue S.E. Interceptor - Alternative "B" i� -64- t� air_:; h F _. i, �� !> �i � � - 1 �r- Y�- tl MM 1 1 ■„■ 1p . t . •1� Eastman Y,\■�\�Oq►1■ :� MV.1 /■HMYN rpNAW���t���■No; �O/rrllr�im►A■.��N\\►. movlq Am�NumrC'lsewr■N[••1Lt■N/e■[^�er0■ue[•.1rNNNsr.. :{ r�imi■Nt1v/s■r■t►v■N�=oomome /■ourN■HN=tu=/ootNONN■Nrur=itpo '� �rrmsms\RvpppVo■NvppoNN■NNN rr/rmr///tm■N■/N/rre//r/N am l••Jmr/rr/\,�/���eeMf�mN�e/rne/�%///H/■/W/■Nrup/��rm��/�■/■mtp// r lour N!/s//rrmlrrN■trri'■■/■r1�It■■■/■r■rrrr/r■■r■rrtlr/.Jost■rrr■■N!!!/■ /~%�•/ •W■yr.m►mimmZrtpN�m\/�S\lee���iit!■��mr■/r/rrsN����u/■�/�/�sm NrNsNN •f/tom ei=t■ie�=ir■s■aKIM si=n■'��E/■/r�N��rr��N■�N\� u�N�■rN�� 1••J■■■■■/mssm�sNm//■Nllr/N■■\■/rsemrm/■■/■//srr/■/ss///rr////W/ssN 1..1■NmrtHrr.l■ew/tN■■\rr/r■/�•t//rgpttr/rr///tttr+/Nr/rW/Hrmr■rrr m.J■W/O■rt��N��r■s/\mrNmt\r/��Nmr�■il■iu\���■r=s////mp■rps����� f- W/srlr/eNets■■Nmt■rsrt/ ■/•lt/serNm!/stet■ ■//r!■■■//r»»eN��m��es�ewH■�mO/s■s�m011 msews\e=t■.trm ■/a Nmm■r/!/rmmmmss■/rr■r/ ■se/msms■m/m t■ i kiNo � ■�� �� �� r"� AEssomenumso■ m name trummsm�1"f■misrr/■less esslt■■■■■/■r■rrNse■■tr■ttr//■NNmme/■ •11■t�t■wnsmrttll,.Jstm■m!/rl�/r■=r■r■1t/rrr=tmteremm■mew/rewrrmrr/■:ltrrmr ►'•Jstmmrsem■�smmar.br.ommessup JrHsmrNssmrrst/rllmrmsr//mmm/rN■■sgmmmser//r�igms 1••rISNN■r■■ �rm�C •rms■ews/r•1N■UNm1N/res//mW■ewewrr/////■N�IN s ,: "MONOSSON rrr\IG � rN/ rH/ tl:om:: rrmmes ■ 1 root/■�■!//r■tN ■■NrrN/1■!r/■■N11tVrr/ter/sews/H■r■N/■■Nt ■/■! sm im essomensolL /mtr/mmemmlltr■_.�!!r\t"vt///rr■/Not//tt/r/N■■r+.Jews/ rsrt/ores■■se■m■1 J/N■mmtrtr■ sse■11:.atmmsNrr■■!/sNrNr///e•'Jsmsew r■///tr■■�rr� r\�q.Jose/■■N■ eN/is♦ 'ssNeemmt///trsreemm!■rsnN/■r =rmmosommte im.Jews\�fN�s��h\■N�rN���i iN�t��NeNN �������r�t��� mom - 1••1/msst■rrst/sr/st■1YleN.rNeers\■/////Wr~t/�rt�/HI■■/////••r�Jr�/// s.Jm■sates:eamons.i1pus ouww'riummtnresGNmmsmemmmm000n:r 1imrmm..90/ ■ ■■NNm ■NNNNtrWN NN �OmsNN■►ILdrs/NrW//N /r�P'-i4.IN N�mpm/meNNNr\1"1eW/�N Cr■N■ere�ovNru�mtr■NNN.7c.m•vgNN ME Names a •�NruNepNtNr,iumNN■urNNmN■up sru/rlNeuuN/_-eupmrm nii=/rNNurNHmrluuu=uNmr.WeNrNlllr•7NN/NNNu/-v-.uu/ :� /■mrNrmgsurNNr)ss/ st/rA•-m■rprrNr■G•.re///r■rlrr//■-^r .A7n■ l^J■rmer/////Wm/ss■r7'e/erNsm■11�\r/rssmssrll/7srrr/■rrm/sssC Ai•]srNs l••lemtrestsH/emsm/■■i-!r■eettCmrmNmsrN■e/1•is/Nrr/He/r a■-7mwr ip [..lmmrmmsNptmtst■/11�s■/!New■ VtNemm/memliw ■rrN/NNm['?r►7■1•.1r1 M■■Ns■OsrNe_.�N//'r7r� NmNrAfO■mmtNe�r\11■OmNN/O■■�S6:7r.Jnme mr■■■rler/et !mr\l'•1■ mrrrll/�Nr■■/■■ ■t1\■trmr■////rr■t■■-'I/�Wt eeN r//m/i •m�GGGm//r\sew/mrt/sNm/\rttr/N■mNermt�r- /�,lr �rrtre�r/m■ mm■■r/Iwm=Lt■r/rrNi.■=■e■■/■//ee,lrmrr=mttrmr/��■iu■.ri■/ ii■err/ NomrrNmmm/rme m■mmm■m,\p ■t\Nm■Nrrems rurpm: ./�J/�'1N [•:[OltN/ ON■■ms■1s 000■NeeuN►1", ,4u . :IruupN■ NUNuuu=NrNNor�rmHluu/u\'tuew/■Nur►.rl• Iroclu l'•Imm//eewtmlmmsmsmm//str emNtrN/!�■mt■■/r/rermt ltsrrMHrP•7+1r.:[r■■ [..)m/r/smrsr�m�//re/tmm/t11■emsew■st/st.Jfeu/s/rs■rrm�7SO ■ sNN-..Jews ■ %N��w%r■�O�NUAN�8//020NrN■■■\r^WEr_�s.■YYsErA tIONhma mmusawoq„mmeno /■�■Nrr�t�err/■�rrr/it Wounnmmommom ■mmummose�' 70 "mummummmm11��Nmosom�nsommom Mr!19•n•llt/erreme�ms/�■rm�■■/%e■/r■■rs/s//./■sr:�:'1ffsR\.aI7t■Nm/s/Mor■m/n�/o�■�rol��l r■rr■eN/m ��r�/mmlstrN■/�rNeu��r�m�m�m//�r�■■r■s\rm,\rtmtrulem�ms■/�mo/mlw.11■s!M m /Ns■ ■1Uremmt■re// / ■Ht. mt rw /NHrnlanorrNrr■■ W ■■s,, rmom [.•1N Oman rsN r��/Wsmr/tmsN/MNmmllr/////rmmNmmmgsf/■m/eN■�rlermer [:.1mNNemettr�f:.NHtre/■11!■///N■■NIIr■■/■trr/tr/e■smellrsm■■!■srYr■//* mass t■rrr ,Bm"omsssrll■/■■m■.�rN■\assonsom ■Nrr■remNN■Nr\ewe/mew■■■Mom// Nrrrm■N/rm�/"1Nrmrer/m/■/s■■.rr■eerNll/■tmmstem!lsmr■Ns 1/rr/mew■er■r •:ZOlson no-7f; :mose/N:m fou..��aN���eeeee����::����� ►'•lmsmrs!■■rs r'.tt/Nt�trllr/m//mteZ//m.\/1tr■rem!■reesrrsr\rr/■esmtmms/ t••1■/r/�m/ss■: 17•ssrrs■r■■Urs/mm■■ttmt/It/etmrsrssq//smsrsr telr■mssrmN f......Imrr■.■terlrlrtr■m■is/r/t�e/!rr■rrm■rt11/■/■■!/■■rmrrmesr//►�//rmm■/■//t AM an�NMU rr//r/Nmrew■!r7■■Nrmrrsrlrrrr/r// ■■■ittltt ■rest■/■mr/■m/\see„„rN= �� FNe eNeemr■.-iNrrstms/trrrNr/s=■=/11■■■/�r■mrrHr/rmrt/►1mr■\rmsp 1r/ rr■r■N:..1■rtmN�seeitsr/r/re■■r■■t'r!ors■r/■■r■r■■/rru/rsstr/r!s ->.JNMmrrm/- tN/■/■ ■■■Iteer/smrr/.■r\/mr///s/r/NNlrs//■=11■r■Mors■ L'•lsm/r■ ■pppm/mNrermrtr/rll■rerlsr■e /s//rr■tts///e/e/rre�e�r \'/rer W f•l�Nsu\�/■■r■N����/�■/t\����e����t\sl�tsrs■■st�Wmrr�lt!■/11�t�N� �. ewm/■!ewe■■■■rtr/■t■mNlrt/Mot�■m/tr■r/e11/N■/rtrrm■re■/ N/N.tmN/re m/mrm■!=e■/■m/sore///N■!!lrrsomm■ss■meonI ■■Nmmsmmrrrmmm/News\■■m■■ • tMa■ orem■■noulmos/mm■msommumxtl■/r msmmmmV"ommmmmmm%Ymmstl ssrmrrmsmNmmmmstv lmmmam r�l\/sstr l'•Jmmmm/r •■/re///rrr■ms/ /rite■rsr/mrssNrll/sssrrr//ors/ems ors//e11mr/r I aF�Wj NOR e■aHaa.a.e.Hea,a.easa.ea.aHea..e.a aOaasa■a:a9.ssUaaHe.aa aaaaEee 8e'saa_ aa =nee es eaaaaesea ?S = a9e a_8ee ea e aeaea eaaaesima :a=nsee s e�eese = = m =ee= s88 : ; ommoseisee6eeeEee Nec : =_ _: = sR : : nsons d•IaI-IRm ► OH.O,.HHa.iHonsaa:::� ::::aanass:a :a:: a::a� asa•?+r7•� r- r :_ . i r •: aME Boom a.a:::a:ms:Rosman:ar ■ so 8298142111 a eeee: o own semi a = s_ == an=a= mospe on on s E°s= nso" a e s aa= ::aa::::aaamonsmas:e:aaa::a:ason■■:a:::a:a.a:•aaaa:.aa::a:a ouse::::sa:::�a:s::asamoomema:as: �•:::•:_: now aess saa!/!•_•-s::ea,aof me a s/•Samoa ■�. ■:s:a:a:sss•aaasa :a was anaaasanons•a:aaaamms 11■ ,:::.\::�� a c���•�aa....rr.r.rr.r.r,..i-i.■ .aaanone ■■n■moss,mm.itn:a■.arm■■aa.a.naa.anram.naaa MEN.,m■.m,. yy:::::s:s::a:a::a.:•aa:a::a: :::�::::a::::': :":a=:::O:s::••:::"1�:::a::'::C:::::::s:•:1�:'::a:: i.amm.■a.■.na■ ■ ■:aa..rra■om ...a.mmm...=,■i:aana�i../■..i......aama.aaanammmmafa■anO.saa.aaa.ana.ame f ��eneaaeanaae BEEN woman ama•naaasaaaaaaa::�1 naae�::.: was aaaeaeaaen�' a:::::::::::■:m:e:�:ssa::a:::�:. sannommoptWodomm °e77�a::mmemem eaa:..s:a: s:: :NE aa:a~msama:a:a::aaaa::use NNE Noun s:aa:saa:l::asss a:: :::eNow :�:::%s:a::ss:a::: ::� ��.. ,.■,.. In on a:a::sanow s:•a:::T[I:�aa��a.�:::s:•:::::s:aa: __ =::a::::::a:a:a::••:::a::a:::s'=:aaaea::::aa:as=a"aaaas0:r;Ia:= ::_�gal aaa:aaag adom .e IRS Mae onessome as sea a 0 esa�.a:a•oa.me C�■■ ::_a :s: s_is_a:i•am I _s:saa, • :Yi� sH_�a�:aSa�■ sas••:_::aaa:_a:::::a:■:_s•aa n�1��f:aa:a ee:a:a:: :saanowalaa as sacra •►iti/.s■emaiaa::: a as asaa a::aaaas a :s aaH a:M::::: o sa ����Oman%s:::aa� a1.:a::aaa:eaa:ass :=�somopmasom .��:•aa:\.a•III:laa::■••sas:aa::a•a•a::a::::::as::a:a:sa:H s::•• HIM aegooda99:'ea .:::89:.: �;:eeea:eaaaa:eaea8a:eeenOman 0a.ae:ese:■aaaeeaaslogansaaa _�a:::oseacre°Bosoms alsoa on as a=aaa:asa:': �:ss.:sa:aaaannaaea'•'a=planning$..n.•.a.ain.■ :a:aaaaamasasea:::.: as :_ :a: rs.r i:�i!.i::a_ aaan aa.aass::aa• ••• _• •• a a a■r..u. .ren•marar.am, ■ ,a■ somas ■.. Mom„mi ■Orr. tut as a : Fareae1 so all e =: eesae=an' .. mommalman _a � =:=ea3EE:?se=eseam = ea win miss agoa= = s son mamas=:sasses:: ::a• ■aas■aa.■aaa Sol massome usaasaa as:aasaa■ ■=aaa�=aaa •:•:a:iaareaeaeaae aa�iaaanaeaa�aaaaeaaaea= ne :• .aas:sasaaaaas:::a:a::::.:,::e:::a::a:a:.:: amnin•a:::a:ssa.:?: s: _=as:=s:s::::a:::::sa::::: s ��••■ rr.aMpg 'RulewasommenSacra: Yr.Mol ■ •a•rYrr,a../:.Yrr,B:a•a�awr�sa•arWno aawasYi.ria:aaa ■.I a a•�Wdowa �s::\=:�MtHa _ ■ r r! .p�••rr e: a .vf ✓rasa .�y.■�:.•sa�•• a a• :sass i•an ' �A 2`r I iAa.9711i%as:.1;1 a�I Azxcx,11 I �:::naaaaaaaa.•0 manna so a a aa O.aaa•aaa:as•aa a •s�: as:sas:::aaa•::.ago ���::•:ass:::aa :as::s_isaaa••r■■..i/..■■ai.na.mom n. I man IIISWEDEN Maseass::aa;:ssaaaaaaaaa: ::a:aa se:a::sii•ge:San masaasa mass asa :aa:samer me"onnoeea�e 1 f� f i i 1 Tp PROPOSED INTERCEPTOR SEWER LINES SCALE N A�IFET EXHIBIT NO. 3 C i � � ♦ �� � � Y E� EHCE EpTok- uJ W l LAKE �7NtMNES E t - V l WREN l r i t. !" r cw \�♦ a j IN ER� hENTON - _ E IV NYDAL - t 1FITERIC STRE y �y 1 � _ i� Y { •� - Y IL Ir- I � RYYI• 1- 1 �\ , • 1 7 • - �" -� � : ��n..15 1. _.��1�.°�-' _1Lc'� � _! � _ I '� r i 5 MAY CREEK INTERCEPTOR ALTERNATIVE A-A SHEET I OF I NO SCALE EXHIBIT N0.4 f 7 ( I _ V . y "*T'r+v F�Jrs^ s �' >� + �' S✓' ' c � s-� 4 `y`___ J LEGEND MAY CREEK INTERCEPTOR I� LINE N CF UNIT FIGURE EXISTING ALT "A" 8 "A— A' WITH EQUIVALENT SERVICES SANITARY SEWER - ������ EGUIVOLENT GRAVITY SEWER SHEET 1 OF 2 GRAVITY SEWER SCALE 0 400 Boo 1200 IN FEET EXHIBIT NO. S t SEE AV 5l P V UA N N xr Ob �'f` N j i %_ Soo ift 1( 7 a` E ! oxbow- LEGEND MAY CREEK INTERCEPTOR Q LINE NUMBER OF UNIT COST FIGURE ALT °A" a "A- A' WITH EQUIVALENT,SERVICES ------ EOUNALENT $RMITY SEWER SHEET ? OF Z BRMITY MWER SCALE 4jO 800i 00 M FEET r I SE TN P11 1 _ N T OPEN f ,W v`t! 4 I'A \ 7 S.£, 9t9T ST I R 1 - !I i / 3 N • �eC { • I N 260` O �9� S ter__ _ -/ N r _.,30 i O m - O M ♦ m - 2 1 17 ri ems► . DISTRICT _.�. I •1 roe.: � __"'_ Q' � ]3 - • f � T F- T CIT `LlM1 \` OUNTY Q •oo °I� �__ — ttio �. CeE 9ST- _ ' ' L.. . _ „ I ^1 1, , �ZZZ, SE. 99 TN $T ' .0 :p a — __ n. --:, uo...ra�wiitii�•.-, ,—_-_._ _ �.y. ".,,:,, �:. ,.u,.vu..�es LEGEND MAY CREEK INTERCEPTOR IS LINE NUMBER Of UNIT COST FIGUFE 11 1 _._._. EXISTING SANITARY SEWER ALT. YL WITH EQUIVALENT SERVICES ++ EOUNALENT GRAVITY SEWER SHEET I OF 2 GRAVITY SEWER SCALE o Roo Boo 1200 IN FEET EXHIBIT NO. 6 _ / N 1r �I EE dET/2 {r 1 7 to ` y0 IL It \ � os 4 (.i '� �Lf. '�yE• `\ 1 tit' v \ �f Z ov e 1 � O 1 1 ♦ O to Z �� �Y LEGEND MA 1 CREEK INTERCEPTOR LINE NUMBER OF UNIT COST FIGURE ALT ,B1— WITH EQUIVALPIT SERVICES .-----: EQUIVALENT GRAVITY SEWER ti FlrrT 9I1L 9 FORCE MAIN GRAVITY SEWER SCALE Q 4ScQ__ � w I �Q 'c IN FEET ������ 0 'o ug i N. ST N MOT --` / r \ O NL- y �f / • ate �+ c NOT E 91ST ':.ST S. x \ f r � .. _ yg T_ I I 230 � C cif _ s q0;0 NT W p 1 J- 10 12d� 0) (STRICT 107 acs�s�TNr�. 33 v, UJ a t _ ITY U I KING COUNTY t E 98TN SLf� SE 99TM ST / \ O � — 3 � It l �. F i ( 1 Q LEGEND MAY CREEK iNTERCEPTOR OLINE NUMBER OF UNIT COST FIGURE ALT. T WITH EQUIVALENT SERVICES EXISTING SANITARY SEWER FORCE MAIN -OUIVALENT GRAVITY SEWER SHEET 1 OF 2 GRAYITY SEWER 'GALE 400 Boo 1200 EXHIBIT NO. 7 IN FEET aSEE BAN E7 3 . 11- r • r- ?OO � � y � '- 3 00 A � ` �94 oh` /_'�f�. �• •/ % ,, 0 Tom, � i 1 !8' � ' , ti , °LaIlei �P 4yf i s ` (14 ZI �' \ Io0 Now I LEGEND MAY CREEK INTERCEPTOR OLINE NOMBER OF UNIT COST FIGURE ALT. " -WITH EQUIVALENT SERVICES EQUIVALENT GR/NITY SEWER FORCE MAIN SHEET 2 OF 2 GRAVITY SEWER SCALE 0 400 900 1200 N FEET N T Il —' N PIPE NOT OKN NO- 's E 9IST !ST 9 Sri IF \ \ J — / �Awr �' aI Ld rn _ 19 �100.0 S.E 96'f j 5- 4 N, OINT 5-15 7B" 3DISTPICT 1I 107 LE.95 TN Gl. ! 19 JB% S. NG OUNTY jl J ± E,"TN ST a S.E. "TN S! J J LEGEND KENNYDALE INTERCEPTORS 29 LINE NUMBER OF UNIT COST FIOJRE ALTERNATIVE "X GRAVITY SEMER -- SHEET f OF I SCALE O 400 900 1200 N EXH181Y NO. 8 �0p MG N AV it 0 01 � z h _ LE � z i • w REN -� eoMunus� AV I h i N.E + 1 OAYTON E. . 8_ ' p y_€� AS AVE. N.E at x\ I 8 L T 4 hA ERO EN w ! Ate— �. W (r p / m — �.7�`\/'� 1 O rt. MONTEREY MDNTEREY CT I�� t M T Y NE. = n •. v N. 300 ��� �(- O N E. - _K 8ILINCOLN AVE JE ----- �P M N -� K N WI K / ff --� 1 ( E EMENTA i' 9 Fat LEGEND KENNYDALE INTERCEPTORS C LINE NUMBER OF UNIT COST FIGURE If If �.�.� EXISTING SANITARY SEWER ALTERNATIVE B �. FONCF MAIN SHEET I OF I GRAVITY SEWER 5-ALE 0 _ 400 oo _ 1200 EXHIBIT NO. 9 IA FFFT - „o Hx t',, j F 6 O i y • N I N i ~ h :�� i •(• s 2 i m o f m FER K . J I EOYOMO9 Ave. S,E, .• I « W I Oa TO• E ____— _ TON AVE zNF --. ' O I DAITCN AVE. N.E. I I jp I zi i 2 AN AVE. N.E �;tKE' � i g c — I ` mBLAINE 1 0.1 - 4 10E6 -— Z t 0 ABERDEEN AVE. H.E,.t D W ! O i ' MONTEREY J ti MONTEREY CT T 7 N . AW- a C390 •, `, o M.E. -- --- IINCUI� N.E. ti L- KEi= _ _ KK.10 �— — 6 0* K NN WI K y JI t Kw-9 z 10 — K �i tie op i N MI y. J N.E. EXISTI 6 8'' C•, I W Yno .�.�p..� r1' KENNYOAIq '� Y 1� f EIEMENT44� ¢ �� FAI 405 �T yl LEGEND HON-Y DEW INTERCEPTOR ALTERNATIVE IS LINE NUMBER OF UNIT LOST FIGURE SHEET ! OF 1 GRAVITY SEWER SCALE 0 400 800 120� EXHIBIT N0. 10 IN FEET 5(Z r � seer � �. - g �\..,,� � \ T �.\ � o^, Lae 50 ou 3,3 / . V � ,- yOF 250 Zi e / y \✓ r !�� f' � � y ,tip: A \ �' `/ 1� s _ i LEGEND HONEY DEW INTERCEPTOR LINE NUMBER OF UNIT COST FIGURE ALTERNATIVE °BI' ••�•�•� EXISTING SANITARY SEWER r �.. FORCE MAIN SHFET I OF 2 GRAVITY SEWER IN SC FALEEET -_ 4 1200 EXHIBIT H0. II z, v.. I ICJ I r m N M in N ml 1 cy, - t CND u Ipf��Q-.; cr9 i _J I iI w j 1 � �uif e. •�• i O —�__� 1 •• iSNEITON e `O % �' � � �' i.�� � �•�•ari- —i _ — �.. am.4-• I: " .'+ �•►r•y, r_ QO - ,n 4 —ems 12B TN f / E N YE AV h •fp 1 _ E RI •� � - EM cling" I - AvE 1 9 1i�.''tB�r /•.. cRCE AVE.Si i� W . 1 ore -r-•- - _ sAf 07 cp SEE SHEET 2 OF 2 �•i -+�#- O r .f i ,P17 ---7" p - .01A -. � .. . - �� m I m Mµ 10, no o, j� � Aa AV , .-. b y�.L1.r•r df.r.p.r.Or.r•..�. r 6*�. 14 r4� Nt a I 'v T c I of Y— =vE ,� �q�rpgrr 1 ON AJE N F �•Q�•r • Oi � 1 I Z - 1 O.S. �<< F Vc ° t T �.. J O �� 9y •��Q � � —� � �to H • aN4 r�•i�.•r.a a.�•r�p�• o Y •-, �Q Z n 4 Cho R, Mo, \y O-V E.TRANS. I. _._ _ D.r. r�.�',�.r. ..a..r.r.Qir.r. •rSf. fl 0 < J r m _ln V � q.rar y d -I — Ac s 1 � a t a a.,,.•.0�...4 a.b 1tv E t HEE7 � .1 OF2 1 LouEN E�Ave� �u 1 SEE !HEE T I - I LEGEND HONEY DEW INTERCEPTOR e$ LIN. N:'J/ER OF UNIT COST FIGURE O 1� ._._._ EXISTIW °AN:TARY SEWER ALTERNATIVE C FORCE N. SHEET I OF 2 ��. GRAVITY S FR SCALE o 400 Soo =roo EXHIBIT NO. 12 IN PEET i S_.._�.— � �' 1 1 1�� I ■ �, f� I i I w # << F �f ` T�i cri a �J \ yj r r�,� SNEL nN AVE, E �T N N.E. Z m Iq� 3TN Ave i` - IRA � I 101ZI RfDNO E. KE. 4 I�I '.—___.. -�EEN AVEME _JJEa i I •°° FRCE' nVE{ N Sf ' 7 IPtEUE NE� t 1AE �I f D .._ U. 2 Z _ 1 .55 i Iti ,- z , C�{{L- _i+ill�RV E. i L.- C��_.r ._.r.Q Q f i TN W _ cc w W 0� irrxWoo° AVIL—f! ,f _ A, -- - -- -- i ���.DY31d TN D 1Tld D�Y31e J . I � T_ t• _ --I za gg O U w W71 — - r r. j0.r.-.ror. _• �- - - t W CNJ -J:Y \ •�•q..-0 Or.►•O-•_•—O_�a•� ^^^^^00000011 'JVA > �1 Ir UJ N •� 3 Q 1 a rn 3'OMi'S. 4~1a 1. •-..,' 3"c.' �, ♦�, m +30N, IOW'" 0 t 3 • - `. � ' D'N r3A��.. :°NiYYV d-..,. k' OCOMN rF O I \"00/ VONYULL •�'3AV 9Ti'DAV NOlI.VO � - ��- I F. I �... ✓-4. Y II J AA a qy- Y ,w i'�. � Jq O 4 _ a + W 1 0 g f P > S-190 SAN-1 MAY CREEK TRUNK - CORRESPONDENCE -1 TO EPA/DOE GRANT 14X LEGEND IIOTH AVE . S.E. INTERCEPTOR 13 UNE NUMBER OF UNIT COST FIGURE ALTERNATIVE "N' J..... EXISTING SANITMY SEVER SHEET I OF I GRAVITY SEWER SCALE 4 I OO EXHIBIT NO. 13 IN FEET 1 l NW-21 ,� W / NW-le ` O --'---�� -, 2 J ISW-?.O ar i m h g^ \L \ o °o 2 !! gyp-�'� j° / ryo 'y .,� y f� t A" 9`F If� 4° fs MN, � f '� � • 4 � 1 A � i r� 'A IP4 re*to i 00 s / { LEGEND 110TH AVE. S.E. INTERCEPTOR o LIRE RIDER OF UNIT COST FIGURE ALTERNATIVE °8 ...... EXISTING SANITARY SEVER SHEET I OF GRAVITY SEVER SCALE e 7 ,�� EXHIBIT NO. 14 cam. Nw ( or 8 N NW-1 -- NWZ4 lbo XOO /; / I `'• } 4u GJ \ f� f , j ........_ .- _ _ -. +a.+-.vx.-'- ., -..bDfM'M'�- +YS► ;. ..,.:. -. -. '.:_:�.. .- ,, -,._• _ -..73 -a. -�Ts �^;'ems.-: LEGEND SOUTHEAST INTERCEPTOR ALTERNATIVE °A° © LINE NUMER OF UNIT COST FIGURE SHE T I OF GRAVITY SEWER SCALE Qom_. 4Q2 Soo - - �� EXHIBIT NO. 15 IN FEET Y { a°y°s - y TM I� 2 3 \ z -� n 3 0- a 400 --- -- - I f sTn iT a ' SE 99'n 1ST i ♦Opt_ 1 2 S� KtN NTY WATPR (STRICT : `� -•� l SE SOOT" ST - ,� N.E. 24in ST. S O -�\ Gp S }; y y111 ;✓L't�, —�� ir"..:.`..— E.Ioz No sT. 3E-13 i s.1,102 NO sr -- �o \ ! W a l i " 41` o .` i so �" E-1 I Q � II ST LEGEND SOUTHEAST INTERCEPTOR ® LINE NUMBER OF UNIT COST FIGURE ALTERNATIVE °B° FORCE MAIN SHEET ! OF 3 GRMITY SEWER SCALE 400 Soo 1200 EXHIBIT NO. 16 IN FEET 300 op I _. MAY a' " _� 00 3C 2g err, � r� W � / 41♦ a' S \ L, 1 m ���. 6 \a m R aO n -` 4 3 S rl I 10 i 401)-- I a 0 { ' E 9aTH ST 1 r i sE ss r� aT o 7 N S. I W r i/ �g�AN 6 ST < 8• �A 00TH ST i i ---- 1 KIN NTY WAT ol TRICT _ — — & f N E, 24 TH ST. s E IQ E-12 J0 0�;p0 d,� 1eJ�1{ �— rn = — s.E.loz«o r. S -1 s.E.lo NO sr � s.� • J , 1 Z — e ° cr bi \ i '�,' tir r `, > W ♦ <' S E-14 s SLE, 103 RD IL- X o � 1 Imo" � 'a¢ '+ {r °`- I, � � $ ♦ _ � ^� S -I S 4�P U W IU i� N.E.20T«ST J SEE HEST — { ___ - -. ....,.. --' --- crr�*= . . _,_..•y�tEru,rsrrma,y __-�....�.,.�;.....,ra,. ...�Y6i ...: �.N LEGEND SOUTHEAST INTERCEPTOR i3 LINE NUMBER OF UNIT COST FIGURE ALTERNATIVE itB° FORCE MAIN SHEET 2 OF 3 GRAVITY SEWER SCALE 4 _J200 N FEET r O h Y s = � E I 1 L UNION J s! AYENUE c,TecprA 00 ("_'---- r I w SNELTS"CIT�_ E oide r_- - 1 - - _ REOYON vE N--[--, a ---J t as TN AVE S.E. _ _ �! ✓' ---r—r--T-----1 � / OUE N AVE a W _- �I Jt W UEEN AVE NE I I . r(�r t'' ( O 1 L FlERGE -O� R.E o ` i t�--- pwE i It ST. FST- 1N � _ 1 AVE / -"1 QI j YYD *"3Ee O gATN : ;5 � L CUUI2 FO12 F.M. VA ILI YNNW000 AYE._ N Ei i >'•. 't'Y7 ,OD ,j / i Y LEGEND SOUTHEAST INTERCEPTOR ` ` LINE NVYBEROFUMIT COST FIGURE ALTERNATIVE 'IB" FORGE MAIN SHEET 3 OF 3 �.�.�.� EafSTIN4 SANITARY SEWER SCA-E 0 400 800 1200 IN FEET W !, o ` } ..� i . i C" r--•�._.-_, SEE • r ; Zi f L I ST _�� �� y S i }• N E { f�.� .LiZTh — -7 L J LIT17,L LL 1 �Fw t. //Lr, / I i „T, .. PAP t T U--4, t~� of(xyy ( • r .. t 12"DRAIN DRY {{ a FE - is s ' ORC to TH li° ♦,�. i } { '-_ .E. 10TN ft,AAh 1' �� j�Q ! 1 TM�� __J .. �9 `� -- .£ f TN of -j WTf, W � t O ! I ! ,Y t E , KI S . A71 IT TO METRO 7r►Qjt, _ a FORCE MAIN —i a T� ' t ANC r►. ,a' .. . �� •. �^ \ I. , .. ��+.} ��.-- r, t �.►<.+i.a-+ice 1 , _' I I i JILL _ LEGEND SOUTHEAST INTERCEPTOR 13 LINE Nl_MER OF UNIT C0ST FIGJRE ALTERNATIVE °C° r FORCE MAIN SHEET I OF 3 GRAVITY SEWER SCALE 400 1200 EXHIBIT NO. 17 IN FEET N 300 ' �k e • 3 y i I y *00 'F E i 9y E•N � f7 j i 0p~_� � yi f LI SKIN TY WAT DISTRIC" N.E. 2A TN ST S I 1 i \ , C7 \ ` {`�d \ 6° •.'BEY i A '____ �._ �Li .�. - •' moo; ; � .s4 4 F ,� r _ y.E.!°2 , d4 (( i �� I 2,E..1o2N0 aT - -41 I � QIz G : C � 1 t I +,a i to5E-44 0 i � ` \ {{�t M a SSEE LHEET 2 l ! i LEGEND SOUTHEAST INTERCEPTOR # O LINE kUWER OF UNIT COST FIGURE ALTERNATIVE IICII .� .� FORCE MAIN SHEET 2 OF 3 GRAVITY SERE, SCALE 400 Boo 1200 IN FEET j-+ s cb p3vI A�RtlE —___ — w �h 56A., ( r , — V I � —T � � yE 10 SOMA 00 i � I � f;i � u ELTDM AVEL E. `• � '~' ar. � -i Z it I , f-- _- j ` -I RED" vE NE. 2a TN AVE. a E �nJ - - - ' i N RO/IE.N. f i / 4 { I I i.-j_.—/ .� _I OUE N i t ' 1 '1 St il'- �r-�`-.._ •0��� I _�f I I � . 100 1N£ ► �twx n M.E, a i �a ! _z / Y � AD _ I y�j AIDMt OE —M N. / i �I O� •00 I iW I LL., i � I W ' / Y J .g c-3 'R►Ma»I >.c« L - - _�T_t - . - ' N V' f _. .1 { ' -^�-ti`�-1 t.LY141111 O0 AVE. N.EI \� _. z t � 5 by eooA/ i 1 33 m r D4 J q I rn R m 5 v > m [RO[ N M _ q Alf, N A AV ..�._.�., p .. �.._ Aw ffr x - OAVTON AV E. q St. nMTw t �Do" It r ` s J[FFER >• N [ \\\ r rnTT fI ( V � I w _ vrc. � � Z LOB = Av ? "f m —� m -PSPaL CO. TRANS Li E MT. -__ s II�.•I COr MONROE c AVE _ m PL Ini L.__.__ OLVMPU _ s o PL"CE PL kEa PIERCE _ AVE, � LQUEEN �z _.. ti � O JJJ ) �i ? I x M \r0 \\ a. uj V \ ' o. � � ..... Otto /� Z W —o o Jam/ \ wo... NI m ; Q H 3 r/r in J \� 001, 4b \. V f 'Jf r1 lot/ 00, 001 N y O ) a �2 i op . .. .. +oot71 s cr- a. W m is 2 �Ib �vHu�0n � ` f W 2 w -All 0 Q W r \\\ cr W �, 4b J Qi Pl � le oo r � a `ea / - _ _- -- - LEGEND LOWER NORTHWEST INTERCEPTOR L!ME M WSER OF UW COST Ft&!NE ALTERNATIVE "C" FORCE IWM SHEET 1 OF I GRAVITY SEWER SCALE •oo 800 ��o.:r EXHIBIT NO. 20 _ IN FEET Z L.B. T j o + / °4 4r � � � ♦ s �$ 1 1 < �� ♦ 4o \\ 4 V 300 4� `f 001 llllll per,/ ' ��p1. 00� t \ Or Y w LEGEW NORTHEAST INTERCEPTOR 13 LINE NUMBER OF UNIT COST FISM ALTERNATIVE °A° GRAVITY SEWER SHEET I OF I CA LE o . aoo Izoo EXH181T NQ 21 IN FEET _ a SE.36Tx st T. 1 S A T v �•\ _ I 89 1. TH T r LSE 99 3 f H \ f . I L _ � I noo /.. �—.. 5 NE 10 �S.E N 'v°ST R i `DISTRICT 07 PSU" F i r m S.E.SS TN PL. i - I I -� k s Mj LEGEND NORTHEAST INTERCEPTOR ,3 LINE NUMKR OF UNIT CAST FIGURE ALTEFVATIVE "B° GRAVITY SEWER FORCE MAIN SCALE 0 SHEE4001 OF Scc __ 1200 "�y IN FEET G..HIBII NO 22 Fi To 1. l i 1 I r 1, TR 7 M, $.E INTERCEPTGp 0� \\ t OPEN f f n o/<A 30, -. NE'i0 m_ SE 41ST ST. ! pEi23 --� l y. 5 r Ls / DISTRICT Iv7 4-50 NE-2 950 TY jam/ f x / s I.EC£tJD NORTHEAST INTERCEPTOR Y 13 LINE mwaER OF UNIT COST FIGI,NE ALTERNATIVE °C° GRAVITY SEWER SHEET I OF I r SLA' E I �� EXHIBIT N0. 23 FORCE MAIM N FEE? e G 1 4. i � ?'i SSE baxa sue_ ;--�_.� �\�'��J�►// .�,r'"i` .. - � .z�_ _ ` r Cc OT NE-1! 1 too � � t NE-10 ass FL t _ / 4 I� I t w LEGEND LAKE BOREN INTERCEPTOR ALTERNATIVE "A'� 13 LINE NUMBER OF JN,T COST FIGURE SHEET I OF i GRAVITY SEWER SCALE 4 01200 EXHIBIT N0. 24 N FEE 09 T '+� -77 x' I r f, tre i 791 mov 0 0 s m 3 2 LEGEND LAKE BOREN INTERCEPTOR } L'NE NUMBER OF UNIT COST FIGURE ALTERNATIVE "B° UFT STATION •— r • FORCE MAIN SHEET I OF I t GRAVITY SEWER SCAiE �- �+�� BCO 120a EXHIBIT N0. 23 { IN FEET { 1 Y i } I �_17 �1 6 12GTN�{avNE.IAF t ! V U F�7 i Q2 ! a .. . - awaa� c= TiffN.wy ass++ pNMSr�. 1M .d'� -. _ � . . : . . . . . _ _ '`sue / { NE Is. — � i ! J30 TN AVE,El FM 10 1 O O � /� A rn 2 G 1��) Y 3_s 12NIS a AVE S.HFM v t I LB 7A 7 R 717—GS if AT ti 1 MESA LEGEND LAKE BOREN INTERCEPTOR n LINE NUMBER Of UNIT COST FIGURE ALTERNATIVE "C" O LIFT STATION .— .— FORCE MAIN SHEET I OF 2 GRAVITY SEWER SCALE 4002— �� EXHIBIT NO. 26 IN FEET t SEE SHEET ,_ ' 1 eM• f �g,�� 4� `— / 28!N� �AyE,�Sr - I07 Z t r' (f 5r a r G7 I TRyNgW Shy Ia�iE E`N " y � If ( �' F --��•—T- --•.1,j� ,30 Ttk AVE. SE Ol r o -. 0 a( b ( I Now 7.7 1 ® LEGEW LAKE BOREN INTERCEPTOR ID LINE NUMBER OF UNIT COST FIGURE ALTERNATIVE 11C11 GRAVITY SEWER SHEET 2 OF �. ._ .. FORCE MaN SCALE 0 aoo eoo 1200 IN FEET 10o EE SHEET I OF 2 S. 12 of 70TH AVE, S.E + ~ ✓ ✓ :\ it @* ! ' 1 LB 7B Fw INTERCEP QJt _f 8 F.M. �pISTRICT 107 3 3s �T �� — . TM RL SD. 3 _ (^' a Tp 1 ` eI .` KING GUUHTv a ✓ 6a o • / 'Oc — Jam' �� {3E 99 I Tr '. 3T 1 � I COMMUNITY FACILITIES PLAN FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS UNDER Pl. 92 - 500 MAY CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN SUMMAW!, VOLUME REPORT v FOR SEWER INTERCEPTORS KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NO . 107 k Anw— Y. METROPOLITAN COUNCIL KIMG COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 80. 107 C. Carey Donworth, Chairman Henry F. McCullough, Commissioner Stanley P. Kersey, Auburn Elmer Foster, Commissioner M.F. (Mel) Vanik, Bellevue John R. Janson, Commissioner Isabel Hogan, Kent Sam Macri, Manager Robert L. Heir, Kirkland Aubrey Davis, Jr., Mercer Island Charles DeLaurenti, Renton Wes Uhlman, Seattle James K. Bender, Seattle George Benson, Seattle Tim Hill, Seattle Paul Kraabel, Seattle Phyllis Lamphere, Seattle Wayne D. Larkin, Seattle John R. Miller, Seattle Randy Revelle, Seattle Sam Smith, Seattle Jeanette Williams, Seattle CITY OF RENTON Selwyn L. "Bud" Young, Other Cities John D. Spellman, King County Charles DeLaurenti, Mayor Paul Barden, King County Earl Clymer, Councilman Ruby Chow, King County George Perry, Councilman Robert Be Dunn, King County Kenneth Bruce, Councilman Michael Lowry, King County William Grant, Councilman R. R. Grieve, King County Richard Stredicke, Councilman Dave Mooney, King County Patricia Seymour, Councilwoman Tracy J. Owen, King County Robert E. McBech, Councilman Bill Reams, King County Warren Gonnason, Director of Public Works Bernice Stern, King County - k Paul Nanassy, Jr., Unincorporated Areas _ L. Thc, s E_k<trand, Unincorporated Areas John Fourn`er, Jr., Unincorporated Areas Jim Shahan, Unincorporated Areas A. Dean Worthington, Unincorporated Areas `r Hanford Be Choate, Sever Districts Richard S. Page, Executive Director COMMUNITY FACILITIES PLAN FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT, WORKS IN THE MAY CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN JANUARY 1976 VOLUME V SUMMARY REPORT T KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NO. 107 CITY OF RENTON r. N,.'NICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN SEATTLE ENGINEERS �e MOORE, WALLACE 6 KENNEDY. INC- ENGINEERS—SURVEYORS—PLANNERS 1915 FIRST AVEtrJE SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 S TABLE OF CONTENfS Page page RECIPIENTSOF THIS DOCLMENT fi CONuLUSIONS 9 RECOMMENDATIONS 1 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES 11 NEED FOR THE PROPOSEV INTERCEPTOR COST-EFFECTIVE ANALYSIS OF SEWER LINES AND EXISTING CONDITIONS 6 ALTERNATIVES 15 f EXISTING SEWERS 6 CO MEETS AND RESPONSES 27 EXISTING POPULATION AND LAND USE 7 INFLOW/INFILTRATION 8 PROPOSED PROJECT A a COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS 9 i e AT { k i ppr NEEL RECIPIENTS OF THIS DOCUMENT: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington State Highway Department, District #I Attn: ET_S Coordinator, Mr. Walt Jaspers Attn: Mr. W. C. Bogart, District Engineer U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Washington State Department of Fisheries Attn: Mr. W.A t Farrar Attn: Mr. Gilbert A. Holland Fisheries Research Coordinator U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; Federal Disaster Assistance Washington State Department of Highways - Attn: Mr Bruce Davidson, Environmental Planner U. S. Department of Commerce; Wes`zrn Regional Office Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency Attn: Mr. A. R. Dammkoehler Office of Community Development Execut h e Directo. Attn: Mr. Nicholas Lewis, 'Tate Planner ` Puget Sound Governmental Conference Washington State Department of Ecology Attn: Mr. Mart Kask Attn: Mr. John Biggs, Director Executive Director Mr. Gordon Wegwar[ King County Department of Budget and Program Planning Washington Stat= Ecological Commission Attn: Federal/State Relations Division (4) Attn: Dr. R. Masley, Chairman King County Department of Community and Environmental Washington State Department of Social 6 Health Development Services - Water Supply and Waste Section Attn: Mr. Thomas Ryan, Director Attn: Mr. Robert E. Leaver, Planning Engineer King County Park Department Washington St:..c Department of Game Attn: Mr. George Wyse Attn: Ass't Chief Environmental Management Divfeton King County Water District No. 107 ` Mr. Kenneth Tupper Attn: Mr. Henry McCullough, Chairman Mr. Arnold Robbins IL SNOW...x M ..�....._�.�....`._ _ _.. -. __.._. RECIPIENTS OF THIS DOCUMENT: (Cont'd) King County Department of Hydraulics Mr. Mark G. Iozzio Attn: Mr. George Wannamaker Mr. John Barnes King County Division of Land Use Management Attn: Mr. Ed Sands Mr. Michas. Smith Seattt.�-King County Department of Public Health Mr. James E. Hurt Attn: Dr. Lawrence Bergner, Director Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (METRO) Environmental Planning Division Attn: Mr. Peter S. Machno City of Renton Attn: Mr. Warren Gonnason, Director of NOTICE Public Works Mr. cordon Erickson, Director of Planning Only those Federal, State, Regional and Local agencies and interested persons who Quendall Terminal Company, Renton, Washington made substantive comments on the Draft EAS Attn: Mr. John 0. Norman, Manager or request a copy of the Final EAS will receive a Final EAS copy. Washington Environmental. Council Sierra Club 1 RECOMMENDATIONS A need for sanitary sewers exists in the urbanized, westernmost land development. Sewer construction in this area _ portion of the May Creek Drainage Basin . nd in the Lake Kathleen should be limited in order to complement a plan for area. It is recommended that a phased program of interceptor low density development and watercourse management. sewer construction be implemented as follows: e. In view of the f ct that Step 2 and Step 3 funding a. The most immediate sewer interceptor need is the has been prioritized by the Environmental Protection area that has already urbanized in northern Renton Agency, it is recommended that construction of Phasa and near 110th Avenue S.E., north of May Creek. I proceed immediately. Detailed plans for the con- This area has a po.entially serious health hazard struction of the May Creek Interceptor, Phase I, due to recorded failures or septic tank sewage dis- have received preliminary review by the agencies in- posal systems. As a consequence, it is recommended volved, for example, the State Departments of Fish- that interceptor sewer lines serving the Kennydale eries and Game, the King County Departments of and Honey Creek areas of Renton and the 110th Avenue Hydraulics and Parks and the City of Renton. Modi- S.E. area north of May Creek be constructed as soon fications to the plans have been made and final as possible (recommended construction year 1976). review by these agencies is in process. It appears from the preliminary review that the environmental b. Additional sewer interceptors are needed to serve impacts resulting from co:,atruction of the intercep- the Lake Boren area and all ireas west of 13bth for will be mitigated by construction techniques and Avenue S.E. This area is characterized by cluster rehabilitation procedures required by these agencies. urbanization such as around Lake Boren and other similar areas. The wat rs of Lake Boren appear to Conceptual plans of the May Creek Interceptor, Phase be degrading with septic tank wastes. It is recom- II, have been submittea to the i::sponsible agencies. mended that sewer interceptors serving this area be The )nceptuaL plans have received general approval built in 1977 and 1978. of the agencies; however, all agencies have stated that the approval of the conceptual plans are con- c. The Lake Kathleen area is rapidly urbanizing and ditioned on the approval of the detailed plans which x, will soon be in need of sewers. This area is recom- have not been ,,repared. It is believed that the mended to be sewered in a third phase, possibly construction techniques and rehabilitation proce- W'���` around 1980. dures required by these various agencies will mitigate the environr,�entai impact it the area. d. The upper reaches of May Creek are subject to flood- ing. It is therefore recommended that many areas It is recommended that a request for fu.iding for east of 136th Avenue S.E. be zoned for low density Steps 1 and 2 for the May Creek Intercepter, Phase ,F II, be made to the Environmental Protection Agency and _he Department of Ecology. r s 1 The construction of sanitary sewers in the westernmost area of The May Creek Tnterceptor proposed in Phase II lies in the May the May Creek Drainage Basin causes both direct and secondary Creek Canyon easterly from Honey Creek to 136th Avenue S.E. environmental impacts. The most damaging direct environmental The canyon is subject to continual cutting of the stream bed by impact comes from construction. The most damaging possible peak storm drainage flows and such cutting will continue for an secondary environmental impact comes from surface drainage r-m- indefinite period of mime until some overall method of control- off due to increased population. 3 - is therefore -ecomnended ling such cutting has been developed. that mitigating measures be taken to reduce the impact of construction and of surface drainage runoff. The construction methods in both Phase I and Phase I1 , necessary to physically protect the project from destruction by the cutting j The proposed May Creek Interceptor System is divided into two (2) action of the stream, will provide some of the necessary control phases, of which Phase I will run from Manhole "B" to the conflux and reduce the existing overall cutting action. Because of this of May Creek and Honey Creek, a distance of 6750 feet, and partial control, the physical condition of the canyon will dete- includes the Honey Dew, Kennydale and 110th Avenue S.E. inter- rforate less rapidly than if left ii: its present condition. As ceptors; and Phase II will run easterly from Honey Creek to a result the silt load in the stream will be reduced. 136th Avenue S.E., a distance of approximately 7750 feet and includes the S.E. 91st Street, Northeast, Lake Boren and South- T1,, mitigating effects will be as follows: east interceptors. a. Mitigate primary impact due to construction in creeks Approximately 5250 feet of the interceptor proposed in Phase I .,y clearing of debris and garbage in Honey and May lies in the City of Renton street right-of-way and in no way creeks, provide hill holders to prevent sliding, affects May Creek. The approximate 1500 feet that lies beyond replant trees, provide reseeding, replanting and/or the end of the road right-of-way crosses May Creek two times other protective cover where needed, replace fish , and Honey Creek once. spawning gravel in creeks, allow creek construction only curing July and August, use light construction The proposed Kennydale Interceptor which connects to the Phase I equipment in the creek area and utilize other May Creek Interceptor will cross May Creek once. The proposed technical provisions relative to creek construction. Honey Dew Interceptor will be constructed in the Honey Creek stream bed from Union Avenue N.E. to N.E. 2ith Street culvert b. The removal of streamside vegetation for construction (Devil's Elbow) where the interceptor will leave the creek and of this project will represent a very sn 11 percentage follow an old road bed to the conflux of Honey and May creeks. of the total streamside cover. Although design of Little or no fisheries exist al,ove Devil's Elbow and this the project is not complete, it is estimated that a portion of Honey Creek is frequently dry during the summer. total of twelve (12) crossings, some of which may I be aerial, will occur and at 90 degrees, more or -2- i less, to the thread of the stream. The District has by the U.E Army Corps of Engineers Appendix A to the Final already established its willingness to comply with Report, Urban Runoff and Basin Drainage - Green River and Cedar the various departments' requirements in regard to River Basins of Washington, July 1974. stream restoration by its prior activities in May Creek in the constructicn of the interceptor from This study was the preliminary report on the surface drainage the METRO line to Manhole "B" (the point of begin- for the May Creek Drainage Basin and others. Other studies, ning of Phase I). predating the RIBOO study, were made for May Creek. c. Mitigate construction effects on air pollution through A grant by the Federal Environmental Protection Agency was made watering, oiling and ocher measures as required to to METRO under Section 208 of 'L 92-500 to further study, among comply with established air pollution control regula- others, non-point sources of pollution and surface drainage. tions. This study is expected to be completed within two years. d. Mitigate direct and indirect effects of sewer con- While the 208 study is going on, King County has a task force struction to fish populat`on in May Creek by at work to develop a surface drainage program for the unincor- providing a fish protect.on and improvement program porated areas of the County. Present plans call for action by within the overall sewer construction program, to King County to implement task force recommendations within one be developed with the Washington State Departments year. of Fisheries and Game. With regard to future storm water runoff, King County has passed e. Secondary effects of an increase in storm drainage Ordinance No. 228111 which limits future storm water runoff runoff in Phase I will be miniral, simply tecause through the required construction of retention/detention facil- the areas served by the interceptor are already ities. The heart of the King County ordinance states: developed. New King County ordinances and City of Renton policy in the May Creek Drainage Basin will "SECTION 5. MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL DRAINAGE PLANS. provide methods of control over any increase in storm flow that may occur in Phase II. "(1) Surface water entering the .subject property shall be received at the naturally occurring location and Current efforts of various agencies appear to be mitigating the surface water exiting the subject property shall be storm drainage runoff impact in Phase 11 due to increased discharged at the natural location with adequate copulation. energy dissipators to minimize downstream damage and with no diversion at any of these points. A storm drainage study has been made in the May Creek Drainage Basin. In both the Environmental Assessment and Comprehensive "(2) The peak discharge from the subject property may Plan, reference was made to the recent RIBCO study, prepared not be increased due to the proposed developments. -3- .. _. .. a •. er-- — ti "(3) Retention/detention facilities must be provided in The estimates indicate that by 1980, a very nominal effect un order to handle all surface water in excess of the population, because of sewers, could be anticipated. On page peak discharge. Exemptions from any or all of the 11 of the Environmental Impact Statement, we estimate the basin foregoing requirements may be permitted only after population to range between 9,000 and 9,600 people in 1980. a determination by the department, employing the Without sewers, we estimate a population of 9,000 in 1980. following criteria: During those five years the following actions will have occurred: (a) Capacity of downstream facilities. a. METRO's 208 study will have been completed. (b) Acceptability of receiving bodies of water. b. King County will have completed work on a surface (c) Possibility of adverse effects of retention. drainage program. (d) Utility of regional retention facilities in those five years, it is more reasonable to assume that action based on the above programs will be underway if the interceptors The City of Renton is currently applying a storm flow restricti r are installed now than if the interceptor project should be concept2 in the May Creek Drainage Basin within the City Limits delayed. that duplicates the requirements of Ordinance Nam. 22811. Fir-Lancing of interceptor sewer construction and mitigating The King County Ordinance No. 22811, together with restrictive measrres is recommended to come from the following sources: zoning in certain areas; King County Ordinance No. 1527, which relates to land use regulation in flood hazard areas; ar-'. a. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 75'„ shor^line management programs are indicative of programs now underway by local governments co deal with the drainage problems. b. The Washington State Department of Ecology 15% In the Environmental Assessment (Vol. 11I), it was pointed out c. The Local Governments: 1OIX that the impact of sewers on population growth will not be felt for about five years. The reason for this is that un,',,r present Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle plans the earliest construction of sewer interceptors would King County Water District No. 107 begin in 1976 and be completed in 1977. To make use of the City of Renton interceptors, lateral sewers will have to be built, which would require either establishment of Local Improvement Districts or other means. -4- Imw RECEIVED �� r7 JAN 19 1976 . r: The Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle will pay for its share ,�" 1� M.W-K PUBLICof the May Creek Sewer Interceptor, obtaining its money from WARREN WORKS ASON.P1ENT revenue derived from service charges to local government. It ` UNICPNC GONNASON,e.E. • $0 P TON is recommended that the City of Renton and King County Water �s v Ym1NIpMl N11lDIM6 7D0 rA1il AVE.lO. QEMTON.MAlX.eRs66 District No. 107 pay for their share of sewer interceptors from Ni � 106 235-2569 local revenue bonds. It is the opinion of the three municipal- ities that it is economically feasible to fund their share. January 16, 1976 Charles J. Pelaurenti, Mayor Mr. John Wallace M,oN , W llm2, 4 Kennedy, lwC 1915 First Aoenc-- Seattle, wi Ph Re: May Creek Faeilitirs P/a { Pear Mr. ual lace: The City of Renton Nblic forks Deprb ent, upon rsoise of the May creek Fwi.tity plan, cvnoure with the remnRendations of the report. The May rresk drnirage area is the lost mior vnrsaerrd area inei.ie the r-ity limits. The lack of severs in the area his mused serious public health and sitter quality problems. Our Department that the uaricuo phsaes of this rroject he isylaw rated its soon as possible. Very truly yours, IThe full ordinance is contained in Vol. III. rren c. Gonnason, P.K. Public Works Director ZSee Volume III. lY'7�:pap f -5 ,SEED FOR THE PROPOSED INTERCEPTOR SEWER LINES EXISTING SEWERS AND EXISTING CONDITIJNS The May Creek Drainage Basin .s one of the very few basins that There are presently some sanitary sewers in the May Creek drains into Lake uashington and does not provide adequate Drainage Basin. These sewers serve selected schools and sub- wastewater treatment facilities for its present population divisions in the Honey Creek and Kennydale sub-drainage basin since it does not have interc, for sewers. The May Creek fewer and amount to 34,700 linear feet of sewers. The sewage is Interceptor was proposed in the first regional sewage study for pumped by six lift stations to another drainage basin. That Seattle and King County in 1958. At that time, the firm of drainage basin's system of sewers was designed to meet only its Brown and Caldwell completed a regional report for King County own needs when fully built up. In recent years new housing was and Seattle which was published as the Metropolitan Seattle built in these areas. As a consequence the system of existing Sewerage and Drainage Survey. Following the 1958 study, the sanitary sewers are now near capacity, and any major additions Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (METRO) was formed. Botts to the existing sewer system would either require the instal- METRO and King County fosraliy adopted the 1958 study, with lation of new interceptor lines and pumping facilities or some modifications. By 1975 the population in the May Creek seriously overload the existing sewer system. Drainage Basin became sufficient to make sewer interceptors economically feasible. Other built-up urban areas in the May Creek Drainage Basin that do not have sewers are a source of health hazards. Many of the existing homes have been recently inspected by the Seattle-King County Health Department for probable failure of individual sewage disposal systems. In some instances the Health Department has refused to allow the reoccupation of homes once the homes are vacated, since there have been proven septic tank-drainfield failures which were not correctable. New home construction i- now severely restricted in some areas due to the record of septic tank-drainfield failures. As septic tank-drainfield failures occur, evidence shows that additional coliform counts, which are evidence of human and animal wastes, are increasing at the mouth of May Creek. This indicates that sewage effluent has saturated the area and is now escaping into the existing water bodies. -6- P EXISTING POPULATION AND LAND USE At the presenr time the population in the drainage basin is Table 2 indicates the land use projections to the year 2000, estimated to be 7000. This population is expected to double made by the Puget Sound Council of Governments for the Mav in the next 25 years. The population projections made for the Creek Drainage Basin. entire drainage basin are shown on Table 1. However, recent projections by local governments have reviewed their own past TABLE 2 f population projections and changed them to reflect a slower growth rate in King County. As a result, it appears that the PERCENT OF MAY CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN population projections shown in the lower range may more accurately reflect recent local government population projec- IN SPECIFIED LAND USES t ions. --- - -1 Yr. 2000 The growth anticipated to the year 2000 is indicative of a PSGC population trend in suburban areas. Should no sewers be built, Year Land Ilse growth would still occur in the drainage basin but at a slower _Land Uses 1970-72 _ 7rojection pace, forcing a number of people into other parts of the region. Single Family 20 40 TABLE 1 Multi-Family 0 2 POPULATION PROJECTIONS - Commercial/Services 1 1 � MAY CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN --- } Government L Education 0 1 Upper Rang i e S Year Lower Range Median (DesignPopulation _industrial 0 1 I 1970 5,800 5,800 5,800 Parks/Dedicated Open Spaces 5 5 1974 7,200 7,20G 7,200 Agriculture 10 5 1975 7,300 7,300 7,300 Unused Land 63 1980 9,000 9,400 9,6,m + 44 1985 10,500 11 ,000 11,500 (I Water 1 1 1990 12,000 14,000 15,500 I Total 100 1DO 1995 13,500 16,200 18,500 - J 2000 14,500 18,000 21,000 NOTE: Figures showing have been rounded to nearest full i — --- - perce tt -7- INFLOW/INFILTRATION PROPOSED PROJECT An inflow/infiltration study of existing sewers is presented in In order to provide sewers for the westerly portion of the May Volume II. "Inflow" is extraneous water entering the sanitary Creek Drainage Pasin, the most logical routes were studied along: sewer through manhole covers and illegal connections of roof drains, footing drains, yard drains, or storm drains to the 1. Natural drainage courses. - sanitary sewer system. "Infiltration" is extraneous water (Alternative "A" or "A-A" - Vol. IV and included) . entering the sanitary sewer system through the soil by way of broker. pipes, leaking joints, or leaking manhole walls. 2. Existing streets and easements in order to use existing lift stations and to minimize the It is estimated that sixty percent (60%) of the peak inflow of disturbance of natural watercourses by direct extraneous water can be eliminated by correcting manholes that construction. show signs of surface water entry. This could include raising (Alternative "D" and included) manhole covers and/or installing watertight manhole covers where required. The estimated cost for this work is $5,600 or 3. A combination of the above. $18.30/10GO gallon removal cost. (Alternative "B" or "C"- Vol. IV and included) Twenty percent (20%) of the peak inflow is attributed to illegal The alternative approaches were made in order to determine which footing drains, yard drains, etc. These locations can be found system would cost the least over a period of 20 years, if by smoke testing, costing an estimated $10,465 or $102.59/1GOU maintenance and operation were included. In addition, the gal. This is not considered to be cost effective. primary direct and indirect impact on the environment was con- ' sidered, as it affects the May Creek Drainage Basin. It was The final twenty percent (20":) inflow is attributed to such found that the least costly system would be the development of items as direct storm water connections to the sanitary sewers. interceptor sewers along the natural drainage courses (Alterna- This is very difficult and costly to isolate and correct. tive No. 1). Development of interceptor sewers along natural Correction of this source of inflow is not considered to be drainage, however, has some negative environmental impact. By cost effective. providing mitigating measures, the negative imparts are neutralized. Infiltration corrections were studied in Volume 11:; however, those corrections were not deemed to be cost effective. It is to be noted that the cost-effectiveness and environmental considerations of Alternative No. 2 were not presented in Vol. III , Final Environmental Assessment, and Vol. IV, Cost- Effectiveness Analysis. Environmental impact and trade-offs and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Alternative No. 2 are therefore included in this volume. In view of the public presentations at the Draft Environmental Hearing, it was deemed necessary to include these considerations. _g- i COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS CONCLUSIONS The various alternate routes were developed and analyzed. The Host cost-effective May Creek Interceptor System route is Volume IV shows detail cost comparisons. In the first alterna- Alternative No. I-"A," having a 20-year cost of $3,826,000 as tive (Alternative No. 1), the cost of initial construction was shown in Table 3. The next most cost-effective route is high; however, no lift stations were needed. The lack of Alternative No. 1-11A-A" or 3-11B" having a 20-year cost of pumping stations reduced existing maintenance and operation cost $4,141,000 or $4,151,000 respectively. The 20-year cost- over the 20 years; consequently Alternative No. 1 became the effectiveness of Alternative No. 2 is $6,410,000. most cost-effective alternative. The environmental impact will be greater for Alternative No. Alternative No. 1 is proposed r.o be constructed in two phases 1-"A" at 22 points as compared to 19 points for Alternative as described herein before. No. 3-11B" and No. 2. 9 The second alternative (Alternative No. 2) required the use of The environmental trade-off is higher for Alternative No. 1-"A" several large pumping stations. The south portion of May Creek at +8 points as compared to Alternative No. 3-"B" at +5 points. sewage was pumped across thr freeway into the METRO sewer by The environmental trade-offs for Alternative No. 2 is +4 points. way of North 8th Street. Th.s requires extensive construction work or. existing streets and utility easements where existing In view of the fact that the facility will have a minimum life sewers are already located. North of May Creek, a sever line +as of SO years, it is proper to consider the cost effectiveness of f proposed to run from Lake Boren Interceptor Sewer to the .Jones the alternatives at their minimum life span, which is shown in Avenue Interceptor Sewer. As a consequence, no sewer tines Table 3. The 50-year cost effectiveness of Alternative No. would be constructed in May Creek and Honey Creek in Alternative 1-"A" is $4,090,000 as compared to $5,959,000 for Alternative No. 2. No. 3-11B" and $12,676,000 for Alternative No. 2. One of the third alternatives (Alternative No. 3-11B") provided It is our conclusion, that although Alternative No. 3-"B" has for an interceptor line in the May Creek Valley only to Honey somewhat less impact on the environment, the better environmental Creek and in Honey Creek. Alternative No. 3-"C" provides for trade-offs and the better cost effectiveness at 20 years and the an interceptor in a Renton street right-of-way and does not better cost effectiveness at 50 years for Alternative 14o. 1-"A" affect the creeks except for the Kennydale Interceptor crossing. outweighs other considerations and warrants the selection of As a consequence, Alternative No. 3 would not have sewer lines Alternative No. 1-"A" for the May Creek Interceptor System. in the May Creek Canyon. Alternative No. 1-11A" also has substantially better cost ` effectiveness for both the 20-year and 5C-year lives than Table 3 gives a comparison of costs and environmental impacts Alternative No. 2. for Alternative Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Table 4 shows environmental trade-offs that would be obtained through construction using Alternative Nos. 1, 2 and 3. 1 -9- 1 i y i i S3AISVKMllV d0 NOSIEVrWO 3 TABLE 3 COWARISON OF COSTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FOR THREE ALTERNATIVE PROPOSALS ALTERNATIVE I ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3 .,A" nA-A" 1 - - vDn nBu uCu -ost Comparison (1) ——t Capital Cost in $1000 - 20-Year 2,639 2,856 2,436 I 2296 2414 ! Capital Cost in $1000 - 50-Year 2,639 2,856 3,221 (( 2:453(1) 2:774(1) I20-Year Cost in $1000 3,826 4,141 6,410 I 4,151 5,263 50-Year Cost with Equivalent Services in $1000 4,090 4,427 12,676 ' 5,959 8,930 Environmental Impacts Using a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being no damage and 10 being total destruction of a facility, the environmental impact is shown for the following (based on value judgments, See Voluwe III): Construction Impact on: j t Existing Neighborhood 2 2 4 3 3 Traffic 2 2 3 3 3 Noise 2 2 2 2 2 Fish 3 2 1 1 1 Wildlife '. 2 1 1 1 Creek Erosion 2 1 1 1 _Permanent Direct Impact Fish 1 1 1 1 1 Removal of Ground Cover I 3 3 1 2 2 Creek Erosion 1 1 1 1 1 Indirect Impact Increased Population 2 2 2 2 2 Increased Surface Water Runoff I 2 2 2 2 2 Total Impact 22 21 19 19 19 (1) See Summary Table -12- T TABLE 4 ENVIRONMENTAL TRADE-01i ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3 - "A" "A-A" „D„ uB" uGn C Using a scale of 11 to 20, with 11 showing the highest benefits, 15 showing no ber.nfits and no damage, and 20 showing extreme damage, the environmental trade-ot :s are shown as follows C (based on value judgments, See Volume III): Elimination of Septic Tanks: 11 11 11 11 11 f 1Canstn ction in Creek: Construction Work 17 17 15 16 15 Rock A, -ind Sewer Pipe Erosi,a Control 13 15 15 14 15 * Removal of Ground Cover 17 17 15 16 16 Replanting and Re-establi-..# ,g Ground rover 14 14 15 15 15 ccemoval of Garbage in ilon,. creek 12 12 15 14 15 Providing Fish Spawning Channel or Other Similar Work as Developed With the Department of Fisheries 12 12 15 I 14 15 Trail Construction 16 15 1 15 15 15 Environmental Trade Offs (Positive +) +8 +7 I +4 +5 +3 -13- i1 f 1 , i! I COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS ',Y CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN 4 INTERCEPTOR SYSTEM r I SUMMARY LOCATION IN MAY CREEK WATER Ai l No. i Manhole "B" to 136th Avenue S.E. CAPITAL COSTS 20-YR. COSTS 50-YR. COSTS Adjacent to creek l ROUTE SELECTION $1,000 $1,000 1 000 No. 2 None No. 3 ("B") Manhole "B" to Honey Creek Alternative No. 1 ("A") 2,539 3,826 4,090 Adjacent to creek Honey Creek to 136th Avenue S.E. Alternative No. 1 ("A-A") 2,856 4,1&1 4,427 On south and north ridges I No. 3 ("C") Manhole 'B" to Kennydale Interceptor Alternative No. 2 ("D") 2,436 6,410 -- Adjacent to creek 3,22:1 -- 12,676 Kennydale Interceptor to 136th Avenue S.E. On south and north ridges Alternative No. 3 ("B") 2,296 4,151 - 2,4531 -- 5,959 Iincludes capital costs of replacing mechanical and Alternative No. 3 ("C") 2,414 5,263 electrical equipment in sewage lift stations. -- 2,7741 I -- 8,9_ , Y4• . 1 ,^F .n Y^ Fg� !� yy ' T e } t COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES s R A 4 y�y F COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS - MAY CRF,EK DRAINAGE BASIN ALTERNATIVE NO. 1 ("A") 20-Year t - fi INTERCEPTOR MY CREEK KENNYDALE HONEY DEW 110TH SE SOUTHEAST LJWER NW NORTHEAST LAKE BOREN and -{.- ALTERNATIVES nArr nA" nAn "Bra "A" 1 "A" "An nAu TOTAL , Total Capita. Cost $1,098,947 $378,176 $403,599 $161 ,575 $147,573 $ 88,073 $165,458 $195,127 $2,63A.528 Annual Capital Cost) 54,947 18,909 20, 180 8,079 7,379 4,404 8,273 9,756 131,927 Sewer 0 & M2 5,495 1,'91 7,018 808 738 440 827 976 13,193 Lift Station O & M3 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- . 4 Overhea.'• 19,2 1 6,61E 7,063 2,828 2,583 1,541 2,896 3,415 40,175 Annual Costs 79,673 27,418 29,261 11,715 10,700 6,385 11,996 14, 147 191,295 Total Cost6 1 ,593,460 548,360 585,220 234,300 214,000 127,700 239,920 282,940 3,825,900 y4_ i 5G-Year f INTERCEPTOR MAY CREEK '.CENNYDALE HONEY DEW 110TH SE SOUTHEAST LOWER NW NORTHEAST LAKE BOREN and r v " " n n u r " " n n n n r n TOTAL f ALTERNATIVES ' A A A _ B ' _A_ A A Total Capital Cost $1,(,48,947 $378,176 $403,599 $161,575 $1- ',573 $ 88,073 $165,458 $195,127 $2,638,528 -. Annual Capital Costl 21,97.1 7,564 8,^72 3,232 2,951 1,761 3,309 3,903 52,771 Sewer 0 & M2 3,297 1,135 1,21l 485 443 264 496 585 7,916 Lift Station 0 & M3 --- --- --- --- --- - - --- --- OverLead4 8,792 3,026 3,229 1,293 1,180 704 1 ,324 1,561 I 21 , 109 • Annual Costs 34,068 11,725 12,512 5,010 4,574 2,729 5,129 6,049 81,796 Total Cost6 1,703,400 -186,250 625,600 250,500 21-8,700 136,450 , 256,450 302 450 4,089,800 1 Divide the total capital cost by design period 210% and 15% of annual capital cost respectively for 20-year and 50-year 3From Exhibits 1 and 2 (See Volume IV) 435% and 40'/, of annual capital cost respectively for 20-year and 50-year 1 5Sum of annual capital cost, Fewer 0 & M, lift station 0 & M, and overhead $ 6Annual cost times design year -i7- b t - `•w_.-ate.-. - ..-....... _.�. .-.._�..J,..� COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS MAY CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN ALTERNATIVE NO. 1 ("A-A") 20-Year •NTEandPTOR MAY CREEK KENNYDALd HONEY DEW 110TH SE SOUTHEAST LOWER NW NORTHEAST LAKE BOREid TOTAL ALTERNATIVES nA-An "A" "An ,B" "A" .•An nAn ,•A„ Total Capital Cost $1,316,526 $378,176 $403,599 $161,575 $147,573 $ 88,073 $165,458 $195,127 $2,856,107 Annual Capital C�__l 65,825 18,909 20,180 8,079 7,379 4,404 8,273 9,756 142,805 Sewer O & MZ 6,582 1 ,891 2,018 808 738 440 827 976 14,280 Lift Station 0 & M3 --- --- --- --- - Overhead4 23,038 6,618 7,063 2,828 2,583 1,541 2,896 3,415 49,982 Annual Costs 95,445 27,418 29,261 11,715 10,700 6,385 11 ,996 14,147 207,067 Total Costo 1.908,900 548,360 585,220 2J4, ;W.i 214,000 127,700 239,920 282,940 4,141 ,340 50-Year INTERCEPTOR MAY CREEK KENNYDALE HONEY DEW MOTH SE SOUTHEAST LOWE' NW NORTHEAST LAKE BOREN and TOTAL ALTERNATIVES "A-A" "A" "A" "B„ "A„ Total Capital Cost $1 ,316,525 $378,1',6 $403,399 $161,575 $147,573 $ 88,073 $165,458 $195,127 $2,856,107 Annual Capital Costl 26,330 7,564 8,072 3,232 2,951 1,761 3,309 3,903 57,122 Sewer 0 & M2 3,949 1,135 1,211 485 443 264 496 585 8,568 Lift Station 0 & M3 --- --- --- --- --- -"- --- --- --- Overhead4 10,532 3,UZ6 3,229 1,293 1,180 704 1,324 1 ,561 22,849 Annual Costs 40,811 11725 12,512 5,U10 4,574 2,729 5,129 6,049 88,539 Total Cost6 2,040,550 586:250 625,600 250,500 228,700 136,450 256,450 302,450 4,426,950 IDivide the total capital cost by design, period 21C% end 15% of aural capital cost respecrively for 20-year and 50-year 3 From Exhibits 1 and 2 (See Volume IV) 435`/. and 4v/ of annual capital cost respectively for 20-year and 50-year 5Sum of annual capital cost respectively for 20-year and 50-year 6Annual cost times design year - 7lncludes capital costs of replacing mechanical and electrical equipment of lift stations -18- 5 f� COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS MAY CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN ALTERNATIVE N0. 3 ("B") 20-Year INTERCEPTOR MAY CREEK KENNYDALE HONEY DEW 110TH SE SOUTHEAST LOWER NW NORTHEAST LAKE BOREN TOTAL and np ALTERNATIVES nBu npn np„ "Bit "A"*„* npn upn"A"* Total Capital Cost $ 970,994 $378,176 $403,599 $161,575 $ 74,928 $ 88,073 $35,084 $184,003 $2,296,432 48 550 18,909 20,180 8,079 3,746 4,404 1,754 9,_:JO 114,822 Annual Capital Cost' Sewer 0 & M2 4,855 1,891 2,018 808 375 --440 -_175 - 920 11, __ 41 ,050 Lift Station 0 & M3 41:0508 6,640,188 - Overhea64 16,993 6,ti18 7,263 2,715 5 432 6,385 543 3,340 07,542 Annual Cos 5 111,448 27,418 29,261 11,7t5 5,432 6,385 0 860 66,800 15 ,840 Total Cost 2,22B,960 548,360 585,220 234,300 108,640 127,700 50,860 266,800 4,150,840 50-Year INTERCEPTOR MAY CREEK KENNYDALE HONEY DEW 110TH SE SOUTHEAST LOWER NW NORTHEAST LAKE BOREN and TOTAL ALTERNATIVES nB„ npn npn uB„ npnit npn up,,.k npn* Total Capital Cost $1 ,127,1637 $378,176 $403,599 $161,575 $ 74,928 $ 88,073 $35,084 $184,003 $2,452,601 Annual Capital Cost 22,543 7,564 8,072 3,232 1 ,498 1,761 702 3,680 49,052 Sewer 0 & M2 3,381 1,135 1 ,211 485 225 --264 - 105 - 552 7,358 43,150 Lift Station 0 & M3 43,1508 --- --- "-- Overhead 4 9 017 3,026 3,229 1,293 599 704 281 1,472 -9,62t Annual Costs 78,091 11,725 12,512 0,500 6,100 2,729 1,088 5,204 119,181 Total Cost6 3,904,550 586,250 625,600 _250,500 116,t00 136,450 54,400 285,200 5,959,050 1Divide the total capital cost by design period 2107, and 151. of annual capital cost respectively for 20-year and 50-year 3From Exhibits 1 and 2 (See Volume IV) 4351; and 407. of annual capital cost respectively for 20-year and 50-year 5Sum of annual capital cost, sewer 0 & M, lift station 0 & M, and overhead 6An*ual cost, times design year 7Includes capital costs of replacing mechanical and electrical equipment of lift stations 860% of the maximum lift station 0 & M cost *Less Portions _22- 00 fi� 1 -- p� 1 L.I.D. 296 �- - 1 --- --< BOUNDARY PROPOSED Z./Q BGY/ill44RY a �� PkbPbSEO / RrE - 1 i � 1 + b � t I i I f i tr O + i' A1IAPNIC S(4LE 1 I + LECENO CITY OF RENTON PROPOSED MANHOLES 1 -- PROPOSED SANITARY SEWERS LI. D. N0. 301 � PROPOSED XENNYDALE INTERCEPTOR MANHOLES •- PROPOSED XENNYDALE INTERCEPTOR SANITARY PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM ' SFWERS i A EXISTING MANHOLES ------- EXISTING SANITARY SEWERS MAP 3 w.�rr L 1 D NU. 296 BOUNDARY I COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS MAY CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN ALTERNATIVE NO, 3 ("C") 20-Year INTERCEPTOR and MAY CREEK KENNYOAL? HONEY DEW 110TH SE SOUTHEAST 1_C!4ER NW NORTHEAST LAKE BOREN ALTERNATIVES "C" "A"* "A" "B"* "A"* "A"* "A"* "A"* TOTAL Total Capital Cost $1,263,0-',8 $325,795 $403,599 $52,882 $ 74,928 $ 74,231 $35,084 $184,003 $2,413,560 Annual Capital Cost' 63,152 16,290 20,180 2,644 3,746 3,712 1,754 9,200 120,678 Sewer 0 & M2 6315 1,629 2,018 264 375 371 176 920 :2,068 Lift Station 0 & M' 88:1508 --- --- --- --- --- --- .-- 88,150 Overhead4 22,103 5,702 7,063 925 1,311 1 ,299 614 3,220 42,237 Annual Costs 179,720 23,621 29,261 3,833 5,432 5,332 2,544 13,340 263,133 Total Cost 3,594,400 472,420 585,220 76,660 108,E+40 107,640 50,880 266,800 5,262,660 50-Year INTERCEPTOR MAY CREEK. KENNYDALE HONEY DEW 110TH SE SOUTHEAST LOWER NW NORTHEAST LAKE BOREN and - TOTAL ALTERNATIVES 'Oct. "At'* "A" "Buy, "A"* "A"* "An* "A"* Total Capital Cost $1,623,9237 $325,795 $403,599 $52,88'. $ 74,928 $ 74,231 $35,084 $184,003 $2,774,44i Annual Capital Costl 32,478 6,516 8,072 1,058 1,498 1,485 702 3,680 55,489 Sewer 0 & M2 4,872 977 1,211 159 225 222 105 552 8,323 Lift Station 0 & M3 92,6008 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 92,600 Overhead4 12,991 2,607 3,229 423 599 594 281 1 ,472 22,196 Annual Cost5 142,941 10,100 12,512 1,640 2,322 2,301 1,088 5,704 178,608 Total r,ost6 7,147,050 505,000 625,600 82,000 116,100 115,050 54,400 285,200 A. "O 400 IDivide the total capital cost by design period ` 210% and 15% of annual capital cost respectively for 20-year and 50-year 3From Exhibits 1 and 2 (See Volume IV) 433% and 40% of annual capital cost respectively for 20-year and 50-year 5Sum of annual capital cost, sewer 0 & M, lift station 0 & M, and overhead 6Annual cost ti.nes design year 7Includes capital costs of replacing mechanical and electrical equipment of lift stations 860% of the maximum lift station 0 & M cost *Less Portions -24- i f i r t COMMENTS AND RESPONSES C w, i , C F �.a E - % a ftEC1,IVC-U a!-_.ri';�11 ;lEl, 11975 7S WASHIN; WASHINGTON ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL f ;70N ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL M.W.k ;,, '- 107 SOUTH •AAIN, SEATTLE,WA. 99104/611-103 107 SOItTN MAIN, tEATTLE,WA."IN/pl I4113 A .uwr•n•c..v [w+e •,,.�,.. Neeember 24, 1975 , uu M •- • �y.• +�..�_� Nr. Riwnd Thlol, C41d .iv..• woo-S'...w. Iry t 'cation Mwem 975 ber J6, / .'�v$"-" fenlrorrental 3 'w`• Mnirors ul Proteetlen Agency « 1200 Slrth sweats, t•7.�v: 1yY"" Nr. Rl toe M Thiel, Chief Seattle, w ahl"ton 911101 -. 1 a+r Irirnmental Lrot0 Section try yi�• . lr.nmenta Proteetlon Agency .wexty � 1200 Sirlth Aveppe ` . Washington 98101 �« RRI Cot: cept tire--Commity reec111t1es rim Lie, r"7: {,.1 w• Seattle, Yaahl w m for ehmtewter treatment worts Deder M f�� a.rd near Mr. 7hi e1: )e�"tu"• t.o.r FL 500 May cnt DWatrgs strict a (,,,,.,tits• �� p,'�'s'i�•� "I,, n, King county Water District m.rrr w� It Me been brought to the attention of the WRC that ,;,, a"""�" An, Draft lknlroracntal Ienpet Statewnt To, ••• w.w. 1..1. D. 296, X-oveydale S.vLLtaT7 Sever ' e c,:.r.7.....rr.• hours. Yal'axe and Rehuredy, Ine.,conau]Cants wMay Creak '^'""�, •.• Doulaot. Crty of Renton, Sept. 1975 w`"". .•..wwea.... sever interceptor, were Got A." of all aspect. of the YSC M"•<'a`ewer ,M� n Ont of the My x o.'i °l. .r.•'•b`r alternate proposal — MR lath/SR 96th ezistins . facilities. '"+.�. asses r.na e•.. arr.,ts� 1.. r..r..l.wee.. Therefore, Mocoad WallaceYallaee a Kennedy, inc. DID NOT 6hw1 Llg1T eal). y Creole Interceptor p publish any-Sne.wpinte at effecil.enees analysle. _ r....rw . v�w.l.., Gear Nr. 7h'.ell VW - .•..+..•� hereby retracts the statement on cape me, Stem 2 .", ..�..+.�•+�.+� and viehe.hes 1t to be Yawn to all parties concerned. The Counill ;r.3.'"7•e....r.� � Wuhim"O^ ?I9 series Coeml tlee ..wrnrr.. ho es that the rlterrate has oaraful/y studied the sup eat cost efreotivenemm sell sit anf D proposal offered by VRC Se studied 1n •i,wl�'.`rr a+ draft statement. The Coumll'vlsbes to ofu its o Snlom detail prior to any, aetforo in Mry Creek. , • re-emphe w I. wj,tlaw ew„F r.4 we •,ar,r.w, thenrding the Basin,Propu--d ooratrvct ion of savor 1pterwytoro within the NOT Crock Eulnl e..e.w Vm... 7.7 Truly Tours, 'w'f.'o°r'',,"""'• "'lei.' z f...e..e.r. 1) l'M Sepaat of tM ro osed C�.'....+,xv... Park 1. .. D D l ellty Rath Rles t't 1. I.n �•^'•Mwg"o"•//v"r •� G� ��/ :M ....�. y of Iding 6" PNnees I and Il, will nlpnifiw^tly affect la erceee ����•w Mark Iozzin Martin Saker .�.`��.•�„ of ti000 avoua of aalnly urdwaloPed 3eM in the Nq Crwk �•K.le'vs,r.e...., Cairman, STS Revlew Connittee 6tecutira Diractor �"'� ar le"lorge Suin. Ths constrwptlw of ewer intereectorm will .y„ 3' a:..rr► etfmulate populatlan Lhoreasea which .0.11 oUwrwlu be halt '»Ap. ad to lower densitlss. Local, atate and fedaml agmO1H Eel: ,— cc. Walrent C,cra e.Aw.r are regn1md by Is. to Drepp e a detailed VS persumit to N„�,,, Gordon YegvaR 68PA and M64k prier to fwwLhs aM corutmetl.hc mrp and ell e..r. Awary Garret ^"'e1,TY . ,,, chews of the May Creek IPterceptor Sy.tm. '1 e..• Willi" Grant y � +.a�, 2) more, wllece a 6mIedy, lar. co.uultmts for both Icing �. �.w�„••++•'•'• RicMrd StmUcke a wP'+` County Water Distrust Ns. /01 aad SM City of Renton. Mwe Henry NaPrllough ..�.r., knowingly pibliahsd m Incomplete coat effeotiemase ualyml• •`^'SIR e'. Rocord-Chsmlele '�'++'•�e^m of possible altmmitieec rn Oarmrlog alrry urhnlled area. - ,W '+�•�, Moore, Wallace A sen,lejy, Inc, In the owthvestmrn portion of Ny Creek Resin. b- m —Q'a PSCOG 1) Altstnstive ^A^ PINI In the Craft EIS for L.I.D. 296 Friends of the earth and described In tM Cent itffretieeuvs Analyafe. sup"r,,ed Sierra Club M EIIID DEDICATED 70 TM PHOIAKQ1 NOF CITIZEN,LEGISLATIVE AAZIAD:.DIIISTGATIVE ACTION!IMAM PG0VI01CG AfMITE"EmVIMWENCaT ) tJ f T h _ VIC anrante, cent -3- V.x ceoaa+rte . oat. Mev,21, 1975 Moe, 24. 1975 pr. Richard 11ki^l W. Richard Th1e1, dt by Rope, Wallue d Menmgy, Ines, 1e Jac less eset-offretin them the 6V.WLEfI R.L. 2dth{3 B th alter s:in prePesed by WiC for won"ciM t; Merepdala a.. Tb WW atuy yr."..mLOS the arlating collector Bever and sapplomoating this ALTWArE 2&14003 SWn ^ utility with a parallel de tater«Ptor on B.S. 211th/S.R. 96th. The total MR SIP91rTAL9 (and looney Der) coat of this altematlre avoid be ab«t i55.000 and a amstani «rings Over, altpnrtt« 'I'. Which Vy. the heal raslaveet of RerO f 0 an bmlrth asked to fen L.I.D. 296 Intat rill f?I=.mlT :M tint Band• of phase I Of the My Crank Fa-singles Iny CONMtor I.W.I.he city of Banton,to their treat fEIS,loo pnpon. using a B D75C0:/SIOB My Creak ad Rer Sntexeyton to ee13aM the afllu«t from Wart ape Boot gomndelo Intoreopton. While the city to oom-a of the «let1M ameer utility on S.R. yells, It aWS not mmtlawd In the, draft M. 'pe City of ment•n is the VFi' racoMJie,@ that the develop" sees In tM bortbreetarn portion of per Ceeek obrlootly proceeding on the vFap:ivn that the May Creek Intanpptor ri'1 be .ill most likely have to be seeved by monitory seven aometiee in tM hymn. The federally funded, even them! it /B Wt the meet wot-affartj" meoru of amr- probleas nooltLM from eOptle tank efile en in ton dela can be serious and the Moira tM BOmgMle area. Local reel is ehMId at lmoet hare the benefit Council smplorts ofrorte to correct this mitmtim. Bommor, VMC flnde that the of kmnime tbat a more coot-dfaetl« Slternetlee n1o4. Mmy, Imply m- projutt as yces«t" in Na moot off«ti vaeee amlyeL, le eat«led to Prose'.f.yt n-Ming the erloti.W mover collector on S.E. 2eth/S,S. 96th. It ahoold be Opted develaPment of s larCe portico, of the pay Crest Basin ntbor than providing Oar.- that ti:e tenovyaphy In the K"Witale area nataaly drOinm In the direction vle« to Merupdsle and part of for:"-r Bar. It is mn coot effeetln ad loom mo- of B.E. 2eth and ultinotalr into pay Creek (a« m, attached, altenati"s s1' vi rvaent�7 Bay dngradlag to imt011 s collector rear along B.B. 20th/E.r, 96th Bed 'S' (onr the Coot &JoCtieane« Aralyeie appsmdir). Olen In «I.tirz d' onto la epenti oral than It a.uA be to eoeatroot the pro- The R.S. Mth/b.S. %th eol2aator. as pmrosed by WW. le a eeablmtim of L.e reed polo Croat and Mamndals IntereeptOre to a-21 " yempdale, n-Iat Lug a- min afth s nee letrreepter also Be bat possibly 10'. Rhin ".ten free-rdlM to tho Coot Uractivemos Mnlyela. phase I and aepu ha « ially phase II ,cold be ffleian oo enyM t to servi the entire Ile are d a a the r inaevered pc _ or the Illy Creek Tntenmptor System a1 algerlfieantir Lout ever 6000 arrev Lion of Sonar Do, if necesoor7. Thie parallel de (or 10e) min guild be grout or mdevploped load in tM Burn ( oee map Be. 2. oo. i,so«s la. to. 7.6.7,e.9. eligible for 90% fondly from federal and state sour-es 1f approved, Deceuer t D,il.vd ti)• Capital [bade for thin pnjact are en,et" to come from the of the staeP slope lO,,Ji y, dorm from the votively Portion of terupdalo, a amller )heiaeeasntwl Proteet_en A envy (7%). VaMlMtca State WPazbeat of Ital-g7 diameter pipe can be —d 1- e011112001 tc 24' 11 the Kay Creak Valley ardar the (19fG) Ord to a leaser ertent from loaf moore« (W,;). All levels Of goeaRaent eamo load eorditfam. .nrc reoponefble for Lwring that the moat -oat eff«tlee -"roach la adopt". r,p mallelted -met for OOletreaOtiQ of an SntarceptOr from:Ian Role 'B', near For "I. reavion the, VW V informed the appreprlatm reaponelbla efficlels that Ito 109" ire. S.E. to S.S. 28th street to t Inclu irpld am a 0a the other heedv they rr " se ntmveal an alternative for redeM l lo.ewgdale via M.E. 18tb vhtch oa b had t nitomec ti S.A. "tir/S.t, 96th IOutrrooptor ing the - txaetlon et a been Oddresend in thm Nntroemoohl Ismeeament for the proposed project. «n1101 Se line it Only 335.4m (estimated). Cl«r>,rt theIntbr Proposal is Tta Wi'X ,Jtom tin pus outlined at the pablle hear1M On the draft EIAO held O ambea'tti see ally n cost-tf[e-tive («a Coble m page /), - JOee i0, 1975 by tM Board of Comlevineerr for IAM County Water District h !. ' gftor Itowthly diacuanlon,the "lie 0,,1 +seared by the gomelssion that the s fdM AUR MIJAX70 STSM 28th/S.F.. 96tn elsernatln raid be csnh117 eomidared In the Coot Sff«tIOnrMP , Analysis prepared by Mocro, Walla.. d Tefaedy, Inc. Imt«d. the attlyels Otet'd ZIM IRBId AilD IO;.P Cll'gCm only atr Iltermtiet — hu the poselbIlly of belrel able to Dyed OR tam dus Lm eriteris fond In the Coo YYfoctlreneu Io s Pnoond teen both ng line rttet and rust ly under l floe fete by Moon, wall.. h Remedy, Ise., the totalsevade loom area a:M or tM the existing vA that toes * Waskj under Satrnttte rerwpdaCo area by the year 2000 la ,e'19 (egd). Details us farad m pB.S, tablet, Iitgarsy a05 (ad fete •M Lae lalddngtoo Inbrerytor). h tM Cost rtfcetiveresa dmmrmt, the .mat Oeeterly Mrtfma of the orleting Sys ts is mr drrrit" and ranId revolt In reourtrm.tlm, which «eta ( e-mrenlm• .tp`) (Bed) :m 562 (g/nin) = 1,25 (efm) J rain tM taltial noactraeeloo poet of tlternotlea 'll' p1 Da1 eonnitar.bly higher the aItacn the 'I'$ tMnfen tM riC MmLVt formula for eireular 2o Rov1mC full, g ,Otj oeeatructloo eoe.t vne me onver" in detail 6-02). APPlylng !Mire f(gmr^t, the minlmm acceptable niepe for a c1Mle serer lntor - Tip UM coat elfcetivrn. : study ra:rir" ►elnr domo Roy Oobatentists this ao«rt- ^.enter B' diameter eaanble of hwidliM the p-v&ct d load ftaO N«gdale by the Rao. yev 2000 (1.25 ere.) would be .01 ft./ft Ot 1M per 1000, ran. - In tie meant that the e_fstfM 0e srser min does net meet them regalrementa. a r -29- ti i I 5STIMA WLI CORSTAUCTIOK IH E 7UC CREEK IKTlF.CCT'WR ,SL'ISPNATIY���A' N�tTl1 gpUIYA'CMf <CHVICSS Lino• 0vanti% Description Unit Cost " Line Coat Loral Coec •• into. from Cot:-Ff:er-ive Nva64t of Onlca at Units A����e5AD--May Cfee� tb�Pnegc 95s:n (pagee ;4 and 15 41XO Appendix). :B 1700 LP 8" Grwt�y Sever 5 I3107 3 13,619 RXHIDIT :1$, i 19 290 LP 10" Gravity Sever 21.63 7.792 i 20 480 LF 10" Gravity Swer 52.63 13.33P 21 250 LF 15" Gravity Swer 27.01 6938 j 9 !A Svendacd Kanaelss 900.00 4:100 ^ I{f Combined Cont of 43 EA Kill Holder, j 110.00 4.730 v Alternativa "A" 1n ]EIS e Ee da ` t EA �treaa Creulnp 10,400.00 10,400 I • for L.L D. 296 lasaL c end want Xennydala intercep-I TOTAL 3 86,957 ton 209,257 _ MAY CRCEK/KENNYDALE I27TE.",CEGTOR (from M.N. "3'^ 7XHtIIY" 115 7 3000 LF 24"Gravlty S 17,40 3 9 EA Standard M.N. 300.00 d,1C0 TOTAL :_ l rMAL COST r.P KENNYDALE AND �i%Y CREEK INT»'RCEMRS s 2 .. J. Total Coat of gashin;,eon N.e. 2d / S.t, nb'" INTERCEPTOR ALT_RNATE ':nvironmental Council'. 7000 LF 3"Cravlty ;ewer f :5.-0 $ 4.000 } Altornate Proponal-- 3 B EA Standard M,N, 000.00 00 5,9 P.E. 2_1' plus improvement •------- 1 1.:o _ TOTAL- 0 1� 1 W O 1 I y 6 t1r O O n �- � p 3• y�• » �� �;Vs ey � mn '• � i��3 ne�� � � �i�i �� � 3E g5 =aL ?s �s S$4`� s5xi es 1j�j ,pr ». ; �.. . r•� '1 • O O O M a 6 O 9 ^ • y , P • A`a gOV y�P{{ppn 7� ��y• a T 90 • yS Y � a»� "� 9 $^g8 3. ge � oRV °» a �,�i� �vyi.•. aC S� t � • y n r� v y•t � a �Fa y 9e � o � j M1t ! i3 i +.r +Y e"i 4A r70 as ► al Y f ... OMW s A }T A s v 1 a _ . . . - yisgT ayi Jv wpwTaJ ..,�ei 'fPa}q 4 aaRlr/l •uoaM i9vetTK_aT� rSiiDwaSS luaVvW r ie•a9 waTiTTtI x iaixv9 L}ua Sau4ah i •J - uaaaaf ll SIaA .. voawoy e.+�an Leo . - _ »Sawa Pl uTaroaaA .wii1�'J �T�Mt Fib �vsata¢i aaiay vTin11 �soT •p }aW / r _.. - - - � r. J btu✓, .���i- .J /.lam/. LOW S .A _ J J 516t 'ti •sat J {{7 z A , LEGEND KENNYDALE INTERCEPTORb + C LINE NUMBER OF UNIT COST FIGURE 11 II ' ALTERNATIVE ,� GRAVITY SEWER SHEET I OF I ExHiBir € SCALE 0 400 600 1200 1 I�N�1 FEET \�t. r-`t- -�^� v If L191 �- . T 1� i pPP ACE Ir / nr ry 0 Z �w L EDMGNDB - - ..REN 0 Iz 70 AVE. K!I DAYT��ON 4 OF--- �- 7N DAY z N.E N.E. ;$" I 00 o F Cam.A^ AeE. NE hT I o IZ F 1�13 K-,3 S� ABENOEEN AVE..i ~ r G� r � n K-R � w �`�` �•` L- �,+, ! w ti ._ `— MONTEREY �♦ ` `` - f 17 MONTEREY CT Jy1pNTEREY AVER NE. v . N.E. 300 K-3Ro N.E. — ry 9 P LINCOLN AVE NE $ y : w -� aP�j� ) ��� i[r'•. �— A- L YEh. __ ,E N.E. iyIn � I —�..\_ zi' ` I E EV EN TAfi�) �. I w a '. •/ 'f,. OL FAI 405 LEGEND KEN# YDALE INTERCEPTORS NUMBER OF U 1 FGUFL IS AL-rERNATIy_E_ `'B11 laT(NG CANITA RY 'EVIER:EVIER _ ICE MAIN U SHE-` I OF II AVITY SEVIER SCALE oo, EXHIBIT NC. 9 IN FEET kloum-E!9r'xr i rr I I j•— �, H 0pp0. tZ`N aVE N.E. _ T W rl ry N L�1 � y -- FG� 7 y �U -- EUMONOS AVE. S.E. rn`?cN AV OP.70N AVE.DDAY—TON—J AVE. �i NE j " YI CAMAS in a cy 1; _ H ^ \A' AVE. — N til t� \1 0 ABERO EN AVE. N X. _ r {`m- 4 n MONTEREY MONTEKc. CTM NTER Y AVE. NE. h.E. K J rJ vE. N.E. to N.E. ----- Iv 11/ -IJ -x� � I Kw'9 — HENN WICK W � AVE. N.E. r c aoZS �h 1 14 I ac c l 4 I- W �,/ fy JONFS 07 0 I I N.E EY' T1 G 8" 1 _j(ry �, r j y\ / IQ n �rI .+.<.:. _ --t._--•r —t _LL'_ .w ry.p.s..c.i�'C•�+a risu-� aie.Qu T y I-I MENNYOAL rY W .� �IO TS / .' ELESteN'A � zE•{afi.• " �' _ A,.�o..r scraOL rN 405 �rx aF: +' ` a¢e�:c:_._.r ^ar:.�'z" _,,....:....®.,.�.>,.- -.. - .. _ :._: ;n,. -.wr•: -�fi:r.. , - w.., 1 '...Ir� m wc.r , I '. --! i��, . •il , 6 _ I I+ .. 1 1 Pi - _. .,,..qr ,ate, A Ll . � LEI a: ', c q� I�� Ji i�ti• � I � .'`l, � �� �9��i ��l t �' _..\ t�-'�� 1 �" ` �.I �ti -GF'��J ,i✓I � '� •.�' i/ , ')'ram if — � •N'• ' :;i-iRax.� � i <- f� � 3J213 _� � �- ter,. y�l - ; �� ._.1.J � _IL S � 1 1 (, ✓•. ' .+-tIII1I� „ .� i 1f -\iL1 l..L. IN, c r fl .I JI1 riss..�./ 11 � �� 7i • I (r i r^I !'r/.T,.w. ..✓' ) 1 - - . It I, I T. �—ifis r W. o I• f'J `�—��J LS -- __-���yi �_ �•C� —.ter—p? o� y; ;Ufk iz J .``!^ Lam--' �— �4�—,j. ' '.,_,; -•C..,k,� �� - 8ostha8iiur- j ✓���`� L._. i =3MANN3A4M - 4 t" uJ h: f� ` ► "~ � ...� .-fir,• •-.. ._. „���., �, y , 61PORE WALLACE&KENNEDY.INC. ENGINEERS r_ANNER9 • SURVEYORS _ U<cember 11, 1475 Ox FeCmlrorrenGl Page Z 0eceaber 11. 1975 4. The costs cunt feel in the November 24th letter are pur- ported construction costs and is not a cost-effectiveness Wuhtogton Envlrollaental Cmncll analysts. A cost-effe•tleecass a.utlysis to the true 107 South train total -oats over a stated period of time for construction, Stitt it, Yashintoo 98104 operation, mrinteiarnce and replacement costa. The 20-year and 50-year coal-effectiveness for the proposed WIC route A'.tn: Mr. harts. Baker is $AW.580 aid $772,550, rnapectivelr, greeter than Executive Di­,to, Alternste "A." SIINJECT: COST-EFFECTIVLSA4E AMALTSIS FOR SEWER INTERCEPTOIIS - �. We believe that the environementsl impart rerALing from the ORMIIIIT iACILITItl PIAII POR WASTIYATER TRGTMENT construction of the Nav Creek and Rennydate interceptors 1g11M< UMOER PL 9I-500 NAT CIM ORAIMAGE BASIN• V06. IVt (Alternate "A") Will be leis tine from the cnna.raetion of i_gy CCIMITY WATER DISTRICT 310. 107 AND the M.E. 28th/S.E. %tb route. Altercate "A" route IS its- DRAFT LMVIROIBUJRAI. IMPACT STATEMENT FOR L.I.D. W. 2% 1000 liner feet shorter (397% I.f vs. 4925 I.f.) and its- -�. verses a Itghliv onpulated area and offers potential conuec- [AINTDAI.E SAMITART S6tAII PROJFl7. CITY OF RLNTO floe of that ar is. r., public sarvlce. The M.E. 28th/S.E. 96th SEPTPN6fR 197?SPMASE —[—or THE MAy GRELM JWFACERW route fa loolp,, an! traverse. a hatrIly populated area Witch MOPOEf_j is already served by pvtrlic sereral therefore, the remittances do not have the Sff.e -e advantage of connections to public Cesrleslrn: severe for the disrupt. n of streets in this area. We have reeloved your letter of Sivember 24, 1975 and believe that it con- b. The Movenuer 2.th letter purports to or far m e rates Irons error in the purx,rted cost-effectivpmoss study contained e so. b .. e riot vas not [unmanly considered. This la mot s.. therein. COST CONSIDEMTIOAS The acalysin rontatne, _e Moveabar 24 letter is In anion to several '---'-------_-- ....a as (.11ces The WEC route reyulres the crostruet/cal of 4925 I.f. of sealer It... genetell long a route on City streets oa Which mostly .11 fronting lots contain real- 1. TM amount of $35,400 stated 1n the letter as the conatrw Ilon denies, With a total of 43 hoar-. Additionally, there are S3 homes no dead- cost for the proposed 12C M.E. 28th/S.E. %th route omit-• in end al rents, a lerge elementary school and the Griffin R.-Frlmds of the our opinion, n ,.. itra. of necessary conitructlon. Our Ymirh fronting on the route. The vast majority of thes' homes and the school e at Late to provide nera..ary weewtre. I. II 06,821. are already severed by means d an existing public System. Mich the City of Renton advises to overlosaed. 2. The aaovnt of $209.25: Stated as the construction coat of Alternate "A' Is an incorrect estraction (Ina the content We find . Substantial difference to the It.., fast of pipe '.quit" nod the of Volume IV. Th. correct sawnr la $10,561. need for other far, ,ties rot cn.e'dered to the WEC estimate. 3. The total constructing Cost to Steve L.I.D. No. 296 Will In order to prml.e interceptor service to the L.I.D. No. 296 srvz along the be, Inur...cd by $L.6,766 (S206.M27 - $30,561). using the N.E. 2Eth/S.E. 96th reite, it will be necessary to c.netr.rt a eetrate lift EEC route. AS a ae9uence, the total amount of asses.- start.. edjmcent to Manhole R-2, its shorn on Euhtbit Mo. 8, Volume IV. Prom or to be paid by the rc.1d,.c.y of L.I.U. Mo. 296, If this lift notion, a e in ma World n.o nouthrinwil EC 'pure Is utilleed, will Increa.e. rly .. ..law),Heregravity sealer cu - tained cord casing Jacked under Highway 405 to the West aide of M igbvay 405'n Thence, the sewage .11 ft. by gvvity never westerly .o M.C. 28th St., Park Avemro and M.E. 28th Place to Bureett Avenue, southerly 1913 fits,.vFMIF•YwrME,WAWataitON 0.101•1.62a'2422 t .— Nicest,, 11, 1975 Perennial 11, 1975 Washington Ervirnasental Council Y.sfLneeon E.Vlrcessuct.l Council Fags i Page 4 on A.". ,. r to lake Washington 111". and then southeasterly steer Iwke The amount of $U,951 uhtrh was obtafned from Table 7 of Volume TV /s In Weabt.7; 61". to a connection With the 96-Lw:h METRO trunk. Inrorc'et e.trartlnn Iva Volume 1V. This particular table deal* with the Cost-E'fectiveasos Analysis of tf May Creek Interceptor only and does not A comparison of the ronntructlm costs fa a follows: have any beaffog on the cost eft. .iVeres, of providing Interceptor service to I.A.D. 1b. 296. WEC ystiete (Pare A - Now. 24 letter) We refer you to !able 11 of Volum ]Y, which is the correct table to be nand 20110 I.f. A" It.. p $I S.W/l.f- - S 30,000 In regard to if. Keseyd.le Intercept... With the -films of s lift al.ttc. Adjacent to Mamhole 1.2 (Eshfbit /6-Vol. IV)• the cost. of the dwnatream 6 esrh Standard ..hot.. P $900/c.. - _1400 portiom of the Kennydale Interceptor from Manhole K-7 to Manhole M-K/M-9 Is 75,400 a. fellows: WAR Reticle Use, 1 275 I.F. 10" . -vity ltever P 1152.S0/I.f. . S 14.570 -------- Line 2 150 I.f. 15' 8*VItr sewer P $27.94/1.f. 4.191 puts, Sta• an adjacent to Manhole K-2 - $ 39."JO 1 each Standard armhole 1 $900/ea. - 900 - (P.dr[t is, V.I. IV) 5 ell It 11111 holders a $)10/ea. 5w esrh Stream receiving P $10,4 Wlca. - _10.40U 1525 1.1. f 10" force m+in to east side of . 31.001 $ 30,561 ' Iltgh., 405 at W.E. 291h p $20.32/l.f. It apK.rx that YEC in its of[ottlt to present the eon*rruc[fon of the Maw 196 I.f. J6" jacked casing clatter Itigiv:. ant - 37,436 Creek Interceptor to contending tint L.I.D. go. 296 wa•Id he bcarin, 71 o*L It S191 h.t. of part of the May Creek Interceptor. Since the May Creek Inter,eptor wl it Ise actually weed and operated by METRO- the cost. of c...i,.rltng vllt 6e I S,v, al o[rawce manhole l."O Mere by MEIaO. Those ,it. Will be reimbursed to METRO in the form of monthly service clorgeo for the ... of either 0-- e.i.t/ng 96-1 Mh METRO 710 I.f. 17` 0.1 sever pipe in cast-, P 5,250 Interceptor or the proposed May Creek (METRO) Incercaltnr. $7$/t.f. to vest aide of Miglrway 405 in fact, the rosin of providing services to the L.T.D. via the W.E. 281h/S.P, 34M I.f. 12" T,,avlty sever P $33.85/i.f. SI,O90 16tL rwte would increase the saavot of assess•eent to Lim e/tlaens :n flit L.I.D. _ from were afde of Mlghway 405 to METRO area 'Fare the cmmtructloa coats .111 be increased A. follows: I rued WEC (W.E. 28[h/5.9. %th) 3206,872 13 Spar tat aw sin ten 0 37501.. - 9.750 Less Llnee 1 and 2 6 Poe Sl it lea _3f!`561 I ConneetI. to MEfKO Manhole 1,So) $206 83/ Increased Costs $176.764 Olen-lwsly. many constrw'tinn it.. ameesaaq for the am Vicing of L.LR. We. Cr.:nlnb the rltlaons of the L.I.O. 296 would be receiving a financial •- 2% hero been emitted eras if,, WEC estimate of costs. favor by utLII,l., the proposet WC route. Not ..I/ 1. ale construction ,"nt $176,766 &,rater, but the Z11-year um 50-ye.. ...t effertivertes. 1. $4W 5S0 Your letter alleges that the Aiteraste "A' route halt a construction coat of and $772.550• respectively• grcntec files attached table). SZ09,2S7 and Implice that all of this cast Is being assessed against the cost- of L.I.M. Me. 296. The amount of $209.251 coast I of two Its* ae follows! INTACT CLFSIDGMYOIIS WC (par, 4 - how. 24 letter) It to •rated in the Movender 74,h letter Lost the uivinmment,i do„ad.tion of Y.trucrieg the Y.E. 28th/S.E. %th Interceptor far L.1.a. No. Z% 1. Kramydale Interceptor 3 98,957 less tier. she eoastracclen of the May Creek (METRO) Interceptor sad I.Inea I May Creek Interceptor $120,300 and 2 of the Keenydale Interceptor. We have sprat many years destraing sewer r -36- i i i Decesbcr 11, 197N Mecesber 8, 1975 Washing`. Covirnnmenral Cauneii Washington Envlrosaental Cowell Page 5 Page 6 The Alterate 'A" reate could cause disruption of eyater pr.lec[s in Mich every effort sore carted t. pnov[de the 'I"' access ask other inconveniences to only 17 Loaves. dagrmatfon i" the areas of the prefaeta. We Submit the fol:sn"A Envtron- These ewers could have an opporumi[y to connect rental Analysis: to public severs. WEC M.L. 26th S.S. Birth folrte {. The total traffic lion w M.E. 28th/S.E. 96th route is substantially Fisher tits- no lone. Avenue. The traffic flo- on I ke Washington Blvd. end Barnett This ,,are repel res the comt,wtlan of . facility cons/sting of a Pun, au- Avenue skim serves City areas other thsn the con- tlon ask 4925 I.f. of 5~1 line along an eastaent, K,uevlck Place. P.E. 78th atruction route will be disrupted. Street, Park Avenue, S.E. 2gth place, Surmtt Arrears, ask Lake Washlnitton Blvd., plus an underground "..I.$ of Nlglwny 405. Generally this route trove le 5. Total traffic flow, nor Jones Avenue and S.E. 93rd along first ask second ells. City strata on vhlch all fronting lots cons.In Street 10 very aril, slot- [sae or reefs serve a1y e sidemen vlth a total of 63 home.. Akfi[ton.11y, there are 51 hoar, on dead- 17 Is .e.. There 1s r other traffic iron otM" City eM streets +here access la only From M.S. 28th Street. In addition, a large area.. el,rntary school and the Crilfln Naar-friends of the youth front can the route. The vast r2orlfy of these boles and tit ack al are already remered 6. our past record of alt/ga[Lsg the sheets of caratrue- by .ems of en ewlstlac p.,hl'c -1-ter- tin. .it in May Crask ....row that the fisheries I. the strew, will be Preserved. Further, w belteve that Mitigating the Ingest of the Construction effort Alternate "A" I. the park to. be readily achieved. This route re9nl res the ronsttvettoo of 3925 l.f. o: sever, of rhich 425 I-f. mm" lien In on easement vlthir rise Cwnnty Park ask 35W I is wltmg S.E. 91,d In awry, an, vJ.t. to eke the fnlloNnR c--t-: _ S"e't lad Jones Avenue, plas or acder-rreh cross I". ! arse: cl+t vhieh the line Is rooted Is an ..Id County road AM Is ciaasiflee .6 A pear City 1. The May Crest (MEM) lntercptor 1. Intended to serve the entire May street. There ors . [oral of eight bower =loog thin route, none of vh fell are Creek Main. This van the scoPt of the Step 1 r"'lity Plan Strdy- eervM by public severs. Addlt/ertally, there eel -Ine hmaes w[erly of the conntrurt'w area that leant have ac ass on Jones Avenue ask S.K. 91rd Street. 2. That portion of the May Creak Dr.lmge Pool. on both aide. of May Creek wss[erly of 116th Avery S.S. Is poet con[-effectively nerved by the May Greek Interceptor. ONIE05161f[AL f1OMRlITS In our yl_spolaq the lapact of rwatrurting the May Creek (METRO) ask the 1. The Moveaher 2Atk latest cospletel7 igaores the i.part m the Property { 1. O /e inter: tors to crews L.1 0. Mo. 206 also& Alternate "A" route 3• eastern In C.e Neap Oev area rMuld YEC bee au<ce lest at In Preven<in the yM 'ea constr ctdon of the Nay Creek (METED) latercefrtcr. The Money flew area less than slrrg the WC 9-1. 7Btb/f E. 9611, route for the foik.ting reasons: has .o equally severe proble. /n regard tv eePtfc task tallare. Very 1. The [eta[ �o vent:ucHew len&[b t• :'J00 fee[ shorter. ct...Jr. the at cost-effecti,e -.ethnd of serving the rorfherly Portion of the City of Proton Service Are., lying in the May Creek ratnagr goals bet-een Nlghep 405 and llTth Benue. In heavily 1. favor Of the Proposed 7. T'he M-I.. 28th/5.9. %th route rould be constructed Mny Creek (W..TRO) Interegtor and the sccoMsry Money that .ad Kemydale along F.E. 78th Street ask N.A. lath Place, -here lorerreptoy.. there I. . high dnmity of housing causing disruption of access ask other Smanvex lrness to 96 hone. that A. Should the May CrcN in[erc"p or be com[ructcd =ply to revs -he Kennydalt raslvire rr... fleasthe route. The owe,. el 1. ­. and gooey O.v areas, rather than the series drat .+ge basin, the Kennydatr properties facing on the route a to .heady ceeeec,ed .rea, by Iteelf, -ill bat served aost cost-effectively by the May Creek to the rxlstlrg pablte reset am thetelorc gain (METED) I.tertgtme. oothi., I. eerhe,ge for this dist.Ptlxn. f -37 Uereai.r•r 11, Ie75 COST-EI'PECII VFlt[55 AW.LYB;`. -' Washington Enelroraenral Ins...cll KPyiMYOALE AM ONLY Page 7 20-Tear S. The YEC R.E. 28th]S.K. %th Alternate ..a considered to V.Ior IV on the basis of rnglneerlog 1WW—t. Further analysis of thls hotter 1MfrMEMM Vv"IllAI.K--KFMWALE and other raters that Were prorated at the public bearing. 1s Con- talnod in V.I. V, SuiTrl 14port. 'gin aol.ae .111 he published an4 son. The WEZ'a vea6 c 24th letter does not present any wterlal ALTERNAT[YES eA'• YEC o ib that we not considered by toe Consultant. Whirr, is evlde,u:pd by an oral Capital Cast $378,111.• { 554.442 rer.rpt is. Volume IV contstfsad in be Sourish" NO letter, 1 ' ntwal capital Coat 18,909 27,727 6. The WF.0 analysis cuntain. ou x and •assess out of context froa Sesor 0 6 M2 1,891 2,77E the printed velure. Which are tworreetly Applied- An a reanit, the Lift Sutton 0 A M3 --- 7,250 cost fignrea ptenented in Ilse Woveabar 24th letter ere in error. u head 6,618 9.IC7 1. It is the opinion of the Consultant that the hart and vale-offs are best for t he wet eoxt iffactlee fee.. It.e. bay C sek Annwl Cost 5 i/,418 6],441 Intrrrvpmr and se,u.dary Interre9tors). otal Cult 6 548,360 948,940 We bop.• thta thoroughly caeers that alterentive ad clarifies the cci effec- II vo r.esa. 50-iear Sincerely' INTEKCEPI'M KOWWALE KFANYDALE MGMC, VALI.nf:E 4 KENNITY, M. and ALTQINTIVPS 'An Um total Capital Cost $378.176 { Annual Capital Cost l 1.564 12,547 Jnha 1. lbiiace. Jo ever O 8 M7 1,315 1.882 JtlWel.d Lift Start on O 6 M3 --- 7.72A erhead4 3.026 5,019 Fan Insures nmul CortS /1.725 27,176 - rc. Richard Thi,I 6 Warre. Conna..n oral Coat 586.250 t.358.800 Wait :ampere - Card.. Wegwr, Avery Carrett lUtvide the cetai Capital cost by design period. Willi".CIA., Kirhard Stredlcke 214E and 1A of 0.1 capital cost ..spec lively for 20-year and 50-year. Nervy NcEul Ion", Kenneth 5,.,e yTV. C.h-bit 1 ad 2 of the appendix. Earl Clyaer f Charles Oe:aurrntt 415E and Mr. of anrnai capital cos• raspactively for 70-Sear and 50 year. 1 Ceo"B Perry sch 5Sun of annual capital coat. saver 0 6 M. lift station 0 5 Mend warhead. Kecord ewtc Le - Iaes of the Esrtls 4 d Aonual cost tines dodge year. flerra Club 7lwludes capital costs of replacing mechanical And eie.trlcal equlpaeot - of lift statfo..a. r r r esY J e 2574.034 8 Q. LLt' 0E u XENNEDY, INC. ENGIIJEERS • PLANNERS • SURVEVORS May 12, 1976 �,a� King Countv Water District No. 107 5806-A 119th Avenue S.E. Bellevue, Washington 98006 Attn: Mt. Sari Macri , SUBJECT: MAY CREEK INTERCEPTOR - PHASE I - FINAL REVIEW Gentlemen: Enclosed is one (1) copy of the Plans and Specifications for May Creek Inter- ceptor, Phase I, for your final. review. Upon receipt of your comments, we will finali..e the Plans and Specifications and be ready for call for bids. Copies of the Plans and Specifications have been distributed to the following for :omments: o Washington State Department of Fisheries o King County Department of Hydraulics o King r ity Departmmeept of Parks o City . -enton J/ o METRO o Water District No. 107 Commissioners o Water District No. 107 Attorney We would appreciate your comments as soon as possible. Very truly yours, MOORE, WALLACE 6 KENNEDY, INC. RECEIVED 17 T' By �.1 , ll� L�.ef MAY 1 1 a?;; John R. Wallace, yV --' clry of Ite"Ton rugk W..WOOKS JRW:jad Enclosure cc: As noted 1915 FIRST AVENUE • SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98101 •(206)624.2623 y µ DIVISION II STREETS AND RELATED XNSTRUCTION SECTION 52 - REMOVAL OF EXISTING STREET IMPROVEMENTS 52-1 DESCRIPTION Add the following: Any pavement or other street improvements damaged in the construction opera- tions shrill also be removed and replaced at no cost to the Owner. Dactaged pavement shall be replaced in accordance with Section 5t of the Standard Specifications. 52-2 CONSTRUCTIOi7 DETAILS 52-2.01 GENERAL Add the following: Removal of existing pavement shall. also `o performed in accordance with the requirements of the City of Renton. All pavement shall be removed by pre- cutting to one (1) foot wider than the trench width at the surface. Cut B k shall be vertical to a neat horizontal line. � i t - t t.t k 1 9.2 J Division II �f ":- SECTION 54 - PAVEMENT PATCHING i 54-1 DESCRIPTION Add the following: f.` ^ t t Pavement removed for trench excavation and iVi dimaged street improvements described in Section 52 of the Standard Specifications and this Document shall be replaced by the Contractor. 54-1 MATERIALS Delete and substitute the following: i The Base Course and Top Course shall meet the requirements of Section 23-2.01 of the Standard Specifications and shall be placed to a minimum compacted thickness of 4 inches and 2 inches respectively. Asphalt Concrete for pave- ment patching shall be Class B conforming to the requirements specified for material in Section 34 of the Standard Specifications and shall be placed to a minimum compacted depth of 4 inches. i i i 9.3 i I i super• rapre ffr�pl eas i RECE!"ED i �_. FEB 4 1976 V � crtr eF FW:<<��v� OESWN ENV'>�"- I� COMMUNITY FACILITIES PLAN 3 FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS IN THE MAY CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN TO WHOA IT MAY CONCERN: i Please be advised of the following corrections to VOLUME V, SUMMARY REPORT: II 1. The map on page 23 entitled Alternative 3 ("B") should 1 be revised to read Alternative 3 ("C") . j 2. The map on page 25 entitled Alternative 3 ("C") should be revised to read Alternative 3 ("B"). 3. The positions of these maps in the report should then be i.m erchanged. i 1 These map titles Transposed Juring the set-up prior to the reproduction of the report. of these reports were mailed out prior to the detec- tion of this eri a interest of time and con:;istency, all reports ` were mailed as I. Please note this cion in your copy of the report . '4 X ka 1918 FOURTH AVENUE#SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 #AREA CCDE 206 441-6900 COMPLETE REPRODUCTION SERVICES AND GRAPHIC ART ENGINEERING SUPPLIES TO EPA/DOE GRANT I5X 0r' ��r�iAcs COMMUNITY FACILITIES PLAN FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS IN THE MAY CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN + TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Please be advised of the following corrections to VOLUME V, SUMMARY REPORT: 1. The map on page 23 entitled Alternative 3 ("B") should be revised to read Alteznative 3 ("C") . ' i t 2. The map on page 25 entitled Alternative 3 ("C") should be revised to read Alternat:lve 3 ("F"). 3. The positions of these maps in the report should then be interchanged. + These map titles were transposed during the set-up prior to the reproduction of the report. A number of these reports were mailed out prior to the detec- tion of this error. In the interest of time and consistency, all reports were mailed as printed. Please note this correction in your copy of the report. 1918 FOURTH AVENUE#SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 $AREA CODE 206 447-6900 COMPLETE REPRODUCTION SERVICES AND GRAPHIC ART /ENGINEERING SUPPLIES i _„1i e ., . .,. i , KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT RECE ED f NUMBER 101 r 5806A 119TH AVENUE S.E. BELLEVUE, WASH. 98006 a PH. 746-0751 FEB 3 197G b• tx�ius et�eavtthna BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REPLY TO Henry F. McCulloughh 76-1-5-S vroaitlem John R. Janson Jsnu-ry 28, 1976 Secretary Elmer F. Foster ' Member Mr. Bob Bergstrom MANAGER public Wks Dept. Sam Magi CiLy of Menton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 } 6, Sl1BJLCT: MAY ,CtRAK DRAINACk. BASIN SEWER INTERfIfP„r0R SYSTEM. VOI..IJME 1 1 1 & r INAL F Nv 1I-WhN+MCN I AL ASSE5S*.N i , V31_U�TE V. RPORT Gentlemen: Fncloacd are coples of Volume III-A, Final Envlranmantal Assnss- men t, and Volume V, Sutmla,•y Report, for the i;ay Croak Dra l rraga Nis I n Sewer Interceptor Systom, Phases I and It . I Thu Wiy Creek Oreinage Basin Interceptor Sysiom Is a joint effort r %A KIN Courty Pater District No. 107, the Clty of Renton and '•1ETRC. 1 The Wafor District, as sponsoring ignncy for the project, aot'clpntay ttf the adopiing of the recommendations, as contained in Volume V, to pru- 1 cood with the construction of the projoct it Its next rejulAr meatit, it on Fubruory 11 , 1976. ii iIt is to be noted that the inclosed VnIumn ill-A and Volume IV, Cor,t-Fffoctivenass Analysis, contemplated ttrep eltornatives for pro- viling Infercopter sawsrs to the basin. Those alternatives considered 1 construction of tha M.ry Creek Interceptor portion of the system in tt , .i l y S t January 28, 1976 Page 2 QW whole or in part adjacent to May Creek from the terminus or the isting May Creek Interceptor on Jones Avenue (Manhole "B") to 136th g Avenue S.E. As a result of the June 30, 1975 hearing, a fourth al- iernative, that Is with no construction in the May Creek flood plain, ',, was added and this consideration is included in Volume V. I P r The following table is included to provide easy cross-references to the various alternatives. e Volume V Volumes 1 , Ii . III . III-A A IV Alternative No. 1 ("A" 6 "A-A") Alternative "A" d "A-A" "a Alternative No. 2 None ; Alternative No. 3 ("B") Altornative "B" Alternative No. 3 ("C") Alternative "C" Alternative "A-A" is a variation of Alternative "A". I y If you wish further Information, please do not hesitate to contact John R. Wallace, Jr. , P.E. d L.S. i Moore, Wallace A Ke,rnody, Inc. 1.915 First Avenue f' Seattle, WA 98101 1 (206) 624-7623 r IVery truly yours, KING CO(1NTY'WATER[/0{{1/_jC_��TRICT NO. 107 rl Henry r. McCullough, Presidr,rt� HFM:sh enclosures I P t 4 1 U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY j V�,,cos.,rf REGION X i 1200 SIXTH AVENUE $ SEA TILE, WASH INGTON 98101 NOV 2 9 1977 REL ATTYN OF M/S 443 NEGATIVE DECLARATION To All Interested Government Agencies and Public Groups: In accordance with the procedures for the preparation of environ- mental impact statements, an environmental assessment has been performed on the below proposed Agency action: Public Law 92-5 , grant to: King County Water District Number 107 119th Avenue S.E. Bellevue, Washington 98006 For construction of: The May Creek Interceptor System EPA Project No. C-530749 The assessment process did not indicate a significant environmental impact from the proposed action. Consequently, an environmental impact statement will not be prepared. A copy of the environmental impact appraisal , summarizing the assessment and explaining why a statement is not required, is attached. Comments supporting or disagreeing with this decision may be submitted to EPA. for consideration. After evaluating the comments received, the Agency will make a fin decision; however, no adminis- trative action will be taken on the project for at least fifteen (15) working days after release of this negative declaration. Sincerely, Robert S. Surd Director, Water Division Attachment rim .y , ENVIROMEN7AL IMPACT APPRAISAL PROJECT IDENTIFICATION Public Law 92-500 grant to: King County Water District Number 10 119th Avenue S.E. Bellevue, Washington 98006 For Construction of: The May Creek Interceptor System Project Number C-530749 Total Estimated Costs: $1,928,000 (EPA share 75%; State 152; local _0') ASSFS%ENT SIMdMARY Description of Existing Environment: The study area is the May Creek drainage basin which is located ;n Metropolitan Seattle between the City of Renton and Newport Hills, just east of Lake Washington. The western portion of `May Creek drainage basin is urbanized, while the eastern portion is rural and contains rugged terrain where elevations rise from 300 to 1200 feet. The sewer interceptors will provide sewer service in the western por- tion of the May Creek basin. This area begins just east of Interstate Highway 405 and a half a mile east of 138th Avenue S.E. The communities within or bordering the May Creek service area are the City of Renton, Newport Hills, Municipality of "Metropolitan Seattle, and King County water District Number 107. The; May Creek drainage basin is predominately a woodland site in its native state. The areas east of 136th Avenue S.E. and south of 96th F Beet adjacent to the creek have been cleared of the dominar species of vegetation. The area has been planted to grasses such as Orchard, Alta, Fescue, and Rye and Timothy. The grass areas are mainly used as pasture for livestock. The maior species of trees are Douglas Fir, Western Hemlock, Western Red Cedar, and Red Alder. The potential productivity is 445 to 550 board feet per acre per year. A listing of major plants is found in Table 8 of the Appendix in the Facility Plan. -1- w The May Creek drainage basin is the last such basin draining into Lake Washington that does not have an interceptor to serve the basin. The limited Public sewer service systems in the basin are being pumped into another basin by the Honey Creek Lift Station and the Sunset Lift Station. The Honey Creek Lift Station was designed as a temporary unit with an overflow to May Creek. It was to be eliminated Li three to five ,years from the time it was constructed. The station is a duplex vertical pump lift station constructed in 1968. Each pump is 7.5 horsepower and is rated for 100 gallons per minute at 58 feet total dynamic head. Maximum capacity per pump is 144,000 gallons per day. The quantity of sewage currently being pumped is approximately 8,750 gallons per day. (?5 homes x 3.5 persons x 100 gallons per person per day.) }; The Sunset Lift Station was originally constructed to serve a plat of 86 homes. The station orginally had two (2) 5 horsepower, 225 gallons per minute pumps. In December 1974 and January 1975, the pump motors were changed to 15 horsepower and the pump impellers changed for a new capacity of 500 gallons per minute (720,000 gallons per day) each at 70 feet total dynamic head. Phis increased capacity was required not only due to the increased nunber of services, but also to a substantial amount of extra- neous water entering the collection system. The amount of sewage pumped is 287,850 gallons per day. This increases to a peak of about 138,000 gallons per day during wet weather. The Sewer System Evaluation Survey (SSES) concludes that there is ex- cessive Infiltration/Inflow (I/I) and that it is more cost effective to rehabilitate the system than to transport and treat. The quantity of sewage currently being pumped at the O.mset Lift Station is: 375 homes x 3.5 persons per home - 1,313 people f466 apartment units x 2.5 persons per unit = 1,165 people Total ',478 persons 2,478 people x 100 gallons oer day s 247,860 gallons per day 2,670 students and staff x 15 gallons per day 40,050 gallons per day Total 287,850 gall,,s per day Infiltration/Inflow peak flow is 450,000 gallons per day during wet weather. This I/I flow increases the total flow to 738,000 gallons per day. The flows are not within the capacity of the pump station (720,000 gallons per day) . In the calculations of these flows, 100 gallons/capita/day were used , as the total sewage and associated I/I after rehabilitation has taken place. From these calculations, using a peaking factor of three (3) , the flows are 288,000 gallons/day x 3 , 864,000 gallons/day. It appears that the pimp station is 20 percent overloaded at the present time. The Sunset Lift Station has been expanded to ultimate capacity. It pumps into an adjoining; basin, making an increase in the capacity of the lift station impractical since the capacity of the adjoining basin's down- stream system has been reached. The downstream system was constricted in the 1940's to serve wartime housing for Boeing workers. It consists of 7,738.8 lineal feet of 8 and 10 inch diameter pipe. With the Sunset and Honey C *k Lift Stations pimping into the downstream system at the same time, t,i. ilow developed is 1.34 cubic feet per second. This flow exceeds the downstream capacity of five (5) sections o. 8 inch pipe without any additional flows. These five (5) sections amount to 1,436 lineal feet of pipe and are identified in Exhibit III. i Exhibit III is a breakdown of the downstream system, manhole to manhole, with the length, slope and size of pipe indicated. From this information, the capacity and velocities of the flow in each section were determined. These maximum allowable flows were then compared to the flows actually general 1, by the development that flow intn the dowrstream system. The actual ilou• a, u ca,,^• a A .,, us,:np ac.epua.i un :cerit which are ol, iined in Exh.bit It . me tl i.�r generated wer : bloke', into fourteen segments as n- tlined in Exhibit G for the purpose of determining at what point and t what volume flows enter the main stream. The residential units and commercial acreage in each segment were obtained by actual surveys. Comparing the design flow against the calcuLlted flow reveals tnat in the downstream system there are a comber of sections of pipe that are under- sized. There are four sections of pipe where existing flows exceed the design flows by 1.0 cubic feet per second (CFS). There are six sections of pipe in which design and existing flows are within 0.1 CFS of each other. There are nine other sections of pipe whicn fall in between these two ranges. To upgrade the existing system, 5,122 lir,.al feet of 8 and 10 inch diameter pipe, would have to be replaced. This amount of pipe repre- sents 66 percent of the entire downstrPam system. Due to the excess flow generated by Sunset Lift Station, it is common for the flow to backup into the manholes. This has been verified on many occasions, but has not been documented. This indicates that the system ie overloaded. To increase the capacity of the downstream system would re- quire the reconstrtxtion of approximately two miles of trunk sewerr through an area that is completely developed. Not only would the cost be extremely high, but disruption to the neighborhood and businesses would be extreme. Construction of the May Creek - Honey Dew Interceptors would eliminate the Sunset and Honey Creek pump Stations and enable the downstream system's capacity to be utilized by the basin it serves. -3- s. i There are 2,000 dwelling limits in Areas I and III of the City of Renton and approximately two-thirds use septic tanks for wastewater dis- posal. City of Renton records indicate 102 instances of septic tank failures in this area. Area II is the Kennydale area and the records of the City of Renton Building Department show 28 septic tank failures scattered throughout the area. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soils Conservation Service Table on Soils, the majority of the Kennydale area is made up of INDIANOLA LOMY fine sands on four to fifteen percent slope. This type of soil is known to have rapid permeability and presents possible pollu- tion hazards. Refer to Exhibit 1. Area III is part of the Honey Dew area. Records of the Seattle-King County Department of Health shows that there have been 174 septic tank failures in this area with sewage discharging onto the surface of the ground. Refer to Exhibit II. A-ea III-A, Sierra Heights, is a sub-area within .Area III and Area I. It is not served by sanitary sewers although physically service can he provided except for the lack of downstream capacity of Sunset Lift Station Number 2. A letter from the Health Depart3mant indicates that in one an naxation area alone, out of 155 systems that were surveyed, there were ° 31 failures and 22 probable failures. The Seattle-King County Health Department indicates that "these failures represent a serious potential health hazard. Sanitary sewers are very badly needed around S.E. 103rd and 104th Avenues and would he a great benefit to the whole area." The Avenues, 134th and 135th S.G. , rust west of .Area III •A, are completed with streets and water, but building permits are being refused because of poor so condition. i Area III-B is a sub-area within Area III . This nineteen lot subdivision was constructed with dry sewers. only two of the nineteen existing homes appear to he free of septic tank problems. Problems of septic tank failures were resolved by the construction of a $40,000 lift station to serve the homes. Area IV is an eighty-one lot subdivision which has been constructed with dry sewers, but homes are being built using septic tanks as an interim measure. Seepage from failing septic tanks flow into May Creek. Several years ago Water District Number 107 and the %nicipality of Metropolitan Seattle (Metro) , in a joint effort, constructed Section Number 1 of the May Creek Interceptor. This section lies dormant, but will become active with the completion of the May Creek Interceptor. In the May Creek area, approximately two-thirds of the homes use septic tanks. King County Health Department and the City of Renton and Water District Number 107 have documented 289 septic tank failures or 22 percent. In overall summary with respect to the use of septic tanks in the may Cree. drainage basin, the local supervising sanitarian for the Health De- partment states that his department supports construction of the intercep- hazards system, inherent in only suchaallow largefor numberew development, malfunctiioning also systems abate health Aquatic life in May Creek is mainly Coho Salmon, Steelhead Trout, Cut- throat Trout, Sculpins and Brooklamprey' A list of wildlife frond in the area is listed in Table 7 of the Facilities Plan. 'There are no threatened or endangered species identified b the environmental assessment. There are no known environmentally sensitive resources such as wet lands, coastal zones or wild an scenic rivers. There are only a few small industries in the May Creek drainagelba�. These industries include a creosote plant and several gravel p s- tries or industrial expansions would not be affected by the sewers propo. for the May Creek drainage basin since they are already served by existin .. sewer lines. Brief Description of Proposed Project: The proposed Phase 1 project consists of construction of five Liter ceptors. These are as follows: a, May Creek Interceptor to Honey Creek, consisting of 6,750 lineal feet of 18-inch diameter of pipe. b. Kennydale Interceptor System: 1, Kennydale - May Creek Interceptor consisting of 600 lineal feet of 10-inch diameter pipe and 150 lineal feet of 15-inch diameter pipe. Total length is 750 lineal feet. 2, Fast Kemmydale Interceptor consisting of 3,080 lineal feet of 10-inch diameter pipe eo 3,180 lineal feet of 8-inch diameter pipe. Total length is 6,2 60 3, Hest Kennydale Interceptor consisting of 1150 lineal feet of 12-inch diameter pipe and 4,100 lineal feet of 10-inch diameter pipe and 2,060 lineal feet of 8-inch diameter pipe. Total length is 6,610 lineal feet. C. Honey Dew Interceptor consisting of 6,830 lineal feet of I'-inch di:wceter pipe and 340 lineal feet of 15-inch diameter pipe. Total length, 7,170 lineal feet. -5- t 7 .' i ',hs Future projects will consist of the following: 1. Phase II of the May Creek Interceptor length, 7,770 lineal feet. Estimated ear of construction, 1978. 2. Jones Avenue is a separate project, C-530591, length is 6, 3,310 lineal feet. Project is awaiting EPA approval and funding. Esti- mated construction, 1978, 3. 110th Avenue S.E. Interceptor. This is a separate project, C-S30747. Length is b,630 lineal feet if 8-inch diameter pipe. Facility Plan has not vet been submitted by grantee. Estimated construction, 1979. 4. Lake Kathleen Interceptor, length 20,000 lineal feet. Esti- mated construction, 1980. S. S.E. interceptor, 1, ,,th 7,800 lineal feet of 8-inch and 10-inch diameter pipe. Estimated construction, 1978. 6. Lake Boren Interceptor, length, S,080 lineal feet of 10-inch diameter pine. Estimated construction, 1978. 7. Lower N,)rthwest Interceptor, length, 3,100 lineal feet of 8-inch diameter pipe. Estimated construction, 1978. S. N.E. Interceptor, length, 7,140 lineal feet of 8-inch dia meter Pipe. Estimated construction, 1978. Total length of both Phase 1 and Phase 2 projects is 89,460 lineal feet or 16.9 miles of interceptors. Total estimated cost is $3,074,000. The purpose o+ the project is to improve water quality in %by Creek and Lake Washington, mitigate the existing health hazards and provide for orderly land development. The design year for the interceptors is vear 2000. Present popula- tion is 7,300 and the population projection fob the year 2000 is 21,000. Discharge from the interceptor will be to the Metro-Renton Sewage Treatment Plant. The proposed project is consistent with the Water District Number 107 Comprehensive Sewage Plan and with the Metro Comprehensive Plan except for the decreased pipe site. The facility plan has identified two alternatives which are similar in cost-effectiveness and environmental im pacts. Alternative A, the selected plan, is slightly more cost-effective. However, the environmental impacts are less with alternative B. The grantee states that "the long-term financial benefits of a gravity system outweigh a small increase in environmental impacts. Experience with Section Number 1 of the May Creek Interceptor indicates that after a few years nature and proper construction methods eradicate the damage created -6- , by the construction." This fact is also shown from the construction and sub- sequent renovation of the Madison Creek Project vimnber C-S30550-03. The four (4) lift stations in Alternative B would require a considerable amount of energy and maintenance labor. It would appear in this period of energy shortage that the all-gravity system would be preferred. Probable I,�mm ca�rts of the Project on the Environment :and Impact !drtigatrve asur a. Primary Impacts 1. Beneficial primary impacts center around elimination of raw sewage from failing septic tanks getting into May Creek and Lake Washington. 2. Improve the health conditions where sewers cannot now be built and where septic tank drainfield failures occur. 3. Reduce sedimentation in the delta. 4. Use of heavy construction equipment and transportation of necessary supplies will cause temporary problems of noise, dust, diesel and gasoline engine fumes and traffic disruptions. These nieces of equipment will be equipped with muffler-type systems that meet those standards set by law. Traffic control provisions will be utilized to keep disruption of the comarnity to a minimum. S. Reduce long-term erosion of May Creek banks and improve long-term fi4h production in the creek. Construction of the May Creek ;ud Honey Creek Interceptors could have some effect on wil.life in the area. Such construction will be re-ulbted by the State Department of Fishe-ies through permits that will be issu.-d. b. Secondary Impacts The area now has a population of 7,300 people. The projections indicate a 20-year design population of 21.000. It is also estimated that the 20-year population without the sewer project would be 11,000 people. The impact of this growth on land use will be additional residential de- velopment, increased apartment house construction and new shopping centers and other facilities to serve a growing residential population. This gruwth will take place within the existing land use ordinances. Existing flora and fauna will be reduced. The additional popula- tion growth will create additional storm drainage problems. Mitigative measures will be as follows: 1. An inters,;.ency agreement has been enacted which would require: (a) Preparation of a surface water plan for the area affected. (b) Computer modeling of May Creek. (c) Periodic stream monitoring. (d) Establishment of base line data on water quality. (e) Conditioning approval of hookups to the interceptor and building permits on formation of one or more utility local improvements districts to fund and maintain a surface water plan. (f) A moratorium on issue of building permits in the area affected until surface water plan has been adopted; and (g) Allocation of cost and responsibilities among the parties to the agreement. (King County, City of Renton, Water District Number 107, %nicipality of Metropolitan Seattle (Metro) and the Department of Ecology.) The enactment and implementation of this agreement will resolve the concerns expressed by the Washington Environmental Council and Quendall Terminals relative to the quality of the surface waters of ^nny Creek and tributary drainages. 2. Enforcement of local ordinances for controll;.ng storm runoff. 3. Reduction in line size from 23 inch to 13 inch. there has been an archaeological survey made and the conclu- sion was that the proposed note of Mlay Creek Interceptor presents no adverse impacts on any prehistoric cultural resources presently known. Roth the primary ant, secondary impacts of this project are, therefore, considered minimal and nrt significant. Probable Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: a. Primary Impacts Mere will be some disruption of the surrounding terrestiai eco- systems during the construction period, but these i,apacts will he minimal and are considered not to be significant. Construction impacts mentioned previously should be the only ad- verse impacts. These will be minimized as much as possible through miti- gative measures. b. Secondary impacts The impacts resulting from the induced population due to the constriction of the 18 inch interceptor would he typical residential use impacts and would not be substantial. -g- � I I 1 Alternatives: a. No action. This alternative represents a decision not to build the inter- ceptor. '[he results of this decision would include the following: r f 1. Increase in pollutants to May Creek and Lake Washington as the population increases. 2. Continued use of septic tanks not presently served by ' 1 sewers. i 3. Possible adverse impacts on public health due to septic j tank failures. A beneficial effect would be the lack of adverse constructior. impacts. This alternative w .s not considered a viable alternative because it would not solve the current pollution problems of May Creek. Other alternatives evaluated were: 1. A - Construct an interceptor at the bottom of May Creek. This line would go from Manhole B to Manhole D (proposed plan) . 2. A-A - Construct an interceptor in May Creek with part of the interceptor being an above ground sewer line. 3. B - Construct an interceptor on each side of May Creek. A. C - A combination of the above. S. D - Ccustruct an interceptor along existing streets and easements. No interceptor would be constricted adjacent to hay Creek. Each of these alternatives was compared on an economic and en- vironmental b�gis. This analysis shows that basee i an annual equivalent cost, Alcernative A is the most cost-effective solution for May Creek. Its cost was $296,130 per ,year compared to Alternative B with an annual cost of $298,756. There are 8,700 acres in the service area and 45 percent or 3,915 acres is developed. within the undeveloped area is a proposed King County Park. Short-Term Use and Long-Term Productivity Relationships: The short-term adverse impacts of construction will be offset by long- term improvements in water quality, relieving water pollution and health hazards caused by failing septic tanks-drainfields. -9- r Irreversible and Irretrievable Resource Commitments Due to the Proposed -tion: The following commitment of resources will be made: a. Urbanization of the western portion of May Creek. b. Commitment of labor, energy and material to construct and maintain the interceptor. Public Qesponse to the Project: The following is a summary of Public Meetings and/or Hearings held concerning the May Creek Facility Plan: Description of Meeting Date location Attendance 6/30/7S Renton City Hail 19 Public Hearing 2/09/77 Water District 8 R•'ilic Hearing Number 107 { At the first public hearing, three l impact Statement atement should be ected to the environmental I assessment. and felt that an Environmental Imp e The persons objecting are Mr. Mark Iozzio, Mr. John Barnes and ? r• `lichael Smith. In addition to the coo ents made at the public hearing, written comments were received from the .following: lQuendall Terminals Company Office of Community Development King County Land Use Management i Mr. Mark Iozzio King County Air Pollution Control Agency Washington State Highway Commissiol Mr. John Barnes t}r, Michael Smith Washington State Department of Game Washington State Department of Fisheries Washington Environmental Council City of Renton -10- 4 } Seattle-King County Department of Public Health King County Parks Division King County Department of Public Works Several people expressed concern over the surface water runoff. To mitigate the surface water runoff controversy, an interlocal agreement was entered into by the Department of Ecology, Metro, King County, City of Renton and Water District Number 107. Following this interlocal agreement, a second public hearing was held so people who had previously Ypposed the project on the surface water runoff issue could have input to the new proposed plan. At the second public hearing, the onlv abjection was from Metro which objected to the reduction in the size of the interceptor from twenty four to eighteen inches. .4s May Creek will became a part of the Metro, sewage system and Metro is obligated to accept all sewage, they felt that the twenty-fair inch size line should be built. Also, Metro stated that to build a second inter- ceptor up May Creek within the next fifty years would be environmentally - unsound. To mitigate this objection, Water District Number 107, and the City of Renton have signed an agreement with Metro to restrict hookups to the system if the line becomes overloaded. The size of the interceptor was reduced from twenty-four inch to comply with the population prjections over the maximum service life of the inter- ceptor as required by the cost-effective guideline (40 CFR Part 35 Appendix AF(2))• Coisiderations of population projections, infiltration/inflow, and land use patterns within this planning period led to this reduction in pipe size. The 18-inch pipe size would serve a population which conforms with the recently revised Puget Sound Council of Governments Population Projec- tions for the area of 21,000 by the ,year 2000. - The signed agreement between King County, City of Renton, Water District !Number 107, Metro and the Department of Ecology will mitigate the previous objections of people concerning surface water runoff and erosion. The Washington Environmental Council and Ouendall Terminals have in- dicated that they will withdraw their request for an EIS. The grant offer letter will contain a special paragraph reflecting the existence of the interlocal agreement and the connitment on the part of the grantee thereto, Agencies Consulted: See attached list. -11- e Reasons for Concluding That There Will Be No Significant Impacts: The project will enhance the water quality of *lay Creek Lnd Lake Washington. It will serve to eliminate a health hazard caused by failing septic tanks in the area. The area will develop under existing local land use ordinances. Although there has been sane controversy over this project, it now appears, with the signing of the storm drainage agreement and the reduction in the size of the interceptor, that the controversy has been abated. At the last public hearing there were no adverse comments from the public. Therefore, this reviewer recommends issuance of a negative declara- tion statement for this project. � a to Project Officer Washington Operations office -12- F "MM. A. List of Agencies !t,S. Army Co.,)s of Fngineers Seattle nistrict -Iffice 4735 E. "arvinai Wav South Seattle, Washington U.S. Department of Housing and Urban nevelonment Arcade Plaza Buildinq 1321 Second Seattle, Washington 981nl U.S. D"artment of Commerce Field Office 17nj Westlake v. i Seattle, Washington a Washington State ^ffice of Community Pevelonment 400 Capitol Center ()lymnia, lashington og5n4 Washington State nenartment of Fcology Olvmpia, Washington 98SO4 Pashington State Fcological Commission nlymnia, Washington 98504 Washington State Department of Social 8 Health Services 1309 Smith TkAger Building Seattle, Washington 9R104 Washington State nepartment of lame S09 Fairview Avenue vorth Seattle, Washington 08109 Washington State Hiehwav 'knartment rlvmnia, Washington 98504 Washington State nenartment of Fisheries 5803 Capitol Blvd. 1lomwater, Washington 9R501 Puget Sound fir Pollution Control Agencv 410 West Harrison Street Seattle, Washington 9R119 Puget Sound Governmental Conference 216 First Avenue South Seattle, Washington 9810A 13- I nF County ^epartment of Rudget .arid Program Planning 9n400 King County Court House S16 Third avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 King County Denartment of community and Fnvitnnmental Development 'an W313 King County rourt House S16 Third lvenue Seattle, Washington 98104 Rm W ing C01rqtv P arV p 22t KingCrnmtvCouun Court House 516 Thiel Avenue Seattle, Washington 98,04 City of Renton Amicipal Buildinq 200 ,ill Avenue South Renton, Washington 08055 King Canty nenartment of Itvdraulics Rm 916 King Countv 'dministration Ruildine 500 Fourth Avenue Seattle, Washington 981n4 King County nivision of Land rise ,.mageft t Pm W, 1. King County Court House 516 Third Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 Seattle-King County 'kl,artment of Puhlic Health 3001 N.F. Fourth Penton, Washington 9B05s 'imicipality of "etropolitan Seattle (l,btro) pioneer Building, 600 First Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 B. State Representltive `"ark "remo '.)enartment of Ecology 4350 - 150th avenue `i,F, Pedmond, Washington 980S2 -14- �. Local Representative Bienry `'cCLllough, Chairman Kinr, :ounty Water istrict yln7 5306 .4 11Pth S.F.. Bellevue, Washington nsw D. Local �rouns and People Nendall ' erminals N.F. 44th Renton, Washington g90S5 Washington rnvironmental rolmcil 107 South 'lain Seattle, Washington 981n4 Sierra Club 4534s university 14av N.r., Seattle, IPashin;ton "I "park r,. Iozzio 25S First \venue ?!,W. Issaquah, Washington 94027 "I ,John C. Parries S704 37th V.F., Seattle, Washington P81n5 "'r. Michael L. Smith 3402 V.E. 7th Street ^enton, Washington 94^55 'fr. James r. Nurt 17110 Peoples `ational Rank Buil"iino Seattle, Was>ington 94171 -15- 8 S r.� T' EXHIBIT N0. 1 4 1 L. D. �� TI, , - �-• = _ __ a _`BOUNDARY 4 ; J it` s 1 , d . .� , �.. � GRAPR,C SCAT[ � �����E� CITY OF RENTON a' a -0Rcpo'EED '.tANNOLES OERS PROPOSED SANITARY Sy O PROPOSED KENNYDALE�INTERCEPTOR MANHOLES YROPOSED KENNYDALE INTERCEPTOR SANITARY PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM SEWERS t. a EXISTING MANHOLES MAP 3 STIN EXIG SANITARY SEWERS SEPTIC TANK FAILURE i . r r 2 EXHIBIT NO. II Seattle-King County /DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH '1 ���1���..JJ• P""C 90tatY Oulldin9 Seattle' Waehlnplon 98104 :C`rlM�i7•• (2 0 6) 6 2 5-2 1 6 1 '_1 WRENCE SERn NER• M.D.• M.P.H. fllA/ wJ - DIr.Gter of Pu1,11C Health 11 2;q 5 June 28, 1977 Ili;C John P. Wallace, Jr. Hoore, Wallace & Kennedy, Inc. 1915 1st Ave. Seattle, Washington 98101 Re: May Creek Drainage Basin On-Site Sewage Problems. Dear Sir: The area of the May Creek Pasin west of 139th Ave. S.E. contains a variety of soils ranging from Shalcar Huck to the Everett Series gravel. Predominant however, are the Alderwood and Kitsap soils, neither of which are entirely adeouate for on-site ser+age disposal s3�stem3. Although the area is not completely or intensely developed our records indicate 174 malfuntioning drainfields with sewage discharging onto the surface of the ground. Our records, as far as researched, also indicate several disatprovals of site applications submitted for the purpose of developing indivio_a: lots. The number of disaporovals, however, is no real indication of suitability for construction of houses with septic tank s}stems, since persons performing the soil test generally advise their clients of the lack of required soil depth or iradeouate percolation rat=_s and the applications do not reach this office. It is doubtful that any extensive development could occur on septic tanks in the subject area, although some individual lots might be found suitable. DISTRICT HEALTH CENTERS : CENTRAL NORTH EAST SOOT HFAST SOUTH'.YE ST IOW Py nLc S.I rly emmmq lY•00 N E. 15,N 16G07 N E Leuevue. 3001 N E nn St 10921 Bth Are S.Y/. r r. This depart-ant supports construction of the irt,�rceptor system not / only to al':: :+ new development, but also to abate the health hazards inherent in such a large number of malfunrtionirg systems. Very truly yours, v� William F. Png, .S . Supervis'ng Sanitarian Environmental Health Services Southeast District Health Cente- WFL/kg e A i 1 r i 9 EXHIBIT III 3 EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED IMPROVEMENTS I1-11 LLNUIN SLOPE VELOCITY DESIGN ACTUAL LOCATION SIZE (ft) ($ OE SIGN IPE)_ ft/sec _PLOW (CFS) FLOW (CFS) FLOI� (CFS) SIZE NE 7th St. - between Sunset 8" 154.2 11 .673 11 83 4. 13 Blvd. NE 6 Aberdeen Ave. NE 8" 163.6 7.336 9.377 3.27 3•25 5.95 loll Aber can Ave. NE - between 8" 232.5 1 .72 4.54 1 .58 NE 7th St, and NE 8th St. 10" 346.4 2.02 5.71 5 3. 18 5.07 1211 10" 179.2 8.345 11 .61 6.33 3. 18 5.07 12 loll loB.4 5.535 9.476 5. 166 vE 9th Pl , 10" 220.6 2.267 6.03 3.30 3 5.38 10" 12"107.8 4.638 8.65 4. 72 . 18 10" 279.5 4.68 8.69 4.73 10" 285. 1 C.982 3.98 2. 17 3. 12 3.54 1210 10" 125.8 0.95 3.92 2. 14 3, 12 3.48 12" asament - between NE 9th PI , 10" 190.5 1 .05 4. 12 2.25 ind Ferndale Circle loll 311 .E 0.64 3• 12 3.66 1210 15" ern dale Circle loll 1.21 1 . 75 3. 12 5. 18 356. 1 0,562 3.01 1 .64 +est end to NE 9th St. 3. 12 4.85 15" 1E 9th St. between Ferndale B" 207 1 .86 4.72 1 .65 ircle and Harrington Ave. NE Bit252.3 .86 Ip•yp 3. 12 4.67 1211 Bit233.5 5.996 8.48 2.61 2.96 3.03 5,38 loll arrington Ave. NE between B" 273.3 2.277 5.22 1 .82 2,7y E 9th St. and Sunset Blvd. NE 8" 252, 7 0.792 3.08 1 .08 3. 31 10" 8" 133.5 - 0.824 3. 14 I . ;O 2. 74 3 12" + 2.74 3.2424 I211 * unset Blvd. NE between 8" 205.2 3. 119 6. 11 2. 13 arrington Ave NE 6 NE loth St, 8" 270.0 4.444 1.30 2.55 unset Blvd. NE between 8" 390.0 1 .795 4,64 1 .62 1 .68 2,94 IC' IOth St. 6 NE 12th St. Bit350.0 2.00 4.90 1 .71 1 .68 8" 36o.o I ' ll 2. 11 IV, 8" 175.0 1 . 16 3.65 1 .27 1 .63 2.31 loll a 3. 73 1 .30 1 .63 2.36 loll +unset Blvd, between NE 12to B" 450.0 2.66 5.65 1 .97 t. t Newport Ave. NE 8" 300.0 3. 00 6.00 2.09 B" 300.0 2.50 5. 47 1 01 r k EXHIBIT V RESIDENTIAL Single Family 3. 5 people/unit Duplex 6 apartments 2.5 people/unit FLOWS Residential 60 gpd/capita Schools 15 gpd/capita Churches 2000 gpd/acre Commercial 2000 gpd/acre Convalescent Center 90 gpd/capita PEAK FACTORS Residential 3.33 Schools 3.0 Churches 3. 0 Commercial 3.0 Convalescent Center 3. 31 INFILTRATION 6 INFLOW Infiltration 600 gpd/acre Inflow 500 gpd/acre SCHOOLS A, . Sierra Height 382 students Elam. School 23 staff. A Hazen Sr. High School 1555 Student; 80 Staff 1635 Apollo 586 students Elementary School 31 staff TT7 A4 Hillcrest Elam. School 348 Students 20 staff 39 McKnight Jr. High School 426 Students 21 Staff EXHIBIT V SUMMARY ORAINACc SINGLE DUPLEX SCHOOLS CHURCHES APTS AREA FAMILY Al 298 1 148 lGO 2 284 A2 „ A 58 * 'A4 56 84 2 2 60 * A 13 218 240 A 6 44 8 A7 41 14 ► 63 A8 55 * A .. \3 � 1 30 . A10 32 Ail 44 Al2 70 A13 . 14_ 27 TOTAL 775 316 5 5 940 Commercial 12 Ac A - A - 22 A: 1 9 3�r a ConveiSa t�eOlLer A4 _ 95 bed l i4 LLJ AF LU oc __ 4 tV,ZZ W T / Cke it c— �'' O M _I111 Cl- uj �• \C. "��., _. .fit l� ..;, ' 1 ✓ LU tuf W iiwtirai3x '. �' R` MAY CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN 1 . ' Wr df Fr II M • Ns sru,°ws 1 [ u.»•_`"'wi LAKC mm _ i f 1- .J 1 i .' �ts � ` , ` _ . ( 21 IMruc e 1 ` ♦( y� ` „ C IV! I r 1 1 '•�: �✓iJhrL '»dl i ai iSj e' i •'� q�jil ` .iLL'1, M,'� i• _. �♦` i / ,� � =I�� ` C11 � L•y ���I L. ,�Z � ice•.._ • `�. '' j- r � Y w i. � l r, WATER DISTRICT NO. 107 King County, Washington i MAY CREEK SEWER INTERCEPTOR PHASE I 4 1 HAY 1976 i I Y i L+ 1Y! MOOREMALLACE &KENNEDUNC. 1915 FIRST AVENUE • MATTI . WASHINGTON 98101 • MA 4-M ENGINEERS • PLANNERS • SURVEYORS L i s l9 WATER DT ICT NO. 107 King Count -. Washington r 4; MAY CREEK SEWER INTERCEPTOR L. PHASE I i i.. MAY 1976 I LCOMMISSIONERS Henry F. McCullough President John R. Janson Secretary Elmer F. Foster Member MANAGER CSam Macri I L.. WATER DISTRICT OFFICE 5806-A 119th Avenue S.E. L. Bellevue, Washington 98006 (206) 746-0751 4 ENGINEERS ATTORNEYS Moore, Wallace & Kenned-, Inc. Breskin, Rosenblume & Robbins 1915 First Avenue 803 Hoge Building Seattle, Washington 98101 Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 64-2623 (206) 624-3443 L. i V TABLE OF CONTENTS Page C" ADVERTISE?LENT FOR BIDS 1.1 - 1.2 L BIDDING INFORMATION 2.1 - 2.6 r.: L STATEMENT OF BIDDER'S QUALIFICATIONS 3.1 NON-COLLUSION AFFIDAVIT 3.2 EPA SPECIFICATION INSERT 4.1 - r L PROPOSAL, 5.1 - 5.4 CONTRACT DOCUMENTS 6.1 - 6.11 APWA STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS 7.1 - p GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND COVENANTS 8.1 - 8.36 f ` DETAIL. SPECIFICA"'IONS 9.1 - 9.28 MEASUREMENT AND PAYMENT 10.1 - 10.5 APPENDIX x` F. ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS Notice is hereby given that sealed proposals will be received by the Manager, Water District No. 107 of King County, 5806-A 119th Avenue SE, Bellevue, Washington 98006, until 8:00 p.m., PDST, 1976 i+ for May Creek Sewer Interceptor, Phase I, a 6,700-foot construction of 24-inch sewer pipe and appurtenances. Proposals will be publicly opened PC and read at the District Meeting of at the hour of L8:00 p.m., PDST. Proposals received after 8.00 p.m., PDST, will not be coi:sidered. Plans, Specifications and Contract. Documents may be examined at the offices of Water District No. 107, Bellevue, Washington, and obtained at the offices of Moore, Wallace 8 Kennedy, Inc., Jonsulting Engineers, 1915 First Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101, upon deposit of $25.00. Each Bid shall be made out on the Proposal Form included in the Contract Documents. Bidders are required to have their own copies of the Standard Specifications for Municipal Public Works Construction, 1975 Edition, prepared by the Washington Chapter of the American Public Works Association. The full amount of deposit for one set of Documents and Plans will be return- ed to each actual Bidder within a reasonable time after receipt of their Bid. Deposits by other than actual Bidders will be refunded with a deduction of $10.00 to cover the cost of reproduction of the Drawings and Documents, if all Documents are returned in good condition and within ten (10) days after the date of Opening of Bids. L 1.1 i. k ' AdvertisemenL for Bids Each Bid Proposal shall be accompanied by a Certified Check, Cashier's Check, or Bid Bond (with authorized Surety Company as surety) made payable to Water District No. 107 of King County, Washington in an amount not less than five percent (5!) of the amount of the bid. The check or Bid Bond shall be given as a guarantee that the Bidder shall execute the Contract, if it is awarded to him, in conformity with the Contract Documents, and that the Bidder shall provide Surety Bond or Bonds as specified therein within ten (10) days after notification of the Award of Contract to the Bidder or forfeit his bid surety. Water District No. 107 of King County, Washington, reserves the right to reject any or all bids and to waive irregularities or informalities in the bid or in the bidding, and to give particular attention to the qualifica- tions of the Bidder. No Bidder may withdraw his Proposal after the hour sec for the opening thereof, or before Award of Contract, unless said award is delayed for a period exceeding sixty (60) days. KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NO. 107 By Sam Maeri, Manager sPublication Dates: L Published In: W 1.2 r s; 6. BIDDING INFORMATION i" Each Bid must be submitted in a sealed envelope, addressed to Water District "- No. 107 of King County, 5806-A 119th Avenue SE, Bellevue, 4ashington 98006. Each scaled envelope containing a Bid must be plainly marked on the outside as "Bid for Water District No. 107 of King County, MAY CREEK SE4111 INTERCEPTOR, PHASE I," and the envelope should bear on the outside the name of the Bidder, his address and his license number (if applicable). If forwarded by mail, the sealed envelope containing the Bid must be enclosed in another envelope addressed to the Owner at the address stated above. All Bids must be made on the required Bid Form. All blank spaces for Bid prices must be filled in, in ink or typewritten, and the Bid Form must be fully c"mp' eted an, executed when submitted. Only one copy of the Bid Form is required. Inc whole Specification is part of the Proposal. The Owner may waive any informalities or minor defects or reject any and all Bids. Any Bid may be withdrawn prior to the above scheduled time for the Opening of Bids or authorized postponement thereof. Any Bid received after the time and date specified will not be considered. No Bidder may withdraw a Bid within sixty (60) days after the actual date of the opening thereof. Should there by reasons why the Contract cannot be awarded within the specified period, the time may be extended by mutual agreement between the Owner and the Bidder. 2.1 F» t Bidding Information Bidders must satisfy themselves to the accuracy of the estimated quantities in the Bid Schedule by examination of the site and a review of the Drawings and Specifications, including Addenda. After Bids have b-•en submitted, the Bidder shall not assert that there was a misunderstanding concerning the quantities of work or of the nature of the work to be done. The Contract Documents contain the provisions required for the construction of the Project. Information obtained from an officer, agent, employee of the Owner or any other person shall not affect the risks or obligations assumed by the Contractor or relieve him from fulfilling any of the condi- tions of the Contract. Each Bid must be accompanied by a Proposal Guaranty of Cash, Certified Check, Cashier's Check or Bid Bond (with authorized Surety Company as surety), payable to the Owner for five percent OX) of tlic total amount of the Bid. As soon as the Bid prices have been compared, the Owner will return. the Proposal Cuaranty of all except the three lowest responsible Bidders. When the Agreement is executed. the Proposal Guaranty of the two remaining suc- cessful ridders will be returned. The Bid Bond of the successful Bidder will be retained until the Payment Bond anal Performance Bond have been executed and approved, after which it will be returned. 2.2 Bidding Information C ►,� A Performance Bond and a Payment Bond, each in the amount of 100 percent (100%) of the Contract price with a corporate surety approved by the Owner, will be required for the faithful perfcrmance of the Contract. C' Attorneys-in-fact who sign Bid Bonds, Payment Bonds and Performance Bonds must file with each bond a certified and effective dated copy of their , Power of Attorney. i The party to whom the Contract is awarded will be required to execute the 1. Contract and obtain the Performance Bond within ten (10) calendar days from the date when Notice of Award is delivered to the Bidder. In case of failure of the Bidder to execute the Cont. .ct, the Owner will consider the Bidder in default, in which case the Bid Bond :,z-ompanying the Proposal shall become the property of the Owner. The Owner, within ten (10) days of receipt of acceptable Performance Bond, Payment Bond, Certificate of Insurance and Contract signed by the party to whom the Contract was awarded, shall sign the Contract and return to such party an executed .iuplicate of the Contract. Should the Owner not execute the Contract within such period, the Bidder may, by written notice, withdraw his signed Contract. Such Notice of Withdrawal shall be effective upon receipt by the Owner. 2.3 6 Bidding Information The Notice to Proceed shall be issued within ten (10) days of the execution of the Contract by the Owner. Should there be reasons why the Notice to Proceed cannot be issueu withii, such period, the time may be extended by 1r mutual agreement between the Owner and Contractor. It' the Notice to Proceed has not been issued within the ten (10) cay period or within the period u. mutually agieed upon, the Contractor may terminate the Contract without further liability on the part of either. party. The Owner may make such investigations as he deems necessary to determine the ability of the Bidder to perform the work, and the Bidder shall furnish to the Owner all such information and data for this purpose. 'the Owner I reserves the right to reject any Bid if the evidence submitted by, or investi- gation of, such Bidder fails to sat fy the Owner that such Bidder is properly qualified to carry out the obligations of the Contract and to complete the e work contemplated therein. 1 All applicable laws, ordinarce ;, and the rules and regulations of all y authorities having jurisdiction over construction of the Project shall apply to the Contract throughout. Each Bidder is responsible for inspecting the site and for reading and beiriL thoroughly familiar with the Contract Documents. The failure or omission of any Bidder to do any of the foregoing shall in no way relieve any Bidder from any obligation in respect to his Bid. k 2.14 Y Bidding Information Further, the Bidder agrees to abide by the requirements under Executive Order No. 11246 as amended, including, specifically, the provisions of the 4_ Equal Ofportunity clause set forth in the Supplenental General Conditions. L The low Bidder must supply the names and addresses of major material suppli- ers and subcontractors when requestLd to do so by the Owner. The following forms must be executed in full prior to submittal of a Bid: 1. Affirmative Action Program, Goals and Time Table Report on a Manpower Projection Report (The Seattle-King County Imposed Bid Conditions) 2. Contractor's Compliance Statement (Executive Order No. 11246) 3. Certification of Nonsegregated Facilities 4. Non-Collusion Affidavit 5. Statement of Bidder's Qualifications 6. Proposal 7. Bid Bond 2.5 Bidding Infoxtoation The following items are to be executed by the successful Bidder after 'L. Award. 1. Performance Bond 2. Payment Bond 3. Contract (L„ 4. Notice to Labor Unions - Nondiscrimination in Employment 4 5. Certificate of Insurance (r 4 r. t 9 2.6 V STATEMENT OF BIDDER'S QUALIFICATIONS Each Contractor bidding on work included in these Contract Documents shall pr- are and submit the followix.g data: 1. Name of Bidder 2. Business Address 3. How many years have you been engaged in the contracting business under the present firm name? ' .. Contracts now in hand. Gross amount? � 5 List the particular type or types of construction work performed by your Company. Y I 6. !,ist several recent construction projects which your Company has performed. Give the approximate cost and for whom this work was done. 7. List your major equipment. 8. Bank References 9. State of Washington Registration No. . Company By Authorized Signature Title 3.1 w p STATF. OF WASHINGTON ) tL. ss NON-COLLUSION AFFIDAVIT COUNTY OF ) i.. P being first duly s%,orn, on his oath says that he is and that (Office and Company Name) the bid herewith submitted is a genuine and not a sham or collusive bid, or made in the interest or on behalf of any person not therein named; and he further says that the said Bidder has nc.t directly or indirectly induc- ed or solicited any bidder on the above work or supplies to put in a sham bid, or any other person or corporation to refrain from bidding; and that said Bidder has not in any manner sought oy collusior to secure to sel an advantage over any other bidder or bidders. Subscribed and sworn to before me this __ day of , 19 Notary Punlic in and for the State of Washington, residing at �- 3.2 } a k" 4e L. EPA SPECIFICATION INSERT 4.1 r C� F" THIS PROPOSAL IS NOT TO BE REMOVED HEREFROM i 1, THE WHOLE SPECIFICATION IS PART OF THE PROPOSAL r 1. Washington 1976 King County Water District No. 107 r 5806-A 119th Avenue S.E. Bellevue, Washington 98006 Having carefully examined the Plans and Specifications for construc- tion of May Creek Sewer Interceptor, and the premises and all conditions affecting the work, the undersigned proposes to furnish all labor, materials, and equipment necessary to perform all of the work required in strict accordance with the abo,re-named documents and their implied intent for the prices listed below: ' See Measurement and Payment, Division IX, Pages 10.1 to 10.5. for descrip- tion of Bid Items. UNIT BID PRICE (NOTE: Unit prices for all items, ail extensions and total amount of bid must be shown. Show unit prices _n both words and figures and where a conflict occurs, the written words shall prevail.) ITEM APPROX. ITEMS WITH UNIT PRICE BID UNIT PRICE AMOUNT NO. QUANTITY Unit prices to be written in words Dlrs Cents Dlrs Cents 1 5115 l.f . Furnish and install 24-inch rein- torced concrete sewer pipe, ASTM C76-Class III. Per Linear Foot 2 160) l . t . Furnish and install 24-inch poly- ethylene sewer pipe. '. Per Linear Foot I t i,. t 5.1 6. B Unit Bid Price Note: Unit prices for all items, all extensions and the total amount of bid must be shown. Show unit prices in both words and figures and where conflict occurs, the written or typed words shall prevail. ITEM APPROX. ITEMS WITH UNIT PRICE BID UNIT PRICE AMOUNT N0. QUANTITY Unit Prices to be written in words) Dlrs/Cents Dirs/Cents 3 6 Ea. Manhole Type I-54 basic unit to 8 vertical feet. Per Each 4 11 Ea. Manhole Type III-54 basic unit to 8 vertical feet. Per Each 5 37 v.f. Manhole Type I-54, extra depth Per Vertical Foot i 6 18 e. f . Manhole Type 1II-54, extra depth i Per Vertical Foot 7 4620 l.f. Asphalt Pavement Patch Per Lfricar Foot 5.2 Unit Bid Price Note: Unit prices for all items, all extensions and the total amount of bid must be shown. Show unit prices in both words and figures and where conflict occurs, the written or typed words shall prevail. ITEM APPROX. ITEMS WITH UNIT PRICE BID UNIT PRICE AMOUNT NO. QUANTITY Unit prices to be written in words) Dlrs/Cents � Dlrs/Cents 8 1500 c.y. Foundation Material Per Cubic Yard 9 1500 c.y. Bank Run Gravel, Class B Per Cubic Yard ' .'ns Heavy Rip-Rap — Per Ton 11 90 Tons Protection Rock Per Ton BASIC BID TOTAL: $ SUPPLEMENTAL BID ITEMS (Do not include in Basic Bid Tota ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE S-1 Solid Rock Excavation - Thirty Dollars and no/300------- 30 00 Per Cubic Yard I f 5.3 P. L �. This Bid is submitted in accordance with Addendum No. The Bidder has acted in accordance with all bidding information and under- stands awarding procedures outlined on Page 2.1 herein and Sectiun 3 of ry the APWA Standard Specificati .s. I The Bidder agrees to prosecute the work in accordance with Section 8 of this 1•• Document and the Standard Specifications. Bidder further agrees to complete this Contract within tFe period starting with the date stated in the Notice r to Proceed. L The Bidder further understands and agrees that all construction and work in r- the stream bed of May Creek will be under the permit issued jointly by the 4 Washington State Departments of Fisheries and Game. .. The Bidder understands that the Owner reserves the right to reject any and all Proposals, as well as increase or decrease the scope of work in accord- ance with Section 4 of the APWA Standard Specifications and this Document. i Bidder Business Address �.... BY Signature of Authorized Official Telephone i.. NOTE: 1. If the bidder is a co-partnership, so slate, giving r firm name under which business is transacted. 2. If the Bidder is a corporation, this Proposal must be executed by its duly authorized officials. t `^ 3. If no bid is submitted, kindly mark "NO BID" and return to Water District No. 107, King County, Washington 98006. t i r i 5.4 C F, Nw DEPOSIT OR BID BOND FORM DEPOSIT STATEMENT 6. f Herewith find deposit in the form of certified check, Cashier's Check or Lcash in the amount of $__ which amount is not less than five percent of the total bid. SIGN HERE L BID BOND KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That we, as Principal, and as Surety, are held firmly bound unto the , as Obligee, p in the penal sum of Dollars, for the IL payment of which the Principal and the Surety hind themselves, their heirs, executors, administrators, successors and ass 's, jointly and severally by these presents. The condition of this obligation is such that if the Obligee shall make any award to the Principal for Washington, 6„ according to the terms of the Proposal or bid made by the Principal therefore, `f 4 6.1 I a' Deposit or Bid Bond Form and the Principal shall duly make and enter into a contract with the Obligee in accordance with the terms of said Proposal or Bid and award and shall give bond for the faithful performance thereof, with Surety or Sureties approved by tfe Obligee, or if the Principal shall, in case of failure to so do, pay and forfeit to the Obligee the penal amount of the deposit specified in the call for bids. Then this obligation shall be null and void; otherwise it shall be and remain in full force and effect and the surety shall forthwith pay and forfeit to the Cbligee, as penalty and liquidated damages, the amount of this bond. SIGNED, SEALED AND DATED THIS _ DAY OF � 19_ Principal Surety 19 Received return of deposit in the sum of $ 6.2 CONTRACT W t �:. THIS AGREEMENT, made :n copies, each of which shall. be f' deemed original, and entered into as of the date hereinafter affixed, by and L between Water District No. 107, King County, Washington, hereinafter called r the Owner, and `..»���... HEREI'-AFTER called the Contractor. ' WIl1111TH: That in consideration of the tetms and conditions contained herein : ,id attached I and made a part of this Agreement, the parties hereto covenant and agree as r :,.. tollows: L. I. The Contractor shall do all work and furnish all tools, materials and 1 j equipment for in accordance with and as described in the attached plans and Specifications, including Addenda _ _ _i which are by this refetence incor otated herein and made a p part hereof, and shall perforn, any alters- Lions in or additions tc the work provided ender this Contract anci ery r �,. part thereof. , t Becau.^e of the difficulty in computing t,i, actual material loss and disad- } ¢ vantages to the Owner, it is determined in advance and agreed by the L r Ir n, 1. 6.3 Contract parties hereto that the Contractor will pay the Owner the amount of $250 per cr. ' endar day for each and every day the work remains uncompleted after expiration of tha srecified time for completict,, as representing a reasonable forecast of the actual damages which the (honer will suffer by the failure of the Contractor to complete the work within the stipulated time. The execution of the Agreement shall constitute acknowledgment by the Contractor that he has ascertained and agrees that the Owner will actually suffer damages in the amount herein '.ixed for each day during which the completion of the work is avoidably delayed beyond the stipulated completion date. The Contractor shall provide and bear the expense of all , equipment, work and labor of any sort whatsoever that may be required for the transfer of materials and for constr•:cting and completi,.g the work pro- vided for in this Contract and every part thereof and shall guarantee said i materials and work for a period of one year after completion of this Con- tract, except such as are mentioned in the Specifications to be furnished by Water District No. 107. I?. Water District No. 107, King County, Washington, hereby promises and agrees with the Contractor to employ, and dues employ, the C-.,ntractor to provide the materials and to do and cause to be done the above described work and to complete and finish the same according to the attached Plans : d Speci- fications and the terms and conditions herein contained and hereby contracts to pay for the same according to the attached Specifications and the sched- ule of prices bid and hereto attached, at the time and in the manner and upon the conditions provided for in this Contract. r 6.4 c A R Pv Contract III. The Contractor for himself, and for his heirs, executors, administrators, Csuzcessors and assigns, does hereby agree to the full performance of '1 covenants herein contained upon the part of the Contractor. IV. It is further provided that no liability shall attach to Water District No. 107 by reason of entering into this Contract, except as expressly provided herein. 1. COUNTERSIGNED: This day of 19_ �- IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have caused this Agiement to be executed ' the day and year first hereinabove written. OWNER: t 4. — By_` Title f (Seal) ATTEST: t By Title r Contract 4 CONTRACTOR: P' k., r BY Title Address___ k � (Seal) ATTEST: by Title r i i p 4i M i 6.. i IrRYn + 1 S �- 6.6 ..i i PERFORMANCE BOND KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That whereas WATER DISTRICT NO. 107, King -, County, Washington, has awarded to — — Contractor — hereinafter designated as the "Principal ," a Contract for all as hereto attached and made a part hereof and whereas, said Principal is (. required under the terms of said Contract to furnish a Fond for the faithful performance of said Contract, and u: -reas, it is understood :nd made a part of -onsideration for this obligation that Water District No. 107, King County, Washington shall have the right to sue on his Bond in its own name _ to recover for any loss, injury, damage or liability whatsoever sustained or incurred by it by reason of any breach of the Contract Documents, or of any provision in this Bond, in the same manner and to the same extent as though this obligation ran directly to the said District. NOW, THEREFORE, we the Principal, and a corporation, organized and existing under and by virtue of the Laws of the State of Washington, duly authorized to do business in the State of Washington, as surety, are held and firmly bound unto the State of Washington, for and ..i behalf of in the sum of _ Dollars ($__ ) lawful money of the United States, for the payment of which sum well and truly M 6.7 4 vi Performance Bond �• to be made, we bird ourselves, our heirs, executors, administrators, successors. and assigns, iointly and severally, firmly by these presents. THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH, that if the above bonded principal, his or its heirs, executors, administrators, successors or assigns, shall in all things stand to an,l abide by and well and truly keep and perform the covenants, conditions and agreements in the said Contract, and shall faithfully perform all ' the provisions of such Contract and shall also well and truly perform and fulfill all the undertakings, covenants, terms, conditions and agreements of any and al.I duly authorized modifications of said Contract that may hereinafter be made, at the time and in the manner therein specified and shall pay all laborers, mechanics, subcontractors, and materia : men, and all persons who shall supply such person or persons, or subcontractors, with provisions and supplies for the carrying on of such work, on his or their part, and shall indemnify and save harmless the State of Washington and the their officers and agents; and shall further save harmless and indemnify said from any defect or defects, in any of the workmanship entering into any part of the work or designated equipment covered by said Contract, which shall develop or be discovered within one (1) year after the final acceptance of such work, then this obligation shall become -- null and void; otherwise, it shall be and !ain in full force and effect, provi— ded that the liability hereunder for defects in materials and workmanship for a period of one (1) year after the acceptance of the work shall not exceed the sum 'r of Dollars 100% of thccontract sum a j 6.8 L F.., Performa„ce Bond I L And the said surety, for value received, hereby further stipulates ...id agrees a P that no change, extension of time, alteration or addition to the tLe terms of the Contract or to the work to be performed thereunder or the pecifications accompanying the same shall in anywise affect its obligation on this Bond, and it does hereby waive notice of any change, extension of time, alterations or additions to the terms of the Contract or the work or to the Specifications. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said principal and the said surety have caused this Bond and three ('t) co•:nterparts thereof to be signed and sealed by their duly autho" .ed officers this day of 19 _ 1.. Principal i '- TWO WITNESSES: By F Title /' -- L ATTF": (If Corporation) LXRPOR4TE SEAL By Title e Surety I Bv` Its APPROVED AS TO FORM: Address of local office and agent of — Surety Company is: L By— Attorney for 6.9 1. R e r a NOTICE TO LABOR UNIONS OR O'fHZ% O GAglV-, I0N OF 1OKMRS 4 r. NONDISCRIHINATION IN EtPLOYMMM To: ' (Name of union or organization of corkers) The undersigned currently holds contract(s) with (Name of Applicant ' involving funds or credit_of that U.S. Covarnmant or (a) subcontract(s) with a prLie contractor holding such contract(s). You are advised that under the provisions of the above con";act(s) or sulcontract(s) and in accordance with Section 202 o: }acacutiva Order No. 11246 dated September 24, 1965. the uaderaigncd is obliged rot to discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment bacausa of race, color, creed, or national origin. This obligatioa not to dis- criminate in employment includes, but is rot limited to, the followins: w.. L- PLO`%jZWf, UPGRADING, MkNSFER, OR DZMOTION RECRUITMENT AN^ ADVERTISING RATES OF PAY 02 OTHER FO-MS 07 CC'.LPVNSATION L SELECTION FOR TRAINING INCLUDING APPRENTICESHIP, LAYOFF OR TEMINSTION LThis notice is furnished you pursuant to the provisions of the above contract(s) or subcontract(s) and E:cecutive Order 11246. Copies of this notice will be posted by the undersigned in conspicaou3 places available to employees or applicants for employment, (Contractor or subcontCactor) F (Date) _ i 6. 10 w M a I CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE Name of Insurance Company: Job Description: _ This is to certify to: _ Addre: s: that the following policy(s) , subject to its normal terms, conditions and exclusions has been issued as indicated below: Name of Insured: Address: !' INSURANCE Id FORCE Type of Insurance Pol. No Eff. Expires Limits of Liabili[� _ Manufacturers' & Contractors' 500,000 Each Verson (Bodily Injury) __ h 000,000 Each Occurrence Manufacturers' & Contractors' 500,OOC Each Person Including Completed Operations 1,000,000 Each Aggregate T (Property Damage) Owners' & Contractors' 500,000 Each Person Protective 1,000,000 Each Occurrence Bodily Injury) _ Owners' & Contractors' 500,000 Each Occurrence Protective 1,000,000 Each Aggregate (Property Damage) _ ' Blanket Contractual 500,000 Each Person (Bodily Injury) 1,000,000 Each Occurrence Blanket Contractual 500,000 Each Occurrence r- (Property Damage) 1,000,000 Each Aggregate Comprehensive General 500,000 Each Person (Bodily Injury) 1,000,000 Each Occurrence _1,0o-o-L000_Ageregate Products Comprehensive General 500,000 Each Occurrence (Property Damage) 1,000,000 Aggregate Operations p 1,000,000 Aggregate Protective 1 1,000,000 Aggregate Products L _ _ 1s00-0 L000 Aggregate Contractual Automobile 500,000 Each Person (Lodily Injury) 1,000,000 Each Occurrence Automobile 500,000 Each Occurrence (Property Damage) Yes No Policy(s) has (have) been endorsed to the occurrence basis, for both Bodily Injury and Property Damage Liability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . King County Water District No. 107 and Moore, Wallace & Kennedy, Inc. L have been added to the above policy(s) as additional named insureds . Explosion, blasting, collapse and destruction of underground utilities (X.C.U.) covered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -- L., In the event of cancellation of or any reduction of limits in the insurance or other r material change as shown herein, the issuing company will give ten (10) days' advance v notice by certified mail to the parties to whom this certificate is issued and at the address stated herein. The mailing of such notice as aforesaid shall be sufficient ! proof of notice. Date: Ft Insurances ^ompany 6.11 Authorized Representative I f APWA STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS The Standard Specifications for Municipal Public Works Construction, 1975 .' V Edition, prepared by the Washington State Chapter of the American Public Works • Association, hereinafter called the Standard Specifications, are the basic specifications for this project. 1;. r- t, The Standard Specifications are modified by the special ; rovisions and supple- mental specifications to both the General Requirements and Covenants (Division I) I and the Detail Specifications (Divisions II and III) presented herein. Section and subsection numbers of these specs-.1 provisions refer to corresponding section and subsection numbers of the Standard Specifications. Measurement and Payment (Division IX) of this Document supersedes all Measure- meet and Payment subsections in the Standard Specifications. Measurement and Payment will be based on the terms set forth herein only for those items as specifically listed in the Proposal. bw I L i 7.1 I mom i.. DIVISION 1 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND COVENANTS General requirements and covenants shall be as set forth in Division I of the Standard Specifications which is the Standard Specifications for Municipal Public Works Construction, 1975 Editio.,, prepared by the Wash'ngton State Chapter of the American Public Works Association, APWA. IWO All general requirements and covenants set forth herein shall be con- L sidered solely as modifications or additions to the Standard Sperifications referenced above. Except as specifically madified and added to herein, all 1 terns set :orth in the Standard Specifications shall be strictly adhered c to in execution of all work. j LIST OF MODIFIED SECTIONS 1 Section, 1 Definitions ai.d Terms Section 2 Proposal Requirements and Conditions •- Section 3 Aa.ard and Execution of Contract Section 4 Scope of Work , Section 5 Control of Work section 6 Control of Materials Section 7 Leg31 Relations and Responsibility to the Public ►- Section 8 Prosecution and Progress Section 9 Measurement and Payment Section 10 Additions to General Requirements and Covenants (NEW SECTION) i ' � r 8. 1 I Divi-+ n I SECTION 1 - DEFINITION AND TERMS c 1-1.01 OWNER Delete and replace with the following: King Cotnty Water District 107, Bellevue, Washington, acting through its legally constituted officials, officers, Consulting Engineer, or employees, is the Owner. 1-1.02 ENGINEER Where the word "Engineer" is used, the word shall mean. "Owner." 1-1.03 CONSULTING ENGINEERS Delete and replace with the following: The firm of Moore, Wallace & Kennedy, Inc. may be retained to act in an advisory capacity when requested by the Owner. 1_1.04 INSPECTOR Delc 'e and replace with the following: The inspector or inspect Owner who are placed in supervision of ;y any part of the inspectic authority limited to the particular duties entrusted by the G....rr. 1-1.08 PLANS Add the following: ~ The official drawings for this project are Sheets 2574.034-1 through R 2574.034-8. These drawings are referred to in this document and in the Standard Specifications as the Plans. i I {. 8.2 S-190 SAN-1 MAY CREEK TRUNK - CORRESPONDENCE -41 TO EPA/DOE GRANT 16X f Division I 1-1.25 RIGHT-OP-WAY, EASEMENT Add the following: The right-of-way shall be considered the while area between the lines of abutting private properties which is public right-of-way intended i for the construction of roads, streets, etc. The location of right-of-way and easement lines is shown on the Plans. All construction work, materials, and equipment shall be confined within the right-of-way and easement lines as shown. r e.. L. rw r 8.3 it r k Division I SECTION 2 - PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS AND CONDITIONS 2-1.09 WITHDRAWAL OR REVISION OF PROPOSAL Delete the second paragrap:: 1 and replace with the following: No bidder will be permitted to withdraw his proposal between the closing time for receipt of proposals and the execution of contract, unless the award is delayed for a period exceeding sixty (60) calendar days. ' r L 8.4 r Division I SECTION 3 - AWARD AND EXECUTION OF CONTRACT 3-1.01 AWARD OF CONTRACT Delete and replace with the following: �.. The award of contract, if it be awarded, shall be made within sixty (60) F, calendar days after the date of opening of bids to the lowest bidder i deemed responsible by the Owner. The successful bidder will be notified, by letter mailed to the address shown on his proposal, that his bid has been accepted and that he has been awarded the contract. The Owner reserves the right to reject any and all bids. 3-1 .07 CONTRACTOR'S 1NSURANCE Add the following: All insurance as required herein or by the Standard Specifications shall be maintained by the Contractor throughout the performance of the work and for longer periods as required in the following sections. No insurance shall be cancelled or modified without 15 days' written advance notice to the Owner. 3-1.07B PUBLIC LIABILITY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE INSURANCE Delete and replace with the following: The Contractor shall obtain and keep in force public liability and property L damage insurance written by Underwriters through an agency s., �sfactory to L the Owner. The minimum policy limits of such insurance shall be as follows: L L 8.5 1, 1 Division I Bodily injury or death per each person = 500,000 Bodily injury or death per each occurrence 1,000,000 Property damage per each occurrence 500,000 Property damage in aggregate 1,000,000 Such liability insurance shall be maintained until final acceptance of the work by the Owner and shall include completed operations and products liability insurance which shall continue in force for a period of one calendar year after acceptance by the Owner. Said insurance shall provide coverage to the Contractor, any subcontractor performing work provided by this Contract, and the Owner. The Owner shall b- named as an additional insured on the policy in%ofar as the work and obligations performed under the Contract are concerned. Such insurance shall be provided on a comprehensive general liability form, including broad form occurrence property damage liability, owned and non-owned vehicles, blanket contractual liability and completed opera- tions liability. Such liability insurance shall not exclude explosion, collapse, or damage to underground utilities. 3-1.07C INDEMNIFY OWNER FROM LOSS Add the following: The Contractor shall understand that the Owner may withhold amounts sufficient to pay any property damage claim of which the Owner may have knowledge and regardless of the informalities of notice of such claim, arising out of the performance of this Contract. 8.6 r f .. 4 Division I ^6 The term "property claim" shall not include any claim for personal injuries or any claim by persons furnishing su,.ilies or materials or performing 1•• labor for the Contractor. The amount withheld will not be paid to the Claimant by the Owner, but will be held until either the Contractor secures a written release from the Claimant, obtains a court decision that such claim is without merit, or satisfies any judgment in favor of the ?� Claimant on such claim. The obligation of the Contractor to defend, pay the expense of, and pay any judgment entered in, any suit described above t shall extend tL any suit brought to recover for damage or injury caused by the carelessness or neglig�nce of the Contractor regardless of the legal theory under which such third person claims compensation for such damage or injury from the Owner. i The Contractor will hold harmless, indemnify and defend the Owner, the Engineer and his consultants, and each of their officers and employees and agents, from any and all liability claims, losses or damage arising or alleged to arise from the performance of the work described herein, but not Including the sole negligence of the Owner, the Engineer and his consultants, and each of their officers and employees and agents. 3-1.09 BUILDER'S RISK INSURANCE Add the following: The Contractor shall ootaiu and keep in force, during the fulfillment of this Contract, builder's risk insurance covering all work performed, materials, equipment or other items to be incorporated in the work. i L f L 8.7 r Division I t' Such insurance shall provide extended coverage for loss by fire and shall j� not exclude loss due to vandalism and malicious mischief. Such insurance k shall name the owner as an additional insured. i.. r V r 8.8 q Division I SECTION 4 - SCOPE OF WORK 4-1 SCOPE OF WORK 4-1.01 INTENT OF CONTRACT Add the following: Minor items of work or material omitted from the Plans or Specifications, but clearly inferable from information presented or accepted good practice shall be provided or performed as part of the work. If, in the course of the Murk, the Contractor shall discover any dis- crepancy tt:v ,en tb• .1 ,n% c., d ioy icei coudlt —r„ or any errcif or i missions in the Plans, the Contractor shall notify the Owner in writing. The Owner shall promptly rectify the situation. Any work done after such discovery, until authorized by the Owner, shall be at the risk of the Contractor. 4.1 .02 AUDIT10NAL INSTRUCTIONS Delete and replace with the following: No additional instructions or drawings will be prepared or issued by the a.. Owner except as he may deem necessary. i i. r. 4-1.03 INCREASE OR DECREASE OF WORK Delete and replace with the following: All requirements of this subsection shall be as specified in the Standard Specifications except for the terms which will require the execution of p a supplemental agreement. it 8.9 Division I •f A supplemental agreement shall be required only when an authorized M alteration results in an increase or decrease of more than twenty-five percent (25!) of the total cost of the work. i,. 4-1.06 WASTE SITES Delete and replace with the following: l All waste sites shall be furnished by the Contractor unless a site is i provided on the Plans. Copies of permits for borrow and waste_ sites and reclamation plans shall be furnished to the Owner. The Contractor shall be responsible for compliance with all Federal, State, County and local regulations concerning deposition of waste materials. i 4-1.07 SALVAGE DLl1 Le and replace with the following: All materials, except those designated to be salvaged, shall become the property of the Contractor and shall be promptly removed from the site for disposal as he sees fit. 4-1.10 RIGHT TO ISSUE MANGE ORDERS Add the following: If, for any reason, it may become desirable or necessary during the course of the work to change the alignment, dimensions, or other design r of the work, the Owner reserves the right to issue change orders to give effect to such changes. These change orders will be without effect unless issued in writing by the Owner. The changes ordered may or may not result 8.10 ,i, K Division 1 in a change in the amount of work. if the changes do, in the opinion of the Owner, change the amount of work, the Contract price shall be adjusted as extra, reduced, or omitted work and material , as the case may be. Extra work and material shall be the furnishing of all labor, materials, equipment, and incidentals requiicd to accomplish the authorized extra worms. Payment for additional quantities shall be made at the unit contract price as shown in the Proposal. Work items not included in the Proposal shall be paid at prices agreed upon by the Contractor and the Owner. The value of the omitted work and materials will be deducted from the Contract price. Such value of omitted work and material will be the price agreed upon by the Contractor and the Owner. The unit contract prices at shown in the Proposal will be the basis for such agreement. The Ot,mor may instruct. the Contractor to make minor changes in the con>truc- tion where such changes are, in the opinion of the Owner, not inconsistent with the purposes of the Contract Documeuts and where such changes do not involve any additional cost for the work to be furnished. The Contractor shall make no such minor changes without receipt of a written instruction from the Owner, setting forth the minor change to be made and the Contractor's compliance therewith shall constitute his acknowledgement that such minor change will not result in any additional cost for construction. 8.11 r: Division I SECTION 5 - CONTROL OF WORK ''i-1.01 AUTHORITY OF OWNER Delete and replace with the following: r- It is understood and agreed by and between the parties hereto that the work included in this .;ontract is to be done in accordance with the an& and Specifications and to the satisfaction of the Owner. However, nothing contained in the Contract shall be : onstrued as requiring the Owner to direct the method of performing the work. All decisions of the Owner as t, the meaning and intent of the Contract, Plans and Specifications, Requests for Partial Pay Estimates, the quality or acceptability of materials furnished and work pee med, the rate of progress of such wo,k, and the acceptable fulfillment and performance of the Contract shall be final. All submittals required of the Contractor, including but not limited to 4 construction schedules, aequests for payment, shop drawi,gs, catalog cuts, and general correspondence shall be submitted directly to the Owner. 5-1.02 AU'rHORITIi AND DUTIES OF INSPECTGRS Add the following: Inspectors for this project will be furnished by the Owner. MrrRO may inspect all phase& of construction and perform tests thereon. However, any instructions or requests to the Contractor shall be through the Owner. r. 8.12 r t i . Division I -1t { t t 5-1.05 NOTIFICATIONS RELATIVE TO CONTRACTOR'S OPERATIONS Delete and replace the first paragraph with the following: s The Contractor shall notify all concerned agencies of his construction operations including but not limited to the following: 1. Fire District No. 25 2. King County Department of Public Safety 3. King County Department of Public Works ' 4. King County Park Department 5. City of Renton, Department of Public Works P. Puget Sound Power d Light Company 7. Washington Natural Gas Company 8. Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone Co. 9. Washington State Department of Fisheries IU. Washington State Department of Came The notification shall be in writing and shall include the propon-d con- struction schedule. 5-1.06 PROTECTION OF LINE AND CRADE STAKES Add the following: The Owner will provide line and grade stakes for sewer construction. The Contractor shall keep the Owner informed as to his operations and any request for staking shall be two (2) working days in advance of his require- ments. L L r 8.13 �.. Division I 5-1.08 MOVING OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE UTILITIES Delete and replace with the following: No existing utility, public or private, shall be moved without the express written approval of the (timer and the proper authorities having control of the utility in question. It shall be the responsibility of the Contractor to obtain such approval. Should the moving of any utility be authorized, the work required shall be accomplishee'. by personnel controlling the utility. All costs shall be borne by the Contractor. 5-1.11 INSPECTION BY THE OWNER Delete and replace with t`ie following: All materials and each part or detail of the work shall be subject at all times to inspection by t'ie Owner and METRO and their inspectors, and the i Contractor will to held strictly to the true intent of the Specifications in regard to quality of materials, workmanship, and the diligent execution of the Contract. Such inspection may includn mill, plant, or shop inspec- Lion, and any material furnished under these Specifications is subject to such inspection. The Owner and METRO inspectors shall be allowed access R.. to all parts of the work and shall be furnished with such information by the Contractor as is required to make a complete and detailed inspection. t ' w. Inspection of work done shall not relieve the Contractor of his obligations and responsibilities to furnish materials and perform acceptable work in } conformance with the Plans and Specifications. Failure on the part of the Owner to reject bad or inferior work or materials shall not be construed to imply acceptance of such work or materials. 8.14 r 4 Division I If any work should be covered up without the inspection and approval of - the Owner, it must, if required by the Owner, be uncovered for inspection at the Contractor's expense. w I L_ F 5-1.12 MAINTENANCE OF WORK AFTER ACCEPTANCE Delete and replace with the following: The Contractor shall be responsible for the entire improvement and shall maintain it until it has been accepted by the Owner. The Owner reserves M -, the right to utilize any portion of the improvement prior to final acceptance. Such use shall not be construed as acceptance of that portion of the work and shall not relieve the Contractor of the responsibility for maintaining the entire improvement including that portion being used. All work shall be guaranteed by the Contractor against defects in materials and workmanship for a minimum period of one (1) year after the date of the acceptance of the work by the Owner. It is undp-stood and agreed that the Contractor will make, at no cost to the Owner, all repairs or replacements necessitated by defects in maLerials or workmanship supplied and performed Ly him during the guarantee period. , .,ch work shall include the repair of , all damage to any work, materials, or equipment due to settlement. The approval of the final Request for Payment and the making of the final payment by the Owner to the Contractor shall not relieve the Contractor of responsibility for faulty materials or workmanship. The Owner will give notice of apparent defects as they arise and the Contractor shall p6. l it i1r 8. 15 Division 1 promptly make all repairs and replacements. If the Contractor fails to correct defects immediately after receipt of notice, the Owner may elect to perform the required work. In such a case, the Contractor shall be liable for all costs incurred by the Owner. The Contractor shall hold the Owner harmless from claims of any kind arming from damage due to defects which occur during the guaranty period. p ' L L L L 8.16 x 4 x Division I SECTION 6 - CONTROL OF MATERIALS t:. 6-1.01 SOURCE OF SUPPLY AND QUALITY OF MATERIALS Add the following: The Contractor may offer material or equipment with equal or better quali- C *ies and performance in substitution for those specified. All offers for substitution of equipment shall be made by the Contractor in writing to the Owner at least four (4) weeks prior to the time. that the Contractor wishes r+ to order such equipment. The offer of substitution shall include sufficient liar* technical data concerning the product to allow the Owner to as-ess the t acceptability of the equipment or material. The Contractor shall abide by �xt the Owner's judgment when proposed substitute items are judged to be un- acceptable. Acceptance of substitute items by the Owner shall not relieve the Contractor of full responsibility for the efficiency, sufficiency, quality, and performance of the items. C The Contractor shall deliver to the Owner a material and equipment list no t later than ten (10) days prior to beginning const*_uction work on this project. This list shall contain sufficient information to pe.mit evaluation of each item including the name and address o?: the manufacturer, model number, j� and trade name. Only material so listed shall be installed dueirg this L.. project. Along with the material list and equipm-nt list, the Cc-ntractor shall submit the catalog data required by Section 6-1.07 of this Document. If requested by the Owner, the Contractor shall obtain a written guarantee Lfrom the manufacturer warranting that his equipment or material meets the Specifications established herein and in the Standard Specifications. 8.17 r Division I All materials, pipe, appurtenances, and equipment shall he new, exhibit r good workmanship, and be of good quality. i" 6-1.02 SAMPLES AND TESTS Add the following: The Contractor shall at his own expense make all reasonable tests of the work upon the Owner's request. The Owner shall have the authority to order the Contractor to subject all machinery, equipment, and work to such tests that in the opinion of the Owner will assist in determining if the Contract has been faithfully performed. Prior to the time scheduled for a perform- ance test to be observed by the Owner, the Contractor shall make whatever preliminary tests are necessary to assure that the work is in accordance with the Specifications. 1f, for any reason, the test observed by the Owner is unsatisfactory, the Contractor shall pay all costs for the Owner to observe the retest. Should the Contractor request the Owner to inspect materials at the point. of manufacture, the Contractor shall reimburse the Owner for all co ;ts incurred for travel expense, lodging and subsistence, and time to and from the place of manufacture. E ip if the Specifications, the Owner's instructions, laws, ordinances, or any governmental authority require any work to be specially inspected or approved, the Contractor shall give the Owner timely notice of its readiness for inspection and of the date fixed for such inspection. 8.18 ...E f Y Division I 6-1.04 STORAGE OF PLNTERIALS Add the following: iNo materials shall be stored on tha public right-of-way. No material or equipment shall be placed or stored outside the casement lines shown on the Plans. 6-1.07 1•LITERIALS APPROVAL DATA Add the following: The Contractor shall furnish to the Owner six (6) copies of complete catalog data for every manufactured item of materials and all components to be used in the work, including specific performance data, material description, rating, capacity, working pressure, material gage or thickness, brand name, catalog number and general type. a. These submittals shall be compiled by the Contractor and approved by Owner before any of the material is ordered. b. Each data sheet or catalog shall be indexed according to specification section and paragraph for easy reference. c. After written approval, these submittals shall become a part of the Contract, and may not be deviated from except upon written approval of the Owner. d. Catalog data for material approved by the Owner does not in any case supersede the Plans and Specifications. The approval of the Owner shall not relieve the Contractor from responsibility for deviations from Plans or Specifi- cations, unless he has in writing called the Owner's atten- tion to such deviations at the time of the submittal, nor I �• shall it relieve him from responsibility for errors of any 60 t L 8.19 P" Division I , sort in the items submitted. The Contractor shall check the work described by the catalog data with the Plans and Speci- fications for deviations and errors. e. It shall be the responsibility of the Contractor to insure that all items to be furnished fit the space available. He shall male necessary field measurements to ascertain space , requirements, including those for connections, and shall order such sizes and shapes of material that the final installation shall suit the true intent and meaning of the Plans and Specifications. ` f. Where equipment requiring different arrangement or connec- tons from those shown is approved, it shall be the respon- sibility of the Contractor to install the equipment to operate properly, and in harmony with the intent of the Plans and Specifications, and to make all changes in the work required by the different arrangement or connections. 6-1.08 SHOP DRAWINGS Add the following: G The Contractor shall provide shop drawings, settings, schedules, and such other drawings as may be necessary fo the prosecution of the work in the shop and in the field as required by the Plans, Specifications or Owner's instructions. Deviations from the Plans and Specifications shall be called to the attention of the Owner at the time of the first submittal of shop �- drawings and other drawings for approval. The Owner's approvdl of any drawings shall not release the Contractor from responsibility for such 4 L j 8.20 MUTY i t t. Division I r L'. deviations. Shop drawings shall be submitted according to the following r schedule: a. Four (4) copies shall be submitted at least thirty (30) days before the materials indicated thereon are to be needed, or earlier if required to prevent delay of the work. b. The Owner will, within ten (10) days of the submittal i of any shop drawings, return two (2) copies to the Contractor marked with all correction; and changes. c. The Contractor shall then correct the shop drawings to conform to the corrections and changes requested by the Owner. a. { i Y 8.21 r Y 1 t , 3 Division I SECTION 7 - LEGAL RELATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITY TO THE PUBLIC 7-1.04 PROTECTION OF WORKMEN AND PROPERTY Delete the second paragraph and add the following: The Contractor will be solely and completely responsible for conditions of the job site, including safety of all persons and property during the performance of the work. This requirem .,c will apply continuously and not be limited to working hours. It is further understood that the Owner and/or Engineer shall be in no way responsible for the Contractor's compli- ance with any and/or all safety requlrem: ta. Any plan or method suggested by the Owner and/or Engineer, if adopted or followed by the Contractor in i whole or in part, shall be used at the risk and responsibility of the Contractor, and the 0nier and/or Engineer shall assume no responsibility. The duty of the Owner to conduct construction review of the Contractor's performance is not intended to include review of the adequacy of the Contractor's safety measure, in, on or near the construction site. 7-1.06 SELECTION OF LABOR Add the following: the Contractor covenants and agrees that i, .all matters pertaining to the performance of. this Contract, the Contractor shall at all times conduct his business in a manner which assures fair, equal, and non-discriminatory treat- ment of all persons without respect to race, creed, or national origin, and, in particular: i 8.22 L. t Division 1 • a. Contractor will maintain open hiring and employment practices !" and will welcome applications for employment, in all positions, 4 i from qualified individuals who are members of racial or reli- gious minorities, and b. Contractor will comply strictly with all requirements of applicable Federal, State, or local laws or regulations issued pursuant the-eto relating to the establishment of 4 non-discriminatory requirements in hiring and employment prac- tices and assuring the service of all patrons or customers without discrimination as to any person's race, creed, color, or national origin. 7-1.07 LEGAL WACES ON PUBLIC WORKS Add the following: Wage rates shall be as specified in the most. current Federal Register at the time of bid call and are to be considered as a part of these specifi- cations. The wage rates included in these specifications are for reference only and are not necessarily the most current. Inasmuch as the Contractor will be held tesponsible for paying the prevailing wages, it is imperative that all contractors familiarize themselves with the current wage rates before submitting bids based on these Specifications. r - r 7-1.10 PERMITS AND LICENSES Add the following: t All construction in public road rights-of-way shall be done in accordance f y with the standards and requirements of the governmental agency having { r 8.23 i e 4 ! . Division I jurisdiction, and in accordance with the requirements of the permit there- fore. The Contractor shall be responsible to ascertain these requirements. 6 A street bond and permit will be required of the Contractor by the City of C �. Renton. 7-1.15 MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC t 7-1.15A DIVISION OF RESPONSIBILITY Delete and replace with the following: rho contrar-or shall be responsible for the maintenance, control and the srfeguard of all traffic of whatever nature at all times within and immediately abutting the project. 7-1.15H STREET CIOSURES OR PARTIAL CLOSURES Delete and replace with the following: Project work and all other Contractor's activities shall be performed to minimize interference with vehicular and pedestrian traffic. The Contractor shall not close or partially close any public street without written approval from the City of Renton. 7-1.15D MU STINC TRAFFIC SIGNS AND FACILITIES Delete and replace with the fo' owing: The Contractor shall be responsible for and shall reset all removed signs L into their permanent location at no additional cost to the Owner. i L L L 8.24 t Division I 7-1.15E DETOURS Delete and replace with the following: Soft shoulders shall be plainly marked with appropriate warning and/or ' signaling devices. 6 All detours inside and outside the limits of the project shall be provided, maintained and marked by the Contractor. 1 7-1.15G PROTECTION OF PEDESTRIAN AND VEHICULAR TRAFFIC Add the following: The Contractor shall provide sufficient warning signs, signals and markings d for all traffic at all hours of the day and night. Adequate lighting shall also be provided for these warning devices, foot bridges, foot traffic detours, open trenches and other excavations. 7_1.15) FLAGMEN Delete and replace with the following: An adequate number of flagmen shall be provided and stationed for the maintenance, control, and safeguarding of all traffic of whatever nature during all material loading and unloading, as well as during actual con- struction operations. 7-1.151 DUS. CONTROL Delete and replace with .he following: ' It shall be the Contractor's responsibility to control dust by watering, chemical application or other methods approved by the Owner. All costs incurred shall be considered as incidental to the cost of the construction and shall be included in the Unit Contract Prices of the work. `. 8.25 Division I 7-1.15K WATCHMEN Add the following: Watchmen shall be provided as necessary and as directed by the Owner to insure safety for the residents and their children in and around the 444 project. tMt' b.. r" 7-1.16 TRAFFIC CONTROL WITHIN AND ABUTTING THE PROJECT Delete t1� Sections 7-1.16, 7-1.17 and 7-1.18 and replace with the following: The Contractor shall furnish, place, .and maintain all necessary signs, barricades, and warn'ag lights. Barricades shall be reflectorized and equipped with flashers as specified in Part V of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways. �- All costs incurred by the Contractor in placing and maintaining signs, barricades, and warning lights shall be considered as incidental to the i cost of :he construction a+id shall be included in the Unit Contract Prices of the: work. , r 7. 1.20 USE OF ER:LOSIVES Delete and replace with the following: t� L Blasting will not be l rmitted without specific written authorization r from the Owner. L The use of explosives, when authorized, shall be handled and used in {{ strict compliance with the State of Washington, Department of Labor and t L L 8.26 4 Division I Industries Explosive Code of 1969, WAC 296-50, and the State of Washington Explosives Act, RCW Chapter 70.74, as amended by Chapter 137, Laws of 1969. The Explosives Act and the Code shall a read and en- forced jointly. _ Regardless of State and local laws, the Contractor shell not store over- night any type of explosive or explosive detonator on the job site or anywhere in the general area. Only the quantity of explosives and detonators required for each day's work shall be brought to the job site. The Owner's inspector will determine the exact quantity of explosive material and detonators �,roug'it to the job for each working day. The Owner's inspector will d .ermine the exact quantity of explosive material and detonators removed from the site at the end of each day, and the Contractor shall provide, in writing, an exact accounting of the explo- sives and detonators used. Handling, transporting, use, and storage of explosives while onsite shall. be in strict accordance with all requirements of this Specification and the Explosives Code and Explosives Act previously stated in this subsection. Ir When the use of explosives is necessary for the prosecution of the work, ` the Cuntractor shall have a special clause in his insurance permitting the blasting. r f 8.27 f L. Division I L Prior to the start of any work requiring the use of explosives, the P" Owner will require written proof of the Contractor's compliance with b: all applicable regulations regarding licenses and/or permits. 7-1.26 CONTRAC70RIS OFFICE Add the folloi i,g: l.. During the life of the project, th - Contractor shall maintain an office at the work site. The office shall be equipped with adequate lighting , +- and a drafting type table suitable for examination of Plans and Specifi- cations. The office shall be heated and equipped with a telephone. Radio-telephone is not an acceptable substitute. w. a Ly}r L 4 L 1r L L I L C 8.28 f' Division I P` 1 SECTION 8 - PROSECUTION AND PROGRESS 8-1.01 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE Delete and replace with the following: p Immediately after award of the Contract, the Contractor shall prepare and t submit to the Owner for approval , a detailed progress schedule. The progress L• schedule shall indicate the Contractor's ability to complete the project within the time specified herein and in Section 8-1.05. ' Starting ani finishing dates for each phase shall be shown. The Contractor shall submit to the Owner, on a bi-weekly basis, a revised construction ri. schedule indicating work completed and a:.y proposed changes in the original construction schedule. The Contractor shall inform the Owner of any fore- } seen delay in the execution of the work. Y 8-1.05 CONTRACT TIME Delete Paragr.,, 3 1-4 and add the following: f' The time for completion of this project shall be as specified in the w. Proposal and shall commence with and include the date stated in the Notice to Proceed. The time for completion shall also ii:clude the time necessary for final inspection and t',e correction of any and all defects revealed by final inspection. L L L 8.29 r Division I 8-1.08 FAILURE TO COMPLETE WORK ON TIME - LIQUIDATED DAMAGFS Add the following: "Liquidated Dsmages" shall be payable in the amount per calendar day shown in the Contract. The Contractor shall also reimburse the Owner for the cost of all inspection, supervision, and legal expense incurred by failure of the Contractor to complete the work within the contract time specified. i 1 t.. F L L t.: 1 L L L L 6. t f 8.30 z c Y F' �'-- Division I SECTION 9 - MEASUREMENT AND PAYMENT 9-1.01 MEASUREMENT Add the following: Measurement of pay quantities shall be as set forth in DIVISION IX - MEASUREMENT AND PAYMENT of this Document. 9-1.05 PROGRESS PAYMENTS FINAL PAYMENT RETAINED PERCENTAGE Delete 1 and replace with the following- The Contractor shall be entitled to monthly progress payments corresponding to the Stage of the work. The Contractor shall submit to the Owner, not Llater than ten (10) days prior to the second Wednesday of each month, a 4444 request for payment for work completed during the previous calendar rc,)nth. i.. Copies of the request for payment shall be of a form and number acceptable r to the Owner and shall indicate the value of the work completed in accordance tM with the Bid Items and Unit Prices established in the Proposal . Each request for payment shall indicate the totai work done since the perform- ance of the Contract was started. Each monthly progress payment, when L approved, will be made on the basis of the total amount earned, less all t previous payments, less a retained percentage of the monthly amount due. 6. LChapter 38, 1st extraordinary session, 1970, Laws of Washington amending RCW 60.28.010, .020, .050 provides that at the option of the Contractor, L (1) the retained percentage may be held in a fund by the public body until thirty (30) days following the final acceptance of the work, or (2) it may L L 8.31 Division I be placed in escrow with a bank or t1list company by th1 public body until thirty (30) days following final acceptance of the work. 1 Should the C, tractor choose to the above option (2) , said Contractor shall, at the time he enters intD ,�, Contract with the Owner, fully agree to the following stipulations on a t )rm provided by the Contractor and made a part of the Contract for the woU; to be performed: 1. The Contractor ass ."s full responsibility to pay all costs which may accrue from escrow services and/or brokerage charges. 2. The Contractor further agrees to assume all risks in connection with the investment of said retained percentage in securities. Retatnage cannot be reduced for any reason below the five percent minimum limit required. The request for payment may also include the value of materials proposed and suitable for permanent incorporation in the work. Such materials shall be delivered and safely stored at the site of the work. L. Payment for materials on the job site will not constitute acceptance and any faulty material will be rejected although advance payment may have been r made. KAy request for payment which includes the value of material stored at the job site shall be accompanied by appropriate papers which establish that material has been paid for by the Contractor. 8.32 k t G Division I Quantities used for progress estimates shall be considered only as approxi- mate and provisional, and shall be subject to recalculation, adjustment, and correction by the Owner in subsequent progress estimates and in final esti- mates. Inclusion of any quantities in progress estimates, or failure to ` disapprove the work at the time of pp progress estimate, shall not be construed as acceptance of the corresponding work or materials. Payment of the retained percentage shall be withheld for a period of thirty (30) days following the final acceptance by the Owner, and shall be paid the Contractor at the expiration of said thirty (30) days in the event no claims, ' as provided by law, have been filed against such funds; and provided further, ' that releases have been obtained from the State Department of Labor and Industries, the Washington State Tax Commission, the State of Washington 6 Employment Security Department, and all other departments and agencies having jurisdiction over the activities of the Contractor. In the event su h claims M are filed, the Contractor shall be paid such retained percentages, less an amount sufficient to pay any such claims, together with a sum sufficient to pay the cost of such action, and to cover attorney fees. i a. The Owner agrees to make payments promptly after receipt of Federal and V' State sums due ❑nder this Contract. L L L L 8.33 a r ' Division I iw I SECTION 10 - ADDITIONS TO THE GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND COVENANTS The terms of this entire Section 10 shall be considered as an addition to the General Requirements and Covenants of the Standard Specifications. 10-1.01 JOB COPIES OF DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS The Contractor shall furnish his own copy of the Standard Specifications and i all published supplements and revisions thereto. The Owner will furnish copies of the Special Provisions and Plans. The Contractor shall maintain a complete set of Standard Specifications, Special Provisions and Plans at the ,job site and shall make them avai_able to the Owner at all times. A legible copy of the Federal Wage Determination shall be prominently posted at the job site by the Contractor. 10-1.02 WORK DURING AN EMERGENCY The Contractor shall perform any work and shall furnish and install any materials and equipment necessary during an emergency endangering life or property. In all cases, he shall notify the Owner of the emergency as soon as practical, but he shall not wait for instructions before proceeding to properly protect life and property. 10-1.03 EXAMINATION OF COMPLETED WORK If the Owner requests it, the Contractor at any time before acceptance of the work shall remove or uncover such portions of the finished work as may be directed. After examination, the Contractor shall restore said portions of 8.34 5 r.- Division I i the work to the standard required by the Specifications. Should the work thus exposed or examined prove acceptable, the uncovering or removing, and { the replacing of the covering or making good of the parts removed, shall be L paid for as Extra Work; but should the work so exposed or examined prove unacceptable, the uncovering, removing, and replacing shall be at the Contractor's expense. 10-1.04 CONTRACTOR'S RIGHT TO SUSPEND WORT: OR TERMINATE CONTRACT_ The Contractor may suspend work or terminate the Contract upon ten (10) days' written notice to the Owner for any of the following reasons: a. If an order of any Court or other public authority caused the work to be stopped or suspended for a period of ninety (90) days through no act or fault of the Contractor or his employees. b. If the Owner should fail to act upon any Request for Payment w within ten (10) days after it is presented in accordance with General Requirements and Covenants of the Contract. f c. If the Owner should fail to act upon any Request for Payment (L• at the first regular meeting of the Poard of Commissioners in the month occurring ten (10) days after its approval. d. If the Owner should fail to pay the Contractor any sum within sixty (60) days after its award by arbitrators. e. If the Owner should fail to issue a Notice to Proceed within ten (10) days after award of Contract. w L 8.35 *Y Division I 10-1.05 PAYHENT FOR WO't.K TERMINATED BY THE CONTRACTOR Upon suspension of the work or termination of the Contract by the Contractor, in accordance with Paragraph 10-1.04, the Contractor shall recover payment from the Owner for the work performed, plus loss on plant and materials, plus established profit and damages. a i L f f 8.36 8. DI'.'ISIONS II & III DETAIL SPECIFICATIONS Detail specifications shall be as set forth in Divisions II and III of the Standard Specifications which is the Standard Specifications for Municipal Public Works Construction, 1975 Edition, prepared by the Washington State P" L Chapter of the American Public Works Association (APWA). L All detail specifications set forth herein shall be considered solely as ` P modifications or additions to the Standard Specifications. Except as speci- L fically modified and added to herein, all specifications set forth in the t [ Standard Specifications shall be itiictly adhered to in execution of all work. `- All reference to Measurement and Payment is deleted, (see ➢ivision IX). LIST OF MODIFIED SECTIONS i DIVISION 11 - ;:TRF.ETS AND RELATED CONSTRUCTION Section 52 Removal of Existing Street Improvements Section 54 Pavement Patching Section 57 Finishing and Cleanup DIVISION III - SANITARY SEWERS AND STORM DRAINS Section 60 Pipe Materials and Testing for Sewers, Drains and Culverts Section 61 Trench Excavation, Backfill, Foundation and Bedding for Sewers, Drains and Culverts 4• Section 62 Pipe Laying, Jointing and Testing LSection 63 Manholes for Storm and Sanitary Sewers Section 71 Stream Protection (NEW SECTION) 9.1 y x DIVISION 11. STREETS AND RELATED CONSTRUCTION fl 4. SECTION 52 - REMOVAL OF EXISTING STREET F r T ET IMPROVEMENTS i ` 52-1 DESCRIPTION Add the fallowing: Any pavement or other street improvements damaged in the construction opera- tions shall also be removed and replaced at no cost to the Owner. Damaged ` pavement shall be replaced in accordance with Section 54 of the Standard Specifications. 52-2 CONSTRUCTION DETAILS 52-2.01 GENERAL Add the following: Removal of existing pavement shall also be performed in accordance with the requirements of the City of Renton. All pavement shall be removed by pre- cutting to one (1) foot wider than the trench width at the surface. Cut I ' shall be vertical to a neat horizontal line. F_ L L L L L t 9.2 l i i Division II SECTION 54 - PAVEMENT PATCHING ek�j €- 1 54-1 DESCRIPTION Add the following. i; Pavement removed for trench excav:itfon and for damaged street improvements described in Section 52 of the Standard Specifications and this Document I shall be replaced by the Contractor. I 54-2 MATERIALS Delete and substitute the following: i I 1 i The Base Course and Top Course shall meet the requirements of Section 23-2.^t e of the Standard Specifications and shall be placed to a minimum compacted thickness of 4 inches and 2 inches respectively. Asphalt Concrete for pave- ment patching shall be Class B conforming to the requirements specified for material in Section 34 of the Standard Specifications and shall be placed to a minimum compacted depth of 4 inches. 9.3 F �,- Division II SECTION 57 - FINISHING AND CLEANUP 6 t 57-2 CONSTRUCTION DETAILS Add the following: r. The Contractor shall take all reasonable precautions and perform all reason- able cleanup work to prevent excavated and borrow materials from blowing and washing into stream beds, onto private property, and otherwise becoming a nuisance to residents in and around the project area. All cleanup at the end , of each day's activities shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Owner. �w YY 9.4 e r - DIVISION III L SANITARY SEWERS AND STORM DRAINS k SECTION 60 - PIPE MATERIALS AND TESTING FOR E SEWERS, DRAINS AND CULVERTS 60-1 DESCRIPTION Add the followings Sanitary sewer pipes in this project shall be reinforced concrete and , polyethylene as indicated on the Plans. 60-3 MATERIALS AND TESTING 60-3.018 CONCRETE PIPE, REINFORCED Add the following: Reinforced concrete sewer pipe shall be bell-and-spigot type with rubber gasket joints and shall conform to ASTM C76, Class 3, except as otherwise indicated or specified. The pipe shall be tested by the three-edge bearing method in accordance with ASTM C497. 60-3.01K POLYETHYLENE PIPE This subsection and the terms specified herein shall be considered as an addition to the Standard Specifications. 60-3.OlKl MATERIALS The pipe shall be extruded from virgin polyethylene resin conforming to the requirements of ASTM D-1248 for Type III, Class C, Category 5, Grade P34. 9.5 =a E a t � Division III The resin .all have a Plastic Pipe Institute (PPI) recom¢ended hydrostatic stress rating of not less than 630 psi at 73.40F. The resin shall have the ///,,,...... following physical properticr.: PROPERTY ASTM TEST VALUE Density, CMS/CC D 1505-66 0.955 , 1- It Flow (Condition F), CMS/10 Min. D 1238-70 1.5 Environmental Stress Cracking Resistance (Hrs.) Condition A, B & C D 103-70 > 1000 Tensile Strength, Yield, psi 20 in./min. D 638-72 4800 2 in./min. Die IV 3200 Elongation, 7. 2 in./min. 7 600 Impact Strength, ft. lbs./in. Notch, Speciman Thickness 0.250 inch D 256-56 0.125 inch (1961) 12 Vicat Softening Temperature, of D 1525-70 257 e . Brittlenes-. Temperature, of D 746-72 G-180 Thermal Conductivity, BRU, in./ft.2/hrs., of C 177-63 3.7 (1968) Flexural Modulus, psi D 790-71 140M t Modulus of Elasticity, psi D 638-68 100M Hardness, Shore D D 2240-68 65 f Coefficient of Linear Thermal Expansion, in./in./oF D 696-44 1.2 x .10-4 (1961) ) IM, V 9.6 4 y j 1 �y Division III It shall be certified that natural chemicals in soil will not attack the y pipe or in any way cause it to degrade, and that the pipe does not support ]j L+• the growth of and is not affected by algae, bacteria and fungi. fir+ 60-3.01K2 PIPE PERFORMANCE a. Rating: The polyethylene pipe shall have a manufacturer's recommendcs ' r hydrostatic design stress rating of 730 psi based on a material ' 4. with a 1460 psi design basi3 determined in accordance with t a t. ASTM D-2837, Standard Method for Obtaining Hydrostatic Design w a Basis for Thermoplastic Pipe Materials. b. Minimum Bur.:t Pressure: t Minimum burst pressure at 73.40F as detertined in accordance F with ASTM D-1599 shall be 160 psi.. c. Sustained Pressure: `► The pipe shall not fail, b&lioon, burst or weep as defined in ASTM D-1598 when tested in accordance with Section 6(g) of ASTM D-2239 and under the conditions hereinafter tabulated. Temperature (oF) Time (Hrs.) Poop Stress, psi 73.4 1000 1500 150 1000 800 190 300 503 1 9.7 1 t Division III 60-3.011C3 PIPE DIMENSIONS Nominal Diameter ` 24 inches Average Outside Diameter 24 inches Minimum Wall Thickness 0.687 inches Length 11► 38 feet 60-3.02 JOINTING MATERIALS W. 60-3.02I POLYETHYLENE PIPE This subsection and the terms specified a. herein shall be considered as an addition to the Standard Specifications. Polyethylene pipe ends shall be Joined by the thermal butt fusion method. Mechanical joining of other Pipe materials to polyethylene Pipe ends shall be accomplish ,d with flange adaptors designed specifically for use with ' that pipe. Flange adaptors shall be pressure-rated the same as the pipe. V i` i L 9.8 Y: Division III SECTION 61 - TRENCH EXCAVATION, RACKFILL, FO_UNDATI.ON AND RED➢INC FOR SEWERS, DRAINS AND CULVERTS 61-1.01 SOIL. CONDITIONS This subsection and the terms herein shall be considered as an addition to the Standard Specifications. Information under this section and boring logs shown on the Plans are pro- vided for the convenience of the Contractor only and do not constitute a , contractual representation by the Owner that these specifically define exi'-t'ng conditions. A copy of the Soils' Investigation is attached for c the information of the Contractor. r r- Most of the soils are granular and consist of fine to medium sands, silty lL, sands, and sandy fine to coarse gravels. A summary profile based upon soil descriptions and standard penetration test blow counts can be developed as 4- follows: Summary Soil Profile 0 - 3 Feet Variable; forest duff, pavement subgrade, etc.; generally silty fine sand, loose to dense; occasionally saturated organic debris (between MH-16 and MH-17); not . specifically sampled. 3 - 6 Feet Medium dense, silty sandy GRAVEL; average N: 24 to 30; average moisture content: 18%. i i 1 9.9 i i 1! 1 `# Division III j 6 - 12 Feet Dense, gray, sandy GRAVEL; occasionally hard SILT; average N: 37 to 48; average moisture content: 19%. 12 - 17 Feet Very dense gravel and SAND; occasionally hard SILT; average N: 49 to 53; average moisture content: 19%. 11 Note: N values greater than 60 were assumed to be 60 for determining averages. r Although no cobbles were recovered during the boring work, their presence } was indicated by frequent side slip and wracking of the drill auger. Occasionally chips of broken rock were obtained in the split spoon samples. F 61-2 CLASSIFICATION Li1-2.01 TRENCH EXCAVATION AND BACKFILL, CLASS A Add the followings r LAll trench excavation and backfill for this project shall be Class A, as modif i by Section 61-3.01 herein. 61-3 CONSTRUCTION DETAILS CL V, 61-3.01 EXCAVATION Add the following: i Except as permitted by the Owner, the. trench aL the end of the day shall IIY... not be excavated to final grade more than one pipe length in a,�vance of L L L. 9.10 K Division III �a pipe laying, nor left unbackfilled to the top of the initial backfill for more than two pipe lengths after the pipe has been laid. All material excavated from the trench, which is intended and suitable for use as backfill, shall be stockpiled in such a manner that the Loe of the excavated material is a minimum of two (2) feet from the edge of the trench. During excavation, the material excavated shall be inspected by the Owner �. for suitability as backfill material. All excavated material classified r by the Owner as unsuitable shall immediately be hauled to a waste site pro- vided by the Contractor. Each waste site chosen shall meet the requirements of Section 4-1.06 of the Standard Specifications. Excavated material, which has been classified as unsuitable, shall not be mixed with other material which can be used as backfill. Stockpiling or spoiling of materials shall be in such a manner as to avoid subsequent erosion of such materials into ditties or natural drainage courses. 61-3.02 CONTROL OF WATER Add the following: I Ground water and drainage are very significant problems in this project. Ground water was encountered in all borings rangin; .evels from 0 to 13.7 feet below the ground surface. Between M-16 and .. .7, ground water was found at the surface flowing through a swampy vegetative mat. The above information and the boring logs shown on the Plans are provided for the convenience of the Contractor and do not constitute a contractual representation by the Owner that specifically defines existing conditions. 4.]1 i a Division III The Contractor shall furnish, install, and operate dewatering systems as necessary. The dewatering syste,ls shall not be shut down between shifts, on holidays or weekends, or d :ing work stoppages without written permission from the Owner. L Discharge of silt-laden waters to May Creek or other watercourses will not be allowed unless filtered clean prior to stream entry. Methods of control r shall be approved by the Washington State Department of Fisheries, the Washington State Department of Game, and the King County Department of Hydraulics. 61-3.03 FOUNDATIONS AND BEDDING FOR SEWER AND DRAINS 61-3.03A FOUNDATION PREPARATION Delete Methods 1 and 2 and add the following: If, in the judgment of the Owner, the native trench bottoms will provide a firm base for the subsequent placement of bedding, pipe and backfill, such native trench bottom may be used if the bottom is leveled and smoothed so that the entire length of pipe will rest on a well compacted base. Trench bottoms shall be over-excavated as necessary to remove all unstable soil and eliminate "boiling" or "quick" conditions to such a depth as tc provide a L firm base. Over-excavated materials shall be replaced with Class A or B foundation material. Foundation material shall be placed when ordered by the L Owner in writing. L L 9.12 A Division III Over-excavated material shall be replaced with trench foundation material conforming to one of the following gradations as specified: pu MATERIAL PASSING CLASS A CLASS B Fb,• Min. Max. Min. Max. 2-1/2" square opening 98% 100% 95% 100% 2" square opening 92% 100% 75% 100% 1-1/2" square opening 72% 871: 30% 60% 1-1/4" square. opening 58% 75% 0% 15% 3/4" square opening 27% 47% 0% 1% 3/8" square opening 3% 14% 0% 0% No. 4 Sieve 0% 1% 0% 0% 61-3.03C FEUDING FOR RIGID CONDUITS 61-3.03C2 CLASS B BF.➢I .NG Add the following: Bedding for concrete pipe shall be Class B. Prior to placing any bedding material, the trench foundation shall be firm, unyielding and ready for placement of bedding. Unsuitable material shall be removed and replaced with foundation material as specified in Section 61-3.03A. i ' 61-3.03D BEDDING FOR FLEXIBLE CONDUITS L f! 61-3.03D3 BEDDING FOR POLYETHYLENE PIPE Add the fallowing: 'w LPipe bedding shall be as provided in Section 61-3.03D! of the Standard Specifications except that the first lift shall be at least six (6) inches L g 9.13 Division III in depth. Unsuitable material shall be removed and replaced as provided in Section 61-3.03A. r^ 61-3.05 BACKFILLING FOR S WERS AND DRAINS Add the following: Backfilling of the trench shall follow pipe laying as closely as possible. Initial backfilling shall. be performed only after inspection and approval of the installed pipe and beading. Initial backfill -iaterial shall be select trench excavation or clean natural sand and gravel and shall be placed by hand to a minimum depth of six (6) inches above the top of the pipe. The material shall be free from wood, roots, bark, or other extraneous material. The maxi,num size of stone shall be three (3) inches and 95 to 100 percent shall pass the U.S. Standard 1k-inch opening. Subsequent backfilling shall not be placed until the initial. backfill has been inspected and approved by the Owner. Subsequent backfill material in roadiay� shall be unclassified material obtained from trench excavation or bank run gravel. The unclassified material shall be free of organic matter, wood, roots, bark, and other extraneous mate- rials. The bank run gravel shall be Class E and shall meet the requirements r of Section 61-3.07 of the Standard Specifications. Subsequ, �t backfill mate- rial in areas other than roadways may be the material previously excavated, 5 4 if suitable. L.. All backfill materials must be approved by the Owner before they are placed. 9.14 i I y'9 Division III Trenches shall be 'iackfilled wit" this b;-ckf-1. material to th< �lcvation of the ba,e ^oursa in areas to be pared and w an elevat— i tq -J tc the �a existing grade in other areas. i. 61-3.06 COMPACTION OF TRENCH BACKFILL 61-3.06A WATER SETTLING Delete and adL Fhe f-Mowing: �n Water settling of unclassified material will not be permitted. j4 61-3.06B MFCKAN:r_.L COMPACTION Add the following: The hand-placed select material to six (6) inches above tk,, top of the pipe shall be compacted in the manner specified in Section 61-3.05. In all events, compaction of backfill and backfill procedures in public br... rights-of-way shall, at the minimum, conform to the requirements of the i City of Renton. , Ba,.Kfilling shall be compacted to 95 percent cr maximum theoretical density ip in all areas .there paving will be placed over the backfill and to "'5 percent 1. of maximum theoretical d ,sity in all other areas. Measurement of compaction density shall br by the modified AASHO method. Compaction of backfill may be done in suc'i a manner as will accomplish the degree of compaction required herein. Prior to compaction, the method of P Yr w 9.15 `4 k Division III compaction shall be submitted to the Owner for approval and the method of compaction finally approved by the Owner shall be employed by the Contractor using good practice. if excavated material has a California Bearing Ratio for compacted and soaked sample of less than seven (7) or, for any other reason in the judgment of the Owner, cannot be compacted as specified, such excavated material shall be replaced with imported backfill material as specs- field in Section 61-3.05. , The Owner will require that the services of an independent testing laboratory or County testing laboratory be employed to perform in-place density tests to ascertain whether the specified density can be or has been obtained, and the costs thereof shall be borne by the Contractor. Regardle:,s of the approval of the Owner as to manner of compaction, testing, acceptance by the Owner or otherwise, the Contractor shall repair any settle- 1 t., ment of trenches and excavations_ that raay occur within one year after comple- tion and acceptance of the work by the Owner. r 61-3.11 TOP SOIL REMOVAL AND REPIAMIFEQT Del..te and substitute the r following: Native t ;,soil shall be removed, segregated, and replaced as back-fill in the f �., top ten (10) inches of the trench in all areas which are to be seeded. tI Yr 9.16 !i Division III d 61-3.13 DISPOSAL OF EXCESS MATERIAL This subsection and the terms herein shall be considered as at, addition to the Standard Specifications. All excavated material and replacement materials not used in the backfilling operation shall immediately be removed from alongside backfi.11ed trenches. -i.ng areas shall be swept clean immediately after backfi.11ing as a section is completed. Unpaved areas shall immediately be raised, shaped and dressed. Borrow material shall not be stored on the job site except as necessary to maintain continuous backfill operations. ' 61-3.14 SURFACE FINISHING This subsection an-4 the terms herein shall be considered as additions to the Standard Specifications. '�. Pavement patching in paved areas shall be in accordance with Section 54 of the Standard Specifications as amended herein. -face finis,.iag on city street right-of-way shall be in accordance with t�:i, Section. All areas in this project on which the natural vegetation has been disturbed, damaged, destroyed, or covered over shall be reseeded. The cover crop seed mix shall be: Highland Creep Bent 25% Annual Rye Grass 25% i Creeping Red Fescue 50% i The seed shall be applied at a rate of one pk pound per 500 square feet. k I 9.17 M r Division III �. SECTION 62 - PIPE LAYING, JOINTING AND TESTING a 62-2 MATERIALS Delete and substitute the following: ' Pipe and pipe materials shall conform to the requirements Section 60 of the Standard Specifications as amended herein. 62-3 CONSTRUCTION DETAILS A 62-3.01 SURVEY LINE A!7) GRADE Add the following: All bench marks, reference points and stakes shall be preserved and, in case of destruction of any of them, the resulting expense of restoration shall be borne by the Contractor. Construction staking Provided by the Owuer shall consist of grade stakes of ten (10) feet offsets for each manhole and inter- mediate grade stakes offset ten (10) feet at 50-foot centers between manholes. 62-3.02 SEWER PIPE LAYING Add the following: Adjustment '-n the line and grade shall be done by scraping away or filling in and tamping bedding material under the body of the pipe. No wedging or blocking of the pipe for adjustment to line and grade may be done. The pipe shall be lowered into the trench by means of crane or any other suitable means, shall not be dropped or handled roughly, and shall be checked A �- for cracks and defects prior to installation. Any cracked or defective pipe shall not be installed and, if i ralled or damaged after installation, shall be removed and replaced at no cost to the Owner. A 9.18 qF. Division III 62-3.08 PIPE JOINTING Add the following: p +,. Polyethylene pipe jointing shall be specified in S:ction 62-3.08D herein. C" r 62-3.08A GASKET 1YPE JOINTS Add the following: r i Only pipe layers experienced with the type of gasket being used in the work r shall ! e allowed to Lay pipe on thi., project. If requested by the Owner, proof of such experience shall be furnished by the Contractor before laying may begin or continue once started. Each joint shall be examinee and approved by the Omer before it is covered. 62-3.08D BUTT FUSION JOINTS This subsection and the terms specified herein shall be considered as an addition to the Standard Specifications. Polyethylene pipes shall be joined to one another and stub ends aL manholes by thermal butt fusion. Butt fusion joining shall be performed in accordance with the pipe manufacturer's recommendations as to equipment and techniqu,. Depending on site conditions, butt fusion joining shall be performed in or outside of the excavation. 62 .3.09 SEMER LINE ^.ONNECTIONS 62-3.098 MANHOLE CONNECTIONS Add the following: Connection to "Existing Manhole B" shall L done by means of a special F L. 9.19 it i 'a M Division III .einforced concrete increaser compatible with the existin g ng stub and the new pipe. Joints shall be rubber gasketed as specified herein. Shop drawings showing reinforcement anc details of increaser shall be submitted for approval. t ' Special care shall be taken to prevent any damage co the existing Manhole B. Any damage to the manhole shall be repaired as directed by the Owner without additional expen:,e to the Owner. c No work of any nature ,,hall be starre : in the viciniti of existing Manholc B without written approval from METRO. All work involving the sewer connection - to Manhole B shall Se done in the prosence of an authorized representative of METRO. It shall be the .ebponsibility of the Contractor to coordinate with and receive written approval from METRO as to the time of day or night when the connection work is to be accomplished. After the connection to existing facilities has been made, the sewer line ` i shall be pl-igged in such a manner to prevent any water or aaher material from entering METRO facilities. The plug shall not be removed until the project itas teen approve.. by the Owner and METRO. 62-3.1r' TESTING FOR ACCEPTANCE :ce terms specified herein -hall be con- sidered as additions to Section 62-3.10 of the Standard Specifications. (Note that the heading, "-3.10 TESTING FOR ACCEPTANCE," has Seen omitted t in the Standard Speeificatior.a by mistake. Contents of Section 62-3.10 are under Section 65-3.09B and begin gith tle second paragraph.) t it 9.20 1 Division III As the work progresses, all pipelines shall be inspected for obstructions and shall be cleaned. The Contractor shall provide all the necessary facilities for the inspection and cleaning and shall dispose of all waste, including 10 water. ON After the pipelines are backfilled and inspected and cleaned, and the manholes channelled; the Contractor shall test each pipe section for leakage. The program of testic�g shall fit the conditions as mutually determined by the , Owner and the Contractor. The Contractor shall furnish all labor, tools, equipmeat and water necessary to make the tests and to perform any work inci- r^ denta: Hereto. The Cocr_ractor shall take all necessary precautions to prevent .- any joi,.ts from drawing while the pipes or their appurtenances are being tested. the Contractor shall, at his own expense, correct any excess leakage and repair •ny damage to the pipe and their appurtenances, or to any structures resulting from or caused by these tests. Each pipe section shall be tested for leakage with acceptable portable bulk- heads or special testing apparatus. Each joint shall be tested as an integral unit. The test pressure for any section shall be equivalent to a head of 'late+ of ix (6) feet above the crow of the ;,ipe or six (6) feet above the average Ladjacent ground water level, whichever is high -. Where water is used for testLig, the allowable leakage shall not exceed 0.5 gallon per hour per inch L,_ of diameter per 100 feet of pipe being tested. L. Where some media other than water is used for testing, the allowable leakage Y Lshall be mutually agreed to by the Owner and the Contractor. L 9.21 C' I: Division III oil Where the actual leakage exceeds the allowable, the Contractor shall discover the cause ar.d remedy it before the pipeline is accepted. "or the purpose of this sub-article, a section of pipeline is refined as that length of pipe between successive manholes. f, All leakage tests for acc,. ptance shall be accomplished in the presence of the 4 Owner's authorized representative. t ' .` No water which is the result of flushing and/or testing shall be allowed to enter the METRO Interceptor. t.. L. e L L L } L 4 L L Y 9.22 s r , R3 �.. Division III SECTION 63 - MANHOLES FOR STORM AND SANITARf SEWERS 63-1 DESCRIPTION Delete and add the following: p.. R., Each manhole shall be constructed of precast units of reinforced concrete to the dimensions shown on the Plans and in conformance with the Standard Speci- fications, STD Plans No. 35, No. 37, No. 41, No. 41A and this Document. 63-2 MATERIALS 63-2.02B GALVANIZED DEFORMED BAR STEPS Add the following: All steps shall be galvanized deformed bar steps, shall have a permanent - non-skid safety surface approved by the Owner, and shall be spaced at twelve 1. L (12) inches. The maximum vertical distance between the lowest .tep and the manhole shelf shall not exceed twelve (12) inches. L f 63-Z.08 CAST IRON FRAMES AND COVERS Delete and substitute the following: L All manhole frames and covers shall be "METRO Standard." Depth of fr..me f shall be six (6) inches. L 63-3 CONSTRUCTION DETAILS 4r r. 63-3.10 GRADE ADJUSTMENT L L i 9.23 r �s Division III 63-3.10C UNPAVED AREAS The terms specified herein shall be considered as an addition to the Standard Specifications. Manholes set in areas other than paved areas shall be set at a finish grade six (6) inches higher than the surrounding terrain to prevent surface water infiltration into the sanitary sewer system. - 63-3.11 CHANNELS Add the following: All manholes shall be completely channelled to the invert elevation and size shown on the Plans for future pipe extensions. 63-3.12 PIPE CONNECTIONS Add the following: All reinforced concrete pipe connections at manholes shall be provided with flexible joints within eighteen (18) inches of the structure. All polyethylene pipe connections to manholes shall be accomplished by means of flanged adaptors, t of same material as pipe thermally fused to the pipe, bolted to cast-iron L. spools grouted in manhole walls. r All connections at manholes for future sewer extensions shall be an integrally cast breakout type plug. Breakouts shall be cast in such a manner, size, and location to allow installation of pipe of the sizes shown on the Plans F 6 at the invert elevations shown. 9.24 r Division III SECTION 71 - STREAM PROTECTIO 71-1 DESCRIPTION The terms of this entire Section 71 shall be considered as an addition to the Standard Specifications. This section applies to the protection of the stream bed and banks during the sewer construction activities. A copy of the Hydraulics Permit is included and all provisions of that permit shall be complied with. 71-2 STREAM CROSS SECTION LThe stream cross section shall not be reduced nor shall the flow charac- _ ristics of the stream be altered as a result of diversion of the stream, excavation and construction cf the sewer across the stream, or bank protec- tion operations. 71-3 RANK PROTECTION LIn areas shown on the Plans or designated by the Owner, thr Contractor 4 shall furnish and install rip-rap along the creek embankment. The rock shall be clean, hard, sound, and durable; and be free fror. segre- gation, seams, cracks, and other defects tending to destroy its resistance to weather. The rock shall have a uniform range of size from 400 pounds 1 (2-2/3 cubic feet) to 2000 pounds ( /2 cubic yard). V L L IL 9.25 i I Division III 4 Rip-ran shall be started by excavating a trench which is 0.50 to 1.0 feet below grae. The line of the trench and the line o` the top of the /+ rip-rap shall be as staked in the field by the Owner. Rock shall be well { sea`_ed on lower rock and shall be tamped into place ag,inst the slope. le. The horizontal limits of rip-rap placement shali be as shown on the Plans; the height of the rip-rap to be placed up the slope shall be as staked in 4� the field. y Exi&ling rip-re.p which is to be removed to facilitate construction of the 444 sewer shalt bv stockpiled by the Contractor. Replacement of existing rip- rap shall be done in the manner previously described in this subsection and as soon after backfilling as possible to prevent erosion. L All ban protection material shall be machine or hand-placed from the bank. Viere shall be no du•nping of bank protection material directly from a truck Lbed onto the bank Y" 1, 71-4 STREAM pL0 LON L The Contractor shall furnish and install protection rock in those eections of the project shown on the Plans or designated by the Owner. t L The protection rock is intended to reduce scour in the stream channel. I The rock shall be clean, sound, durahle gravel, uniformly graded, and 6 ranging in size from k-inch to four (4) inches. L L 9.26 i S-190 SAN-1 MAY CREEK TRUNK — CORRESPONDENCE #1 Tc EPA/DOE GRANT 17X R Division III The rock shall be placed as the uppermost backfill material in the trench and shall be placed to a thickness of eighteen (18) inches across the full width of the excavation. The backi 'lling of the trench in the stream bed shall be done in such a manner that the original slope and elevation of the stream bed is maintained. 71-5 STREAM DIVERSION �p During the construction of the sewer in the stream clannel of May Creek, ¢6� the Contractor will not be permitted to dam or block off the natural stream surface flow. The stream flow shall be diverted away from and around the excavation area by means of a flume, culvert pipe, or other means approved by the Owner. During construction, the Contractor shall keep siltation of the stream to a minimum. Discharge from cewatering operation, which is heavily silted, shall not be allowed to flow directly to the stream. Adequate retention i shall be provided to comply with the State water quality provisions. If, i" in the opinion of the Owner, State Depart.,.cnt of Fisheries, State Department of Came, or King County Department of Hydraulics, Fluod Division, siltation �w is excessive due to any of the Contractors operations, the Contractor will L be required to construct settling ponds adjacent to or in the stream bed downstream of the construction. The temporary construction of settling ponds in the stream channel shall have the prior approval of the Washington State Department of Fisheries. 9.27 jr Division III 71-6 METHOD OF CROSSING Method of crossing shall be subject to the approval of the Owner and the above mentioned agencies. 71-7 TIDING OF CROSSING Excavation and construction of the sewer across the stream stall be restrict- ed to the period stated in the permit, a copy of which is included herein. 71-8 DELETERIOUS KNTERIALS No petroleum pr� 'ucts, fresh concrete products, or other deleterious mate- rials shall fall, be wasted into, or otherwise enter the stream as result ( of construction operations. r • .t i 6� pM+ i (r� Y 9.28 R k a DIVISION 1X MEASUREMENT AND PAYMENT_ It is the intent of these Contract Documents that the performance of all work under the Bid Items will result in the complete construction of the project. It is understood and agreed that any additional material or work required to place the system in operating condition shall be provided by the Contractor as incidental work covered by the Bid Items listed in t the Proposal. 4 BASIC BID ITEMS: BID ITWS 1 AND 2 - FURNISH AND iNN'rALL PIPF. Payment shall be made on the basis of the linear feet of pipe as measured horizontally from centerline of manhole or structure to the centerline of intersecting pipe or pipe mid. This item shall include payment for all labor and material required to install the pipe in acco, dance with the Plans and Specifications including, but not limited to, the following: . 1. Clearing and grubbing, including the removal of resulting r i.. debris, removal and replacement of existing above-ground t structures. t r L2. Cutting, removal and disposal of existing pavement. L L L 10 .1 ,I Y_ fr Division IX 3. Excavation of all material of whatever nature encountered (except solid rock), to a point four (4) inches below th- pipe barrel for concrete pipe and six (6) inches below the pipe barrel for polyethylene pipe. 4. Removal and disposal of all unsuitable and excess material. 5. Excavation for manholes. {.. 6. All sheeting, bracing, shoring, and dewatering. 7. Furnishing and i .acing pipe bedding material. 8. Gravity sewer pipe furnished, installed, and tested. 9. Placing and compaction of initial and subsequent baekfill, including topsoil. ( 10. Finish-grade trench area and other scarred areas. 11. Remove and replace existing rip-rap. M 12. Stream diversions and controls. rr 13. Stream crossings. 14. Complete connection to Manhole R. M 15. Finish and clean project area. k 10.2 Division IX BID ITEMS 3 AND 4 - BASIC MANHOLE UP TO EIGHT (8) VERTICAL FEET Y�. The unit prices include furnishing all material, including the specified /r frame and cover and constructing basic manholes as shown on the Plans 14• and Specifications to a depth of not more than eight (8) feet, measured rfrom lowest invert elevation. Bid Items include all costs of adjusting i~ frame and cover to grade of final pavement elevation or to an elevation above ground surface in unpaved areas. ' The unit prices shall als3 include all work and material required to pro- vide integrally cast breakout plugs and char ,els as shown or, the Plans and as specified. BID ITEMS 5 AN1 6 - MANHOLE EXTRA DEPTH i The unit prices include all costs of furnishing and installing manholr L- materials to a depth in excess of eight (8) feet. Payment hill he based on field measurement of each manhole to the nearest 0.1 foot measured L vertically from the lowest invert elevation to the top of the casting, less the basic eight (8) foot manhole depth. BID ITEM 7 - ASPHALT PAVEMENT PATCH The unit price includes all costs of furnishing and installing crushed rock babe and top course and compacted asphaltic concrete. Payment will be based on the length of main line sewer trench through existing asphalt pavement measured along the slope of the ground. 10.3 /,. ♦i Division IX tBID ITEM 8 - FOUNDATION MATERIAL tThe unit price includes all costs of excavating and removing and dis- {osing of unsuitable maaterial, as well as furnishing, Placing and com- pacting foundation material. Payment will be based on iii-place measure- ment of a 54-inch trench width and the depth of replacement below bottom of bedding as ordered in writing by the Owner. BID ITEM 9 - BANK RIJN GRAVEL, CLASS B The unit price includes all costs of furnishing bank run gravel vi,ere directed by the Owner. The cost of removal of unsuitable material and compaction of bank run gravel is included in Bid Items for furnishing and installing pipe. Payment shall be based on in-place measurement of a L54-inch trench width and the depth of placement or replacement ordered by Lthe Owner in writing. i BID ITEM 10 - HEAVY RIP-RAP Unit prices shall include all costs of furnishing and placing rip-rap as specified. Payment will be based on measured truck weight evidenced by tL delivery slips presented to the Owner at the time of delivery. ■ BID ITEM 11 - PROTECTION ROCK ■ Unit price shall include all costs of furnishing and placing protection rock as specified. Payment will be based on measured truck weight evi- denced by delivery slips presented to the Owner at the time of delivery. L 10.4 r Division IX SUPPLEMENTAL BID ITEMS: BID ITEM S-1 - SOLID ROCK EXCAVATION It is not anticipated that solid rock will be encountered during the construction. However, if solid rock excavation is required, payment shall F be lased on the established price per cubic yard as shown in the Proposal. L This amount shall not be included in the Basic Bid total. r i L The established unit price per cubic yard shall include all costs of removing and disposing of solid rock as well as the furnishing and placing of anm-< k d h rl• i .. 1.: ;ir.41 in .iccoL&r-P. 1 i.h Section f l - 1.0? of :1 , Standard apecitications. Compaction of backfill material is paid for under Bid Items for furnishing and installing pipe. Payment will be based on an In-place measurement of a 54-inch trench width and the actual depth of rock removed, as ordered by the Owner in writing. L L L M L 10.5 6 r«, • f AP .P� EN 'DIX r HYDRAULIC PERMIT r � ,f q'. 6 C° . Z"!'\Ii:\ !'`(:: :=:�I Il;iti:iS ,r�� \K6 ROOM 115. GENERAL AD.V.IN,STAATIGN BLDG. Mw OLYMPIA. 1:ASMINGTON 5a5ot O�.vq: : is wi Pho.101 ?S3.6Gir3 N-. 60✓FAv0a January 27, 1976 :.-room Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle 600 First Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 Gentlemen: May Creek Interceptor - Phase : , fron Manhole 9 to the Conflux of ,May Creek & Honeydew Creek Honeydew Creek & Kv Creek tributary to Lake Washington _WRI -OS The Department of Fisheries and the Department of Ga-e havo reviewed the plans for the above referenced project located in the SE ' Section 32 and Sr: Section 33, Township 24 North, Ran;+ 5 East, W.M. , ani N:: 1/4, Sect,3n 4, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M. , in King County. The work outlined for this plvject may affect the fishery resources managed these departments. Therefore we approve this project subject to the following provisions: a) All work within or that will affect Xay Creek s:,all be con- ducted a`ter June 1 , lg76 and shall be completed before August 15, 1976. D) Excavation for the sewer line parallel to strane -tit ! shall be maintained sufficient aistance fro,: to w:.: stria.:, to �+ prevent the entry of equipment and/or excavated naterials into the flowing stream. e) Stockpiling or spoiling of materials shall be in such a man- ner as to avoid subsequent erosion of such materials into the stream. d) When excavating through the areas where springs exist, extreme care shall be taken to prevent silt-laden waters from entering May Creek. e) If pulping becomes necessary, the water shai : be trans- ported to an area where it will be filtered clear. prior to stream entry. R' t, Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle January 27, 1976 Page 2 is 6 f) At stream crossing locations the following provisions shall be applied: s. Conduit shall be installed at sufficient dept:i and in such a manner as to avoid subsequent disturbance to the stream bed, 2. Trench excavation operation is to be isolated from the flowing stream by the installation of sheet piling, culvert or similar mechanism. 3. Equipment may operate in the water in the area isolated from the flowing stream. 4. The upper 18" of the trench shall be backfilled with clean, well-:rounded, un"or..ly graded, granular material , ranging in size from 1/4" to 4". 5. Upon completion of each stream crossing, the strexn banks shall be suitahly protected to prevent erosion. 6. All bank protection material shall be placed from the bank. There shall be no domPing of bark protection ' material directly from a truck bed onto the bank. face. 7. Banc p ote-tion material shall be clean anw snail be of sufficient ,ize to prevent its being washed away by high water or wave action. P` r. 8. if a filter blanket is to be used, filter material shalt be placed from the bank and ba.ik protection material shall be placed concurrently with the filter blanket. b. 9. The stream cross section shall not bz reduced nor shall the flow characteristics be altered as a result of the stream crossings. 9) no petroleum products, fresh concrete products, or other deletario::s materials shall fall , be %:asted into or otherwise enter state waters r as a result of this project. h) This approval is to be available or, the job site at all times and the provisions closely followed by the operator conducting the work. The Departrient of Fisheries and the Department of Gar,.e reserve the right to make further restrictions if deemec ne,essary for the protection of fish life. s" This letter is written in the interest of fishery protection only, and these departments cannot be held liable for any property damage. which might occur as a result of this project. 1 runicipality of Metropolitan Seattle January 27. 197U Page 3 i 1.• We appreciate your cooperation in our collective effurts to protect, perpetuate and manage the fishery r,sources of the State of Washington. Sincerely. Donald 'fi. Moos , Director DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES it .. 1 Carl N. Crouse, Director DEPARTtdENT OF GAME Sc pW;4:JR.Sc � Ir r t V 1 I t CREEK TRUNK r MAIL 104 T I I R r w' PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT o WARRtN C GONNASON• u.F. • DIRECTOR °j MUNIc IV^.i HUILDING 200 MILL A%E SO RENTON, WASH 98055 • 206 2:5 e664 Up � �P 44(1 St P" .Jul% 27 , 1978 ,'HARLES J. DELAURENT1 MAYOP Tu : George Perry, Councilla.en cc : C. J . Delaurcnti, Mavor VR. Houghton, Engineering Supervisor e From: Warren Gonnason , Public Works Director Subject : _ May Creek interceptor Pursuant to our conversation I am 4Lt ,.c.hing the following docu- mcnts with respect to the May Creek Interceptor Project . 1. . Letter dated .ioly 14 , 1978 from the Department of P:rology regarding constructiuu grants for new proje, L:; . 2 Copy ol a letter to Mr. Nell PeLvrson trom .toht: Bagnariol with regard to the May Creek Interceptor project. dated April 28, 1978. 3. Copy of the le-.tier to Congressma„ Cunningham from Henry McCullough dated April S5 . 1.978. We have not received any response from these rvqucsr ;; and my j contact Willi Mr . baguariol ' s office ha:. Oren with Bill Fl ;tLk . I am also attaching a sketch map of thy- interceptor sySLvm _ for your lutormation. Any t.ssistance that you ran pruvid, in this nlatte. r would b- appreci.ated. IJCC : j 1 i I S.r i 1 �►te OUate ,(Q—S-�7 10: D. �Bennett R. i — R. HouQAtan — J. WilliamsMill { V. Lee Cheryl __ t D. Miller Other R. Nels i t kUM! NARREN GJMN { 1 SUBJECT: R.Vt,. and rapart back. _ See we. Routs end nt.rn. j' prepare response for .y •ignatare. Take appropriate notion. prepare tpeoiai report. Set rp .rating. '✓gyp/ar year i.for.stio.. i Z REMARKS: 1 r% z t r ` KING COUNTY 2574 0 ".."`f� WATER DISTRICT C 5 - 1� NUMBER 107 oT977 5806A - 119TH AVENUE S.E. BELLEVUE, WASH, 98006 • PH. 746-0751 n w�� 8 I BOARD OF CJNWISSI' NERS REPLY TO Henry F. McCullough President September 3C, 1977 John R. Janson ddi Secretary 7 Elmer F. Foster Memter } MANAGER Sam Macri Department of Ecology Headquarters Olympia, WA 98504 , Pi ! ". Attn: Mr. John Spencer SUBJECT: GRANT 6C-530749-02 b -03, MAY CREEK_INTERCEPTOR, SECTION 2, STEPS 2 b 3 GRANT #C-530749-04 b -05, KENNYDALE INTERCEITOR, SECTION 1 STEPS 2 b 3 =ti GRANT OC-530749-06 b -071 HONEY DEW INTERCEPTOR, SECTION 2, STEPS 2 b 3 1 GRANT ?AC-530747-02, 110TH AVENUE S.E. INTERCEPTOR, STEP 2 GRANT #C-530591-01, JONES AVENUE N.E. INTERCEPTOR. STEP 3 Gentlemen: — The May Creek Drainage Basin is the last such basin draining into Lake Washington �99 that does not have an interceptor system to serve the basin. The limited public d sewer service systems in the basin are being pumped into another basin by a badly overloaded lift station. The majority of the sewer service in the basin is by septic tank; and May Creek is being contaminated by septic talk effluent. Several yearn ago the District and Metro in a joint effort constructed Section No. 1 of the May Creek Interceptor. This section lies dormant, but will become - active with the completion of the above series of interceptors. Those interceptors will meet many of the immediate needs of the basin, with the exception of Lake Boren. i i The District is the lead agency in a joint effort with Metro and Renton for the May Creek, Kennydale, Honey Dew and 110th Avenue S.E. interceptors. Renton is th- lead agency in a join[ effort with the District for the Jones Avenue Interceptor. Renton has a number of ULID's being processed in the Honey Dew and Kennydale areas, and both Renton and the District have ULID's formed and ready to go in the Jones Avenue area. We understand that Step 1 Facilities Plan and a Declaration of Non-Significant Impact may be completed by December 1, 1977. Assuming this to be true, the follow- ing schedule can be effected: NY, ' { 1: 9 �i September 30, 1977 To: Department of Ecology Page 2 May Creek Section 2 Interceptor 1. Completion of Plans and Specifications January 1, 1978 2. Open Bids February 15, 1978 3. Start Constructiou March 15, 1978 4. Complete Construction September 15, 1978 Kennydale, Honey Dew, 110th Avenue Interceptors 1. Completion of Plans and Specifications June 1, 1978 2. Open Bids July 15, 1978 3. Start Construction September 1, 1978 4. Complete Construction June 1, 1979 Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions. Very truly yours, KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT NO. 107 By= Henry F. McCulluugh, President Board of Commissioners JRW:HFMc:,jad cc: City of Renton-Warren Goanason Metro-Richard Hibbard DOE-Mark Premo EPA-Cecil Carroll kv F 2574.021 111 if 011 �., e :�,•... -tin 'a w1 Ei1PJP,Df, INC. ENGINEERS PLANNERS • SURVEYORS } 7,7 October 12, 1977 i M i King County Water District No. 107 NEumu 5806-A 119th Avenue S.E. OCT 1 3 19T7 Bellevue, Washington 98006 ruetiir�NTO1` SUBJECT: FY 1978 FINAL PROJECT LIST - MASTER GRANTS LIST N'oMu MAY CREEK INTERCEPTOR SYSTEM Gentlemen: Mr. McCullough and I attended a hearing in Olympia on the DOE Master Grants Listing - FY 1978 on September 30, 1977. This letter is to provide an update on the May Creek Interceptor System positions in that list. Step 1 - Facilities Plan May Creek Phase II-18th in a total of 23 projects. Estimated number of projects to be funded is 7. SteM_2 - P1ans and Specifications May Creek Interceptor - Section 1 - 69tn Honey Dew Interceptor - 70th 110th Avenue S.E. Interceptor - 75th Kennydale Interceptor - 76th (out of a total of 97 projects) Estimated number of projects to be funded is 31. Step 3 - Construction May Creek Interceptor - Section 1 - 43rd Honey Dew Interceptor - 44th Kennydale Interceptor - 46th //!! Jones Avenue Interceptor - 48th (out of a total of 53 projects) —_--' Estimated number of projects to be funded is 40. 1915 FIRST AVENUE •SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98101 624-2623 October 12, 1977 KCWD No. 107 ¢ Page 2 The final funding level is dependent upon U.S. Congress allocations to EPA. The foregoing indicated funding level is the current best estimate. I gained the impression from the meeting that there is a fair possibility that funding levels may be increased above those presently indicated. Very truly yours, , MOORE, WALLACE 6 KENNEDY, INC. t r John R. Wallace, Jr. i j JRW:Jad cc: City of Renton-Warren Connasou° Metro-Richard Hibbard Henry F. McCullough John R. Janson Ji Elmer F. Foster i J } t t a P f r t e Date lu: \ . Lee P. h llitt — H. IW on hi o .J . Mi uNn . U. N; I vr Ivan N. Selaon Uthet Rt 1'u411'h M: aARREN GONt 'WSJECi: R*"ier and report book. _ See b. f alloatr and town. r roipnge for o •ipna tire. rakeappropriate appropria b octian. i 7ropare opooial "port. 1 ., pop uetinp. t tour inlornatian. - p REYARES: 1 r. 1114*011 25 MOORE,WALLACE&KE KENNEDY,INC. KFNGINEE4S ■ PLANNERS a SURVEYOR* .wc April 16, 1979 METRO 821 - 2nd Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 , Attn: Mr. Joe Fritz y SUBJECT: MAY CREEK Gentlemen: The following information was provided by George Barlow of the Department of Ecology (753-2361) in regard to the financial status of May Creek: Grant C-530747-0.10 DOE Grant $ 2,025 EPA Grant 10,12.5 C-530749-010 DOE Grant $ 6,750 EPA Grant 33,750 Loan 2674061124 Washington Futures $80,437,O3 The loan must be repaid. Very truly yours, MOORE, WALLACE 6 KENNEDY, INC. By3ohn R, Wallace, r. - ----- - JRW:iad cc : W.D. No. 107 Warren Gonnason-City of Renton 1932 FIRST AVENUE, SUITE 0706• SEA1TtE WASHINGTON 98101 ..(206)624-2623 >r Y C v Municipal Wastewater Treatment Works Construction Grants Program Department of Ecology Responses to Hearing Testimony Decembei 1978 General The federal and state regulations for administering the municipal wastewater treatment works construction grants program provide that the state is responsible for preparing the annual list of projects to receive funding. Also, the state is to prepare the priority rating and ranking system which consists of the procedures to be followed when developing the , project list. The applicable federal regulations were published in the September 27, 1978 Federal Register under Title 40, Part 35, Section 35.915 State Priority System and Project Prioriq list while the state regulations .re contained in Chapter 173-250 WAC. The federal regu' in explains that each state is to prepare a fact sheet containing all procedures involved in the priority rating and ranking system; that the state is to conduct public hearings on the contents of the fact sheet; that the fact sheet is to be approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); that the resultant project priority list is to be subjected to public hearings; and that the state is to send its final project priority list to EPA for their review along with the slate's responses to all testimony received at the public hearing. The DOE held public hearings on the fact sheet in July; has received EPA , approval of the fact sheet; and held public hearings on the proposed I project priority list on October 27 and December 4. iestimony was i submitted by more than 200 individuals and involved more than 550 pages on some 70 different wastewater projects. This document constitutes our responses to this testimony. Program Funding At the time the process was set in motion for developing the draft project priority list for the October 27 public hearing, Congress had not appropriated the FY 1979 grant funds. However, all indications were that the congressional appropriation would be $5 billion and that Washington's share of this appropriation would be approximately $88 million. Congress appropriated only $4.2 billion and Washington's resultant share was $73.3 million. Draft 1 of this project list which was presented at the October hearing assumed the availability of $88 million and since we learned iust prior to the hearing that Washington's share would be much less, the decision was made at the time to continue the hearing. In that way, a second, more representative draft could be presented to the public at a later hearing. This second draft did reflect $15 million less in federal funds and also reflected our refined projections of which projects must be added to the list in order to obligate the 4 percent "small communities" money and the 2 percent "innovative and alternative" monies. If not spent on the proper types of projects, the 2 percent and the 4 percent money eventually reverts to the Federal Treasury. It is important to understand the full implication of the drastic turn which this program has taken during the last year. Stated simply, 1 Y w` many of the projects that are in the process of completion or have completed Step 1 facility planning will not receive grant funds for construction over the next five years, if ever. Unfortunately, even some of those projects which have completed or are in the process of completing Step 2 design will similarly not be funded for construction. Priority must go to updating existing sewage treatment plants and to continue our commitment to those projects which are presently under construction. These federal and state grant monies must no longer be used to address potential problems. If a suspected problem cannot be documented with reasonable certainty, then it should be considered a potential problem and should not receive a high priority rating. Also, it is our intent, wherever possible, to schedule a smoctb transition from Step 2 design to Step 3 construction. which logically means that design should not proceed if there is no construction money for the project in the foreseeable future. Because 1979 is a transiti .e year, there are some exceptions on this list to the management goals to the program which have just been outlined. However, we are confident that our reaction to the hearing testimony nos produced a relative ranking of all the projects in this state which is indicative of the priorities in the program. This ranking shnuld remain relatively stable for the foreseeable future. What this means is that if the federal funding level remains stable, we expect to make only minor refinements in succeeding years to the five-year list, which has been enclosed. We have committed $86.8 million federal dollars to projects on this year's list and have assigned $10.9 million to the various reserves which indicates there are $97.7 million federal dollars available for obligation. Actually, the federal appropriation for FY 1979 is $73.3 million, while approximately $24.4 million is a carryover of FY 1978 funds which were not obligated by the required November 30 date. We expect that all monies encumbered to projects on this year's list will be obligated by the end of the fiscal year and, therefore, do not expect any carryover of tederal dollars into FY 1980. The $5.0 million set aside for funding grant increases constitutes an unusually low 5 percent of the total monies to be obligated. In past years, it has been the department's policy to set aside 12 to 15 percent of the ,., tends for grant increases. This decision was made because of; (l) ,ort period of time - seven months left in FY 1979 - before FY 1980 i.ecome available, ( ) the unusually large number of contin- uing projects which will be completed with the FY 1979 funds, (3) an increasing awareness of the limited availability of funds which hopefully results in the submittal of more accurate total eligible cost estimates for each of the projects. Should the grant increase fund be depleted before the end of FY 19. , it may become uecessary to hold a midyear public hearing for the purpose of removing from the project list the lowest priority unfunded projects. This money would then be transferred to the grant increase reserve fund. Each succeeding year's list of projects assumes a stable federal appropriation of $73.3 million for 1980 thru 1983. Recent information received indicates that as part of President Carter's inflation-fighting program, federal appropriations to this program for those years could be as low as $3 billion. Washington State's share of this appropriation would be approximately $53 million. Needless to say, this could cause serious delays in the funding of many projects in this program. 2 I I l K i t I Response t.o Testimony As stated earlier, testimony was received concerning approximately 70 different projects. The testimony fell into eight general categories or groups, as follows: 1 . Reevaluation of the priority rating 2. Immediate funding of Step 3 (construction) - because the local funding has been secured 3. Earlier funding for later sequences of ongoing construction projects G. Earlier funding of Step 3 - because Step 2 (design) has been completed 5. Include Step 3 on the five-year list - because Step 2 has been completed o. Consideration for Step 1 tftcility planning) 7. Excessive growth and potential problem situations 8. General concerns Some testifiers addressed a number of situations and, for this reason, some projects appeared in more than cne grouping. The following is a more detailed explanation of DOE action on testimony in each of these categories. 1 . DOE was asked to reevaluate the priority rating assigned to 31 projects, while two atings were revised based solely upon the recommendations of the Department of Social and Health Services. Of the 33 requests, the decision was made to adjust the ratings on 13 projects. These projects ace: City of Okanogan (Flmway Interceptor), City of Longview, METRO Seattle (combined sewer overflow correction (CSO)), Odessa, Othello, City of Vancouver (B-6 Interceptor), City of South Bend, City of Walla Walla, Town of dlbe, cities of Everett, Mount Vernon, and Tieton and Kittitas County (Ronald Water District) , Projects for which existing ratings were reevaluated but not changed were: Almira, Bridgeport, Seer Lake, Loon Lake, Diamond Lake, Granite Falls, King County (Orton Road, Fall City, and Lake Boren onsite disposal projects), Kittitas County Sewer District 81 (Snoqualmie Pass), Lake Osoyoos, Montesano, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, Conconully Lakes, Pine Lake, Jefferson County (Cape Geotge Colony), Port Townsend (infiltration-inflow correction) , South Prairie, Southwest Suburban Sewer District (Salmon Creek STP and Miller Creek STP), Spokane Indians (Wellpinit), West Richland, Richland (Badger Mountain and North Richland area), and Eckland Park Sewer District. 2. A number of people testified that their 1,,cal entities would experience economic hardships if Step 3 funds were not forth- coming in the next several years. Of these six requests, the department agreed to make construction funds available sooner on two projects. Officials for the City of Puyallup testified that they had received a HUD block grant, that the city had already sold bonds for the local share of the construction 3 Y, a project and, therefore, they would like their project moved from the 1980-1981 time frame to 1979-1980. The City of Pullman has been guaranteed Urban Arterial Board (UAB) funds for widening and repaving a portion o" Stadium Way, .:at these UAB funds will lapse by July 1979 if the interceptor sewer scheduled for Stadium Way is not unc:er construction. The Town of Granite Falls has received a HUD block grant but has insufficient priority rating. Whatcom County needs Step 3 funding sooner for the Nor-Bell Interceptor but has not begun Step 1 facility planning. Tne Diamond Lake Sewer District has floated a $1.5 million bond issue but has insufficient priority sating points, while the Muckleshoot Indians have a HUD grant for a 40-unit housing development, which is contingent upon construction of a sewer system, but also has insufficient priority. 3. A number of testifiers, feeling the pressures of high inflation, asked for earlier funding for later sequences of ongoing construction projects. There were eight such projects, and the department agreed to move forward the funding for three projects. Projects for '+hich funds were moved forward into FY 1979 are for the pity o. Kittitas (upgrade STP) and Lakehaven Sewer District (upgrade Redondo STP) . Bonney Lake officials would like more grant funds in FY 1980 and 1981. Officials for the City of Aberdeen testified that they have $8.5 million of work ready for bid for which funds are not scheduled until 1980. Since this project is already scheduled for $8 million worth of construction in 1979, the department was unable to accommodate the c4tv's request. Asotin County received their full Step 3 grant in September 1977. However, DOE recently declared that two ULIDs formed for noncontiguous project area.: would be ineligible for grant funds; this has changed the scope of the project drastically. Officials from Hoquiam, Pierce County (for Chambers Creek-Clover Creek Project), and the City of Tacoma also testified that later sequences cf their projects were too prolonged, but no changes were made. 4. Another group of testifiers had very similar requests for earlier funding of Step 3 construction but, in these cases, they were for projects for which design was not yet completed. There were seven projects in this group and the department agreed to effect four changes. It was agreed to make 1979 funding available for Grand Coulee for construction of ai interceptor under a road which is soon to be resurfaced by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. In the case of the project for the City of Raymond, a general adjustment of projects and funds on the list resulted in the funding of their project moving forward from 1981 to FY 1980. Projects scheduled for Deer Lake and Loon Lake will be "alternative" type projects which will expend furds from the required 2 percent reserve for "innovative and alternative" projects and were, therefore, given higher priority and moved onto the project list. The department was unable to accommodate requests fron the City of College Place for $1 million in 1979, the City of Richland for their scheduled $18 million earlier than 1982, or for Skagit County Sewer District Ill, which requested funding earlier than 1983. 4 5. The next group consists of projects for which Step 2 has been completed but for which no Step 3 funds are available in the foreseeable future. These projects, for a number of reasons, have been victims of the drastic changes which have taken place in the Construction Grant Program since 1976. The department was unable to accommodate any of the nine requests for Step 3 funding received from Granite Falls, Ritzville, the Town of Snoqualmie, South Hill Se-wer District, City of Okanogan (upgrade STP), King County Water District #107 (May Creek and Honey Dew Interceptor), King County Watei District #90 (Orton Road Interceptor), Klickitat County PUD #1 (Dallesport- Murdock), or Town of Stanwood. 6. Requests were received from the communities of Coupeville, Colville, and Langley for Step 1 (facility planning) funds for upgrading existing sewage treatment plants. Unfortunately, none of the projects has sufficient priority rating and none of the testimony a 'ressed requests for specific changes to the existing priority ratings. 7. Providing funds for constructing projects to solve rapid growth situations and potential problems is not a goal of this program. Seven requests actually fell within one or the other of these two categories. The department is, unfortunately, unable to honor requests of this nature for projects in the City of Ferndale, Town of Friday Harbor, Lynnwood, Medical Lake, Port Orchard, Seven Lakes Sewer District , and Kittitas County Sewer District N1 (Snoqualmie Pass). 8. The final group of testimony consisted of miscellaneous general concerns. Officials from the City of Bremerton asked that their project maintain the status quo on the project list; actually the funding moved forward one year so that Step 3 now begins in 1980. Officialo from Clallam County asked that we explain what our guidelines are for distributing the 4 percent "alternative systems for rural communities" funds. The department intends to respond to this request under separate letter. In the case of the Bonney Lake and East S, id Water District projects, testimony was received in opp, (ion to both of these projects. It is the position of the de;.Ltment that local support (or lack of support) for a project is a matter of local resolution and not an issue to be addressed through the priority rating system. Officials from the City of Kennewick testified concerning the failure of their lagoon liner system; unfortunately, this is a , atential operation and maintenance problem in its present :ondition. One testifier alluded to the generally deplorable conditions in the Ocean City, Copalis, and Pacific Beach area; in the absence of specific comp nts little can be done. The department agreed to honor the request from King County that we delay funding for the City of Bothell Beardsley Boulevard Interceptor and the south portion of the extension to the METRO- Issaquah Interceptor. Finally, officials from the City of Tacoma testified that they did not like the format of the 'raft project list which was presented at the October 27 and December 5 z R r 4 public hearings. We agree and will change the forr,at for FY 1980 presentation. A copy of the final project priority list has been included for your information. Priority rating changes on specific projects and reference to documentation justifying the changes is available in the department's files, i i 6 ` STATE Or DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY - WASHINGTON - D,xv lee Rae liutx•rrwr January 15, 1979 To Interested Persons and Agencies : Enclosed for your information is a copy of the fiscal year 1979 project priority list for the wastewater construction grants program. This list contains funding information for a five year period (FY 79-33) but projects on the 1979 portion of the list are the only ones towards which grant funds are actually encum- bered. The remaining four years are for planning purposes only. d Money for these years is allocated on a year-by-year basis by congress and although our planning projects assume $73 million each year, this anticipated amount for the years beyond 1979 could change. This list was prepared in accordance with the applicable federal regulations published ir. the September 27, 1978 Federal Register under Title 40, part 35, section 35.915, State Priority System and Project List; and the state regulations contained in chap- ter 1r3- 6 WA_C_ The Federal Register requires the state to prepare a fact sheet explaining the procedures involved in the priority ratino and ranking system. This fact sheet is avail - able from the Department of Ecology upon request. Also enclosed is a summary of the department's responses to the public testimony received as a result of the October 27 and Decem.,er 4 public hearings. The fiscal year 1979 project list was submitted to the Environ- mental Protection Agency oh January 9 for review and will not become final until that review is complete. We anticipate this will be accomplished by February 1 . For further information on this matter pleas contact Mr. Norman Glenn of our Olympia headquarters office (206) 753-2846. }1,Sincere Iy, John F. Spencer Assistant Director Office of Water Programs r ,reµ Y �, 3'op^f "i u� e flM16 r . 'r9 '{ � �y Fa is�,1 Q� :.w� F �� �' � � ➢ i�wt rr..iiv i� ';` i 'ram JAN Q 1979 1, APPLICANT NAME GRANT 1D NUMBER STEP YEAR EPA ASSISTANCE PROJECT DESCRIPTION Aberdeen C53-0556-05 3 3-79 6,000.000 Upgrade STP Almira C53-0838-02 2 3-79 52,500 Upgrade STP P k Diamond (King Co, ) C53-0566-02 2 9-79 42,500 New Facility Bonney Lake C53-0653-03 3 6-79 1 ,650,000 Fennel Cr.-Bonney Lake- Lake Jane Inter. Bremerton C53-0851-01 2 3-79 1,500,000 Upgrade STP Buckley C53-0833-03 3 3-74 1,050,000 Upgrade STP Chelan County PUD C53-0709-02 2-3 3-79 233,750 Dryden Comm. Drainfield Chelan, City of C53-0757-02 2 3-79 275,000 New Chelan Falls STP Clark County C53-0715-02 2 3-79 150,000 Meadowglade - New STP College Place C53-0720-03 3 3-79 61 ,000 Rehab. sewers Davenport C53-0864-01 1 3-79 11,250 Upgrade STP Des Moines S.D. C53-0592-04 3 6-79 5,250,000 Upgrade STP -1- JAW 9 19/9 APPLICANT NAME iNT ID NUMBER . , YEAR EPA ASSISTANCE PROJECT DESCRIPTION Eastsound W.D. C53-0734-03 1 6-79 705,000 Interceptors, New STP Ellensburg C53-0832-03 1 3-79 1,203,000 Sludge Handling Facilities Farmington C53-0910-01 1 9-79 18,750 New STP and Interceptor Goldendale C53-0601-04 3 6-79 2,244,850 STP Upgrade (Phase I1) Grand Coulee C53-0741-02 2 3-79 301,500 Upgrade STP Grand Coulee C53-0741-03 3 6-79 300,000 Outfail Phase I Green River Comm. College C53-0819-02 2 9-79 25,000 Wastewater Operator Training Facility Hoquiam C53-0829-05 3 3-79 900,000 Queen Sewer Rehab. Hoquiam C53-0829-06 3 6-79 1 ,425,000 Raymer Sewer Rehab. Kitsap Co. S.D. 5 C53-0850-02 2 6-79 225,000 Upgrade STP Kittitas C53-0619-04 3 3-79 750,000 Upgrade STP Lakehaven S.D. C53-0612-04 3 3-79 3,681,750 Upgrade Redondo STP -2- 1 APPLICANT NAME GRANT 1D NUMBER STEP YEAR EPA ASSISTANCE PROJECT DESCRIPTION Liberty Lake C53-0596-04 3 9-79 1,875,000 New STP Lummi Indian Bus. Council C53-0563-04 3 9-79 4,087,500 STP and Interceptor McCleary C53-0609-04 3 9-79 900,000 Upgrade STP Moses Lake C53-0689-02 2 6-79 375,000 Upgrade STP Okanogan C53-0767-03 3 9-79 375,000 Elmway Interceptor Olympia C53-0579-05 3 3-79 22,500,000 STP Othello C53-0623-03 3 5-79 825,000 Influent Interceptor Replacement Pierce Co. Ch./Cl. Cr. C53-0565-13 3 6-79 2,619,000 Bridgeport Interceptor Pullman C53-0618-03 3 3-79 937,500 Interceptor 1 & 1B Pullman C53-0618-04 3 6-79 187,500 Land Acquisition Puyallup C53-0625-04 3 6-79 7,125,000 Upgrade STP Roslyn C53-0843-02 2 9-i9 53,000 tipg_a STP -3- JAN 9 1979 APPLICANT NAME GRANT ID NUMBER STEP YEAR EPA ASSISTANCE PROJECT DESCRIPTION Seattle C53-0787-06 2 9-79 195,000 Longfellow Creek CSO Correction Seattle (and Metro) C53-0787-02 2 9-79 922,500 Lake Washington South CSU Correction Seattle (and Metro) C53-0787-04 2 9-79 450,000 Lake Washington North CSO Correction Seattle (and Metro) C53-0787-09 2 6-79 195,000 Puget Sound Beaches CSO Correction South Bend C53-0848-02 3 6-79 975,000 Sewer replacement and rehab. Spokane C53-0792-02 2 6-79 450,000 Meenach-Hollywood CSO correction Spokane County C53-0793-02 2 9-79 375,000 North Spokane Suburban Area Inter. Tacoma C53-0558-04 3 3-79 8,670,000 Sewer System Rehab & CSO Correct Phase 1 Walla Walla C53-0911-01 1 4-79 ?5,000 Upgrade STP Whatcom County C53-0866-01 1 3-79 22,500 Nor-Bell Interceptor Yakima C53-0557-05 3 3-79 4,553,250 Expand STP -4- l 1 ' .w:..w;w.,.w...w«r.,.a...rwn...a.,.w.:_.:..«+a.-....,...........o..:..�:.-.:, ....., :.,: . ..e.:.,.:......_......_....a.:... ... .. . :. ....w�..�.w...�,...-,........�.......e,:.,.....u........+...u..m�:. JAN 9 1979 APPLICANT NAME GRANT ID NUMBER STEP YEAR EPA ASSISTANCE PROJECT DESCRIPTION Aberdeen C53-0556-06 3 80 6,375,000 Duwntown/Centril Sewer Rehab. Beacon Hill S.D. C53-0702-02 2 s0 53,250 1/I Correction Black Diamond (King Co. ) C53-0566-03 3 80 750,000 New Facility Bonney Lake C53-0653-04 3 80 750,000 Church Lake-Inlet Is. Interceptor Bremerton C53-0851-02 3 80 2,250,000 Phase Out Manette STP Brewster C53-0840-04 3 80 900,000 Upgrade SIP (Phase 2) Brewster C53-0840-03 3 80 75,000 Upgrade STP (Phase I) Cathlamet C53-0589-03 3 80 825,000 Interceptor to STP Centralia C53-0847-04 3 80 307,500 Ford Prairie Interceptor Centralia C53-0847-05 3 80 367,500 Waunch Prairie Interceptor Chelan, City of C53-0757-03 3 80 2,958,000 New Chelan Falls STP Clark County C53-0715-03 3 80 1 ,500,000 Meadowglade - New STP -5- JAN 9 1979 APPLICANT NAME GRANT ID NUMBER STEP YEAR EPA ASSISTANCE PROJECT DESCRIPTION College Place C53-0720-04 3 80 1,500,000 Upgrade STP Davenport C53-0864-02 2 80 75,000 Upgrade STP Elbe W.D. C53-0853-02 2 80 30,000 Upgrade STP Faimington C53-0910-02 2 80 75,000 New STP and Interceptor Grand Coulee C53-0741-04 3 80 2,250,000 STP Phase Il Roquiam C53-0829-07 3 80 3,117,000 bay west/east Rehab. Kelso C53-0743-02 2 80 143,000 1/1 Correction La Center C53-0753-02 2 80 112,500 Upgrade STY Longview C53-0758-02 2 80 330,000 I/I Correction McCleary C53-0609-03 3 80 975,000 Sewer Rehab. Odessa C-53-0766-03 3 80 2,250,000 New Facility Othello C53-0623-04 3 80 225,000 Sewer System Rehab. Othello C53-0623-05 3 80 1,575,000 Treatment Plant Modification -6- 1 APPLICANT NAME GRANT ID NUMBER STEP YEAR EPA ASSISTANCE PROJEZT DESCRIPTION Pierce Co. Ch./Cl . Cr. C53-0565-05 3 80 8,100,000 STP Phase 1 Pierce Co. Ch./Cl- Cr. C53-0565-06 3 80 1,800,000 Bridgeport. Area 1 and 2 Pierce Co. Ch./Cl. Cr. C53-0565-09 3 80 972,000 Outfail i Prosser C53-0506-02 2 80 149,750 Discharge to land Pullman C53-0618-05 3 80 562,500 Sludge Handling Facility a Pullman C53-0618-06 3 80 525,000 Interceptor No. 2 Rehab. 1 Pullman C53-0618-07 3 80 375,000 Interceptor No. 3 Rehab Puyallup C53-0625-03 3 80 1,800,000 Sewer Rehab. i Raymond C53-Oi71-03 3 80 3,450,000 Upgrade STP Roslyn C53-0843-03 3 80 600,000 Upgrade STY South Bend C53-0848-03 3 80 750,000 Upgrade STP Spokane C53-0792-03 2 80 750,000 Meenach-Hollywood CSO correction -7- JAN 9 W9 APPLICANT NAME GRANT ID NUMBER STEP YEAR EPA ASSISTANCE PROJECT DESCki. : Spokane C53-0792-05 3 80 3,600,000 Meenach-Hollywood CSO correction Stevens Co. PUD #1 C53-0800-G2 2 80 300,000 Deer Lake New Fac. Vancouver C53-0716-03 3 80 306,000 8-6 Interreptor Waterville C53-0809-03 3 80 5_2,500 Upgrade STP Whatcom County C53-0866-02 2 80 30,000 Nor-Bell Interceptor -8- i �l9 .,h',tV APPLICANT NAME GRANT ID NUMBER STEP YEAR EPA ASSISTANCE PhOJECT DESCRIPTION Alms,, C53-0838-03 3 81 600,000 Upgrade STP Bonney Lake C53-0653-05 3 81 3,993,000 STP & Hwy 410 Interceptor Bremerton C53-0851-03 3 81 3,000,000 CSO Correction Davenport C53-0864-03 3 81 487,500 Upgrade STP Elbe W.D. C53-0.�53-03 3 81 150,000 Upgrade STP Farmington C53-0910-03 3 81 250,000 New STP and Interceptor La Center C53-0153-03 3 81 1,125,000 Upgrade STP Metro C53-0816-02 2 81 1,125,000 Preferred Fac. Plan Alternative Moses Lake C53-0689-03 3 81 6,000,000 Upgrade STP Ell C53-0772-02 2 81 52,500 Upgrade STP Pierce Co. Ch./Cl. Cr. C53-0565-07 3 81 STY Phase 11 -9- APPLICANT NAME GRANT ID NUMBER STEP YEAR EPA ASSISTANCE PROJECT DESCRIPTION Pierce Co. Ch./Cl. Cr. C53-0565-08 3 81 1 ,425,000 Parkland Area 2 Prosser C53-0506-03 3 81 2,490,750 Discharge to land Seattle C53-0787-07 3 81 750,000 Longfellow Creek CSO Correction Seattle (and Metro) C53-0787-03 3 81 6,600,000 Lake Washington South CSO Correction Seattle (and Metro) C53-0787-05 3 81 S,025,000 Lake Washington North CSO Correction Seattle (and Metro) C53-0787-10 3 81 3,450,000 Puget Sound Beaches CSO Correction Spokane C53-0792-06 3 81 6,150,000 Meenach-Hoil .00d CSO correction Spokane C53-0792-04 2 81 150,000 Meenach-Hollywood CSO correction Stevens Co. PUD #1 C53-0801-03 3 81 2,625,000 Deer Lake New Fac. Stevens Co. PUD #1 C53-0799-02 2 81 375,000 Loon Lake New Far. Tacoma C53-0558-05 3 81 4,500,000 Outfall (Phase II) A Walla Walla C53-0911-02 2 81 375,000 Upgrade STP -10- i APPLICANT NAME, GRANT ID NUMBER STEP YEAR EPA ASSISTANCE PROJECT DESCRIPTION Whatcom County C53-0866-03 3 81 300,000 Nor-Bell Interceptor W a -11- k e9 1979 APPLICANT NAME GRANT ID NUMBER STEP YEAR EPA ASSISTANCE PROJECT DESCRIPTION Beacon Hill S.D. C53-0702-03 3 82 530,000 I/1 Correction Bremerton C53-0851-04 3 82 9,000,000 Upgrade Charleston STP Kelso C53-0743-03 3 82 1,425,000 I/I Correction Longview C53-0758-03 3 8; 3,300,000 I/1 Correction Pierce Co. Ch./Cl. Cr. C53-0565-10 3 82 4,500,000 Chambers Creek Interceptor tunnel Pierce Co. Ch./Cl. Cr. C53-0565-11 3 82 1,050,000 Bridgeport Area 3 Pierce Co. Ch./Cl. Cr. C53-0565-12 3 82 2,025,000 Parkland Area 3 Pierce Co. Cb./C1. Cr. C53-0565-15 3 82 975,000 Clover Creek Area Pierce Co. Ch./Cl. Cr. C53-P565-14 3 82 900,000 Bridgeport Area 4 Pullman C53-0618-08 3 82 3,000,000 Upgrade STP Richland C53-0606-08 3 82 7,659,000 New STP Richland C53-0606-03 t 82 1 ,827,000 Goethals Interceptor -12- , 9 1979 APPLICANT NAME GRANT ID NUMBER STEP YEAR EPA ASSISTANCE PROJECT DESCRIPTION Richland C53-0606-04 3 82 266,250 Bypass Interceptor Richland C53-0606-05 3 82 2,109,000 Treatment Plant Influent Interceptor Richland C53-0606-06 3 82 1,038,000 Leslie Rd. Pump Station & Force Main Richland C53-0606-07 3 82 435,750 Montana St. Pump Station & Force Main Seattle C53-0787-08 3 82 3,000,000 Longfellow Creek CSO Correction Spokane C53-0792-07 3 82 4,500,000 Meenach-Hollywood CSO correction Tacoma C53-0558-06 3 82 7,500,000 Outfall (Phase II) B -13- t a a • JAN 9196 APPLICANT NAME GRANT ID NUMBER STEP YEAR EPA ASSISTANCE PROJECT DESCRIPTION Bremerton C53-0851-05 3 83 3,000,000 Upgrade Charleston STP Bridgeport C53-0839-03 3 83 150,000 Upgrade STP Eckland Park S.D. C53-0813-03 3 83 562,500 Interceptor to South Bend Kitsap Co. S.D. 5 C53-0850-03 3 83 3,150,000 Upgrade STP Metro C53-0816-03 3 83 7,500,000 Preferred Far. Plan Alternative Okanogan County C53-0768-03 3 83 3,525,000 Lake Osoyoo. Intercept to Oroville Pe Ell C53-0772-03 3 83 525,000 Upgra'r STP Pierce Co. Ch./Cl. Cr. C53-0565-16 3 83 1,050,000 Lake Area Pierce Co. Ch./Cl. Cr. C53-0565-17 3 83 1,725,000 Phillips-Hopkins Interceptor Pierce Co. Ch./Cl. Cr. C53-0565-i8 3 83 2,850,000 Brookdale Area I Pierce Co. Ch./Cl. Cr. C53-0565-19 3 83 3,300,000 Spanawa} Area Skagit County S.D. Al C53-0622-03 3 83 212,000 Upgrade STP Spokane C53-0792-08 3 83 4,500,000 Meenach-Hollywood CSO correction -14- t i li F �4 JAN 9 APPLICANT NAME GRANT ID NUMBER STEP YEAR EPA ASSISTANCE PROJECT DESCRIPTION Spokane County C53-0793-03 3 83 3,750,000 North Spokane Suburban Area Inter. Steilacoca C53-0797-03 3 83 1 ,050,000 Upgrade STP Steilacoom C53-0797-04 3 81 123,000 Sever Rehab. Tacoma C53-0558-07 3 83 7,500,000 STP Upgrade (Phase I1) C Walla Walla C53-0911-03 3 83 4,500,000 Upgrade STP C x 4 -15- 0 cx MOOM WALLACE&KENNEDY,INC. ENGINEERS • PLANNERS ■ SURVEYORS January 31, 1979 METRO 821 - 2nd Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 Attn: Mr. Gordon Gabrielson SUBJECT: MAY CREEK INTERCEPTOR Gentlemen: Attached is a letter dated January 24, 1979 from the City of Renton in regard to sewer service counts in the Honey Dew and Kennvdale areas. All of these connections are currently being serviced by METRO. Very truly yours, MOORE, WALLACE 6 KENNEDY, INC. By tZy K ��L�1LEf John R. Wallace, Jr. JRW:Jad Attachment cc: KCWD No. 107 Dick Houghton-City of Renton 1932 FIRST AVENUE, SUITE #706• SEATTLE WASHINGTON 98101 . (206)6241-2623 I , t C C, OF R�,N `� 2 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ' ENGINEERING DIVISION 235 -2631 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON,WASH.9905E FDSEPS RECEIyfD January 24, 1979 CHARLES J. DELAURENTI MAYOR BAN ag V19 W. Moore, Wallace b Kennedy 1932 1st Ave. , Suite 706 Seattle, WA 98101 Attention: John Wallace Subject: Connection Counts, May Creek Trunk Gentlemen: As per our te'�phone conve ,ation and Metro's request we have once again counted the connections to the sanitary sewer which will contribute to the May Creek Trunk. This is broken down by the two areas to be served. HoneyCreek Kennydale Total Trunk Trunk Single Family home 1116 423 639 Apt. Units 'r66 0 466 Schools* 2 1 3 8!�s i ness 8 1 9 Shopping Center 1 0 1 * 267C student and staff This is an update of the information furnished in 1977 lease call if you have any questions. Very 'y yours, Richard C. Houghton Supervisor i RCH:pmp r John D. Spellman County Executive King County Courthouse Seattle,Washington 98104 (206)344-4040 .tober 2G , 1978 Mr, Wilbur Aallauer Department of Ecology Olympia, WA 98504 P•,�ar Mir. fiallauer: t Before making any spec'.fic comments on proposed 201 projects, I would like to cornmzad the Department of Ecology on its Annual Sewerage Facility Ratina Process. The Department' s j responses to recommendations made in this area' s 208 Areawide [ Water Quality_ Plans are encouraging and can be seen in -tie c a�i nges in th year 's procedu::al and certification require- ments. I am confident that this process will continue to improve in future years as well. King County is working toward the adoption of a Sewerage General Plan which will provide a mechanism for relating land use and sewer decisions. King County and the municipalities within the Count- are already certifying metro projects t insure consistency with local land use plans. It would be possible and desirable for King County and the municipalities to extend this approach to all n,:�jor facilities under a DOE certification requirement. Requiring land use certification by local general purpose governments, whether counties or cities, should create a better 201 program by ensuring an appropriate amount of coordination between facility funding decisions and local land use planning efforts. After reviewing the proposed 201 funding allocation for 1979 and the projected funding allocations for 1980 to 1983 I have two general concerns about these proposals. My first concern is the extremely low level of funding proposed for projects within King County. Out of over $100 million proposed for projects in 1979 only $1.7 million is for cr -i.ties within King County. Projected allocations for 1930 to 1983 are only slightly better. While it is probably undesirable to allo- cate these funds on a per capita basis, a proposed 201 funding scheme allocating only 7.6% of the funds to an area with 321 of the State' s current population is even more undesirable. The proposed distribution is in need of review in light of this appare,:t disparity. 0 Mr. Wilbur 11allauer October 26, 1978 Page 2 Secondly, various on-site system proposals appear to have been ignored in the facility rating process. Historicall_ , 201 project requests have focused upon traditional methods of sewage collection and treatment. Alternative methods of sewage disposal, necessary for situations where traditional solutions are either undesirable or infeasible, are a very minor part of the request list. I believe that King County' s waste water control needs demand a more balanced program, including expanded investigation of alternative technologies and management techniques. It. was the intent of Congress in passing the 1977 Clean Watar Act that such needs be recognized and incorporated into the construction grants program. King County has proposed an on-site sewage disposal program to the Department of Ecology. This program includes continued funding of Step 1 for Black Diamond, as well as the initiation of a new combin 1 on-site Step 1 study which is essential to address the specific needs in three unique prcblem areas of King County. I hope that you will review and favorably recon- sider the integrated fall City, Orton Road and Lw� Step 1 uest submitted by King County. The OY0n R _ oaciT' proposal is esp i p r an y he same token, the 201 proposals recommended ?isfavor projects which are preventative in nature. We cannot afford to leave such projects unaddressed and allow them to become tomorrow's problems. Providing funding for such projects as the Pine Lake Interceptor and Phase 1 of May Creek would provide a grer`er program balance. In the spirit of the certification process towards which you are moving, King County government this year reviewed all of the proposed projects submitted to DOE' s Northwest .Regional Office that affect unincorporated King County. In those submittals were two specific projects on which I wish to comment. While those projects are not proposed for funding in 1979, 1 would like you to be aware of our concerns for future reference. One of these projects is the Beardslee Blvd, interceptor proposed by the City of Bothell. This project is c.esigned to alleviate some existing water quality problems but also has the potential to permit denser development i•, an agricultural x �'r i_ 4 Mr. Wilbur Hallauer 4 October 30, 1973 Page 3 portion of the North Creek Valley that lies in unincorporated King County. That portion of the North Creek area covered by this proposal is currently designated for sewer service in the Draft Sewerage General Plan, but remains one of the controversial issues in the adoption of the plan. Until the issue is resolved by County Council and Metro approval of the plan, we concur with DOE that no funding commitment should be made at this time. King County is also concerned about the southern portion of ' the proposed extension of the Metro-Issaquah Creek Interceptor which is described as extending approximately one-half mile into unincorporated King County along the Issaquah-Hobart Road. This project is not consistent with the Draft Ning County Sewerage General Plan. The proposal is within our Tahoma Communities Plan Prea. It is our intent to begin staff work on a Tahoma Communities Plan next July and by January of 1980 , to begin meeting with citizens of the area. I do not believe that any facility decision should be made until land use recommendations for the unincorporated area have been formu- lated. Any Step 1 process should be tied to the land use and population forecasts that will be consiuered as part of the communities plan. In closing, I would again like to thank DOE for undertaking the steps it has to improve the 201 decision ma:.ing process. I look forward to continued effort between DOE and King County on the 201 program. Sincerell, Jo D. Spell an C my Executive JDS:co CC: Bob McCormick, DOE, Redmond John Lampe, Metro 1 07 13 197d APPLICANT NAME GRANT ID NUMBER STEP YEAR EPA ASSISTANCE PROJECT DESCRIPTION Walla Walla C.53 0911-03 3 83 4,500,000 Upgrade STP Page 14 Y t A� OCT 3 1978 APPLICANT NAME. GRANT ID NUMBER STEP YEAR EPA ASSISTANCE PROJECT DESCRIPTION Elbe W.D. C53-0853-03 3 83 150,000 Upgrade STP 1 4etro C53-0816-03 3 83 11,250,000 Up grade Wrst Point STP Moses Lake C53-0689-03 3 83 3,750,000 Discharge to land (phased) Pe 7.11 C53-0772-03 3 83 525,000 Upgrade STP Pierce County-Chambers C53-3565-21 3 83 2,550,000 Lake City Area Creak/Clover Creek Pierce County-Chambers C53-0565-22 3 83 1,500,000 Phillips-Hopkins Area Creek/Clover Creek Pierce County-Chambers C53-0565• .3 3 83 975,000 Westsi.de Interceptor Creek/Clover Creek Pierce County-Chambers C53-0565-24 3 83 2,100,000 Lakewood P.S. Creek/Clover Creek Pierce County-Chambers C53-0565-25 3 83 1,275,000 Pv_'cland O.S. Creek/Clover Creek Pierce County-Chambers C53-0565-26 3 83 1,1 i,00C Lake Louis Area Creek/Clover Creek Spokane C53-0792-06 3 83 11 ,250,000 Elimination of combine,. sewer overflow Tacoma �53-0558-05 3 83 15,000,000 STP Upgrade (Phase II) C Page 13 F r, 4 OCT 1 1976 APPLICANT NAME GRANT ID NUlfBER STEP YEAR EPA ASS=STANCE PROJECT DESCRIPTION Pierce County-Chambers C53-0565-19 3 82 3,300,000 Spanaway Area Creek/Clover Creek Pierce County- Chambers C53-0565-20 3 82 2,925,000 Brookdale Area 2 Creek/Clover Creek Ronald W.D. C53-0866-01 1 b2 15,000 Upgrade STP Seattle C53-0787-02 2 82 `00,000 Lake Washington Nirth CSO Skagit County C53-0917-01 1 82 22,5nC Similk-Dewe New STP Spokane C53-0792-05 82 11,2oU,000 Elimination of combined sewer overflow Tacoma C53-0558-05 3 82 15,0�U,000 STP Upgrade (Phase II) 8 Vancouver C53-n7ll-02 2 82 750,000 Upgrade SIP ( i & i) Walla Walla C53-0911-n2 2 82 375,000 Upgrade STP Page 12 zw . .. 1 OCT 1 1978 a APPLICANT NAME PRANT ID NUMBER STEP YEAR EPA ASSISTANCE PROJXCT DESCdIPTION { Kittitas Co. S.D. 1 C53-0752-02 2 82 45,000 Upgrade STP (.Iyak Area) La Center C53-0753-03 3 82 1 ,125,000 Upgrade STP Mesa C53-0913-02 2 82 56,250 New STP sad Interceptor Metro C53-0914-02 2 82 172,500 Lake Washington South CSO 7 i Metro C53-0585-02 2 82 1,1?5,000 Upgrade Alki STP Moses Lake C53-0699-02 2 82 750,000 Discharge to land Mt. Vernon C53-0912-02 2 82 5 1100 Upgrade STP Pe E11 C53-0772-02 2 82 52,500 Upgrade STP Pierce County-Chambers L, J565-15 3 82 975,000 Clover Creek Area Creek/Clover Creek Pierce County-Chambers C53-0565-16 3 82 1,050,OOL Lake Area Creek/Clover Creek Pierce County-Chambers C53-0565-17 3 82 1 ,725,000 Phillips-Hopkins Interceptor Creek/Clover Creek Pierce County-Chambers C53-0565-18 3 82 2,850,000 Brookdale Area 1 { Creek/Clover Creek i Page 11 OCT 1 3 1978 AMICANT NAME GRANT ID NUMBER STEP YEAR EPA ASSISTANCE PROJECT DFSCRIP'IION Almira C53-0838-03 3 82 600, Upgrade STP Bonney Lake C53-0653-04 82 840,060 Fennel Creek interceptor Bonney Lake C53-0651-05 3 82 1,050,000 'Fennel Creek II Interceptor Bonney Lake C53-0653-06 3 82 825,000 Church Lake Interceptor i Bonney Lake C53-0653-03 3 82 900,000 Bonney Lake/Lake Jane and inlet is. inter. Bonney Lake C53-0652-07 3 82 78,750 Highway 410 Interceptor f Bremerton C53-0851-05 3 82 3,000,000 Upgrade Charleston STP 1 Bryn Mawr-Lakeridge S.D. C53-0915-01 1 82 15,000 Interceptor and CSO Colville C53-0916-01 1 82 26,250 Upgrade STF Elbe W.D. C53-0853-02 2 82 30,000 Upgrade STP Ferndale C53-0862-01 1 82 51 ,000 Upgrade STP Kitsap Co. S.D. 5 C53-0950-03 3 82 3,150,000 Retsil STP Page 10 r OCT 13 1976 APPLICANT NAME GRANT ID NUMBER STEP YEAR EA ASSISTANCE PROJECT DESCRIPTION Tacoma C53-0558-05 3 81 15,000,000 STP Upgrade (Phase II) A Whatcom County r . ' -0866-03 3 81 3U,1,000 Nor-Bell Interceptor Page 9 OCT 1978 APFLICANr NAME GRANT ID NUMBER STEP YEAR EPA ASSISTANCE PROJECT DESCRIPTION Bonney Lake C53-0652-08 3 81 7,125,000 New STP Bremertui, C53-0851-04 3 81 6,750,000 Upgrade Charleston STP Davenport C53-0864-03 3 81 487,500 Upgrade STP Farmington C53-0910-03 3 81 2,250,000 New STP and Interceptor Kelso C53-0743-03 3 81 1,430,000 Upgrade STP (1/I) Metro C53-0816-02 2 81 1,125,000 Upgrade West Point STP Pierce County-Chambers C53-0565-07 3 81 8,020,000 STP Phase I1 Creek/Clover Creek Pierce County-Chambers C53-0565-14 3 81 900,000 Bridgeport Area 4 Creek/Clover Creek Seattle C53-0787-03 3 81 3,750,000 Longfellow Creek CSO South Bend c53-0848-02 3 81 1,575,000 7pgrade STP Spokane C53-0792-04 3 81 7,500,000 Elimina'_ion of Combined Sewer overtiows Spokane County C53-0793-03 3 81 3,750,000 North Suburban Area Inter. Page 8 xx.. r OCT 1978 APPLICANT NAVE GRANT ID NUMBER STEP YEAR EPA ASSISTANCE PROJECT DESCRIPTION Pierce County-Chambers C53-0565-11 3 80 1 ,050,000 Bridgeport Area 3 i Creek/Clover Creek Pierce County-Chambers C53-0565-12 3 80 2,025,000 Parkland Area 3 Creek/Clover Creek Pierce County-Chambers C53-0565-13 3 80 2,619,000 Bridgeport Interceptor Creek/Clover Creek Prosser C53-0506-03 3 80 2,490,750 Discharge to land i Puyallup C53-0625-04 3 80 7,125,000 Upgrade STP Richland C53-0606-04 3 80 8,550,000 New STP Roslyn C53-0843-03 3 80 600,000 Upgrade STP Seattle C53-0787-03 3 RO 5,025,000 Lake Washington South CSO Spokane C53-0792-03 I80 1,875,000 Elimination of Combined Sewer overflows Spokane County C53-0793-02 2 80 375,000 North Suburban Area Inter. Whatcom County C53-0866-02 2 80 30,000 Nor-Bell Interceptor Page a �R .c rutiw.._... .. •wF'un+o .....w+aw,_,.. -.,. ... .�.. ♦ 'sc' n'S'44'.w.«:NfukMMVf,Y�/!Ai'^ v..Ye�n 4,. OCT . 1978 APPLICANT NAHE GRANT ID NUMBER STEP YEAR EFA ASSISTANCE PROJECT DESCRIPTION Aberdeen C53-0556-06 3 80 6,375,000 Downtown'Central Rehab. Beacon Hill S.D. C53-0702-0-' 3 80 530,000 Upgrade STP Black Diamond C53-0566-03 3 80 750,000 Sewage Facility Bremerton C53-0851-03 3 80 5,250,000 Upgrade Charleston STP Chelan, City of C53-0757-03 3 80 2,958,000 New Chelan Falls STP 1 Clark County C53-0715-03 3 80 1,500,000 Headowglade - New STP Davenport C53-0864-02 2 80 75,000 Upgrade STP Farmington C53-0910-02 2 80 75,000 New STP and Interceptor Grand Coulee C53-074, -j3 3 80 2,250,000 Discharge to land Pierce County -Chambers C53-0565-08 3 80 1,425,000 Parkland Area 2 t Creek/Clover Creek Pierce County-Chambers C53-0565-09 3 80 972,000 Outfall Creek/Clover Creek Pierce County-Chambers C53-0565-10 3 80 4,500,000 Chambers Creek Interceptor ^reek/Clover Creek tunnel Page 6 s .1 s�, p' OCT 1 3 1978 APPLICANT NAME GRAONT ID NUMBER STEP YEAR EPA ASSISTANCE PROJECT DESCRIPTION Seattle C53-0787-02 2 9-79 ?50,000 Lake Washington South CSO Seattle C53-n787 .02 2 9-79 225,000 Longfellow Creek CSO Skagit County S.D. S1 C53-0622-03 3 6-79 212,000 Upgrade STP Spokane C53-0792-02 2 6-79 1,500,000 Elimination of Combined Sewer overflows Steilacoom C53-0797-0Z 3 9-79 1,050,000 Upgrade STP Steilacoom C53-0797-04 3 3-79 123,000 Sewer Rehab. i Tacoma C53-0558-04 3 3-79 8,670,000 STP Upgrade (Phase I) Walla Walla C53-0911-01 1 9-79 7S,000 Upgrade STP Whatcom County C53-0866-01 1 1-79 22,500 Nor-Bell Interceptor Yakima C53-0557-05 3 3-79 4,5S3,250 Expand STP Page 5 i I i i OCT 1 11978 APPLICANT NAME GRANT ID NUMBER STEP YEAR EPA ASSISTANCE PROJECT DESCRIPTION Mesa C53-0913-01 1 9-79 18,750 New STP and Interceptor Metro C53-0846-01 1 1-79 675,000 Expand Renton STP Mt. Vernon C53-0912-01 1 1-79 225,000 Upgrade STP 1 i Olympia C53-0579-05 3 1-19 22,500,000 SIP I':erce County-Chambers C53-0565-05 3 3-79 8,100,000 STP Phase I Creek/Clover Creek Pierce County-Chambers C53-0565-06 3 6-79 1,800,000 Bridgeport Area 1 and 2 Creek/Clover Creek Prosser C53-0506-02 2 9-79 131,250 Discharge to land Pullman C53-0618-03 3 3-79 3,675,000 Upgrade STP Puyallup C53-0625-03 3 3-79 1,800,000 Sewer Rehab. Ravmond C53-0571-03 3 6-79 3,450,000 Upgrade STP Richland C53-0606-03 3 9-79 4,725,000 Crosstown Interceptor Roslyn C53-0843-02 2 9-19 53,000 Upgrade STP Page 4 i a. 0 T 1 3 1978 APPLICANT NAML GRANT I➢ NUMBER STEP YEAR EPA ASSISTANCE PROJECT DESCRIPTION Grand Coulee C53-0741-02 2 1-79 375,000 Discharge to land Green River Comm. College CSk-0819-02 2 9-79 25,000 Training Facility Hoquiam C53-0829-07 3 9-79 3,11;,000 Bay west/east Rehab. Hoquiam C53-0829-05 3 1-79 900,000 Queen Sewer Rehab. 'ogo.iam C53-0829-06 3 1-79 1,425,000 Raymer Sewer Rehab. Kelso C53-0743-02 2 9-79 143,000 Upgrade STP (i/?) Kitsap Co. S.D. 5 C53-0850-02 2 3-79 225,000 Retsil STP La Center C53-0753-02 2 6-79 112,500 Upgrade STP Liberty Lake C53-0596- 1 9-79 1 ,875,000 New STP Lummi Indian Business. C53-0563-64 3 9-79 4,087,500 STP ant Interceptor Council McCleary C53-0609-04 3 3-79 900.000 Upg-Ae STP McCleary C53-0609-03 3 3-79 975,000 Sewer Rehab. Page 3 i 1 i I y i 5-190 S N-1 MAY CREEK TRUNK CORRESPONDENCE #1 - TO EPA/DUE GRANT 18X r. OCT 1978 APPLICANT NAME GRANT ID NUMBER STEP YEAR EPA ASSISTANCE PROJECT DESCRIPTION Centralia C53-0847-05 3 3-79 367,500 W3unch Prarie Interceptor Chelan County PUD C53-0709-02 2-3 3-79 206,000 Dryden Comm. Drainfield Chelan, City of C53-0757-02 2 1-79 275,000 New Chelan Falls STP Clark County C53-0715-02 2 3-79 150,000 Meadowglade - New STP 1 i College Place C53-0720-05 3 3-79 1,500,000 Upgrade STP 1 Davenport C53-0864-01 1 1-79 11,250 Upgrade STP Des Moines S.D. C53-0592-04 3 6-79 5,250,000 Upgrade STY Eastsound W.D. C53-0734-03 3 6-79 705,000 Interceptors, New STP i Eklund Park S.D. C53-0813-03 3 9-79 562,500 Interceptor to South Bend Ellensburg C53-0832-03 3 3-79 1,203,000 Sludge Handling Farmingtcn C53-0910-01 1 9-79 18,750 New STP and Interceptor Goldendale C53-0601-04 3 6-79 1,980,750 STP Upgrade Phase II I Page 2 1 a I ,i it I i_'r OCT 1978 APPLICANT NAME GRANT ID NUMBER STEP YEAR EPA ASSISTANCE PROJECT DESCRIPTION Aberdeen C53-0556-05 3 3-79 6,000,000 Upgrade STY Almira C53-0838-02 2 3-79 52,500 Upgrade STP Beacon Hill S.D. C53-0702-02 2 9-79 53,000 Upgrade STP Black Diamond C53-0566-02 2 9-79 37,500 Sewage racility Bremerton C53-0851-02 3 9-79 1,350,000 Upgrade Charleston STP Bremerton G.,3-0851-01 2 3-79 90G,000 Upgrade Charleston STP Brewster C53-0840-04 3 9-79 900,000 Upgrade STP Phase 2 Brewster C53-084U-03 2 6-79 75,000 Upgrade STP Phase 1 Bridgeport C53-0839-03 3 6-79 158,000 Upgrade STP Buckley C53-0833-03 3 3-79 1,050,000 Upgrade STP Cathlamet C53-0589-03 3 3-79 825,000 Interceptor to STP Centralia C53-0847-04 3 3-79 307,500 Ford Prarie Interceptor Page 1 F i 1 Fiscal Year 1979 Draft Project Priority List The Fiscal Year 1979 draft project priority list has two parts, the fund- able and extended lists. The fundable list is made up of projects sche- duled for funding in FY 1979. The extended list is made up of projects projected to be funded in FY 1980, 81, 82, and 83. Further detailed information concerning procedures used to establish the FY 1979 project list may be found in the August 1978 "Fact Sheet" on rating and ranking procedures. The enclosed project list has been alphabetized for each priority year. Please note that projects scheduled for FY 1979 also have the month targeted for state certification included (a project may be bypassed if it does not meet its target date, under year column) A public hearing on this project list will be held on October 1978 at 10:00 A.M. in the Olympia City Hall Council Chambers, Eighth and Plum, Olympia, Washington. People unable to attend the hearing, but: desiring to comment a,,. uld for- wird written statements to: Department of Ecology Attn: Hearings Officer Olympia, Washington 98504 The record of the hearing will remain open for written statements until November 6, 1978. Questions on the project list may be directed to Rick Pierce at (206) 754-1323, Chapter 173-250 WAC CONSTRUCTION GRANTS PROGRAM-PRIORITY RATING SYSTEM AND PROJECT PRIORITY LIST WAS' (6) Significant revisions means changes to the ap- 173-250-010 Purpose and scope proved project priority list which effect the public-at- 173-250.020 Definitions. large. 17) 250 030 Development and approval or the system 113-250041) Development and approval of the state project priori. (7) -Wastewater treatment works construction grants ty list program" (hereinafter referred to as the construction grants program) means the federal funded program un- der Title 11 of Public Law 95-217 and the state funded WAC 173-250-010 Purpose and scope.The director program under chapter 43.83A RCW (Referendum 26) shall publish a priority rating and ranking system annu that provides for grants to public and prisate entities for ally which shall be used for the purpose of corstituting a the purpose of constructing or upgrading treatment project priority list. The purpose of this chapter is to de- works to meet the requirements of the state and federal scribe (I) the criteria to be considered when establishing water pollution control laws. (Statutory Authority: .I the n^merical rating parameters portion of the system, RCW 43 21A.080. 78-09-%7 (Order DE 78-11), 1 (2) th, criteria to be considered when establishing the 173-250-020, filed 8/24/78.1 administrative and management ranking procedures por- tion of the system (3) the process to be followed in seeking approval of the system, (4) how the system is to WAC 173-2%-030 Developner/ and mWeval of be used to constitute a project priority list, and (5) the the system. (I) The director will establish project rating process to be followed in seeking approval of the project parameters which consider, bu! are not limited to, the priority list. (Statutory Authority: RCW 43.21A.080. following criteria: 78-(rd-%7 (Order Ds: 78-11), J 173--250--010, filed (a) The severity of the pollution problem in navigable 8/24/78.1 waters and ground waters; (b) The existing population affected; WAC' 173-230-tl2U DefMitions For the r of (c) The need for preservation of high quality waters; purpose (d) The need for protection of the public health by this chapter: improving the sanitary condition of surface and under- (1) "Category of projects' mcuns one of the following: ground waters;and (a) Secondary treatment, (b) more stringent treatment, (e) Violation of state water quality standards and (c) infiltration-inflow correction, td) major sewer sys- other onfomeable provisions of Public Law 95-217, tem rehabilitation, (e) new collection sewer and appur• t-) The director will establish project ranking prose- tera ices, (f) new interceptors and appurtenances, (8) e.,cs which consider, but are not limited to, the follow- correction of combined sewer overflows and (h) subsur- in$ criteria: face disposal systems. (a) Numerical rating of each project achieved in ac- (2) "Director' means the director of the Washington cordance with the priority rating criteria established un- state department of ecology, or his duly authorized der WAC 173-250-030(1); representative. (b) Readiness for grant award during the next federal (3) 'Priority rating and ranking system- (hereinafter fiscal year; referred to as the system) means the process and criteria (c) Readiness for grant award during each of the en- used by the department of ecology to rate and rank pro- suing four federal fiscal years following the nexC jests in the state that are considered eligible for assist- (d) Phasing of large dollar amount projects to allow ante under the construction grants program. Ranking for effective distribution of grunt funds, criteria include the administrative and management pro- (e) A proper mix of projects which are ready for fa- cedures for constituting and revising the project priority cilily planning, design and construction; list. if) Determination of the priority to be given each cat• 44) Project means any one of the following: (a) Facil- egory of projects; it) planning (step I), (b) design (step 2). (c) and con• (g) Total federal or state grant funds available during struction (step 3). the next fiscal year and anticipated during each of the (5) Project priority list means the annual list of rated ensuing four fiscal years and ranked projects for which federal and state gran: (h) The deadline for obligation of federal fund,: assistance is expected during the five-year planning PC- (i) Special needs of small and rural communities; and rind starting at the beginning of the next federal fiscal (j) An identification of what constitutes significant year. revisions to the approved project priority list (including bypass, deletion or addition of,rrojects). IB/3a/7a) eel. 173-7la WAC—y 11 r Y" t 173-ZW030 Construction Grants Program-Priority (3) The system w,ll be described each year and be the subject of an annual public hearing. Notice of this hear- ing shall appear in the state Register pursuant to chap- ter 34.08 RCW. (4) A fact sheet describing the Proposed system shall be developed by the director each year and be available to the public at the regional offices of the department of ecology at least fifteen days prior to the public hearing. (5) After reviewing public comments the director will reuse the proposed system as appropriate. A summary of state responses to public comment and to any public hearing tsatimony shall be preparsd and made available for distribution to the public. 16) The proposed system as published by the director shall be submitted each year to the federal Environmen- tal Protection Agency for approval. [Statutory Authori- ty: RCW 43.21 A.080. 78-09 067 (Order DE 78 11 $ 173-250-030, filed 8/24/78.1 WAC 173-250-W Development and approval of the slate project priority list. (1) A list of prospective projects will be dovcloped using the municipal needs in- vemorv, the NPDES permit files, and requests received from municipal entities, and information received from local and state health agencies. (2) The director shall utilize the published svatem to corstttute a project priority list as follows. (a) Use the project rating parameters to ge^crate a numerical score for each prospective project: and (b) U.e the project ranking procedures to constitute the project priority list. (3) The fundable portion of the project priority list shall include those projects planned for award during the first year of the five-year planning period and shall not exceed the total federal funds expected to be available during the year less all applicable reserves provided for by federal regulations. (4) Thirty days public notice shall be given that the project priority list will be the subject of a public hear- mg. Notice of this hearing shall appear in the state Register pursuant to chapter 34,08 RCW. (51 The rroject priority list will be available to the public at the regional ofrces of the department of ecolo- gy. at least fifteen days prior to the public hearing. (6) The public comments will be reviewed and the di- rector shall approve the project priority list as proposed or a, revised in accordance with public comments. (7) The project priority list, as approved by the direc- tor- shall be submitted to the federal Environmental Protection agency for review to ensure compliance with the approved system. - (8) Significant revisions to the approved project prior- ity list shall be the subject of the public notice and hearing process as set forth in WAC 173 230-t140(4). IS), (6), and (7) [Statutory Authority: RCW 43.21A- .080. 78-09-067 (Order DE 78 11), 173-250-040, riled 8/24/78.1 is Kti-rn-aa WAC—p:1 t8/y4/78D A Time Line Containing Key Checkpoints for Involving 208 Designated Planning Agencies in DOE Construction Grant Priority Rating Process M1 Identify projects X--X M7 Tech, Eval. Forms -------------X , I v..iing Period X------------------X M4 Gert, of Coalorm.mce X-----------X #5 Constitute list X------------X 06 Public hearing X March April May June July August Enclosure 3 77 .s �u M4 f caw�w+++Jwr �+.w•War-..�--•. APPLICANT NAME GRANT I➢ NUMBER STEP YEAR EPA ASSISTANCE PROJECT DESCRfPTION Aberdeen C53-0556-05 3 3-79 6,000,000 Upgrade STP Almira C53-0838-02 2 3-79 52,500 Upgrade STP Beacon }till S.D. C53-070k-02 2 9-79 53,000 Upgrade STP Black Diamond C53-0566-02 2 9-79 37,500 Sewage Facility Bremerton C53-0851-02 3 9-79 1,350,000 Upgrade Charleston STP Bremerton C53-0851-01 2 14-79 000,0(n Upgrade Charlestor STP Brewster C53-0840-04 3 9-79 900,000 Upgrade STP f„ase 2 Brewster C53-0840-03 2 6-79 75,000 Upgrade STP Phase 1 Bridgeport C53-0839-03 3 6-79 158,000 Upgrade STP Buckley C53-0833-03 3 3-79 1,050,000 Upgrade STP Cathlamet C53-0589-03 3 3-79 82-' ,000 Interceptor to STP Centralia C53-0847-04 3 3-79 307,500 Ford Prarie Interceptor Page 1 f APPLICANT NAME GRANT ID NUMBER STEP YEAR EPA ASSISTANCE PROJECT DESCRIPTION Centralia C53-0847-05 3 3-79 367,500 Waunch Prarie Interceptor Chelan County PUD C53-0709-02 2-3 3-79 206,000 Dryden Comm. Drainfield emY.K2 Chelan, City of C53-0757-02 2 1-79 275,000 New Chelan Falls STP Clark County C53-0715-02 2 3-79 150,000 Meadowglade - New STP College Place C53-0720-01S 3 3-79 1,500,000 Upgrade S11' Davenport C53-0864-01 1 1-79 11,250 Upgrade SIP Des Moines S.J. C53-0592-04 3 6-79 5,250,000 Upgrade STP Eastsound W.D. C53-0734-03 3 6-79 705,000 Interceptors, New STP Eklund Park S.D. C53-0813-03 3 9-79 562,500 Interceptor to South Bend Ellensburg C53-0832-03 3 3-79 1,203,000 Sludge Handling Farmington C53-0910-01 1 9-79 18,750 New STP and Interceptor Guldeadale C53, 0601-04 3 6-79 1,980,750 STP Upgrade Phase IT Page 2 X Y APPLICANT NAME GRANT ID NUMBER STEP YEAR EPA ASSISTANCE PROJECT DESCRPPTION Grand Coulee C53-0741-02 2 1-79 375,000 Discharge to land Green River Comm. College C;3-0819-02 2 9-79 25,030 Training Facility lloquiam C53-0829-07 3 9-79 3.117,000 Bay west/cast Rehab Roquiam C53-0829-05 3 1-79 900,000 Queen Sewer Rehab. lloquiam C53-0829-06 3 1-79 1,425,000 Rayner Sewer Rehab. Kelso C53-0743-02 2 9-79 143,000 Upgrade STP (I/1) Kitsap Co. S.D. 5 C53-0a50-02 2 3-79 225,000 Retsil STP La Center C53-0753-02 2 6-19 112,500 Upgrade STP Liberty Lake C53-0596-04 3 9-79 1,875,000 New STP Lummi Indian Business C53-0563-04 3 9-79 4,087,500 STP and Interceptor Council McCleary C53-0609-04 3 3-79 900,000 Upgrade STP McCleary C53-0609-03 3 3-79 975,000 Sewer Rehab. Page 3 k�, f .. .. .... �-.�-«..'.si-r.ax«•^MM-'+iin+fie ..a..�+�.�,�.»..r..-..�....., APPLICANT NAME GRANT ID NUMBER STEP YEAR EPA ASSISTANCE PROJECT D1SCRIPTION Mesa C53-0913-01 1 9-79 18,750 New STP a. interceptor Metro C53-0846-01 1 -3-79 675,000 Expand Renton STP i ? tit. Vernon C53-0S12-01 1 1-79 225,000 Upgrade STP i Olympia C53-0579-05 3 1-79 22,500,000 STP Pierce County-Chambers C53-0565-05 3 3-79 8,100,000 SIP Phase 7 Creek/Clover Creek Pierce County-Chambers C53-0565-06 3 6-79 1,800,000 Bridgeport Area 1 and 2 Creek/Clover Creek Prosser C53-0506-02 2 9-79 131,250 Discharge to land Pullman C53-0618-03 3 3-79 3,675,000 Upgrade STP r,:;allup C53-0625-03 3 3-79 1,800,000 Sewer Rehab. Raymond C53-0571-03 3 6-79 3,450,000 Upgrade STP Richland C53-0606-03 3 9-79 4,725,000 Crosstown Interceptor Roslyn C53-0843-02 2 9-79 53,000 Upgrade STP Page ; a �j a t� APPLICANT NAME GRANT ID NUMER STEP YEAR EPA ASSISTANCE PROJECT ilESCRIETION Seattle C53-0787-02 9-79 750,000 Lake Washington South CSO Seattle C53-0787-02 2 9-79 225,000 Longfellow Creek CSO Skagit County S.D. #1 C53-0622-03 3 6-79 212,000 Upgrade STP { Spokane C53-0792-02 2 6-79 1,500,000 Elimination of Combined 1 Sewer overflows Steilacoom C53-0797-03 3 9-79 1,050,000 Upgrade STP Steilacoom C53-0797-04 3 3-79 123,000 Sewer Rehab. Tacoma C53-0558-04 3 3-79 8,670,000 STP Upgrade (Phase I) Walla Walla C53-0911-01 1 1-75 75, 00 Upgrade STP Whatcom County C53-0866-01 1 1-79 22,500 Nor-Bell Interceptor Yakima C53-0557-05 3 3-79 4,553,250 Expand STP Page 5 �5 APPLICANT NAVE GRANT ID NUMBER STEP YEAR EPA ASSISTANCE PROJECT DESCRIPTION Aberdeen C53-0555-06 3 80 6,375,000 ➢owntowa/Central Rehab. Beacon Hill S.D. C53-0702-03 3 80 530,000 Upgrade STP Black Diamond C53-0566-03 3 80 750,000 Sewage Facility Bremerton C53-0851-03 3 8o `i,250,000 Upgrade Charleston STP Chelan, City of C53-0757-C3 3 80 2,958,000 New Chelan Falls STP Clark County C53-0715-03 3 80 1,500,000 headowglade - New STP Davenport "3-0864-02 2 80 75,000 Upgrade STP Farmington C53-0910-02 2 80 75,000 New STP and Interceptor Grand Coulee C53-0741••03 3 80 2,250,000 Discharge to land Pierce County-Chambers C53-0565-08 3 80 1,425,000 Parkland Area 2 Creek/Clover Creek Pierce County-Chambera C53-0565-09 3 8o 972,C00 Outfall Creek/Clover Creek Pierce County-Chambers C53-0565-10 3 80 4,500,000 Chambers Creek Intercepter Creek/Clover Creek tunnel Page 6 APPLICANT NAME GRANT ID NUMBER STEP YEAR EPA ASSISTANCE PROJECT DESCRIPTION J Pierce County-Chambers C53-0565-11 3 80 1,050,000 Bridgeport Area 3 CCreek/Clover Creek Pierce County-Chambers C53-0561-12 3 80 2,025,000 Parkland Area 3 Creek/Clover Creek ' Pierce County-Char::',ers C53-0565-13 3 80 2,619,000 Bridgeport Interceptor Creek/Clover Creek Prosser C53-0506-03 3 80 2,490,750 Dis harge to land Puyallup C53-0625-04 3 80 7,125,000 Upgrade STP Richland C53-0606-04 3 80 8,550,000 New STP Roslyn C53-0843-03 3 80 600,000 Upgrai: Si: S!attle C53-0787-03 3 80 5,025,000 Lake Washington South CSO Spokane C53-0792-03 2 80 1,875,000 Elimination of Combined Sewer overflows Spokane County C53-0793-02 2 80 375,000 North Suburban Area Inter. Whatcom County C53-086E-02 2 80 30,000 Nor-Bell Interceptor Page 7 r . 4. , APPLICANT NAME GRANT ID NUABER STEP YEAR EPA ASSISTANCE PROJECT DESCRIPTION Bonney Lake C53-0652-08 3 81 7,125,000 New STP Bremerton C53-06.51-04 3 81 6,750,000 Upgrade Charle^ton STP Davenport C53-0864-03 3 81 487,500 Upgrade STP Farmington C53-0910-03 3 81 2,250,000 New SIP and interceptor Kelso CG3-0743-03 3 81 1,430,000 Upgrade STP (I/I) Metro C53-0816-02 2 81 1,125,OOC Upgrade West Point STP Pierce County-Chambers C53-056:)-07 3 81 8,020,000 STP Phase li Creek. -lover Creek Pierce County-Chambers C53-0565-14 3 81 900,000 Bridgeport Area 4 Creek/Clover Creek Seattle C53-0787-03 3 81 3,750,000 Longfellow Creek CSO South Bend C53-0848-02 3 81 1,575,000 Upgrade STP Spokane C53-0792-04 3 81 7,500,000 Elimination of Combined Sewer overflows Spokane County C53-0793-03 3 al 3,750,000 North Suburban Area Inter. , Page 8 1 e' b: APPLICANT NAB GRANT ID NUMBER STEP YEAR EPA ASSISTANCE PROJECT DESCRIPTION Tacoma C53-0558-05 3 81 15,000,000 STP Upgrade (Phase II) A Whatcon County C53-0866-03 3 81 300,000 Nor-Bell Interceptor i I Page 9 M1 a 3 APPLICANT NAME GRANT ID NUMBER STEP YEAR EPA ASSISTANCE PROTECT DESCRIPTION Almira C53-0838-03 3 82 600,000 Upgrade STP Bonney Lake C53-0653-04 3 82 840,000 Fennel Creek Interceptor Bonney Lake C53-0653-OS 3 82 1,050,000 Fennel Creek II Interceptor Bonney Lake C53-0653-06 3 82 825,000 Church Lake Interceptor Bonney Lake C53-0653-03 3 82 900,000 Bonney Lake/Lake Jane and inlet is. inter. Bonney Lake C53-0652-07 3 82 78,750 Highway 410 Interceptor Bremerton C53-0851-05 3 82 3,000,000 Upgrade Charleston STP Bryn Mawr-Lakeridge S.D. C53-0915-01 1 82 15,000 Interceptor and CSO Colville C53-0916-01 1 82 26,250 Upgrade STi Elbe W.D. C53-0853-02 2 82 30,000 Upgrade STP Ferndale C53-0862-01 1 82 51,000 Upgrade STP Kitsap Co. S.D. 5 C53-0850-03 3 82 3,150,000 Retail STP Page 10 '11 iY 1 APPLICANT NAME GRANT ID NUMBER STEP YEAR EPA ASSISTANCE PROJECT DESCRIPTION Pierce County-Chambers C53-0565-19 3 82 3,300,000 Spanaway Area Creek/Clover Creek Pierce County-Chambers C53-0565-20 3 82 2,925,000 Brookdale Area 2 Creek/Clover Creek Ronald W.D. C53-0866-01 1 82 1� ,000 Upgrade STY Seattle C53-0787-02 2 82 300,000 Lake .lashington North CSO Skagit County C53-0917-01 1 82 22,500 Similk-Dewey New STP Spokane C53-0792-05 3 82 11,250,000 Elimination of combined der overflow Tac<,ma G53-U558-U5 3 82 15,000,000 S11, Upgtauc (P6aer 11) h Vancouver C53-0711-02 2 82 750,000 Upgrade STP (i & i) Walla Walla C53-0911-02 2 82 375,000 Upgrade STP Page 12 APPLICANT NAME GRANT ID NUMBER STEP YEAR EPA ASSISTANCE PROJECT DESCRIPTION Kittitas Co. S.D. 1 C53-0752-02 2 82 45,000 Upgrade STP (Hyak Area) La Center C53-0753-03 3 82 1 ,125,000 Upgrade STP Mesa C53-0913-02 2 82 56,250 New STP and Interceptor Metro C53-0914-02 2 82 172,500 Lake Washington South CSO Metro C53-0585-02 2 82 1,125,000 Upgrade Alki STP Moses Lake C53-0689-02 2 11,2 750,000 Discharge to land Mt. Vernon C53-0912-02 2 82 525,000 Upgrade STP Pe Ell C53-0772-02 2 82 52,500 Upgrade STP Pierce County-Chamber.; r.53-0565-15 3 82 975,000 Clover Creek Area Creek/Clover Creek Pierce County-Chambers C53-0565-16 3 82 1,050,000 Lake Area Creek/Clover Creek Pierce County-Chambers C53-0565-17 3 82 1,725,000 Phillips-Hopkins Interceptor Creek/Clover Creek Pierce County-Chambers C53-0565-18 3 82 2,850,000 Brookdale Area 1 Creek/Clover Creek Pa,e 11 Y APPLICANT NAME GRANT ID NUMBER S EP YEAR EPA ASSISTANCE PROJECT DESCRIPTION Elbe W.D. C53-0853-03 3 83 150,000 Upgrade STP Metro C53-0816-03 3 83 11,250,000 Upgrade West Point STP Moses Lake C53-UG89-03 3 83 3,750,000 Disrhargo to land (phanvd) Pe Ell C53-0772-03 3 83 525,000 Upgrade STP Pierce County-Chambers C53-0565-21 3 83 2,550,000 Lake City Area Creek/Clover Creek Pierce County-Chambers C53-0565-22 3 83 1,500,000 Phillips-Hopkins Area Creek/Clover Creek Pierce County-Chambers C53-0565-23 3 83 975,000 Westside Interceptor Creek/Clover Creek Pierce County-Chambers C53-0565-24 3 83 2,100,000 Lakewood P.S. Creek/Clover Creek Pierce County-Chambers C53-0565-25 3 83 1,275,000 Parkland P.S. Creek/Clover Creek Pierce County-Chambers C53-0565-26 3 83 1,125,000 Lake Louis Area Creek/Clover Creek Spokane C53-0792-06 3 83 11,250,000 Elimination of combined sewer overflow Tacoma C53-0558-05 3 83 15,000,000 STP Upgrade (Phase II) C Page 13 i JJi 1 CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMANCE WITH LOCAL GENERAL SEWER PLANS PROJECT NAME: May Creek Im �rceptor - Section 2 - Metro 3 MH "B" to confluenc44 of Honey :w Creek PROJECT LOCATION: King County and City of Renton, WA POLITICAL JURISDICTION: King County and City of Renton, WA GENERAI SEWER PLAN TITLE: CITY OF RENTON COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN j `• This statement certifies that the above-named project has -' been reviewed by the City of Renton and has been found to be in compliance with the local general sewer plan. _ / �' ° • _ �' 'r''"t - _ AU RORIZED SIGNATURE DIRECTOR OF t'UBLIC WORKS City of Renton AGENCY OCTOBER 24, 1978 DATE PIK ► r raRTIFICATION OF CONFORMANCE WITH i LOCAL GENERAL SEWER PLANS PROJECT NAME: Kennydale Interceptor I PROJECT LOCATION: City of Renton, Washington POLITICAL JURISDICTION: City of Rentmn, Washington GENERAL SEWEK PLAN TITLE: CITY OF RLNTON COMPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN f This statement certifies that the above-named project has been reviewed by the City of Penton and has been found to be in compliance with the local general sewer plan. ` •- -e -'e*"'` " _ AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE Director of Public Works City of Renton AGENCY October 24 1978 DATE CERTIFICATION OF CONFORMANCE WITH LOCAL GENERAL SEWER PLANS PROJECT NAME: Honey Dew Interceptor PROJECT LOCATION: King County and City of Renton, WA POLITICAL JURISDICTION: King County and City of Renton, WA GENERAL SEWER PLAN TITLE: CITY OF RENTON CONPREHENSIVE SEWER PLAN This statement _. cifies that the above-named project has been reviewed by the City of Renton and has been found to be in compliance with the local general sewer plan. •' , x , s �i , - _ AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS City of Renton AGENCY lOCTOBER 24, 1978 ^ DATE t s 173-250-ow Constructim Gnats Program-Priority (3) The system will ue described each year and be the subject of an annual public hearing. Notice of this hear- ing shall appear in the state Register pursuant to chap- ter 34.08 RCW. (4) A fact sheet describing the proposed system shall be developed by the director each year and be available to the p"b'ic at the regional offices of the department of ecology at least fifteen days prior to the public hearing. (5) After reviewing public comments the director will revise the proposed system as appropriate. A summary of state responses to public comment and ko any public hearing testimony shall be prepared and made available for distribution to the public. (6) The proposed system as published by the dire^.tor , shall be submitted each year to the federal Environmen- tal Protection Agency for approval. [Statutory Authors- b RCW 43,21A.080. 78-09-067 (Order DE 78-1I), 173 250-030, filed 8/24/78.1 WAC 173-2SU-040 Development and approval of the state project priority list. (I) A list of prospective projects will be developed using the municipal needs in- ventory, the NPDES permit files, and re4u:ats received from municipal entities, and information rcccivcd from local and state health agencies. (2) The director shall utilize the published system to constitute a project priority list as follows: (a) Use the project rating parameters to generate a numerical score for each prospective project; and (b) Use the project ranking procedures to unstitute the project priority list. (3) The fundable portion of the project priority list shall include those projects planned for award during the first year of the rive-year planning period and shall not exceed the total federal funds expected to be available during the year less all applicable reserves provided for by federal regulations. (4) Thirty days public notice shall be given that the project priority list will be the subject of a public hear- ing. Notice of this hearing shall appear in the state Register pursuant to chapter 34.08 RCW. (5) The project priority list will be available to the public at the regional offices of the deparim , of ecolo- gy, at Iwst fifteen days prior to the public hwring. (6) The public comments will be reviewed and the di- rector shall approve the project priority list as proposed or as revised in accordance with public comments. (7) The project priority list, as approved by the direc- tor, shall be submitted to the federal Environmental Protection Agency for review to ensure compliance with the approved system. (8) Significant revisions to the approved project prior- ity list shall be the subject of the public notice and hearing process as set forth in WAC- 17.1 25P040(4), (5). W. and (7) (Statutory Authority: RCW 43.21A- .080. 79-09--067 (Orde, DE 78 .11), 1 173-250-M, filed 9/24/78.1 I p-a, 173-290 N'AC--p 21 (9/24/73) r Chapter 173--250 R'AC CONSTRUCTION GRAN:S PROGRAM—PRIORITY RATING SYSTEM AND PROJECT PRIORITY LIST WAC 1.6) Significant revisions means charges to the ap- 173-250 010 Pxrlvwe and scotw proved project priority list which effect the public-at- 173-25P020 De6mtwn. M-250-030 Developmem and approval of the%y.tem. large. 173-2504WO Development and approval of the state project priori- (7) "Wastewater treatment works construction grants O ast program' (hereinafter referred to as the construction t grants program) means the federal funded program un- der Title II of Public Law 95-217 and the state funded P� ��• program under chapter 43.83A RCW (Referendum 26) shall publish a priority rating and ranking system arms- that provides for grants to public and private entities for ally which shall be used for the purpose of constituting a the purpose of constructing or upgrading treatment project priority list, The purpose of this chapter is to de- works to meet the requirements of the state and federal scribe (1) the criteria to be considered when establishing water pollution control laws. [Statutory Authority: the numerical rating parameters portion of the system, RCN' 43.21A.080. 78-09-067 (Order DE 78-I1), $ (2) the criteria to be eronsidered when establishing the 173-250-020, filed 8/24/78.1 administrative and management making procedures por- tion of the system, (3) the process to be followed in seeking approval of the .ystem, (4) how the system is to WAC 173-250-030 Development and approval of be used to constitute a project priority list, and (5) the the system. (I) The director will establish project raur,� process to be followed in seeking approval of the project parameters which consider, but are not limited to, the priority list. 1Statutory Authority: RCW 43.21A.080. following criteria: 78-09--067 (Order DE 78-11). J 173-250-010, riled (a) The severity of the pollution problem in navigable 8!24/78.1 waters and ground waters; (b) The existing population affected; WAC 173-250 020 Detluitietls For the purpose of (c) The need for preservation of high quality waters; P pos (d) The need for protection of the public health by this chapter: improving the sanitary condition of surface and undcr- I I) "Category of projects* means one of the following: ground waters; and (a) Secondary treatment, (b) more stringent treatment. (e) Violution of state water quality standards and (c) infillration-innow correction, (d) major sewer sys- other enforceable provisions of Public Law 05-217. tem rehabilitation. (c) new collection sewer and appur- (2) The director will establish project ranking proce- tenances, (f) new interceptors and appurtenances, (g) dures which consider, but are not limited to, the follow- correction of combined sewer overflows and (h) subsur- ing criteria: face disposal systems. (a) Numerical rating of each project achieved in ac- (2) "Director" means the director of the Washington cordance with the priority rating criteria established un- state department of ecology, or his duly authorized der WAC 173-250-030(I); representative. (b) Readiness for grant award during the next federal (3) "Priority rating end ranking system" (hereinafter fiscal year; referred to as the system) means the process and criteria (c) Readiness for grant award during each of the cn- used by the department of ecology to rate and rank pro- suing four federal fiscal years following the next; )ws in the sate that arc considered eligible for ussist- (d) Phasing of large dollar amount projects to allow ancc under the construction grant% program. Ranking for effective distribution of grant funds; criteria include the administrative and management pro- (c) A proper mix of projects which are teady for fa- cvdures for constituting and revising the project priority cility planning, design and construction; list. (f) Determination of the priority to be given each cat- (4) Project means am one of the following: (a) Facil- egory of projects; ity planning (step I). (b) design (step 2). (c) and con- (g) Total federal or state grant funds available during struction (step 3). the next fiscal year and anticipated during each of the (5) Project priority list means the annual list of rated ensuing four fiscal years; and ranked projects for which federal and state gram (h) The deadline for obligation of federal funds; assistance is expected during the rive year planning pe- (i) Special needs of small and rural communities; and riod starting at the beginning of the next federal fiscal (j) An identification of what constitutes significant year. revisions to the approved project priority list (including bypass, deletion or addition of projects). (9/24/791 1CL 1734911 WAC--}11 y. STATE OF DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY WASHINGTON 4.757 150th Aw N E..Rrdmond.Wmhn;•ion 4(i052 20k,SE :900 ' Dixy Lee Roy October 18, 1978 To: All Public Entities With Sewerage Projects Rated for Grant Funding Enclosed for your information is a copy of the Department of Ecology proposed 5-year schedule for grant funding of sewerage projects. The Fiscal Year 1979 draft project priority list has two parts, the fundable and extended lists. The fundable list is made up of projects scheduled for funding in FY 1979. The extended list is made up of pro- jects projected to be funded in FY 1980, 81 , 82, and 83. Further detailed information concerning procedures used to establish the FY 1979 project list may be found in the Aviust 1979 "Fact Sheet" on rating and i ranking procedures. I The enclosed project list has been alphabetized for each priority year. Please note that projects scheduled for FP 1979 also have the month targeted for state certification included (a project may be bypassed if it does not meet its target date, under year column). i Any project may be re-rated by this department during the annual rating period, usually in the spring months. To significantly improve a grant rating, additional documentation will be needed showing that water quality j or public health problems exist, and would be reduced by construction of s the project. The 5-year list will be annually revised to reflect such i a changes. s j A public hearing on this project list will he held on October 27, 1978 at 10:00 a.m. in the Olympia City Hall Council Chambers, Eighth and Plum, Olympia, Washington. People unable to attend the hearing, but desiring to comment should forward written statements to: Department of Ecology, Attn: Hearings Officer, 1 Olympia, Washington 98504. The record of the .searing will remain open for written statements until Novemuer 6, 1978, If you have questions or comments regarding this matter, please contact me at 885-1900, P Amond, Washington, or Rick Pierce at (206) 754-1323 in Olympia. Sincerely,,) David A. Nunnallee District Supervisor Environmental quality DAN:mk Enclosure r: M K +F / I "METRO ldrMunicipality of Metropolitan Seattle Exchange Bldg. • 821 Second Ave.,Seattle,W:shington 98104 oR'Gpr^ �ru�n August 11 , 1979 TO: Affected Agencies Within Metro's "203" Planning Area rROM: John B. Lampenn`;I�� uu , SUBJECT: Annual Sewerage Facility Rating Process The State Department of Ecology is presently establishing prior- ities for allocating feaeral and state funds for sewerage projects during 1979 . Attached is a compilation by the Department of Ecology of projects within the boundaries of King County which are being considered. The list of projects is subdivided into four categories: 1) projects which have been proposed in previous years and which have been resubmitted with no changes , 2) projects which have been proposed in previous yee.rs and which Dave been resubmitted for funding_ of the next phase, 3) projects which have been proposed in previous years and which have been resubmitted with modifications, and 4) new project proposals which have not been previously rated. This r ^mo is to inform you of the pry .cts being considered, and to notify you of the public hea ig to be held by the Department of Ecology on September -5, 1978 . The purpose of the hearing will be to receive comments on the funding priorities being established by the Department of Ecology. The hearing will be held at 1: 30 p.m. in the Olympia City Hall on Plum Street in Olympia. Beginning _his year, the Department of Ecology is requiring the "208 planning agencies" to coordinate a process whereby local agencies certify that each pro- osed facility is compatible with the sponsoring agency's sewerag. plan. A sample certifica- tion form is attached to this memo for your use. Agencies requesting funds for Step 2 or Step 3 pro. cts must complete a certification form for each project. (NOTE: Sponsoring agencies within the Metro 208 planning area should submit the completed forms to Metro by September 15. Other spon_ .)ring F r Annual Sewerage Facility Rating Process August 11, 1978 Page Two a agencies appearing on the attached list should submit the certification form:; directly to the Department of ecology. Metro' s 208 planning area is defined as the Cedar-Green River Basins including Lake Washington and its tributary system, but excluding that portion which is located in Snohomish County. ) The ce: :.ification requirements and other procedural changes are a .response by the Department of Ecology to recommendations in the recently adopted 208 Areawide Water Quality Plan. The attached materials outline the revised procedures the Department of Ecology intends to use beginning next year. We at Me<ro feel the Department of Ecology has attempted to be very responsive to the concerns raised in the 208 Areawide ,later Qnality Plan. ObviouFly, the time frames required of t? the Department of-Ecology this year will not permit full s implementation of the changed procedures. However , by attempting to implement the revised procedures at this point, we have an opportunity to evaluate the procedures under "field con- ditions" and thereby to work out the details to be used in F`_' 1979. In the first 1•pdate to the Areawide Water Quality Plan, we hope to build upon the progress being made by the Department of Ecology and our experience with these revised procedures this year. One of the items we intend to pursue is a mechanism to more directly coordinate sewer fa-ility planning with land use planning . The present certific�_. on procedures being used by the Department of Ecology require conformance with sewerage plans . However, the intent of the certification process may be bett:_r served by some mechanism which insures compatibility with local land use plans. We appreciate your cooperation in the annual facility rating process , and look forward to your participation in updating the 208 Areawide Water Quality Plan. h draft of the first ur�ate is scheduled to be available for review in December of this year. The final draft of the update is scheduled to go to the Metro Council for adoption in March, 1979. If you have any questions about the enclosed materials, please call Jeff Bauman at 447-6357 . JBL:mb Enclosure cc: Mr . John Spencer, Department of Ecology Mr. Norm Glenn, Department of Ecology SPA1� J�; r h-, /Pe' Y-214; +2 S PrrJFc:-5 �-evtiCu; y t• 7—� �BnmCrf PS _ il''l Aa`T, tvQs f P4-• Lk a Z `�Swss � M G, _ ,� ,, z c4fl%h.-n &,,01e, S TP Cnrk'ak 579 � p9 L Z MAy KC� D 10 7 f�'G7ti1 qc �r' 7L 2 -,Kcw D 107 I <hnGJy4Zk, 2 V i�•�' `G�i /-{t1X i �o v,rfi2 3r G'• 5 I T r-• � or vca�j '✓, . • mot 2 1 K+rkl.4-,J {? 5 t All G . - f4vck k ./+ :En+/ � A�-tnmt P-/ (�cs�ruco'rc�� I flit,b ( /�vvlsik. Dr. �: I KIM u I i I i i t f I I i I /J 1 v]x P, O it i